‘There Are Not Two Sides’: Atheists Seek to Stop Teacher from Presenting Alternative to Evolution

Science pdARROYO GRANDE, Calif. — Two prominent atheist organizations are urging an investigation into a Christian science teacher for teaching “both sides of the argument” surrounding evolution, as they believe that he should not be permitted to do so.

The Madison,Wisconsin-based Freedom from Religion Foundation (FFRF) and the Washington, D.C.-based Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science (RDFRS) recently sent a letter to the Lucia Mar Unified School District to complain about the methods of Arroyo Grande High School teacher Brandon Pettenger.

The organizations state that they were contacted by a family who takes issue that Pettenger presents both evolution and creation, they believe that only one side should be taught to students and that religion should be left out of the classroom. The letter outlines that Pettenger showed his students the Bill Nye/Ken Ham debate and had students provide summaries of creation beliefs from websites that disagree with evolutionary theory.

The family had contacted Pettenger to protest creation being taught in addition to evolution, but Pettenger responded that students should have the ability to make up their own minds about what they believe.

“I understand that you might be worried I am teaching religion in a public school science class, which is not the case,” he wrote. “There is debate within the scientific community about how to answer the question where did life come from. I feel it would be a disservice to my students not to present both sides of the argument.”

“We are investigating the main theories that are presented in this debate and the evidence used to support those claims,” Pettenger continued. “It is up to each student to decide for themselves which side they believe based on the evidence.”

But FFRF and RDFRS sent a letter to Superintendent Jim Hogeboom on Wednesday to ask that Pettenger be investigated and forced to stop teaching creation as an alternative.

  • Connect with Christian News

“We understand that Mr. Brandon Pettenger is attempting to ‘present both sides of the argument’ regarding evolution in his public school classroom,” the correspondence states. “Any attempt to teach that there is a controversy about evolution is similarly fraught with legal peril. Evolution is as much a fact as gravity. There are not two sides of the evolution argument for Pettenger to present.”

“[T]here is simply no controversy. There exists only scientific fact and evidence, and a religious belief that rebels against such evidence,” it continues. “One can, indeed must be taught in public schools. The other cannot.”

FFRF and RDFRS asked that Pettenger be disciplined if found to be speaking against evolution and stopped from doing so again in the future.

“If these allegations are founded, Pettenger must be directed to refrain from promoting religion or attacking evolution in the public school,” the letter stated. “At the very least, appropriate disciplinary action should be taken, and the results of your investigation placed in the teacher’s file.”

According to the San Luis Obispo New Times, school officials are looking into the matter, and while they declined to comment, Director of Secondary Education Hillery Dixon told the outlet that creation “should not be taught in any way.”

The outlet says that it obtained some of the lessons and presentations, which included a slide show that presented creation beliefs followed by “mainstream science” claims.


A special message from the publisher...

Dear Reader, our hearts are deeply grieved by the ongoing devastation in Iraq, and through this we have been compelled to take a stand at the gates of hell against the enemy who came to kill and destroy. Bibles for Iraq is a project to put Arabic and Kurdish audio Bibles into the hands of Iraqi and Syrian refugees—many of whom are illiterate and who have never heard the gospel.Will you stand with us and make a donation today to this important effort? Please click here to send a Bible to a refugee >>

Print Friendly
  • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

    A recent poll by a research organization stated that 60% of Americans do not subscribe or believe in Evolution. Peer reviewed material that has been published by scientists that show evidence of Intelligence in Design has currently been deemed appropriate for the School District of Texas, which is changing their textbooks to include ID and classes that are electives to those students wishing to decide for themselves what study’s they want to select, either Intelligent Design/and or Evolution studies. The FFRF and Dawkins represent a no choice directive to study Evolution by force and fear that students presented with studies that don’t suit them should not be allowed. This type of response is not constitutional in my opinion. The FFRF is in no position to force evolution theory any more than a Bible being passed out and taken on a voluntary basis in groups that study the Bible. This shows clear evidence that the FFRF is out to remove any and all things related to God even though I hear time and time again that they are not by atheists. This time around lets see what happens and what the opinion of atheists will say. Making evolution a mandatory study when so many people don’t believe in Darwin’s vers of evolution is dictating what students must study. When evolution is mandatory in schools it could be construed as being bias. If for instance “Lucy” was a representation of ape to man and studied as fact as most evolutionists believe, this is an example that all things being equal as atheists explain, it’s another open door to the study of creationism. I would argue that there must be the availability of choosing either evolution or creationism since ID is not (although atheists will argue it is) a religion science or psuedo science. There are real scientists studying real objective science through the scientific method to support the theory of ID. In conclusion, the FFRF and Dawkins has no right to mandate the study of evolution any more than a Christian teacher passing out information on creationism.

    • Names_Stan

      “… the FFRF is out to remove any and all things related to God even though I hear time and time again that they are not by atheists”

      Well, here’s your problem. You were making the misdirection play with “ID”. And then you revealed it to be misdirection by swapping over to God.

      If I really believed any of you folks were satisfied with a deism argument to be comapared with science, and show the debate as the teacher did, I’m fairly okay with that.

      But that’s not the case. What you want is your creation story. And that imposes a completely different dynamic on things. It offends me, for example, that you folks think God is so weak that he couldn’t have designed a beautiful world billions of years ago, and capable of massive change over time.

      So now we have my view and your view. That’s stupidity to bring religion into public classrooms when there are surely at least another 10,000 or so views.

      • Richard

        Just because you don’t like the implications of God, doesn’t mean supernatural intervention shouldn’t be considered. I believe it’s narrow minded and even unscientific to close the doors to options you don’t want to look into.

        • Rebus Caneebus

          Maybe we could show “Ghostbusters” in school and call it teaching science.

          • Richard

            > Maybe we could show “Ghostbusters” in school and call it teaching science.

            It’s your understanding of ID that is the problem. Why do you criticize that which you have little understanding of?

          • Rebus Caneebus

            It’s your understanding of ID that is the problem. Why do you criticize that which you have little understanding of?

            I understand exactly what it is — it’s religion trying to pass as science, as the Dover trial showed.

            I was only illustrating how useless it is to try and introduce “supernatural intervention” into science. It becomes totally useless if you do that, because “supernatural intervention” explains everything, which means it really explains nothing.

        • Names_Stan

          Mighty Christian of ya to pre-judge my personal views on faith.

          And mighty predictable that you missed the point of my post. “Supernatural intervention” isn’t at issue. The issue is that when “ID” turns out to be code for one view of religion, it becomes a state-sponsored religion.

          As soon as you move from “ID” to “God”, you’ve opened yourself up for issues with Gilamesh, Zeus, Zoroaster, Ra, the Great Spirit, and hundreds more creation stories I can’t name.

          Science is science. Why people need it to be religion I’ll never understand. Which religion Jonas Salk, or Louis Pasteur, or Einstein, or the people who gave us mathematics and philosophy and escape velocity practiced, had no bearing on the legacies they left us.

          No cluea from any religion’s scriptures informed those who ultimately broke the genetic code or saved millions with vaccines.

          Because it’s different. And we shrugged off state religion centuries ago. Many of these scientists were famously hampered by those state religions.

          Ultimately the educated men of the Renesance told us an important truth: religion and science are different.

          • Richard

            > As soon as you move from “ID” to “God”, you’ve opened yourself up for issues with Gilamesh, Zeus, Zoroaster, Ra, the Great Spirit, and hundreds more creation stories I can’t name.

            Does that mean you can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality?

            > Why people need it to be religion I’ll never understand

            That is your problem. You don’t understand what you are criticizing. You may want to do some real investigation rather than assume.

            > religion and science are different.

            That’s a nonsense statement. Science is the discovery and understanding of what is. Since God created everything, they are 100 percent compatible. As I said, you just don’t like the implications. And that is hardly a scientific approach.

          • Names_Stan

            It appears you’ve been so isolated in your indoctrination that you literally aren’t aware there are other religions.

            Even more problematic in the United States are the thousands of internal disagreements within Christianity.

            You may have been indoctrinated to think that men a few thousand years ago rode dinosaurs. Another dude thinks they rode unicorns.

            And the slippery slope of thousands of denominations begins.

            A great example of this is history texts. Boards in the South won’t buy books that say the Civil War was fought mostly due to slavery. They require the “states-rights” myth.

            No matter all the existent evidence of secession documents and reactions to Fugitive Slave Laws, the South wants their desire taught rather than truth.

            It’s so intellectually dishonest. Just like you’ve proven “Intelligent” Design to be.

            You don’t want a supernatural cause to be considered. You want fundamentalist Christianity to be indoctrinated by the state.

        • Nofun

          There is no way to consider it as there is no evidence of it.

        • David Cromie

          Why not include magic, since it is much more adaptable when it comes to pseudo explanations? It seems to work for some, i.e. those who take Genesis literally.

        • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

          So what evidence do you have for the existence of attributes which are sufficient and necessary to consider a hypothetical thingie possessing them as a god thingie, and what evidence do you have that any such thingie exists? Without such evidence, the Flying Spaghetti Monster would probably be the most reasonable creator god thingie to consider, given that it was carefully constructed as a viable creator god thingie hypothesis, and does not carry the extraneous baggage of genocide, child sacrifice, cruelty, irrationality or even a bad temper, shared by so many other hypothesised deities (it isn’t even phased by people who ride chariots with wheels (or tyres) of iron.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        Same the other way around. It would be stupid to mandate evolution in its current form and yet it’s being done. I think God did design a beautiful world over 4 billion years old. What do you have to say about that one?

        • Names_Stan

          I think so too. I’m not certain, because certainty is a mirage in metaphysical terms.

          As to the age of the earth, I’m as certain of that as one could possibly be. The only other explanation is trickery by God (or some other creator).

          Light from stars can’t get to us any faster than the speed of light allows. Those who say God magically caused that light to be immediately visible, are basically saying He’s a trickster.

          I’m not sure what you mean by “evolution in its current form”. There’s no finish line in science. Even our laws of physics would change with evidence.

          To say we shouldn’t teach the foundation of biology because it’s not a law is misguided. It has plenty of basis, and the only alternative hypothesis is the Tricky God one I mentioned.

          And a Tricky God hypothesis simply doesn’t belong in a classroom. Mainline Christians like myself have agreed on that for several generations.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I think when we narrow the scope of things, you have some valid points. Evolution is currently being re-evaluated within this point of contention:

            If we sight the evolutionary process to mean that we came from something inferior to us, and thus now that we are at a stage of that evolution where we now test and experiment on our ancestors because they have DNA references, although the DNA markers tell us there is evidence scientifically that shows we cannot directly interface with our ancestrial beings, then we must propose also that our future evolution would resolve in a similar pattern. We now, could be the catalyst for learning. We now could be our future evolutionary beings, subjects without free will to choose to be an experiment for the benefit of humankind. If you believe this certainly you have Atheistic ways of thinking as does KaKu as a Theorist. If our purpose is to make evolutionary steps to improve ourselves through science, such as the proposal for Human being 2.0 as suggested, you might as well be able to say Ethics, morality, freedom, will recend who we are as humans in the future to a fearsome set of creatures with little or no Ethical reasoning. I don’t know about you but the progression of science using me or my children to advance science won’t be my choice. I most certainly prefer the wisdom of God in designing all things as opposed to man creating all things in the future.

            There is no proof that God doesn’t exist. Sometimes logic and rationalization is again a subjective argument. You really have made the point. God IS worth utilizing any method to find him. It is the discovery of God’s creation that we are just now being able to unravel, and there is alot of unraveling to do. Kaku says our next evolutionary advancement is to utilize robotics, to mold ourselves into a being for the collective knowledge of all humans through chips in the brain, etc. His thoughts on the future of mankind are based on technology. Extending life, etc etc. My thought based on what I see in science is this. We evolve not by changing from one species to another, but through conciousness and interconnectability. Why would someone think that we came from apes, only to experiment on them to promote our own life experience. If this were true, and we progress in this way, not only would you see our future generations look at us as test subjects, but as being something inferior. That is not evolving, that is crazy. But follow scientists like Kaku and see what his vision of the future is. Not what I’m looking for. One last thing, when someone says go to a museum I always think about the “Missing Link” science if you get my drift. People will do almost anything for 15 minutes of fame so to speak, but as Issac Newton says, For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

          • Names_Stan

            I’m afraid you are mixing up your fears of the future with a scientific search for truth. They aren’t the same thing.

            When you talk about what you “prefer”, you are in no way speaking to a search for truth. Things that are true, are true whether we like it or not.

            Our origins only happened one way. As long as we have a free society,
            scientists are going to search for that truth.

            I don’t know Kaku, but all you’ve given here is an anecdotal what-if from one guy. Whether it’s science fiction or
            prophecy or policy lobbying, it’s a future look. That’s not science, that’s what we DO with science.

            Ethics should certainly be debated. How humans will evolve is simply unknown. I would say the level of tech we’ve reached will no doubt cause many changes. I don’t think that’s biological evolution though, which is a very, very slow process.

            And we didn’t “come from apes”. We shared a common ancestor with apes. Evolution is impossible to understand without a grasp for time relativity.

            There’s an analogy of evolution as a bookcase you should look into. It helps explain that you could look at two photos of humanoids even a hundred generations apart, and you would see almost no difference in them.

            As to “missing link”, I don’t know what you mean. Those thousands of generations in the bookcase….we’re never going to have them all.

          • David Cromie

            The deceitful insertion of a proposed ‘missing link’ into the discussion was the wrecking ball that the deists hoped would demolish evolution. For others it was an honest misunderstanding of evolution, probably due to the malicious cartoons current at the time of the publishing of ‘Origen of Species’, by those who had never read it, and probably never would.

          • Names_Stan

            My guess, based on living in the Bible Belt forever, is we can put it down to ignorance far more than dishonesty.

            That’s not to say once a person is faced with the facts, their intellectual dishonesty wouldn’t kick in as a defense mechanism for their indoctrination…I think it would.

            But in general, the “God of the gaps” strategy is invisible to the rank and file.

            One hunch I also have: the huge growth in fundamentalism is a reaction to evolution and astrophysics. When I was younger, I honestly never knew anyone who denied evolution. That groundswell came about around the 90’s I guess.

            It seems to be either a conscious or subconscious mechanism to build a protective bubble around religious survival.

            In other words, liberal christians have had no problems with science and God. But many saw that as a slope that would end in disbelief. So they punted a multi-billion YO Earth and took up with this young earth thing.

            So while most of the rank and file are simply ignorant, I believe most young earthers are guilty of pure intellectual dishonesty.

            (Btw thanks for the votes, David!)

          • oregon_man

            “Missing link”, micro and macro evolution, “one specie changing into another” are all fallacies that religious evolution deniers use over and over again. You don’t understand evolution so you certainly should not be arguing it does not exist.

    • weasel1886

      Heres my problem with ID. The proponents always start out that it is pure science, but when they get stuck they just pull out the ” God ” card.
      Remember Expelled the first half was about how this had nothing to do with religion and the second half claiming people were un Godly if they didn’t believe in ID

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        I must have missed something. I watched Expelled and what I saw was real scientist’s or even the mention of ID wasn’t allowed as science even though there were very capable scientists like Stephen Meyer who was almost stopped from publishing a peer reviewed article about the “Signature in the Cell” It also showed how Dawkins was completely caught off guard. I have the transcript if you want to review it.

        • weasel1886

          What’s with the peer reviewed stuff. A monkey reading another monkeys work is peer review

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I agree with that lol. However in the scientific community it seems to be the validity that everyone wants to make Theory absolute, which of course it is not.

          • Nofun

            All theories can be overturned by new evidence. But something is not science unless others have proved what you claim is real.

            Christians don’t understand that truth is a direction and not a destination. All answers are fleeting and at best will live on as a limited case.

            We left insane bible morality behind long ago.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            You mean you left insane bible morality. We did not. The Bible is as meaningful now as it has ever been. Truth is the continual study both in science, theology, history, archeology, BIOLOGY, until you can provide evidence that Darwinism is the TRUTH as you portray it, then please don’t try to confuse theory with absolutes. You pointed that out yourself. Many believe that Theory is absolute, but we know that not to be true. Either it can be built upon, dismissed entirely, or re-evaluated, science is a methodology in which a hypothesis can be presented at anytime, being false or true. Mainstream science is about the betterment of mankind, not predictive in nature.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            “The Bible is as meaningful now as it has ever been.”

            Probably an accurate statement, as it is challenging to imagine any time when it may have been “meaningful.” Like most religious works, the so called “bible” wasn’t written to convey meaning, but syncreted over time to foster (insane) beliefs and to cement together an US larger than family, village or tribe, by fostering hatred of different “Thems”, enabling larger and more decisive wars and the objectification, enslavement or genocide of the “Thems”. History reflects that succeeding versions of these rather nasty ideas have accomplished these goals with quite remarkable success.

            Your idea of science seems to be stuck in the 19th century or early 20th. For almost a century, science has been aware that “truth”, even with a lower-case “t”, is emergent, ephemeral and dependent on perspective. Two people never sharing quite the same perspective, it is also elusive. We approach representations which appear to make good predictions only through intersubjective criticism of provisional falsifiable models.

            “Mainstream science” is purely predictive. Models either provide useful predictions or they do not. Good science, like the neo-Darwinian modern evolutionary synthesis, makes useful predictions. Science doesn’t care whether these predictions are “true” or not, only whether they are “useful.” When a better model is found, the model may be adapted or replaced. The replacement will not be so-called “Intelligent Design” which is neither, makes no predictions and contradicts observations.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            another attempt at twisting words. Please be clear the intent is that the Bible IS meaningful, it has been meaningful, and will be meaningful when you and I are long gone, in the context of the Mass’s of people, not in singular references. My idea of science? I read, I interpret what I read, and I state what I’ve read. I’ve found that useful predictions are just that. Useful predictions. An example is Quantum Physics. Predictability is useful, but ever changing. Observation becomes interpretive, so its unreasonable to think one scientist would interpret a conclusion that would be any more accurate than another. However to materialists they will deny that observation in favor of their own observations. An example would be the Higgs. Every week a new physicist (I’m not stating literally as much as philosophically) will state, the mass isn’t enough to complete the picture of the higgs, while others will state the Higgs is real, observations of the data and interpretation models are all over the place. This is all circumstantial in the sense that the Higgs was not observed directly, that other properties were used to conclude the existence of the Higgs. Now scientists say it wasn’t the Higgs at all that it was two separate particles, then the discussions began. If you study the Bible as a scholar, or Theologian as an example, you will see the same exact things going on, similar discussions. Science and God when analysed in proper context are being used in appropriate manners to explain what we Discover within both with time. ID doesn’t make predictions at all. More interpretation than prediction, but they do use the scientific methodology and the community can then make up its own mind as to what the meaning of the data provides.

          • Nofun

            Well 150+ years and no evidence that counters it makes it colloquially a “fact”. Most scientific theories are predictive.

            2000+ years and no proof makes Christianity a lie.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            And yet there are more people that believe in Christ than there are people that believe in Evolution. I think that is very impressive.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Science is usually emergent, because nothing can be proved absolutely, although somethings can be absolutely disproved. This is why the scientific consensus is not that something is correct, it is that a particular well tested model makes better predictions than other known approaches. It creates an entry hurdle that other models purporting to provide advantages need to equal before they will be accepted. So-called “Intelligent Design”, which is neither, predicts nothing, and therefore fails even the most elementary sniff test. The Evolutionary Synthesis predicts the world we see and the finds we make, and allows us to develop new things with ease. Which is why “Intelligent Design” will never be regarded as a possibility by any rational or even quasi-rational scientist. “Intelligent Design” is a belief, and even in a world filled with silly beliefs, is a particularly ridiculous one.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I agree with the first part of your statement, I disagree with the second part of your statement. You still need a creative force, or “designer to develop new things with ease. However I doubt science is going to create a complete universe, or a human being from another animal, or from nothing. Once a scientist comes up with a way to do that, you let me know. On the other hand if (using the term loosely since I believe that God is the creator) God created the existence of the Universe, life forms, fine tuning, the Big Bang, an expanding Universe that has got to be so precise that science cannot grasp the whole of the Universe, and what was accepted by science “The Big Bang Theory” is now being argued against (my thinking is that it leaves and open door for a beginning and an end, which is cause) and now going back to stating the Universe has always been in existence (which would eliminate or attempt to eliminate any creative process) its interesting how the atheist or agnostic actually works.

          • honeymonster

            Your myopia is evident again. “Intelligent design” predicts “design” and intelligence as a source. And that is just from the name. The fact that you are so entrenched in your indoctrinated and indoctrinating propaganda as to not be able to see this speaks for itself.

            You say that some things can be absolutely disproved, but that is an arbitrary belief. You have before asserted that “virtual particles” can pop in and out of existence without cause. If things can happen without cause, then there is no way to predict absolutely that anything could not happen.

            The “In the beginning God” dogma “predicts the world we see and the finds we make, and allows us to develop new things with ease.” It predicts a logical cause and effect which can be depended on. You seek to impose a false dichotomy of “God” or “Science”, but in fact science rests perfectly in the presence of God, but not in the presence of chaos.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            “Intelligent design” predicts “design” and intelligence as a source.

            There is no “intelligence” in establishing flawed “designs” based on DNA that is guaranteed to suffer indels and transpositions on a regular basis (and it does), guaranteeing high rates of fetal mortality (which we observe), grotesque developmental disorders (which we observe), painful diseases (which we observe) and evolution (which we observe), unless you continuously intervene to prevent it (which we do not observe)- and then not intervening unless you are a conscienceless torturer who gets kicks from being cruel.

            You say that some things can be absolutely disproved, but that is an arbitrary belief.

            This is not a belief, it is provable. Vide Popper’s incompleteness theorems. Or simply show me a 20cm sphere of plutonium-238. Or a circle with a circumference of 3 and a radius of 1? Or perhaps a Cantor set of all sets which do not include themselves?

            You have before asserted that “virtual particles” can pop in and out of existence without cause. If things can happen without cause, then there is no way to predict absolutely that anything could not happen.

            Wrong. Only things that are possible can possibly happen.

            The “In the beginning God” dogma “predicts the world we see and the finds we make, and allows us to develop new things with ease.” It predicts a logical cause and effect which can be depended on.

            Absolute twaddle, because you do not have any evidence for the attributes which are necessary and sufficient to earn any thing the right to be regarded as a god thingie, and have no evidence that any alleged god thingie possesses such attributes and have no evidence that no other god thingies possess such attributes. So if you hypothesize a creator god thingie, it is perfectly valid to hypothesize an destructor god thingie that has the attribute of undoing every action of the creator god thingie, meaning that the creator god thingie is irrelevant to the Universe, meaning that your hypothetical god thingie predicts nothing unless you can prove that no destructor god thingie exists in the Universe, and yhou cannot do that.

            You seek to impose a false dichotomy of “God” or “Science”, but in fact science rests perfectly in the presence of God, but not in the presence of chaos.

            More twaddle. What are the attributes of the god thingies? If they hypothesize thingies which are not subject to the same laws as everything else in the Universe, then General Relativity fails and physics, which underlies all of modern physics (and chemistry and biology which are expressions of physics), including the necessity for chaos, is fundamentally flawed. On the other hand, chaos is merely a non-linear dynamic system which is not readily predictable. It does not mean that something is not subject to the same physics as everything else.

            Your myopia is evident again.

            Apparently projecting again.

          • honeymonster

            You don’t even understand DNA yet you feel yourself competent to call it a flawed design? Do you have a better one? How would you increase its efficiency, or what would you put in its place?

            The fact that there are “indels and transpositions” is predicted by God, who before it was so told our progenitor that disobedience would result in death.

            Do you suddenly believe in conscience? I thought it was a mathematical “ethic” that you supported based on social norms.

            Philosophy? You told me it was dead. Surely Popper’s incompleteness theorems show that there are no absolutes. I’m sure you can tell me why a “20cm sphere of plutonium-238” is “absolutely” impossible. A circle with a circumference of 3 what, and a radius of 1 what? Do Cantor sets work with a tertiary number system? Or what about binary? Isn’t a decimal system arbitrary?

            “Only things that are possible can possibly happen.” Obvious to me, but not in your weird and twisted worldview.

            Your “absolute twaddle” paragraph is a mere deflection. “In the beginning God” is a dogma not a hypothesis. You can hypothesise a “destructor god thingie” if you like, but it would presuppose a Creator, or else the would be nothing to destroy, it would therefore be subject to the Creator.

            Your “More twaddle” is more deflection. Why do you want to know the attributes of God? You don’t even know the attributes of the material universe, those on the front line of particle physics and string theory are still in the dark, so for you to state that God must be “subject to the same laws as everything else in the Universe”, is the height of unfounded arrogance. Why can General Relativity not fail? Newtonian physics was superceded: how do you know it is not fundamentally flawed? You are the one who continually spouts the emergent nature of science, how do you know it is not of the same nature of the “flat earth” science of yesteryear?

            You are more than myopic, you are blind to your own philosophy.

          • Names_Stan

            Unless I’m missing something, your ‘in the beginning God’ argument is a premise for Deism rather than a Judeo-Christian involved deity.

            I’m still completely confused by many of these posts which run in and out of deism and Jehovah-specific comments.

            Maybe you have an answer for this, and I’d like to hear it. But based on the posts here, it seems it would take about 90 seconds for the ID folks to break into the same 10,000 denominational factions we already have in churches.

            Which, to me, perfectly illustrates why religion is not science.

          • honeymonster

            You are missing something. The ‘in the beginning God’ argument might be a premise for both Deism and the Judeo-Christian God. However as these words are taken from the Judeo-Christian Scriptures, the latter is the more likely.

            Deism refers to a disinterested deity, and many of the assertions made of God are not specific to a continued interest, hence your subjective inference.

            The myth of 10,000 denominations is bandied about on the internet, but I have yet to see it substantiated. That there are differences of opinions among “Christians” on certain issues is not surprising, it is merely human, we have differences of opinion on politics, sport, health, etc. ad infinitum. I doubt that there are any two people in the world who agree on every possible subject, and that includes scientists. Is science therefore not science?

          • Names_Stan

            Well, that settles it.

            What you’re proposing is unwise, untenable, and mainly, it’s against the law.

            Deism would be the only possible theology that would not be all three of those things…and even then it would be a stretch.

            I have no way of knowing if you really believe your state-sponsored Christianity idea would really find people agreeing on what to teach (read:indoctrinate), but you can explain it if you’d like.

            I do know you’ve unfortunately been either not introduced to the incredibly numerous ideas of religion, or you wantonly ignore all the rest.

            Doesn’t really matter. Because the infighting of Christians alone would bring nothing but ridicule to the faith.

            Therefore, untenable.

            Unwise.

            Illegal.

          • honeymonster

            Perhaps it is time for your medication, (and Hermit’s).

            Proposal? State-sponsored Christianity? Unwise, untenable and illegal? You are hallucinating.

          • Names_Stan

            Perhaps. So that makes you off topic.

            Because I inferred you were writing in support of ID, based on the very first sentence you posted here.

            Since I’m obviously hallucinating, I’ll be willing to call it a draw.

            (Had I not been halluconating, and had you been on topic, yours would have been the most sudden retreat I’ve seen in weeks.)

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Projecting again?

          • David Cromie

            Non sequiturs and fallacious arguments get you nowhere, fast. The argument is about a form of supernatural ‘magic’ opposed to fact-based science, with no sleight of hand anywhere in sight..

          • honeymonster

            Basing a flight of fancy on a few facts is not science.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You don’t even understand DNA yet you feel yourself competent to call it a flawed design? Do you have a better one? How would you increase its efficiency, or what would you put in its place?

            DNA is not flawed. It is what it is. It would only been flawed if an intelligent designer had been involved.

            The fact that there are “indels and transpositions” is predicted by God,who before it was so told our progenitor that disobedience would result in death.

            Your so-called “prediction” is absolute tosh of the first water, because your “prediciton” (which is actually nothing of the sort, but a blatant lie based on a misunderstanding of an older creation myth) was written billions of years after the development of DNA with all its flaws. And you have still not shown that there are god thingies with the attributes required to be “creators”, nor that there are not multiple “creators”, nor that there are not other god thingies that might have said differenty things to different people at different times (and hence no “disobedience”).

            Do you suddenly believe in conscience? I thought it was a mathematical “ethic” that you supported based on social norms.

            I do not vest belief in anything. You are projecting.

            Philosophy? You told me it was dead.

            Where did I allegedly speak of “philosophy”?

            Surely Popper’s incompleteness theorems show that there are no absolutes

            I’m not sure what you mean? The incompleteness theorems are Kurt Gödel’s, and they preclude systems of complexity equivalent to, or more complex than, the natural numbers from being complete and true; or that they are provably correct in finite time.

            I’m sure you can tell me why a “20cm sphere of plutonium-238” is “absolutely” impossible.

            An 11 cm sphere of Pu-238 will fission. Bang. No sphere left. So a 20cm sphere is guaranteed to fission while you are attempting to assemble it. No sphere. No observer to say it didn’t happen.

            A circle with a circumference of 3 what, and a radius of 1 what?

            Whatever units you like as long as they are consistent (and the numbers are, by convention, in denary, no alternative base having been given).

            Do Cantor sets work with a tertiary number system? Or what about binary? Isn’t a decimal system arbitrary?

            A Cantor set is a Cantor set is a Cantor set. Bases don’t come into it. And, in any case, convention is that numbers without alternate bases are denary, or if they contain a decimal delimiter, decimal. So, no, it isn’t arbitrary at all.

            Your “absolute twaddle” paragraph is a mere deflection

            Do you even know what this means?

            “In the beginning God” is a dogma not a hypothesis

            Your alleged “dogma” is an utterly unsupported hypothesis, but in any case, even attempting to argue that it is a dogma would require a suitable “authority”, but there are no authorities on god thingies; just other people with damaged brains making stuff up.

            You can hypothesise a “destructor god thingie” if you like, but it would presuppose a Creator, or else the would be nothing to destroy, it would therefore be subject to the Creator.

            You missed the point that the destructor could eliminate your creator thingies works and instantiate its own, making it a destroyer creator. If you want it to be a dogma with just as good an authority as your creator thingies (i.e. none), borrow Shiva. The balance of the logic applies and you and your creator thingies lose again.

            Your “More twaddle” is more deflection.

            I still don’t know what you mean and don’t think you do either.

            You don’t even know the attributes of the material universe, those on
            the front line of particle physics and string theory are still in the
            dark, so for you to state that God must be “subject to the same laws as
            everything else in the Universe”, is the height of unfounded arrogance. Why can General Relativity not fail? Newtonian physics was superceded:
            how do you know it is not fundamentally flawed? You are the one who
            continually spouts the emergent nature of science, how do you know it is
            not of the same nature of the “flat earth” science of yesteryear?

            Science is indeed emergent. Anything we know “could” be falsified later today. Yes, there are many things we don’t know, some things we cannot ever know. Nevertheless, the likelihood of that happening to GR is so small as to be discountable. GR is a very strong theory which has made astonishingly good predictions for the last century (it was published in 1915) and as far as I know, it hasn’t yet failed to make good predictions. This gives me the confidence to say that If GR should be overturned, it will be by a theory which predicts very similar things under all the circumstances in which we have been able to test it to date (i.e. to the edges of the visible Universe), because that is what GR does. It provides a mathematical model, supplemented by a few descriptions, which makes intersubjectively verifiable predictions about very fundamental aspects of the Universe – and it benefits and is strengthened by a century of verification.

            You are more than myopic, you are blind to your own philosophy.

            Are you once again forgetting to pull the beams, blinding you to the death of philosophy, from your eyes?

          • honeymonster

            Another verbose response, they always appear when you are losing an argument.

            You’re the one who said, “DNA that is guaranteed to suffer indels and transpositions on a regular basis,” that sounds pretty flawed to me. But now you say “DNA is not flawed”? And then in the next paragraph state: “the development of DNA with all its flaws”!

            You accuse the Scripture prediction of being “a blatant lie” based on nothing but your own jaundiced opinion supported by circular reasoning on multiple levels.

            If you don’t believe in conscience what is a a conscienceless torturer who gets kicks from being cruel? And for that matter what is cruelty?

            You spake of philosophy on many occasions, for instance in the comments on “Is Richard Dawkins leading people to Jesus?” (I would give you links if they worked on this medium) quoting Stephen Hawking. (Oh, and at the bottom of your latest work of fiction.)

            Apologies over Gödel / Popper, a product of two thoughts, and rewriting a sentence. But reading your statement again are you saying that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems can be absolutely disproved?

            Are you sure that An 11 cm sphere of Pu-238 will fission anywhere in the universe? How about in a black hole?

            So now you are appealing to convention? your “absolute ‘disprovings'” are looking a bit shaky.

            A dogma does not require an authority. It is an opening premise. That is why God in Genesis starts with it.

            Because your pathetic worldview begins with “Cogito ergo sum”, and is viciously circular you think that all others must share its nebulous foundation.

            So the likelihood of General Relativity is so small as to be discountable? Have you discounted all of the infinite possibilities of the unknown universe? So on your premise of a 13.8 billion year old universe do you think that 100 years (just 0.000000001% of this time) of verification by a few scientists is a solid foundation?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Another verbose response, they always appear when you are losing an argument.

            A matter of opinion. I’m only responding to your litanies of errors, so look in the mirror to see why my posts need to be longer. If you want them shorter, write less twaddle. As for “losing” it hasn’t happened yet, because you don’t seem to have made any arguments yet, so how could I possibly have “lost” any?

            You’re the one who said, “DNA that is guaranteed to suffer indels and transpositions on a regular basis,” that sounds pretty flawed to me. But now you say “DNA is not flawed”?

            A flaw requires perfection to be marred, an inadequate design, a legal purpose to be impaired, or something to break. DNA is not perfect, it was never “designed”, it has no legal purpose, and it performs its task adequately or there would be no living things on Earth. So it is not flawed.

            And then in the next paragraph state: “the development of DNA with all its flaws”!

            I was sloppy, and “flaws” was an infelicitous choice of words. I should have avoided repetition of “flaw”, but being on a rhetorical roll, I didn’t. “DNA with all its inherent weaknesses” would have been a much better articulation with the virtue of accuracy.

            .You accuse the Scripture prediction of being “a blatant lie” based on nothing but your own jaundiced opinion supported by circular reasoning on multiple levels.

            Well, that may be your opinion, but I don’t think you have or can show it, seeing as you don’t seem to be aware of what I was calling a lie. That was the fact that not only does the so-called “Genesis” state that the mythical god thingies (plural) asserted that the threatened death would happen on the day the mythical Adam ate of the mythical fruit – which didn’t happen, this lie was told lest the people become “like gods”, something the gods had not foreseen, but feared. In the original creation story, found in the Epic of Gilgamesh, the lying gods were actually the evil ones, creating mankind as slaves, and lying to them to ensure they remained slaves, but the snake, representing wisdom, told the people how to escape this fate by eating the fruit. It seems that the Hebrews had forgotten the original story dating two millennia earlier, by the time they learned to write.

            Now that I have given you a clue and the necessary facts to identify why this was “a blatant lie” (“on so many levels), you are welcome to identify the alleged “circular reasoning on multiple levels” or “jaundiced opinion” you imagined you detected.

            If you don’t believe in conscience what is a conscienceless torturer who gets kicks from being cruel? And for that matter what is cruelty?

            I don’t vest belief in anything. The so called “conscience” is a poetic construct based on our endorphins reacting to anti-social actions. Your problem is that vast amounts of research shows that the torturer is not “conscienceless” but rather that he has persuaded himself that the torture is necessary because the person being tortured is evil, or the torture is a lesser evil, or perhaps like the inquisition, it is better to torture people as an act of charity, sending them to heaven rather than hell (and taking their worldly possessions for the church). Once a torturer has achieved this mental state, they will likely receive great gobs of positive dopamine feedback each time they hurt somebody – possibly to the point of climax and ejaculation through causing pain. This being a one-way mental switch, the torturer will then seek to hurt others more and more frequently to obtain the sexual satisfaction they can no longer obtain elsewhere. Refer to Kraft-Ebbing for more than you probably want to know on the topic.

            Cruelty is the infliction of unnecessary, pointless, and, or, unwanted pain.

            You spake of philosophy on many occasions, for instance in the comments on “Is Richard Dawkins leading people to Jesus?” (I would give you links if they worked on this medium) quoting Stephen Hawking. (Oh, and at the bottom of your latest work of fiction.)

            Not sure what you mean. Outside of historical reference or technical discussion of philosophy, if I was quoting Hawking I was almost certainly explaining why it is dead (philosophy has largely failed to keep up with developments in mathematics, physics, science and the methods of science since the 1900s).

            Apologies over Gödel / Popper, a product of two thoughts, and rewriting a sentence. But reading your statement again are you saying that Gödel’s incompleteness theorems can be absolutely disproved?

            Mix-ups happen. Apologies are not required, only corrections.

            I was not saying that “Gödel’s incompleteness theorems can be absolutely disproved.” Godel’s theorems, being simpler than the natural numbers, were proved.

            Are you sure that An 11 cm sphere of Pu-238 will fission anywhere in the universe? How about in a black hole?

            Clever, but not clever enough. You won’t find any Pu-238 in a black hole, because inside the Schwarzchild radius of a black hole, the matter is shrunk to a dimensionless singularity, a point of infinite mass, and there are no laws of physics – or elements of any kind with which to make or play with balls.

            So now you are appealing to convention? your “absolute ‘disprovings'” are looking a bit shaky.

            I was not appealing to anything. If you don’t share a common notation, established by convention, whether in mathematics or words, then you cannot communicate effectively. While “absolute” does not come into it, intersubjectivity most certainly does.

            A dogma does not require an authority. It is an opening premise. That is why God in Genesis starts with it.

            Where do you imagine your “dogma” originates? Why should it not be questioned? What makes it a “premis” for anyone, even you?

            Because your pathetic worldview begins with “Cogito ergo sum”, and is viciously circular you think that all others must share its nebulous foundation.

            Unless you are speaking of feedback as circular, which it is (but that is not a bad thing, it is how we seem to make progress), then I don’t know to what about my worldview you are referring and challenge you to explain what you think you meant and attempt to sustain your claim. Note that an explanation will need to encompass at least the following. I am fully aware that nothing outside of awareness that I exist in some form, because I am able to think, can be known absolutely certainly, but I am also aware that I am apparently able to perceive things, form conclusions about them, develop models from those perceptions, share predictions made on the basis of such models with other entities which it is reasonable to assume are like myself, and through feedback, I am able to learn whether my models appear effective to them or not. I am also similarly able to evaluate and share information about models constructed by others. I am also aware that processes similar to this are the only methods I am aware of, of which this is true.

            So the likelihood of General Relativity is so small as to be discountable? Have you discounted all of the infinite possibilities of the unknown universe? So on your premise of a 13.8 billion year old universe do you think that 100 years (just 0.000000001% of this time) of verification by a few scientists is a solid foundation?

            I didn’t say “the likelihood of General Relativity is so small as to be discountable” I said ” the likelihood of” GR being falsified “is so small as to be discountable” and “If GR should be overturned, it will be by a theory which predicts very
            similar things under all the circumstances in which we have been able to
            test it to date.” It appears the significance of being able to see back to within 200,000 years or so of the big bang (when the Universe became transparent to light) may have evaded you. By looking at distant events we are able to see all but 200,000 years of the development of the Universe, nullifying your objection and providing a very solid foundation indeed.

          • Names_Stan

            Don’t know if I can buy into the death of philosophy. True enough that contemporary ethics is far behind contemporary technology, for instance. But is this because you and I don’t have a reasonable ethical construct, or because there’s so much noise today that the best construct (and ultimately a common one) can’t gain footing?

            I think it’s the latter.

            (I also think philosophy is alive, even if it is no more current than Seneca and Marcus Aurelius. I often find them valid and applicable in relative to contemporary problems…but I’ll admit a cognitive bias in their favor.)
            🙂

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            The trouble is that when Kurt Gödel developed his incompleteness theorems, overturning Russell and Whitehead’s life work, Principia Mathematica, philosophy was arguing about metaphysics and didn’t notice. When Heisenberg developed his uncertainty principle, philosophy was arguing about the Viennese school and positivism, and didn’t notice. Which is why Heisenberg said, “The positivists have a simple solution: the world must be divided into
            that which we can say clearly and the rest, which we had better pass over in silence. But can any one conceive of a more pointless philosophy, seeing that what we can say clearly amounts to next to nothing? If we omitted all that is unclear we would probably be left with completely uninteresting and trivial tautologies.” When Turing developed the principles of the uncomputable, philosophy was arguing about neopositivism and didn’t notice. When Popper, Quine and Khune developed postpositivism, most philosophers didn’t notice, although Wittgenstein threatened Popper with a poker during a debate on ethics. When von Neumann developed constructive empiricism, and perturbation theory was implying virtual particles and the end of the classical era of causation at the same time as Feynman determined that the world has not one history, but every possible history, the philosophers were playing with their beards and didn’t deign to notice. When Feyerabend developed eliminative materialism and Rorty, the Churchlands and the rapidly exploding neurological field effectively demolished mind-body theories, such that “our commonsense conception of psychological phenomena constitutes a radically false theory, a theory so fundamentally defective that both the principles and the ontology of that theory will eventually be displaced, rather than smoothly reduced, by completed neuroscience” philosophers were busy attempting to defend their field against instrumentalism and didn’t notice. When Lakatos and Feyerabend playfully cooperated to develop epistemological anarchy, philosophers were still debating metaphysics, scientific realism and the positivisms and didn’t notice. When Baudrillard, Eco and Postman, inter alia, developed hyperreality, philosophy remained obsessed with positivism and empiricism and did not notice. As string theory has lead to M-theory, which no philosophers seem to have found interesting, and as neurology has demolished the idea that our brains do much beyond post hoc justification of programmed responses to environmental stimulii, mediated by genetics, epigenetiics and experience, philosophy has found itself incapable of addressing the many realities that are becoming accepted science to those doing physics and neuro-related research.

            The philosophers did react, when Hawking, probably the world’s pre-eminent cosmologist said, with reference to “How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator?”, “Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge.” The philosophers said, “That is not true” and went back to their world of neat logical arguments founded on nothing at all, where their preferences determine the outcome of arguments based on logic, which is to say, based on nothing at all, continuing to leave the rather messy world that is, and our emergent comprehension of it, to the physicists.

            I have read the stoics (although I suspect that Seneca was a stoic by convenience rather than conviction), but much prefer the Epicurians, and would rather enjoy the company of witty poets like Ovid and Catullus, or even the boastful, self-justifying writers like Caesar and Josephus, to any of the Roman philosophers.

          • Names_Stan

            Long day of travel and business in Nashville, so just now getting to respond.

            First, I’m far inferior academically to challenge even your most basic points. So this discussion probably won’t be terribly interesting for you.

            But I do think there is “philosophy” beyond academia, thanks to the classical work that has filtered into the mainstream. (For example, I have just enough knowledge of Epicureans to regret having never spent a weekend with one.)

            Now Josephus over Seneca, you’ll have to explain that one to me. I’ve never seen any comparison between a chronicler and a Greco or Roman philosopher in terms of which I’d rather spend time with. Poets, just not my thing.

            On Epicureans, I can get on board totally with the avoidance of pain, and to some extent the search for pleasure as some understand their worldview. But where we part ways is the isolation component.

            The more dense the global population, the higher the political imperative. This present society must find a way to stop talking at one another and get down to the hard work of dirty details. We must eventually reverse course from the single-minded profit motive to a shared existence.

            Unlimited growth with limited resources is a time bomb. Hawkins or de Grasse Tyson or Dawkins can’t legislate how we handle the realities they uncover, right? They have a voice in that, but we know historically that it will be others who will decode the implications, the ethics, the practical application.

            While it’s true that the great philosophers of prehistory laid the foundation for practical science, that was then. It was a time when the “shadows on the cave” predated even basic physics by centuries.

            But now it’s tech and science running at a blinding pace, and philosophy waning. Not surprising or necessarily bad. It’s even arguable whether it even matters. Cuz as soon as someone can clone a superstar quarterback, or derivative trader or whatever, we all know there will be someone who’ll do it, damn the ethics and guidelines and treaties, right?

            I’m rambling, but trust my judgement: dinner at Seneca’s house woulda been fab! And it’s so very rare to run across people that can be bothered to examine truth on a plane beyond the math and science. But it’s out there, and thanks to the net, lots of people can weigh in quickly. Crowd-sourced philosophy…I like it!

            But what the academics are doing in the present day, I know not. I honestly wouldn’t know one if I shared a cab with’em. I just don’t think that trumps the need to search for truth in epistemological and ethical and even metaphysical depth. These things brought people like me out of indoctrination and into an awareness of cognitive bias and subjectivity. We’ve got to move more people to that, especially at a time we literally see millions of people throwing rocks at education and “intellectuals”. Epicureans probably wouldn’t be bothered with that…but I really am.

            (Though I still favor a weekend at their place.)

          • Names_Stan

            One more thing I’ll add:

            I spent like five posts the other day “debating” a guy who, as a proud “survivalist” wants to put a self-fulfilling prophecy in motion with insurrection and an end to our system of gov’t as we know it.

            Although I realize cognitively that I’m making no difference, I can’t help challenging these people in their cognitive dissonance.

            My very amateurish grasp of philosophy somewhat guides the way I question them. You do it too, posting facts and principles they can only overcome with hands over ears and eyes.

            What Seneca called Virtue isn’t to me conventional morality, but good judgment and cognitive dealing above emotional dealing.

            This is especially helpful with fundamentalists, because they usually deal in emotion and I don’t. Hopefully this illustrates that right action doesn’t come from claims, but from thought habits and behavior. When claims take about two posts to turn into negative emotion, it reinforces that even in spirituality and its oft-times boasts of exclusivity and certainty, the thinker behaves more morally than the emotional claimant. Then, they, like it or not, are faced with this most liberal or liberal Christians remaining calm as they invariably resort to increasingly base responses.

            That’s Stoicism in a nutshell in my view.

            Not sure if that makes any sense at all…

          • Names_Stan

            I just replied to his reply to you, Herm. I’m really struggling with the comments from the pro-IDer’s, as I’ve never actually followed this particular debate. I just always figured the ID thing would burn out on itself with denominational infighting.

            But what I’m reading with Honey here is Deism…which I have no problem with (but don’t want it in classrooms). So what occurs to me in all this:

            Deism is worse for Christians than just teaching science. Because Deism, it seems to me, is going to logically play to your exact point, that this Cause is hands-off entirely, and no supernatural causes can be demonstrated, or even INFERRED.

            The smart Christians, liberals like me, see the ultimate logical path, and have always favored separating religion from science (and many other things).

            In short, I just think this ID thing implodes immediately upon itself when we start asking these people exactly what it is they want to “teach”.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Honey Monster is a full blown christer, a theist, not a deist, who appears to have his own unique interpretation of the so called bible, borrowing extensively from the neo-Platonic rejection of observation and assumption of the pre-eminence of “logic”, without realising that it leaves him without a footing to stand upon.

            If I have followed him, Honey Monster believes that his god thingies (about which he has no evidence at all) literally made the Earth and everything in it exactly as he understands his so called bible to say, and anyone with an alternative interpretation of the so called bible is wrong, that there are absolute truths and he is apparently in possession of them, and that the Universe is messed up because of “disobedience” to his supposed god thingies.

            I think Honey Monster is madder than a hatter.

            ID is a religion with a lot of money and some rather dishonest people behind it, but which has been repeatedly been exposed and discredited by science and society. I wouldn’t pay it any attention at all, it is delusional nonsense.

          • Nofun

            You mean humans proving the work of other humans as opposed to reading a book an pretending its true because you believe a magi, invisible god wrote it.

        • Nofun

          Meyer is not competent in the least he hasn’t produced a peer reviewed scientific for some time now.. He is paid to lie about science.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Your opinion, not reviewers of Darwins Doubt, or Signature in the Cell. Have you read those books?

          • Nofun

            I have read bits. They are trash. They are backed up by no science. They are there to try and convince the general public who don’t understand science.

          • John M Stoecker

            n his article Doubting “Darwin’s Doubt” published in The New Yorker,[39] Gareth Cook says that this book is another attempt by the creationist to rekindle the intelligent design movement. Decades of fossil discovery around the world, aided by new computational analytical techniques enable scientists to construct a more complete portrait of the tree of lifewhich was not available to Darwin (hence his “doubt” in Meyer’s words). The contemporary scientific consensus is that there was no “explosion”. Cook cites Nick Matzke’s analysis that the major gaps identified by Meyer are derived from his lack of understanding of the field’s key statistical techniques (among other things) and his misleading rearrangement of the tree of life.[40] Cook references scientific literature[41] to refute Meyer’s argument that the genetic machinery of life is incapable of big leaps therefore any major biological advancement must be the result of intervention by the ‘intelligent designer’. Like Prothero, Cook also criticizes Meyer’s proposal that if something cannot be fully explained by today’s science, it must be the work of a supreme deity. Calling it a ‘masterwork of pseudoscience’, Cook warns that the influence of this book should not be underestimated. Cook opines that the book, with Meyer sewing skillfully together the trappings of science, wielding his credential of a Ph.D. (in history of science) from the University of Cambridge, writing in a seemingly serious and reasonable manner, will appeal to a large audience who is hungry for material evidence of God or considers science a conspiracy against spirituality.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I didn’t state there was no criticism of the book. Many don’t look at it like he did. I’m asking if you read it yourself?

          • oregon_man

            All those like you limit your information sources on evolution to religious material. I wish for once you would look at some real science that happened within the last 25 years or so. Instead you stick to media that will only confirm your bias.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I would appreciate some of your “real evidence” Concerning your other posts, I’ll leave them since you’re starting the atheistic attack on person thing. I really want to know what your talking about in terms of real science in the last 25 years. Obviously in the case of “Lucy” that is real science with a false pretense. Strike one. Lets start here if you like: One of the striking things about our experience as conscious, thinking humans is how constant our sense of self–our identity–is. Never in my life has there been any suspension or change of my conscious sense of who I am other than during sleep. Throughout our lives our brains change considerably. A myriad of new synaptic connections are formed especially in the early years. Yet one’s identity is immutable. Aside from these ongoing modifications of the brain, there are catastrophic changes as well. Those who have experienced surgery under general anesthesia or suffered cardiac arrest have had their brains shut down and consciousness suspended even if only briefly. Near death experiences represent a more profound disruption of consciousness often involving complete cessation of detectable brain activity. Yet we know from countless surgeries conducted under general anesthesia and near death experiences that one’s consciousness, sense of self and mental faculties, i.e. memories, knowledge, beliefs, etc. are usually fully restored even in extreme cases following the event. Why is it that our sense of self is so constant even when the brain is subjected to change and catastrophic effects? What material causal processes in the brain could account for this constancy of self?

            Since I’m not the Genus you are, would you like to tackle this issue, scientifically speaking of course.

        • John M Stoecker

          In March, 2002, Meyer announced a “teach the controversy” strategy, which alleges that the theory of evolution is controversial within scientific circles, following a presentation to the Ohio State Board of Education.[20] The presentation included submission of an annotated bibliography of 44 peer-reviewed scientific articles that were said to raise significant challenges to key tenets of “Darwinian evolution”.[21] In response to this claim the National Center for Science Education, an organisation that works in collaboration with National Academy of Sciences, the National Association of Biology Teachers, and the National Science Teachers Association that support the teaching of evolution in public schools,[22]contacted the authors of the papers listed and 26 scientists, representing 34 of the papers, responded. None of the authors considered that their research provided evidence against evolution.[23] On March 11, 2002 during a panel discussion on evolution Meyer publicly told the Ohio Board of Education that the “Santorum Amendment” was part of the Education Bill, and therefore that the State of Ohio was required to teach alternative theories to evolution as part of its biology curriculum. Professor of Biology, Kenneth R. Millerreplied that Conference Reports do not carry the weight of law and that in implying that they do, Meyer factually misstated the nature and gravitas of the Santorum Amendment.[24]

    • David

      1. The FFRF is not forcing evolutionary theory. They are using their first amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances, and is reminding them of the law. Sending a letter is not unconstitutional.
      2. If ID were a scientific theory, there would be peer-reviewed research and it would be used to make predictions of things that we have yet to observe. It’s been around for at least 30 years. Surely it would be useful by now.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        List of peer reviewed research for ID

        Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

        Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

        Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

        Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

        William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

        Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

        Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

        Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

        Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

        Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

        Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

        Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

        David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

        Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

        Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

        Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

        Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

        A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

        Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

        Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

        Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

        William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

        • David

          As I am a layperson and unqualified to analyze scientific papers personally, can you point to any summary or analysis of these papers that show that they are in fact useful in establishing accepted markers for Intelligent Design?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            No I cannot as I am a layperson as well. However you can as you have exhibited. Pick another and do the same thing.

          • David

            The next one I checked, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins” (Durston), does not mention intelligent design or how you can use it to determine an intelligent designer.

            From the background: “we provide a method to measure functional sequence complexity”.

            From the abstract: “The resulting measured unit, which we call Functional bit (Fit), is calculated from the sequence data jointly with the defined functionality variable.”

            From the conclusion: “For future extensions, measures of functional bioinformatics may provide a means to evaluate potential evolving pathways from effects such as mutations, as well as analyzing the internal structural and functional relationships within the 3-D structure of proteins.”

            0 for 2. At this point, especially realizing that your list was copied and pasted from the website of the Discovery Institute (who have no credibility that I’m aware of), I have more important things to do with my time, and I justifiably stand by my claim that there is no peer-reviewed research demonstrating ID or its predictive power, unless you can bring new, more persuasive information.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Ok. I will agree to disagree with you.

        • oregon_man

          Not one of your peer-reviewed publications argues evolution is false and God made everything and it is all in the bible. You are a fraud. Show a specific example of a peer-reviewed paper that supports your claims. You are copy+pasting irrelevant material.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Correction: “Lucy is a fraud” Get your information right

          • oregon_man

            Which one of those claimed peer-reviewed and accepted documents states Lucy is a fraud?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Evolutionists are a sad bunch. They’ve been desperately searching for centuries for any valid evidence to support the myth of evolution. One concocted theory after another have been disproved, utterly, time and time again. Now it’s “Lucy,” the alleged prehistoric skeletal remains of a woman, most of which is plaster of Paris. I mean, ‘com on, is that the best you’ve got? The ongoing futile search by evolutionists to find the “missing link” is about is worthless as the ongoing search for Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq. The truth is that “if” evolution were true, then there should be a large supply of such skeletal remains in the earth; but there is not. “Lucy” is nothing more than a stretch-of-the-imagination. There is NO recorded human civilization prior to 4,000 B.C. Egypt was the first around 2,000 B.C.

            Lucy is Not the Missing Link!

            “Lucy” is the popular name given to the famous fossil skeleton that American anthropologist Donald Johanson found in Ethiopia in 1974. To many people, Lucy is regarded as some kind of link between ape-like creatures and humans, thus supposedly proving evolution.

            But is Lucy really a pre-human ancestor?

            According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson became probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull was so incomplete that most of it was “imagination made of plaster of Paris”. Leakey said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

            Anatomist agrees

            Reinforcing the fact that Lucy is not a creature between ape and man, Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia, said in 1987 of the australopithecines (the group to which Lucy is said to have belonged):

            “The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.”

            Oxnard’s firm conclusion? “The australopithecines are unique.” They are so different from humans and from African apes that they could not be intermediate between them.

            This one.

          • oregon_man

            If you intentionally limit your information collecting to unscientific confirmation bias BS, you can only parrot unscientific BS. You’ve sold me, you must be right. I’m going back to believing in 6000 year old earth, man and dinos walking together, burning and talking bushes, virgin births and so on. You are a joke.

          • oregon_man

            I cannot believe you wrote that long, false, stupid tirade. I am still waiting for which one of those so-called peer-reviewed documents you listed denies evolution. You keep avoiding to support your claims. I wonder why. When you close your eyes at night, doesn’t it ever eat at you that you intentionally try to deceive people?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Do your homework dude. I presented the list. Believe what you want, or go to the site and download the complete list of peer reviewed articles and where they came from. I can’t post the link here but you can find the PDF file. I’m not avoiding anything. Does it ever eat at you that you don’t know God and Christ? Do you disagree with the findings of “Lucy” as a fake, fraud, etc.

          • oregon_man

            You posted baloney and now called out for it you won’t support your claim. Lucy is not a fake, you are.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            You mean you won’t admit that “Lucy is a fake” Just google it dude.

          • oregon_man

            Google “I am a moron”, dude. Your post was valuable. It must have worked for you.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Google it yourself

    • Nofun

      The ID movement created its own peer review which has no credibility. ID has never produced any science and never will.

      If you want to be scientific then you have to:
      1) Name your designer.
      2) Know their methods.
      3) Compare that to evolutionary methods and see which match the evidence better.

      That can’t ever happen. ID is just a money making venture …nothing more.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        I disagree, and here is why:

        Peer-Reviewed Articles Supporting Intelligent Design

        Intelligent Design: A scientific theory that holds that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause rather than undirected process such as natural selection.

        Intelligent design (ID) is a scientific theory that employs the methods commonly used by other historical sciences to conclude that certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. ID theorists argue that design can be inferred by studying the informational properties of natural objects to determine if they bear the type of information that in our experience arise from an intelligent cause. The form of information which we observe is produced by intelligent action, and thus reliably indicates design, is generally called “specified complexity” or “complex and specified information” (CSI).

        On this page you can download an annotated bibliography of peer-reviewed and peer-edited scientific articles supporting, applying, or arising from the theory of intelligent design. You also can read a description of the intelligent design research community and its aims.

        Bibliography of Peer-Reviewed and Peer-Edited Scientific Publications Supporting the Theory of Intelligent Design.

        Download the full bibliography in Adobe pdf format.

        Intelligent Design Research Community

        There are multiple hubs of ID-related research. Biologic Institute, led by molecular biologist Doug Axe, is “developing and testing the scientific case for intelligent design in biology.” Biologic conducts laboratory and theoretical research on the origin and role of information in biology, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, and methods of detecting design in nature.

        Another ID research group is the Evolutionary Informatics Lab, founded by senior Discovery Institute fellow William Dembski along with Robert Marks, Distinguished Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering at Baylor University. Their lab has attracted graduate-student researchers and published multiple peer-reviewed articles in technical science and engineering journals showing that computer programming “points to the need for an ultimate information source qua intelligent designer.”

        Other scientists around the world are also publishing peer-reviewed scientific papers supportive of intelligent design. These include biologist Ralph Seelke at the University of Wisconsin Superior, Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig who recently retired from the Max Planck Institute for Plant Breeding Research in Germany, and Lehigh University biochemist Michael Behe.

        These and other labs and researchers have published their work in a variety of appropriate technical venues, including peer-reviewed scientific journals, peer-reviewed scientific books (some published by mainstream university presses), trade-press books, peer-edited scientific anthologies, peer-edited scientific conference proceedings and peer-reviewed philosophy of science journals and books. These papers have appeared in scientific journals such as Protein Science, Journal of Molecular Biology, Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Quarterly Review of Biology, Cell Biology International, Rivista di Biologia / Biology Forum, Physics of Life Reviews, Quarterly Review of Biology, Annual Review of Genetics, and many others. At the same time, pro-ID scientists have presented their research at conferences worldwide in fields such as genetics, biochemistry, engineering, and computer science.

        Collectively, this body of research is converging on a consensus: complex biological features cannot arise by unguided Darwinian mechanisms, but require an intelligent cause.

        Despite ID’s publication record, we note parenthetically that recognition in peer-reviewed literature is not an absolute requirement to demonstrate an idea’s scientific merit. Darwin’s own theory of evolution was first published in a book for a general and scientific audience—his Origin of Species—not in a peer-reviewed paper. Nonetheless, ID’s peer-reviewed publication record shows that it deserves— and is receiving—serious consideration by the scientific community.

        The purpose of ID’s budding research program is thus to engage open-minded scientists and thoughtful laypersons with credible, persuasive, peer-reviewed, empirical data supporting intelligent design. And this is happening. ID has already gained the kind of scientific recognition you would expect from a young (and vastly underfunded) but promising scientific field. The scientific progress of ID has won the serious attention of skeptics in the scientific community, who engage in scientific debate with ID and attend private scientific conferences allowing off-the-record discussion with ID proponents.

        Selected List of Peer-Reviewed Scientific Publications Supportive of Intelligent Design

        The list below provides bibliographic information for a selection of the peer-reviewed scientific publications supportive of intelligent design published in scientific journals, conference proceedings, or academic anthologies:

        Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

        Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

        Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

        Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

        William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

        Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

        Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

        Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

        Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

        Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

        Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

        Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

        David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

        Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

        Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

        Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

        Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

        A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

        Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

        Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

        Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

        William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

        • Nofun

          What intelligence? Name it?

          It like saying a magic pig created the earth. The first thing you need to do to prove this is to produce the giant magic pig.

          Where is your giant magic pig?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            This is a circular argument and you already know that. Equally I could suggest you prove that there is no God. You see how that becomes circular?

          • Nofun

            You can’t prove a negative so that is not an equal demand.

            There is only one rule to atheism “If it is not real it doesn’t matter”.

            Do you worry about men with 50 heads or flying dogs?
            No?
            Why not?

            Because there is no evidence of them and thus they don’t matter.
            Treat god the same way and he will disappear and you can start living your real life as yourself.

          • AugustineThomas

            If you don’t believe in God, then you believe that existence spontaneously evolved from nothingness for no reason with no intelligence behind it and you have the burden to prove that positive claim. People on your side are not great scientists. (The greatest scientists were Christians and modern science derives directly from Christian theology, but you’re too ignorant to know that.) The only thing your side is good at is intellectual intimidation and forcing weak minds to fall in line with your false myth beliefs.

          • God

            “If you don’t believe in God, then you believe that existence spontaneously evolved from nothingness for no reason with no intelligence behind it and you have the burden to prove that positive claim.”

            No, we could just be honest and say that we don’t know. Unfortunately for you, science seems to be finding good results on abiogenesis, so you may have your answer soon. Either way, your version has no evidence.

          • Jim H

            Your argument seems seriously flawed. Even your demand for proof seems backwards.
            It would seem that given a natural explanation and a supernatural answer, the more likely explanation would be be the natural one. Wouldn’t that place the burden of truth on the less likely supernatural explanation.
            Regarding your statements about evolution, God, etc.
            First off, evolution says NOTHING about the origin of life- it’s just about how life changes over time. Second, evolution is neutral on the subject of “gods” as is all of science. The concept of a deity is not scientific at all.
            Third, what you are describing as being “spontaneously evolved” is “spontaneous generation”, which science has not believed since Pasteur. Rather, the scientific study of origins would be abiogenesis, which is a different matter entirely.

            Spontaneous generation held that life in its present form today could form from non-life, and did so all the time — for instance, aphids sprang from dew on plants, maggots emerged from rotting meat, and mice were created from wet hay. In 1859, Louis Pasteur performed experiments that put the final nail in the coffin of the hypothesis. He proved definitively that life does not spring, fully formed and unbidden, from any recipe of inorganic or dead organic matter. So the question of the origin of life was reopened for the first time in centuries.

            Abiogenesis, on the other hand, does not predict that life in any form known today — not even the simplest single-celled life forms — were created in some flash of magic or through some arcane recipe of components. That would be creation, in the sense of a personal creator deity. Rather, it predicts that, as life is made up of chemical reactions, and the constituent components of life can self-arrange given certain conditions, there is some point in Earth’s early history wherein a chemical chain reaction went runaway and breached the fuzzy barrier between chemistry and biology. All biology is is one single long, unbroken chemical reaction that can be traced back to whatever initial condition sparked it billions of years ago.

            It seems the only ones who still believe in spontaneous generation are creationists, although they incorrectly try to claim otherwise.

          • Nofun

            Science has temerity and honestly to say we don’t know. YET.

            No matter what an individual scientist may believe in his spare time has no effect on his actual science. There is no supernatural nonsense in any science … nor is their god or jesus in any theory.

            What myth do I believe again? The “say it back to them’ tactic looks stupid when you have nothing to back it up. Unless you can come up with one shred of real world evidence for your magic invisible god, it is only you who believes in a faith construct with no reality.

          • God

            You don’t seem to know what circular means…

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            It’s round lol

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            What are the necessary and sufficient attributes qualifying the god thingie you would like disproved?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Any and all.

        • David

          You are only copying and pasting from the Discovery Institute website. I am unaware of any credibility or influence they have among people performing useful research.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            That is correct. I disagree with you. That is not the only site that confirms ID science. Go to Godandscience. You can also read a whole set or articles on most subjects. Are you stating that the list I presented is not peer reviewed science?

          • David

            Yes and no. It depends on the article. Some of the items are not peer-reviewed science. (E.g., Dembski’s The Design Inference.) Others, such as McIntosh’s paper, are peer-reviewed with a disclaimer rejecting any endorsement of the conclusions, which is HIGHLY suspect and unworthy of inclusion such a list. And still others, while peer-reviewed science, are not research on intelligent design in the first place. (E.g., Kirk Durston’s Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins).

          • David

            On what basis do you disagree with me? Are you saying that there are people performing useful research that find the Discover Institute credible? Can you name any outside of the organization?

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        A partial list

        Stephen C. Meyer, “The origin of biological information and the higher taxonomic categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, Vol. 117(2):213-239 (2004) (HTML).

        Michael J. Behe, “Experimental Evolution, Loss-of-Function Mutations, and ‘The First Rule of Adaptive Evolution,’” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 85(4):1-27 (December 2010).

        Douglas D. Axe, “Estimating the Prevalence of Protein Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 341:1295–1315 (2004).

        Michael Behe and David W. Snoke, “Simulating evolution by gene duplication of protein features that require multiple amino acid residues,” Protein Science, Vol. 13 (2004).

        William A. Dembski and Robert J. Marks II, “The Search for a Search: Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search,” Journal of Advanced Computational Intelligence and Intelligent Informatics, Vol. 14 (5):475-486 (2010).

        Ann K. Gauger and Douglas D. Axe, “The Evolutionary Accessibility of New Enzyme Functions: A Case Study from the Biotin Pathway,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2011(1) (2011).

        Ann K. Gauger, Stephanie Ebnet, Pamela F. Fahey, and Ralph Seelke, “Reductive Evolution Can Prevent Populations from Taking Simple Adaptive Paths to High Fitness,” BIO-Complexity, Vol. 2010 (2) (2010).

        Vladimir I. shCherbak and Maxim A. Makukov, “The ‘Wow! Signal’ of the terrestrial genetic code,” Icarus, Vol. 224 (1): 228-242 (May, 2013).

        Joseph A. Kuhn, “Dissecting Darwinism,” Baylor University Medical Center Proceedings, Vol. 25(1): 41-47 (2012).

        Winston Ewert, William A. Dembski, and Robert J. Marks II, “Evolutionary Synthesis of Nand Logic: Dissecting a Digital Organism,” Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, pp. 3047-3053 (October, 2009).

        Douglas D. Axe, Brendan W. Dixon, Philip Lu, “Stylus: A System for Evolutionary Experimentation Based on a Protein/Proteome Model with Non-Arbitrary Functional Constraints,” PLoS One, Vol. 3(6):e2246 (June 2008).

        Kirk K. Durston, David K. Y. Chiu, David L. Abel, Jack T. Trevors, “Measuring the functional sequence complexity of proteins,” Theoretical Biology and Medical Modelling, Vol. 4:47 (2007).

        David L. Abel and Jack T. Trevors, “Self-organization vs. self-ordering events in life-origin models,” Physics of Life Reviews, Vol. 3:211–228 (2006).

        Frank J. Tipler, “Intelligent Life in Cosmology,” International Journal of Astrobiology, Vol. 2(2): 141-148 (2003).

        Michael J. Denton, Craig J. Marshall, and Michael Legge, “The Protein Folds as Platonic Forms: New Support for the pre-Darwinian Conception of Evolution by Natural Law,” Journal of Theoretical Biology, Vol. 219: 325-342 (2002).

        Stanley L. Jaki, “Teaching of Transcendence in Physics,” American Journal of Physics, Vol. 55(10):884-888 (October 1987).

        Granville Sewell, “Postscript,” in Analysis of a Finite Element Method: PDE/PROTRAN (New York: Springer Verlag, 1985).

        A.C. McIntosh, “Evidence of design in bird feathers and avian respiration,” International Journal of Design & Nature and Ecodynamics, Vol. 4(2):154–169 (2009).

        Richard v. Sternberg, “DNA Codes and Information: Formal Structures and Relational Causes,” Acta Biotheoretica, Vol. 56(3):205-232 (September, 2008).

        Wolf-Ekkehard Lönnig and Heinz Saedler, “Chromosome Rearrangement and Transposable Elements,” Annual Review of Genetics, Vol. 36:389–410 (2002).

        Douglas D. Axe, “Extreme Functional Sensitivity to Conservative Amino Acid Changes on Enzyme Exteriors,” Journal of Molecular Biology, Vol. 301:585-595 (2000).

        William A. Dembski, The Design Inference: Eliminating Chance through Small Probabilities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998).

        • Nofun

          All Discovery Institute employees. This group funded by right wing billionaires trying to buy their way to heaven is there for the express purpose of pushing religion into science as their wedge document shows.

          They produce no science. It is a propaganda outfit that writes books to convince the general public.

          The ironic thing is after ID’s complete destruction in the Dover trial their tactics changed. Whenever right wing christians storm school boards and demand ID be taught, the Discovery Institute is the first on the scene to try and stop them.

          Why?

          Because when they taken to court they would be again found to pushing religion disguised as science and ID would again be shown for the pack of lies it is.

          Their only choice is “teach the controversy”. There is no controversy in science so the only place to push this is to the public. This way they don’t have to prove anything or produce any science … all they have to do is muddy the waters in the public mind.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I remember that specific trial and that is a good point. But that is not all inclusive. That was one instance. If you continue to look through the specifics in the list, would you find one that is accurate? I believe you would.

          • Nofun

            What instance is accurate?

        • Cliff Smith

          Wow, and they all just “happen” to work for the same boss. How curious.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Who would that be? God possibly?

          • Nofun

            You are suppose to pretend ID is not religious.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        If we sight the evolutionary process to mean that we came from something inferior to us, and thus now that we are at a stage of that evolution where we now test and experiment on our ancestors because they have DNA references, although the DNA markers tell us there is evidence scientifically that shows we cannot directly interface with our ancestrial beings, then we must propose also that our future evolution would resolve in a similar pattern. We now, could be the catalyst for learning. We now could be our future evolutionary beings, subjects without free will to choose to be an experiment for the benefit of humankind. If you believe this certainly you have Atheistic ways of thinking as does KaKu as a Theorist. If our purpose is to make evolutionary steps to improve ourselves through science, such as the proposal for Human being 2.0 as suggested, you might as well be able to say Ethics, morality, freedom, will recend who we are as humans in the future to a fearsome set of creatures with little or no Ethical reasoning. I don’t know about you but the progression of science using me or my children to advance science won’t be my choice. I most certainly prefer the wisdom of God in designing all things as opposed to man creating all things in the future.

        There is no proof that God doesn’t exist. Sometimes logic and rationalization is again a subjective argument. You really have made the point. God IS worth utilizing any method to find him. It is the discovery of God’s creation that we are just now being able to unravel, and there is alot of unraveling to do. Kaku says our next evolutionary advancement is to utilize robotics, to mold ourselves into a being for the collective knowledge of all humans through chips in the brain, etc. His thoughts on the future of mankind are based on technology. Extending life, etc etc. My thought based on what I see in science is this. We evolve not by changing from one species to another, but through conciousness and interconnectability. Why would someone think that we came from apes, only to experiment on them to promote our own life experience. If this were true, and we progress in this way, not only would you see our future generations look at us as test subjects, but as being something inferior. That is not evolving, that is crazy. But follow scientists like Kaku and see what his vision of the future is. Not what I’m looking for. One last thing, when someone says go to a museum I always think about the “Missing Link” science if you get my drift. People will do almost anything for 15 minutes of fame so to speak, but as Issac Newton says, For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

        • Nofun

          1) Nothing is inferior.

          2) “We now could be our future evolutionary beings, subjects without free
          will to choose to be an experiment for the benefit of humankind. If you believe this ” What insane nonsense. No one believes that. Build a better strawman.

          3) Our purpose was nothing to do with evolutionary steps. The environment selects for genes without us or imaginary god doing anything.

          4) Morality provides obvious evolutionary advantages to survival. Civilization is the cradle of morality and operates pretty much on the concept of fairness. A concept even dogs understand. Again invent insane strawman arguments.

          5) Spend your time finding some real world proof for your god. That would be more worthwhile.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Evidence is interpretative as you can well see from your circular argument. Since you have no real desire to find evidence (since you could in the information age) that would support the view of God, it makes no real sense to have this discussion since both you and I have been around that block more than a few times.

          • Nofun

            Give me some evidence of your God if it is so readily available.
            If not, we can assume there is none.

    • mark novak

      you only need to understand evolution if you want to go to a real university and study real things like science. otherwise you can work at mcdonalds or drive a combine and search for bigfoot on the week-end.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        Oh I see.

    • John M Stoecker

      creation is a myth,much like the moon gives light,the earth is flat and we are all born of incest twice,take your stone age fables out of our schools.you may have your own opinion but you may not have your own facts,evolution is a fact..

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        Not that again, I’ve gone through all the atheist stuff. Come on have a discussion, not something that has been stated so often by athesists that it gets boring.

        • John M Stoecker

          i would to think that facts are not boring ..butt ,,,,,its your thread what would you care to disqus???

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Facts such as God is a myth? That’s not a fact, that is boring atheist propaganda without a basis in fact. So, I would prefer to speak about the article. And, please don’t refer to Dawkins. Even atheist’s are moving away from him based on some of his “philosophy” A good scientist gone mad was the name of one article.

          • John M Stoecker

            well this ought to be insightful..there are over 3000 gods..which 1 is yours???/ now choose carefully cause damnation awaits

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I’ve only counted one, which one do you think it is? Ok remember, I’m a Christian.

          • John M Stoecker

            well your the god of incest and baby killer .the other 3000 must be pagen

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Been there done that too, something original maybe?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            No wait…….. say something again that Dawkins says, yea thats the ticket.

          • John M Stoecker

            not sure how to break the news to you.your god has been killing babies for centuries and dawkins isnt the only one to state such a fact,,what is your man crush on him anywho????and im still waiting for proff of the 40% of oxford nonsence..

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Please, spare me the atheist Rhetoric. I’m supposing you have some handy dandy scriptures out of context to support your claims. Lets talk Jesus. Jesus is God after all lets see where you can come up with some baby killings, specific to killing babies. 40% of Oxford? Huh?

          • John M Stoecker

            too easy,they even celbrate it..ever hear of passover.or how bout the flood.killed millions of innocent all over the flat earth…still waiting

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Steve Jacobsen, a geophysicist at Northwestern University and seismologist Brandon Schmandt of the University of New Mexico, discovered pockets of magma 410 miles beneath the Earth. They believe this provides evidence of the ingredients of water in the mantle of our planet.

            Jacobsen provided evidence for this theory with his experiments, subjecting a mineral called ringwoodite to conditions similar to those found 410 miles underground.

            Geologists have long wondered how much water is transferred between the oceans of the Earth and reservoirs beneath the crust. This material can be carried hundreds of miles through the ground by tectonic forces, driven by continental drift.

            “I think we are finally seeing evidence for a whole-Earth water cycle, which may help explain the vast amount of liquid water on the surface of our habitable planet. Scientists have been looking for this missing deep water for decades,” Jacobsen said.

            Water driven into the mantle can help drive melting of rock, forming polls of magma.

            Scientists have long believed water could be trapped in the mantle of the Earth, between 250 and 410 miles under the ground.

            The source of water coming to the top of the complete earth, could have easily led to the flood of Noah by scientific means alone. Much more it the power of God, but you want a means of science to explain what could have happened. Next.

          • John M Stoecker

            and the source of the water could of essily come fro dinosaur urination..you conjecture a superstition to explain a science based fact..???still waiting for the baby killing ghost believer to explain the slaughter of innocents..which of course you cant ,cause its pure evil and you cant possibly justify it..butt ill give you credit for knot answering any questions and deflecting..your pedophile preacher taught you well

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I’m waiting for you to show evidence that the people you’re referring to were, first, innocent, second, where in the Bible does it suggest that God and Christ are evil. Satan is evil and is the source for man’s temptations against God. I’m going to say this once only. When you generalize a group of people because of a priest that does evil, and should be thrown in jail, recall what Dawkins said.
            1. Mild Pedophilia is ok
            2. R_ape victims should just get over it.
            3. If you have a defective (as Dawkins puts it) child, abort it, and try again.
            4. He also said that we should send p_rn DVD’s to all Muslims
            5. He said that everyone that Believes in God are having Mass hallucinations.

            So lets get that out of the way since you are saying the same things that Dawkins has said.

            Concerning the flood, there are three considerations
            1. If you have ever seen what a Tsunami can do, and what 40 days and nights of constant rain, and the time period in which the flood happened, it is easy to recognize how the flood came to be just from simple reasoning. If there were earthquakes (the Bible doesn’t mention them and yet we see what they can do) the generation of waves as high as 500 to 1000 feet high and water spouts opening because of the degradation of land masses, would flood everything.
            2. If God is God as described in the Bible (and he is) Do you think that you could possibly stop God from doing anything at all. If you were not given free choice, and God wanted to destroy all things related to you, do you think you would exist?
            3. If you look at the continents without water in between, scientists point out that they would fit together like a puzzle as a complete land mass. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that taking the Grand Canyon as an example the Grand Canyon was formed by water and erosion. Where do you think that water is today? How is it possible that there are signs in sediment today all over the world that represented within the layers of land. Even water has been shown to exist under the layers of deserts. How did that happen?

            You used the flood as an example of proof that God doesn’t exist, and yet the plausibility of the flood is real. Even by scientific method. Show me an example where it’s impossible for the flood to have happened. Easily you could also determine that the time element and land masses we know today, were not at all the same in Noah’s day. It’s also just as plausible to think that the flood was local. That it covered a massive amount of ground with water that would have eliminated life as we know it.

            Conclusion: You have not even shown me what “real science” is yet. If your going to discuss an issue, idea, or ideals that is fine. If your going to attack me personally, that is first a logical fallacy, and second this will end our conversation if you continue logical fallacies. You can be reasonable without being cruel in nature. If you can’t then there is no sense in continuing a discussion with you.

          • John M Stoecker

            who killed the children during passover?any one who believes in ghosts is hallucinating.rain for 40 days and fourty nites happens all the time in the tropics.duh,stopping god is easy just pray to your ghost.the grand canyon is still being carved out by the same source that did it millions of years ago..the colorado river .and no the example of the flood and your ghost was try to show how it cant be so…your creator drowned 100s of thousands innocent children all over your flat earth…how is that not evil..your god killed thousands of babies during passoever how is that not evil.your god aproves of rape and slavery how is that not evil//your satan has done none of the above just your god..so how its it not evil???and you truly need to get off your dawkins man crush..

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Why would any of this matter to you. How can you even argue the points you’re trying to argue. You don’t believe any of it. I believe what the Bible has to say. We are opposed. Believe what you want, but don’t justify you’re non belief to me. Again you’re argument is baseless since you don’t believe any of what you just said. Or, do you? If you do believe what you just said, then do you think you’re going to stop God from anything? No, you can’t. Why make the effort to explain something you cannot understand? I don’t understand how someone that says there is no God, then describes God in the negative can make any sense at all.

          • John M Stoecker

            1 are you telling me that babies are born evil??therefore god was a good and just spirit in murder of children in the passover massacre? For I will go through the land of Egypt in that night, and will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; and against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgments: I am the LORD..2your god see no issue with rape,infact according to your book the man [the rapists]only needs to throw some some coin at the fathers feet and the rape is good to go from its point of view.3 no sane person honestly and truly believes whats in the buy-bull.you just cherry pick on what rules to follow and which ones to obey,if mr dawkins considers this hallucination well so be it,now back to your ghost stories about the mythical flood..a earth quake caused a big wave in a deasert???really???so a quake hit italy and a wave rolled into palenstine .God decides to flood the world and start over, due to mankind’s sinfulness. However, God sees that a man named Noahwas righteous (because he walked with God) and blameless among the people. God instructs Noah to build an ark, and directs him to bring at least two of every animal inside the boat, along with his family. The flood comes and covers the world. After 40 days, Noah sends a raven to check whether the waters have subsided, then a dove; after exiting the boat, Noah offers a sacrifice to God, who smells “the sweet savour” and promises never to destroy the earth by water again – to stop god in the bible???well thats easy enough just pray,or give monies or both,its divine plan can be changed by saying some words,works all the time!!………im not sure how i attacked you personally???if you take offence of the facts i gave its a you issue not a me issue.its called cognitive dissonance….

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Yes, you are sure how you attacked me. You claim facts where there are no facts, just illustrations of something you don’t believe in. That is called a tactic. I’ve heard it all before. No I’m saying babies are innocent, heavenly beings that didn’t deserve what their parents did. Pharoah knew what he was doing just as you know what you’re doing. He didn’t listen because of his arrogance, and neither will you. The bigger point is this. Children have to suffer all of the time because of their parents decisions. That is what is sad. God did what he did for a reason. Christ came to establish a new Covenant between man and his father, since men sacrificed their own children, murdered them outright because of blood lines. Christ said, If you harm one of these little children that believe in me, it would be better that a milestone be thrown around your neck and be thrown in the sea. You’re argument is baseless. You simply can’t understand what you don’t believe in.

          • John M Stoecker

            children not only suffer through what their parents do butt also the priest who rape them..men of god raping children and the church protecting the pedophiles.. if babies and children are god gifts why must they suffer so under god loving hand???

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I’m not a priest and I don’t condone rape. I don’t consider someone that rapes someone a man/woman of God either. That doesn’t change who Christ is. He is none of the above things you have mentioned. Mankind does all kinds of unspeakable things, some in the name of science. So do you blast science because a scientist removes a brain from an ape and tries to transfer it to another ape, or a scientist that drills holes in other people’s heads or experiments on someone just to know what will happen? Generalizing about God doesn’t make God evil. Satan is the source of evil, not God.

          • John M Stoecker

            i find that your response to rape puzzling,god made no commandment against it,and as long as the rapists marries the woman all is fine,imagine that for a moment,think hard.your daughter is raped in your gods eye the rapists gets to marry your daughter and all is well??? youve already quoted isaiah 45-7 for me so you know that your god created evil..as for science,sure it can do some terrible things,there are many,butt drilling holes in the head is old school,the spainish inquisition used that method against scientist for decades…..

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            You could argue the same thing about atheism back in the days where Russia killed 21 million Christians as well. You see, mankind does all sorts of things, does it make it right as a Christian? No it doesn’t. Does it make the attrocities right for an atheist. No it doesn’t. The problem I have with your statements is that you believe in God in the negative. Is that a correct assumption? You’re making the same arguments that many that claim to be atheists make. Answer me this. Who did God rape? Who did Jesus rape? You seem to be making an argument against a culture, but then blame God for it. Ex: Then Haman was terrified before the king and queen. 7The king got up in a rage, left his wine and went out into the palace garden. But Haman, realizing that the king had already decided his fate, stayed behind to beg Queen Esther for his life.

            8Just as the king returned from the palace garden to the banquet hall, Haman was falling on the couch where Esther was reclining.

            The king exclaimed, “Will he even molest the queen while she is with me in the house?”

            As soon as the word left the king’s mouth, they covered Haman’s face. 9Then Harbona, one of the eunuchs attending the king, said, “A pole reaching to a height of fifty cubitsb stands by Haman’s house. He had it set up for Mordecai, who spoke up to help the king.”

            The king said, “Impale him on it!” 10So they impaled Haman on the pole he had set up for Mordecai. Then the king’s fury subsided.

            You see, the act of Rape ends in death. In the New Testament which Christians are bound to, rape was an offense for stoning. Or even worse abandonment of a man from the cities.

          • John M Stoecker

            a god gave 10 commandments and which number is rape? name in vain is up there fairly high but rape???? also you seem to be forgetting jesus said all the rules and regs that came before me are still valid,jesus wanted,demanded the old testament rules to be followed….,so your new testament babble isnt a valid point..so again ill ask,rape no big deal to your god and is easily forgiven yes???? and if not show me in the old testament where it states so..and be careful you dont take it out of context….

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            What is it with the rape thing. First it was babies now rape. You don’t know my God, how can I explain something you don’t understand, and why should I. Everything you’re commenting about is a lie and here is why. You have stated that the New Testament is babble and not to use it. Why not? You said rape is no big deal to my god. Which God is my God? I asked you a question which you have not answered yes. Did God, or Christ rape anyone? What you asked is a fallacy in and of itself. I quote: “rape no big deal to your god and is easily forgiven yes????” I already gave you the answer although the answer is meaningless. You don’t believe in any of it. So this whole discussion is irrelevant logically. If you don’t believe in any of it, why ask me a question that you won’t believe, even if I’m right. I will pray for you because again you are unaware of what your doing, or if you are aware of what you’re doing, then you’re just trying to offend me without even knowing me. Again that is not rational thinking, that is just irrelevancy. I will not use the Bible against you. I will not be against you. It doesn’t matter how irrelevant this discussion is. I care about you as a spiritual being. You have made your point already. Why do you continue? It doesn’t matter to me. I know there is a God and I know Christ. I will follow them, no matter what you say. Jesus predicted these things long before you existed, they are just coming true and you are one of 144 people that don’t believe in God I’ve had a conversation with. This guy should be right up your ally lol.

            I’ll give you an ex of one: Make no mistake: all our dreams, loves, opinions, and desires are figments of our primordial imagination. They are fleeting electrical signals that fire across our synapses for a moment in time. They served some purpose in the past. They got us here. That’s it. All human achievement and plans for the future are the result of some ancient, evolved brain and accompanying chemical reactions that once served a survival purpose. Ex: I’ll marry and nurture children because my genes demand reproduction, I’ll create because creativity served a survival advantage to my ancient ape ancestors, I’ll build cities and laws because this allowed my ape grandfather time and peace to reproduce and protect his genes. My only directive is to obey my genes. Eat, sleep, reproduce, die. That is our bible.

            We deride the Theists for having created myths and holy books. We imagine ourselves superior. But we too imagine there are reasons to obey laws, be polite, protect the weak etc. Rubbish. We are nurturing a new religion, one where we imagine that such conventions have any basis in reality. Have they allowed life to exist? Absolutely. But who cares? Outside of my greedy little gene’s need to reproduce, there is nothing in my world that stops me from killing you and reproducing with your wife. Only the fear that I might be incarcerated and thus be deprived of the opportunity to do the same with the next guy’s wife stops me. Some of my Atheist friends have fooled themselves into acting like the general population. They live in suburban homes, drive Toyota Camrys, attend school plays. But underneath they know the truth. They are a bag of DNA whose only purpose is to make more of themselves. So be nice if you want. Be involved, have polite conversations, be a model citizen. Just be aware that while technically an Atheist, you are an inferior one. You’re just a little bit less evolved, that’s all. When you are ready to join me, let me know, I’ll be reproducing with your wife.

            I know it’s not PC to speak so bluntly about the ramifications of our beliefs, but in our discussions with Theists we sometimes tip toe around what we really know to be factual. Maybe it’s time we Atheists were a little more truthful and let the chips fall where they may. At least that’s what my genes are telling me to say.”

          • John M Stoecker

            ok 1 more time,your god the 1 of david .created evil[[45-7 isaiah] rape is evil,no??? there are plenty of references in the buy bull for rape and the consequence which are not that severe.. your god of david whom created evil couldve made rape worthy of a commandment but choose not to..if you cannot see the fallacy in this stone age myth your cognitive dissonance is fairly severe .did god rape anyone ?? well yea virgin mary got a sperm in her some how!!!! did you not know jesus said do NOT DISREGARD the old testament??? you cant be that naive,

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I’ve read the Bible and I am beginning the think you are the one that doesn’t understand it.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil?

            No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13). “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33)-and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.

            Occasionally some-one will quote Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) and claim it proves God made evil as a part of His creation: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (emphasis added).

            But the New American Standard Bible gives the sense of Isaiah 45:6-7 more clearly: “There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.” In other words, God devises calamity as a judgment for the wicked. But in no sense is He the author of evil.

            Evil originates not from God but from the fallen creature. I agree with John Calvin, who wrote,

            . . . the Lord had declared that “everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good” [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]

            It is helpful, I think, to understand that sin is not itself a thing created. Sin is neither substance, being, spirit, nor matter. So it is technically not proper to think of sin as something that was created. Sin is simply alack of moral perfection in a fallen creature. Fallen creatures themselves bear full responsibility for their sin. And all evil in the universe emanates from the sins of fallen creatures.

            For example, Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world because of sin. Death, pain, disease, stress, exhaustion, calamity, and all the bad things that happen came as a result of the entrance of sin into the universe (see Genesis 3:14-24). All those evil effects of sin continue to work in the world and will be with us as long as sin is.

            First Corinthians 10:13 promises us that God will not permit a greater trial than we can bear. And James 1:13 tells us that God will not tempt us with evil.

            God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10).

            But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28).

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So God created Satan. God could be considered Satan’s parent. God is responsible for Satan’s “sins”. God is responsible for evil. Based on baby killing logic.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil?

            No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13). “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33)-and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.

            Occasionally someone will quote Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) and claim it proves God made evil as a part of His creation: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (emphasis added).

            But the New American Standard Bible gives the sense of Isaiah 45:6-7 more clearly: “There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.” In other words, God devises calamity as a judgment for the wicked. But in no sense is He the author of evil.

            Evil originates not from God but from the fallen creature. I agree with John Calvin, who wrote,

            . . . the Lord had declared that “everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good” [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]

            It is helpful, I think, to understand that sin is not itself a thing created. Sin is neither substance, being, spirit, nor matter. So it is technically not proper to think of sin as something that was created. Sin is simply alack of moral perfection in a fallen creature. Fallen creatures themselves bear full responsibility for their sin. And all evil in the universe emanates from the sins of fallen creatures.

            For example, Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world because of sin. Death, pain, disease, stress, exhaustion, calamity, and all the bad things that happen came as a result of the entrance of sin into the universe (see Genesis 3:14-24). All those evil effects of sin continue to work in the world and will be with us as long as sin is.

            First Corinthians 10:13 promises us that God will not permit a greater trial than we can bear. And James 1:13 tells us that God will not tempt us with evil.

            God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10).

            But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28). Know what you’re speaking of before speaking next time ok?

          • Jim H

            “For example, Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world because of sin.”

            Genesis 3:22 (NIV) says:

            And the LORD God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”
            Eating from the tree of life would have made man immortal, had God not prevented it. That means man must have been created mortal and would have eventually died if he didn’t eat of the fruit of the tree of life. Consequently, death must have been part of the world before man sinned.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            That was good. Thank you!!!

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Thus you have proven that not even Christians agree on their own god. It is whatever they want him to be. A man made creation.

          • Nofun

            Lies make baby Jesus cry.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Now what you state about the Passover is something to weigh in on. You do remember (or possibly not since you don’t believe in these things, or the Bible, but use it as a tactic as atheists always do) that Pharoah of Egypt hated the Israelites and killed them on a regular basis, even offering up their children and murd-ering the elderly so they could not have blood lines of families. For 400 years this went on until God had had enough. Pharoah by his own hand brought down the justice of God for his actions and the Israelites were freed because Pharoah though himself more powerful than God (hmm echoes of your tactics). The Bible by the way references the earth as round in the scriptures themselves. What do you think about that? The passover is celebrated because of God’s judgement against Egypt, and freedom of the Israelites from brutal slavery by the hand of one man that would not listen. (He was warned 8 times).

            Now that I’ve explained in context what you have tried to use as a tactic, where do you go now? Since you don’t believe in God at all, nor the Bible, how can you possibly understand any of it, much less a little of history, archeology, theology, or scholars who spend their entire lives in scientific study of the one book that has outlasted all other books from that time period. Recognize when you say innocent, it’s best that you comprehend that God did not want to do this. Pharoah was warned that by what he did, that would be the nature by which he would be destroyed. It’s the same today. You have the choice not to believe in God, as I have the choice to believe in God. Make your choice wisely is my suggestion.

          • John M Stoecker

            you really ought to read your book of fables.didnt the pharoh want to ley moses people go then your god harden the pharohs heart?? and i love to see where the earth is round in the buy-bull,the church spent centuries denying such a claim as the one you profess…and by the way your god is vengeful??so it was justified during passover for your god to commit such an evil act to kill children???great moral compass

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            No Pharoah did not want to let the people go. Since you insist on using the Bible as a tactic, consider that Satan is evil incarnate, but how would you know that? How can you use the Bible to explain anything. You keep explaining what is in the Bible as if you understand its context. You don’t clearly.

          • John M Stoecker

            CONTEXT???? so your god isnt evil ..drowning babies in a flood as told in the buybull???killing thousads of 1st born during passover is out of context??? this is the beauty of holding a discussion with ghost whisperer.the facts just dont matter..even when you use the book of fables to prove a point that is SUPPOSE to be a historical document you can just brush it aside and justify the horrific deeds??? so let me get this straight all the killing of babies in the bible is justified cause it was gods choice?????lunacy

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Is the American Sniper evil because he shot a boy and his mother to save his platoon?

          • John M Stoecker

            war is hell,could he be charged with a war crime??doubtful,evil no,evil ig god ause he created it,along with his actions ofcourse.the slaughter of babies during passover was its[his] idea.drowning thousands of children during the mythical flood his doing.a soldier doing his job???if thats your moral equivalent you need better debating skills

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I don’t have debating skills. There is relevance to both issues. God is the ultimate justice. Satan is the ultimate evil. They are not the same. Sin is a construct of men, not God. You state mythical flood (it didn’t happen as far as you believe) and then you blame God for it, although it didn’t happen. That makes absolutely no sense at all. But it’s ok in your eyes for a man to do it to protect his people. The same is true of God. But then again you do, or don’t believe in God. If you don’t then you’re entire argument is mute without reason. If you do believe in God then you’re putting yourself in the same situation that Pharoah put himself into. Which is it. Do you believe in God, so that you can call him evil, or do you not believe in God, and use your argument as a tactic against those that do believe in God? Either way you’re putting yourself into a bad situation. I’m not sure why any human being would be so cruel against those that belong to Christ, but again even during his time people existed that hated him, and thus he told us we would be hated for believing in him. I’m ok with that. I have the joy and peace that Jesus promises to those who believe. I worry about you. Not because of who you are, but because of what you say. Offending me is ok with me. Offending God, is not ok with me. So my prayer is this: I pray that God will forgive us all of our sinful nature, and I pray for you that you be forgiven through the mercy and grace of Jesus, because you don’t know what you’re doing. You really don’t. I suppose that is what breaks my heart. You cannot share love, because of your anger toward me, God, and all those that believe in God. You believe a lie as Satan is a deceiver of men. But I’m sure you will justify what you’re saying because you don’t believe in God or Satan. So, at the end of the day you will feel proud of yourself at the cost of others. That is disturbing and is a disturbing trend. Although you won’t consider anything I say, there will come a time when you will remember what I said here today to you. I wish you the best. Our conversation is over. I won’t be responding to you again. Maybe that is best for both of us.

          • John M Stoecker

            1;dont pray 4 me im fine pray for a god to stop raping children

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            If what you believe is so, then why were you spared?

          • John M Stoecker

            spared from what???? ive been baptized and confirmed in the catholic church,my spot is all ready reserved..so spared from what??

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Atheists don’t believe in god, but the Bible is a very real work of fiction and teaches stories that can motivate people to do very evil things.

            If God existed, based on the Bible he’d be evil. Since he doesn’t exist, its the Bibles false teachings that are evil.

            Morality is subjective. Even if you get it from the Bible, it is still someone else’s subjective morality.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil?

            No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13). “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33)-and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.

            Occasionally someone will quote Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) and claim it proves God made evil as a part of His creation: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (emphasis added).

            But the New American Standard Bible gives the sense of Isaiah 45:6-7 more clearly: “There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.” In other words, God devises calamity as a judgment for the wicked. But in no sense is He the author of evil.

            Evil originates not from God but from the fallen creature. I agree with John Calvin, who wrote,

            . . . the Lord had declared that “everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good” [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]

            It is helpful, I think, to understand that sin is not itself a thing created. Sin is neither substance, being, spirit, nor matter. So it is technically not proper to think of sin as something that was created. Sin is simply alack of moral perfection in a fallen creature. Fallen creatures themselves bear full responsibility for their sin. And all evil in the universe emanates from the sins of fallen creatures.

            For example, Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world because of sin. Death, pain, disease, stress, exhaustion, calamity, and all the bad things that happen came as a result of the entrance of sin into the universe (see Genesis 3:14-24). All those evil effects of sin continue to work in the world and will be with us as long as sin is.

            First Corinthians 10:13 promises us that God will not permit a greater trial than we can bear. And James 1:13 tells us that God will not tempt us with evil.

            God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10).

            But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28). No God is not evil.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So did God create Satan?

          • Nofun

            God Will Kill Children
            The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered.” O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don’t give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, “All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit.
            And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children.”
            (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

            Kill Men, Women, and Children
            “Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, “Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple.” So they began by killing the seventy leaders. “Defile the Temple!” the LORD commanded. “Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!” So they went throughout the city and did as they were told.” (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

            God Kills all the First Born of Egypt
            And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died.
            (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

            God Will Kill the Children of Sinners
            If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

            More Rape and Baby Killing
            Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I’m going to give you an example: Maybe you can make a comparison. Remember the American Sniper, by most accounts considered a hero. He sh-t and killed a young boy and his mother. Why did he do that, how could someone sh_ot an innocent child. The reason was clear enough, just as the reason for God’s judgement. When you look at what God had to do, how many lives were spared because God warned the people over and over again, and his own creation would not listen. Instead they became more and more evil. It wasn’t God that was evil, it was what mankind continues to do that is evil. You keep blaming God, how does Satan fit into your blame game?

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            If God is sovereign, is He responsible for evil?

            No. Scripture says that when God finished His creation, He saw everything and declared it “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Many Scriptures affirm that God is not the author of evil: “God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone” (James 1:13). “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). “God is not the author of confusion” (1 Corinthians 14:33)-and if that is true, He cannot in any way be the author of evil.

            Occasionally someone will quote Isaiah 45:7 (KJV) and claim it proves God made evil as a part of His creation: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things” (emphasis added).

            But the New American Standard Bible gives the sense of Isaiah 45:6-7 more clearly: “There is no one besides Me. I am the Lord, and there is no other, the One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity; I am the Lord who does all these.” In other words, God devises calamity as a judgment for the wicked. But in no sense is He the author of evil.

            Evil originates not from God but from the fallen creature. I agree with John Calvin, who wrote,

            . . . the Lord had declared that “everything that he had made . . . was exceedingly good” [Gen. 1:31]. Whence, then comes this wickedness to man, that he should fall away from his God? Lest we should think it comes from creation, God had put His stamp of approval on what had come forth from himself. By his own evil intention, then, man corrupted the pure nature he had received from the Lord; and by his fall drew all his posterity with him into destruction. Accordingly, we should contemplate the evident cause of condemnation in the corrupt nature of humanity-which is closer to us-rather than seek a hidden and utterly incomprehensible cause in God’s predestination. [Institutes, 3:23:8]

            It is helpful, I think, to understand that sin is not itself a thing created. Sin is neither substance, being, spirit, nor matter. So it is technically not proper to think of sin as something that was created. Sin is simply alack of moral perfection in a fallen creature. Fallen creatures themselves bear full responsibility for their sin. And all evil in the universe emanates from the sins of fallen creatures.

            For example, Romans 5:12 says that death entered the world because of sin. Death, pain, disease, stress, exhaustion, calamity, and all the bad things that happen came as a result of the entrance of sin into the universe (see Genesis 3:14-24). All those evil effects of sin continue to work in the world and will be with us as long as sin is.

            First Corinthians 10:13 promises us that God will not permit a greater trial than we can bear. And James 1:13 tells us that God will not tempt us with evil.

            God is certainly sovereign over evil. There’s a sense in which it is proper even to say that evil is part of His eternal decree. He planned for it. It did not take Him by surprise. It is not an interruption of His eternal plan. He declared the end from the beginning, and He is still working all things for His good pleasure (Isaiah 46:9-10).

            But God’s role with regard to evil is never as its author. He simply permits evil agents to work, then overrules evil for His own wise and holy ends. Ultimately He is able to make all things-including all the fruits of all the evil of all time-work together for a greater good (Romans 8:28).

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Wow. You are threat to humanity. Anyone who reads that and thinks that it is good because God deemed it so is dangerous, because if is thought to have been done once it can be taught to be so again. Its only a matter of time till some charismatic, whack job comes along and convinces you and others like you that it is Gods will to start raping and killing people. You scare me.

          • John M Stoecker

            dawkins gone mad>>>>let me guess it was written by the multi millionaire KEN hamm,,or another mega rich preacher

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            LOL actually it was written by an atheist lol.

          • John M Stoecker

            i thought yu wished to speak of article???

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I had to correct you, since you were wrong on your statement. Sorry.

          • John M Stoecker

            speak about the article…ok,,the author of the article has been shown to be a liar,not peer reviewed and works for a organization that promotes his phd as some sort of validation….when you can show that some sort of nationally accredited organization of peer reviewed science will stand behind the authors work ,,,it nothing but propaganda and you buy into it for your own self rightous reason..where as if the author could PROVE his argument as FACT lots of people would owe him a apology and he would become the MOST INTERESTING MAN IN THE WORLD.not

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            LOL, well hmm lets see what peer reviewed scientists from Oxford be of interest, the also believe in God. Oh don’t forget about the 40% of scientists that believe in God, we wouldn’t want to do that would we. Show me some evidence that the author of this article has been shown to be a liar. I’m sure that will be interesting fader.

          • John M Stoecker

            On January 14, Clark herself responded in an article titled “Exclusive ‘News’—I’m dead to Stephen Colbert”.[49] She furthered the rise of “truthiness” in published English in conceding, “Truthiness be told, I never had seen The Colbert Report until my name graced its ‘Dead to Me’ board this week… But I will say that I watched Colbert’s show for the first time…It was funny. And that’s not just truthy. That’s a fact.”

          • John M Stoecker

            i would love too see where 40% of oxford believe in ghosts

          • oregon_man

            “peer-reviewed” “from Oxford” mean nothing. But we know that is all you’ve got. It could be a peer reviewed paper on basket weaving.

        • John M Stoecker

          i wonder what your take would be that instead of christian doctrine being taught in schools it was islam??they got a book of fables too..supported by 100s millions of people around the globe as fact and are willing to die for their belief…seems like a fairly strong argument instead of the [60% of americans believe]

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            Do I have to go through this again and again and again, hmmmmm, no I don’t lol

          • oregon_man

            They would have a fit if Islam or any other religion was taught. Key to every religion is their god is the only real god and everyone else is wrong. This is why we continue to have wars. Religion is a product of tribalism. Once vital to human survival, now the detriment to a global society.

    • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

      Twaddle.

      When Texas implements this travesty it will go through the courts, probably all the way to the US Supreme Court, costing a fortune paid by the public all the way. Even with the current conservative bench, this nonsense will inevitably be struck down (as usual) and all the books and teaching standards will need to be rewritten, printed and redistributed – again – again at huge cost to the people of the state. The children prejuidiced by having their thinking damaged by being taught fantasy as science will be ignored, and Texas will continue to spend more money on jails than education, apparently seeing it as a better or at least investment.

      And knowing all this, the delusional religious psychotics advocating this débâcle will try to claim that they stand for fiscal responsibility. Everyone else will know they stand for insanity.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        Not my decision just the fact that schools in Texas are going to do it. I think its a fair way to teach and not force either, but to give a picture of both so students can make an informed decision on which to base their fundamental science approach. Stating “delusional religious psychotics” is irrelevant here. It becomes your opinion. That has nothing to do with science or religion, or ID.

      • oregon_man

        You’re right. They are all right wingers who always vote Republican and want welfare for the wealthy, cut services to the poor.

    • oregon_man

      Science is not the result of polls or popular opinion, but it is frightening that yoou claim 60% don’t believe in evolution. There is NO real peer-reviewed science that supports intelligent design, sorry you’re dreaming.

    • Jim H

      You have your numbers backwards. If you check PRRI or gallop polls about 60% support evolution.

      • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

        Even if that is so, then 40% would not. After being taught Evolution and being mandatory at that. I’ll look up the article again, and respond back.

        • Jim H

          I’m pretty confident you won’t find a reputable poll that says 60% of the population doesn’t support evolution.
          Additionally, you comment that even if 40% didn’t support it, that would be a lot because that 40% would have been mandatorily taught evolution. I think you greatly exaggerate how enthusiastically and thoroughly high school educators teach evolution. Just Google “teachers reluctant to teach evolution” and you will find loads of hits.
          It seems high school teachers are afraid of the controversy and try to avoid a thorough treatment of evolution, That results in students that are not nearly as indoctrinated as you try to imply.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            I did but I can’t post the link. You can find it through Yahoo however. I agree that teachers should be reluctant to teach evolution. It’s not the controversy its the relativity of neo-darwinism which has been mandatory in schools. If you want real equality in education, there should be a course on ID even if you don’t agree with it. That way a student can make up his/her own mind as to the principles of either.

          • Jim H

            If it is a legitimate poll you should be able to find a link to it. I did not say teachers should be reluctant to teach evolutionary, only that they are, largely no doubt because they want to avoid raising the ire of people like yourself. I see that as a lack of courage and an incomplete incompetent teaching of science.

            I personally don’t think ID should be taught in public schools at all. I would say the same about teaching the Earth was flat or egocentricity. If it is taught, it should not be taught as science, because it isn’t.

            ID proponents have failed to follow the procedures of scientific discourse. They have failed to submit work to the scientific community that withstands scrutiny.
            They have not published a properly peer-reviewed article supporting ID in a scientific journal, and have failed to publish peer-reviewed research or data supporting ID. (See Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, cv 2688 (December 20, 2005). , 4. Whether ID is Science, p. 87.)

            Michael Behe was the first witness for the defense in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Behe is professor of biochemistry at Lehigh University in Pennsylvania, and a leading intelligent design proponent who coined the term irreducible complexity and set out the idea in his book Darwin’s Black Box

            On cross-examination, in, Professor Behe admitted that: “There are no peer reviewed articles by anyone advocating for intelligent design supported by pertinent experiments or calculations which provide detailed rigorous accounts of how intelligent design of any biological system occurred.”

            Scientists such as Joan Roughgarden and Lynn Margulis have challenged certain Darwinist theories and offered explanations of their own and despite this they “have not been persecuted, shunned, fired or even expelled. Why? Because they are doing science, not religion.

            Intelligent design, by appealing to a supernatural agent, directly conflicts with the principles of science, which limit its inquiries to empirical, observable and ultimately testable data and which require explanations to be based on empirical evidence.

            It is hard for me to see why we would want real equality in education, if one of the alternative views has no more science behind it than flat Earth geology or geocentric cosmology.
            Should we teach those subjects as part of the course where we cover ID, even though no one agrees with them. If we need more content we could include ideas like spontaneous generation, mental illness being caused by demons, etc., so the student can make up his/her own mind as to the principles of all of them.

          • Dream Theater Moment of Reason

            That was a bit long, so I’ll just say ok to this one.

  • Nathan Z Solomon

    Amazing that “Evolution is as much a fact as gravity.” Recently it was found that gravity is not a constant in the Universe. It fluctuates. There are a number of universal constants that sit on the razors edge. You can add as much time or as many universes as you want. For the Universe to be celebrated so accurately is literally impossible in the “change” game that’s setup by Evolution. If schools want to teach evolution, let them. But don’t tell me it’s a fact. It isn’t.

    • TheSootyOne

      Step off a 40 story building and let me know how those fluctuations help you out in your argument against facts.

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        Really? How intelligent! At least Rebus is providing alternative information.

      • Chris Ray

        You could show us or I could use a parachute? The problem with throwing an argument like ..”why dont you…..” , is that you argue your opinion but are misunderstanding the constraints within the statement made, if something is not constant throughout the whole universe, then you cant use it as a universal argument, that is one which is unquestionable. Facts are unquestionable. Saying gravity is a fact, well yes on earth but is it the same throughout the universe? If its not, then even gravity is questionable and astrong argument especially when it comes to someone getting discipline action and losing their job.

        • David

          Yes, Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation is the same throughout the universe. The resulting force changes depending on the masses involved, but that’s a key part of the law. I would definitely want a physics teacher fired if they were asserting otherwise, or claimed that scientific debate existed on the matter, when none does.

        • TheSootyOne

          Sorry, I should have explained it like the audience were a 5 year old: the original poster was using fluctuations as a reason to discount gravity as a fact. I could get into gravitational fluctuations as a result of mass and velocity but I have more important things to today.

          The problem with people arguing that ‘it’s just a theory!’ is that they don’t have a clue in a closet full of clues what theory is.

    • Rebus Caneebus

      If schools want to teach evolution, let them. But don’t tell me it’s a fact. It isn’t.
      It’s been observed many times, and can be repeated in the lab.
      In case CNN doesn’t allow my link, just google for “E. coli long-term evolution experiment”

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        How many humans evolved from that experiment? I believe what has been shown is adaptation. Were any E.coli created by the formation of Amino-acids? No! The E.coli were already introduced into the “system”. But show me an experiment where there were simply C, N, O, H and other elements and show me how that formed into an E.coli and you might have something. Right now, after reading the article you suggested, all you have is adaptation/mutation as stated by Lenski. That happens all the time. It’s what causes cancer in us. That’s not evolution, unless you believe that cancer causes evolution.

        • Rebus Caneebus

          How many humans evolved from that experiment?

          None. Thanks for showing your total ignorance and dishonesty when it comes to the sciences like evolution.

          But show me an experiment where there were simply C, N, O, H and other elements and show me how that formed into an E.coli and you might have something.

          That’s not evolution. If you read what it actually is, you might get a clue and not make such stupid remarks in the future.

          Right now, after reading the article you suggested, all you have is adaptation/mutation as stated by Lenski.

          What we have is evolution. You just don’t know what it is.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            You’re no longer discussing. You’re insulting.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            You’re no longer discussing. You’re insulting.

            I’m doing both, because you insist on talking about evolution while demonstrating you don’t even know what it is.

          • Daniel Nshk Himmelmoe

            you absolutely do not know what evolution is, he is not insulting you, he is stating a fact. Anyone with proper knowledge og the process of evolution wouldn’t be saying any of the things you’ve just said. It’s very obvious.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Nor do I wish to find out what Evolution is. I have to pre-requisites in my world view…which is the basis upon which my logic comes from. 1) God exists (YHWH, Elohim, etc). 2) He provided inspiration for books to be written assembled as “The Bible”. Anyone with proper knowledge of the Bible would know that God created the heavens and the Earth…that the Earth is the oldest planet in the Universe because it was created first.

            You are showing your total ignorance and dishonesty when it comes to the Bible.

            Remember, I’m not insulting you.

            Also realize what you’re defending. You’re saying that when you die, that’s it. End of story. The only value you have on this planet is to take up resources and to leave some sort of legacy…if you do so. Legacy being peer-accepted documents, monuments, children, etc. So all the work you’ve done. All the hope you’ve had. All the pain you’ve overcome is worth…nothing in the end because you’re dead….D.E.A.D…dead. This is what you’re defending. You’re defending that we, as humans, are no more important than an amoeba. We are no more important that the animals that roam the world. Kill or be killed. Survival of the fittest. When a child with a birth defect is born, we should just kill it because it’s not fit. This is what you’re defending. There is no good, no evil, no moral values because we’re all just evolution…evolved beings going somewhere we know not.

            Me…I believe in the Bible. I have worth into eternity. I have value. I have morals. I know that evil exists and causes pain. I know that good overcomes evil. I care for the poor child who is not “fit” to live. I care for the men and women who are a drain on society because they’ve lived their lives and are in nursing homes…yes I have my CNA/GNA. Whereas you would just recommend killing them. They are of no positive value to society. They are a drain.

            Go ahead now. Defend death. Defend the end of your existence. Defend humanity as a bunch of nothing-gained animals. Defend evolution. Looking forward to your response.

          • Daniel Nshk Himmelmoe

            wow, you actually admit that you have your fingers in your ears. You don’t want to know what evolution is because you are afraid of dying? My suggestion is that if you don’t know, AND if you’re unwilling to learn, you should not open your mouth when evolution is the topic.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Actually I’m looking forward to dying. For me, dying is not the end of my existence. It’s not the end of my life. I start a new one. Whether you believe that or not is immaterial. I have hope. I have peace and I have and believe that God loves me. You have none of that. You may feel you’re being realistic, stoic, etc. But at the end of the day, you have nothing. You are nothing because you come from a random convergence. You, specifically, Daniel, under Evolution, are just a random accident. You cannot assert under any pretense that the Universe has any intelligence. Otherwise, you’ve just admitted in a God. You are just star-stuff, a more intelligent form of amoeba. That’s all you are. You’re a genetic aberration, a mutation that happens to be alive.

            Now knowing this, what is your purpose in life? What do you do? Are you here to make the world a better place? Why? It’s called Natural Selection for a reason. You’re here to prove that you’re better than the previous Neanderthal. You’re here to kill or be killed. It’s really that simple.

            Love is just a physiological response that accidentally came about so that you could reproduce. Truth has no real meaning because it’s all about survival. The only real way, under these circumstances, to “win” is to obtain and maintain control over all those around you. Paranoia reigns supreme! Natural selection is an integral part of Evolution, just as mutation and genetic aberration that accidentally created you.

            But even if, even if, you don’t want to consider all that, let’s take you back to the biggest bang of all…the creation of all multi-verses. I’m giving you everything. I’m not going to ask how all that occurred. I’m just going to pretend that it did. Just like if I took a random number generator and let it sit there for eternity that eventually, one day, the entire Shakespeare library would be created in order, from start to finish using 1’s and 0’s and in 8-bit byte or if you prefer Unicode. Let that sink in. Monkeys on a keyboard, etc. But take that one multi-verse (Universe) and realize that we’re in it. There are, according to the latest “science” 100 billion planets that exist in the Goldilocks ring (you do know what that is right?). Then there are currently over 500 Billion Galaxies…roughly speaking. That means that there are current 5 * 10^22 habitable planets in this Universe. We currently only know of 1 that has life that creates technology (not just tools – i.e apes)…that would be humans. Therefore, the currently known probability of a planet that would produce life that can create technology is 1/5*10^22.

            The Powerball lottery chance of winning the big prize is 1/175000000. That type of probability exists when lightning strikes a person 2 times or a shark bites them and they get hit by lightning…not all the same time. What do you think of the probability of 1/5*10^22? I’d call that a statistical improbability.

            Daniel, you can believe whatever you want. But from my knowledgable point of view, the probability of your existence under the “science” of evolution is impossible.

            This, Daniel, is a Christian publication about how Evolution is being the only possible source of truth for a public school system. It is NOT solely a discussion on Evolution. Read the article again.

          • Nofun

            That is a perfect demonstration of how the belief in the afterlife devalues your real life. It is just some place to mark time in briefly before your much better and infinitely longer afterlife begins.

            Everything do and pretend to be to get into this non-existent afterlife is time spent not living your real life. The afterlife thus consumes your real life. This is the only life get fella and time is running out don’t waste it on this nonsense. Anyone that tells you you can sneak around your own death into an afterlife is lying to you.

          • Daniel Nshk Himmelmoe

            I can understand your believes regarding your own mortality. Dying sucks if you don’t believe there is anything after it. So I understand why people resort to believing in fairy tales. Don’t get me wrong, you are entitled to do so.

            But when you say you do not care if evolution has happened, because it goes against your prerequisites, I have to strongly urge you to shut the fuck up and step away from the debate.

            That is the most dishonest approach you can have.

            We NEED evolution as a part of our science curriculum, nothing in biology makes sense without evolution. I don’t care if it makes religious people uncomfortable, a fact is a fact, and distorting it for religious reasons is a recipe for disaster.

            if we allow religious censorship in our science classes, we will return to the dark ages.

            It makes me sad that you have so little interest in learning about evolution, because you parrot all the common misconceptions. the “it’s to improbable, it’s just an accident etc etc.” If you had any intellectual honesty, and interest, you would learn pretty quickly why non of those things are true.

            You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what evolution is, and it’s your own fault. As you don’t care if it’s true.

            Which answer can one give to someone who does not want to hear the answer?

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            My belief in God has nothing to do with my fear of death, itself. It has to do with my association with God. I am connected to Him and He to me. This is a relationship…not a act of desperation. Too bad you don’t see that. If you believe that God is a fairy tale, that is your prerogative.

            Evolution (the abiogenesis variety) hasn’t happened…it never will happen. You can’t prove that it has. We don’t need evolution. You may need it…but I do not. If you’re need for evolution is so great, perhaps it’s a God stand-in?

            You could say that Mother Nature has been so good to us. You could say, all hail the Universe for creating us…but in the end, if you anthropomorphize the Earth or the Universe, then you negate randomness and you insert a god. Just a different god. Again, your prerogative.

            I have 2 precepts upon which all my life and worldview are based. I will readily admit that I am not open-minded…nor do I wish to be as a result of 99.9999999…% of the population is supposed to be. These 2 precepts are:
            1) God exists
            2) God inspired men to write a book or books and they are currently assembled as the Bible.

            I know of people who believe that Evolution is a path God used to create people (i.e it wasn’t a random act…it was an act of God). Whatever viewpoint people take is fine with me. So don’t look for my approval and I, in turn, won’t care about your disapproval. I am my own person…with an inalienable right to choose what I believe…and I choose the 2 precepts above.

            Isn’t it interesting that some Christ-followers try to proselytize and I know you hate that…and here you are trying to do the same…Evolution-proselytizer. Allow me to make my choice. I, in turn, allow you to make yours.

            So I tell you what, when you die and nothing happens, then be dead or happy or whatever….because you’re dead. If I die and nothing happens, I will be dead (if Evolution) is correct. Interesting thing is that it doesn’t matter whether I believe in Evolution or not…if it’s true then I’m dead either way. So what in the world does it matter to you what I believe? If Evolution is the truth, let it stand on it’s own merits and stop trying to push it…just as I don’t try to convince you that God is real. God can defend Himself. That’s not my place.

            However, if when you die, you find yourself still existing in another form…then I think you have a problem…a problem that it’s too late to resolve. For me, if I die as a Christ-follower, then I believe that I will be going to Heaven. So if nothing else, I’ve hedged my bet. If I die and Evolution is true, then nothing will happen. But if I die and God exists and I choose to trust in Him, then He has written my name in the Lamb’s book of Life and all is well for me.

            But lets take your worldview that a-biogentic Evolution is real. Why do you care that Christians are being killed? What does it matter to you? What does it matter that Freddie Gray died? He died because he couldn’t exist in society? What’s one more death among Evolutionists. Society is just a collection of people who are together for their common good…but if the good is no longer there, then why bother with society? By the way, what is good, to you? Is it a measure of success or a measure of prosperity or a measure of longevity? What? Define good and bad for me under your Evolution-philosophy.

            See…ultimately your belief has a ramification to you and society. If science is your God, then so be it. But that, too, has a ramification (i.e. all that is not proven is a lie). But don’t forget to turn that on your precious Evolution. Make sure, to you, it’s not a lie.

          • Daniel Nshk Himmelmoe

            Evolution is real, we are a result of that process, and it’s still going on all around us right now. You readily admit that you have your fingers in your ears.

            There is nothing to say to you, is there?

            Empathy and love and compassion is a part of human evolution, why would I not care about those around me just because I accept that evolution is real? Like I said, if you knew anything about how we evolved, you wouldn’t have asked that question

            “Isn’t it interesting that some Christ-followers try to proselytize and I
            know you hate that…and here you are trying to do the
            same…Evolution-proselytizer. Allow me to make my choice. I, in turn,
            allow you to make yours.”

            To quote one of my favorites:

            “The good thing about science is that it’s true whether or not you believe in it.”

            The thing is that we need to keep pseudo-science like creationism out of the schools because it’s detrimental to the child’s education. They should learn about religion too, off course, but when it comes to science, let science be science, and religion be religion.

            I’m not trying to proselytize, I’m speaking out against the spreading of creationism, which has been deemed NOT science. It’s not even a coherent idea.

            All in all. your arguments are all emotionally based, as if reality would change according to what would feel better. If you think accepting evolution makes society worse, it still doesn’t affect the veracity of the theory one bit.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Just FYI: I will be bowing out of this discussion.

            I am now nor would I attempt to proselytize. That’s the point I’m trying to make. Don’t proselytize science as the only answer. Otherwise, you’ll end up with children growing up to be scientists and no one will be artists or philosophers, etc. Just a suggestion.

            I will certainly allow you to make your choice. Good for you! That’s all I was hoping for. Make a choice and go. You and I will both have ramifications as a result of our choices, but just make one and go.

            Allow me to leave you with one further thought:

            Matter and consciousness are what make up our reality.

            Max Plank: I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as a derivative of consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing postulates consciousness.

            Consider this: What happens when your conscious is so bound by science that it can’t go further…can’t see beyond…is your reality better or worse?

            Take care.

          • Nofun

            Evidence of this god existing please?

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            All of you have said the same thing: Evolution is based on science. It is up to you who make that claim to do the following: prove it, replicate it (many times)…the whole process…not just pieces of it.

            I have never said, God is science…God is provable. So I have no such burden as to provide evidence.

            But don’t worry, I will sum it all up shortly.

          • oregon_man

            Yes you’ll sum it up because you know you’ve lost and are about to bail out. No God is provable, nor is there any credible evidence. People won’t care you choose to believe in fairy tales, just don’t attack science.

          • oregon_man

            “Nor do I wish to find out what Evolution is.” Now you have confessed. Therefore you should refrain from debates on evolution and stick to your bible and your imaginary friend.

          • oregon_man

            That comes from severe frustration that religious use variations of the same flawed argument over and over. They demand someone change a mouse into an elephant to prove evolution. Creationists admit to “micro-evolution”. All evolution is is many instances of micro-evolution (adaptation) happening over a very long span of time.

        • Nofun

          Get an actual education before discussing the issue.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I don’t deal with insults!

          • Nofun

            … or education.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Read my posts. I assure you that I have enough knowledge to know 2 things 1) God exists 2) Evolution does not. I have proven it time and time again. I have broken Evolution. It is an untenable position. But you go head. Take another shot.

          • oregon_man

            You haven’t proven anything except that your religion is thoroughly engraved in your brain, and that you have rationalized ridiculous fallacies so you think you are right.

          • Nofun

            How do you know god exists? What evidence do you have?

          • Bluesman1950

            Wow, I missed the news broadcasts telling us that God had finally been proved. When did you get your Nobel Prize?

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Proved…no. God has not been proved. I said, “God exists”. God cannot be proven. But as I said, “I have enough knowledge to know 2 things 1) God exists 2) Evolution does not.” Read what I said, otherwise you’re not discussing…you’re imagining, hoping, dreaming, etc.

          • Bluesman1950

            I have read it. You said “1)God exists 2) Evolution does not. I have proved it time and time again.”

            You assume that God exists. Written and partial accounts of the death and alleged resurrection of Jesus are not actually the conclusive proof that you believe them to be. Trying to reverse the burden of proof is a tired theist ploy which does you little credit.

            Alleging that you have conclusively refuted evolution “time and time again”, or even once is just further fantasy.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            So that you understand that I’m in the a place that is positive for my stance with God…not to proselytize…Heb 11:1-2 The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see. The act of faith is what distinguished our ancestors, set them above the crowd.
            3 By faith, we see the world called into existence by God’s word, what we see created by what we don’t see.

            My absolute assurance that God exists is based on faith and that’s how God wants it.

            Unfortunately, as I’ve told many and many have told me, Evolution is based on science. Science has a very strict protocol. Cold fusion, I will use again, is not science because it cannot be replicated…from start to finish. If the burden of science has kept cold fusion, which is so very desired by so many people from being scientific fact, then how much more should Evolution be kept from being scientific fact. Remember, this is your burden. You and all those who claim Evolution as science, must follow protocol, must show that Evolution can be replicated…start-to-finish.

            Tell me…how many times has the entire process of Evolution been replicated…start-to-finish. That would be 0. I don’t care how many times a certain piece is in place or a certain probability exists. The WHOLE process must be replicated…start-to-finish. Since that number is 0…guess what?

            But allow me to set the nail in the coffin…so to speak…. In order for any science to be true science, you must know exactly what the state of the Earth was during Evolution. It isn’t sufficient that you are able to replicate life or that the replicated life turns into a human. You must prove (scientifically) what the exact state of the Earth was during this Evolution and show (explicitly) how it impacted the creation of life that went from 0 life to humans. Unfortunately, you cannot…because no one knows (i.e. documented) what life was like.

            Here’s another: Let’s take the possibility that a meteor came down with organic molecules intact. This again, is not science simply because I’m postulating (as so many do) that organic matter COULD have come from other places in the Universe. You can’t postulate under science. If you do, then it’s not science. But hypothesize that a meteor did come down with organic matter, as part of the burden of science you must show where and how those organic molecules were constructed…start-to-finish, then show how the impact on the earth and the exact point created the environment for life to both begin and evolve into a human being. START-TO-FINISH.

            Unfortunately for you, I did not choose the criteria upon which Evolution should be measured. You and all those who believe in evolution tout science. So the burden (the scientific burden) is on you to prove.

            It is not on me to prove God. I did not say I could prove God…nor, according to the Bible, does He want to be proved…as I’ve show.

            I hope this helps you on your journey.

          • Bluesman1950

            It certainly allows me to carry on living unburdened by the ludicrous baggage of gods.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            No I don’t. I choose! I choose who I believe and who I do not believe!

            I’m glad that’s sufficient for you. We all have to look for truth. If science is your truth, then by all means stick to it.

            I’m so glad I could help.

          • Nofun

            No evidence = It doesn’t exist.

      • John_33

        At the end of the day, it’s still E. coli. Christians aren’t disputing that E. coli can adapt, we are disputing that 2 billion years from now the descendants of that E. coli will be another scientist in the lab.

        • Rebus Caneebus

          At the end of the day, it’s still E. coli.

          And one strain evolved the ability to digest citrate, something the other strains, and the earlier strain they all came from, cannot.

          That’s evolution. I’m not responsible for your inability to distinguish between “evolution” and “speciation”.

          • John_33

            So? Organisms are incredible at adapting, but it doesn’t prove that it will turn into anything given enough time. You’re going to need a lot more than that to prove the theory of evolution.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Organisms are incredible at adapting, but it doesn’t prove that it will turn into anything given enough time.

            It’s a reproducible experiment that demonstrates evolution.

            You’re going to need a lot more than that to prove the theory of evolution.

            Theories are never “proven”. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

          • John_33

            It’s a reproducible experiment that demonstrates evolution.

            No, it’s a reproducible experiment that demonstrates that E. coli can adapt. It doesn’t demonstrate anything beyond that. Assuming it does is just that — an assumption.

            Theories are never “proven”. You simply don’t know what you’re talking about.

            I was merely using laymen’s terminology. My point is that the evidence you presented is wholly inadequate.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            No, it’s a reproducible experiment that demonstrates that E. coli can adapt.

            Via evolution. Actual scientists call it “evolution”, you can’t make up your own definition to lie and say it isn’t evolution, it really is.

            It doesn’t demonstrate anything beyond that.

            It’s a change in allele frequency over time.

            My point is that the evidence you presented is wholly inadequate.

            Nonsense. You simply don’t know what “evolution” means.

          • John_33

            Via evolution. Actual scientists call it “evolution”, you can’t make up your own definition to lie and say it isn’t evolution, it really is.

            Seriously? So if scientists defined gravity in a specific way and a scientist comes along and disputes the current understanding of gravity, would you jump him and say that he’s wrong because he’s challenging the definition? That’s the situation here. I agree that minor adaptations are occurring with the generations of E. coli. I do not agree that the descendants will eventually evolve into bunnies or cats or pigeons or whatever given enough time. That was not demonstrated in the experiment. You can claim that it was, but it wasn’t.

            It’s a change in allele frequency over time.

            And yet it’s still E. coli. This is getting stale quickly. There isn’t any disagreement over what occurred with the E. coli. You are trying to infer something that wasn’t contained in the experiment.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Seriously? So if scientists defined gravity in a specific way and a scientist comes along and disputes the current understanding of gravity, would you jump him and say that he’s wrong because he’s challenging the definition?

            Are you claiming to be a scientist with a definition of “evolution” which excludes what happened in the e. coli experiment?

            That’s the situation here. I agree that minor adaptations are occurring with the generations of E. coli.

            Which is “evolution”.

            I do not agree that the descendants will eventually evolve into bunnies or cats or pigeons or whatever given enough time.

            Your ignorance does not change the fact that the e. coli has already been observed to have evolved.

            | It’s a change in allele frequency over time.

            And yet it’s still E. coli.

            Which doesn’t matter. It’s still evolution, as “a change in allele frequency over time” is one real, scientific definition of evolution.

            This is getting stale quickly.

            Yes, because you are totally ignorant of what “evolution” means. You seem to think it only means one type of creature evolving into a totally different creature, which is not the definition of evolution.

            You are trying to infer something that wasn’t contained in the experiment.

            Uh, the actual scientists who have been running this experiment over the last 20 years say it’s evolution. What are your qualifications? Even better, what’s your definition of “evolution”? You must have one to be able to claim something doesn’t demonstrate it.

          • John_33

            Your ignorance does not change the fact that the e. coli has already been observed to have evolved.

            Again, I never disputed that the E. coli has changed. I only said that it’s still E. coli, and it is.

            Which doesn’t matter. It’s still evolution, as “a change in allele frequency over time” is one real, scientific definition of evolution.

            Yes it does matter. You are debating the wrong thing. Again, I never disputed these changes. You are trying to infer that the E. coli will somehow evolve into something greater given enough time. Again, this experiment does not prove that.

            Uh, the actual scientists who have been running this experiment over the last 20 years say it’s evolution. What are your qualifications? Even better, what’s your definition of “evolution”? You must have one to be able to claim something doesn’t demonstrate it.

            There are scientists with PhD’s from secular universities who argue that it’s still E. coli and that these adaptations have limits. Science has never been about toeing the line. Alternative ideas and debates are crucial to move science forward. If we aren’t open to alternatives, then scientists can make mistakes as they have in the past. Germ theory was initially rejected and took decades to accept. The cure for scurvy was eventually discovered, but it took twenty years before doctors figured out that lemon juice should be used as a preventative and not only after someone became ill.

            Some incorrect theories have lasted for thousands of years. Some still exist today. That’s why we need to ensure we don’t make any needless mistakes today. Sadly, our generation has become quite sloppy with evolution. People accept it as fact and lash out at any who disagree or are even skeptical. That’s a clear indicator that something is wrong. Real science doesn’t need warriors – fake science does or else people will ask questions. Future generations are going to laugh at ours when they see what we thought was science – just like we laugh today at a lot of the “science” done 500 years ago.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            I only said that it’s still E. coli, and it is.

            You’ve been denying that it’s an example of evolution, even though it is.

            Yes it does matter. You are debating the wrong thing. Again, I never disputed these changes. You are trying to infer that the E. coli will somehow evolve into something greater given enough time.

            No, I’m not! I’m saying that, right now, that experiment shows e. coli that have evolved; one strain evolved the ability to digest citrate. You’re the one debating the wrong thing, as you obviously don’t know what “evolution” means.

            There are scientists with PhD’s from secular universities who argue that it’s still E. coli and that these adaptations have limits.

            That wasn’t my question.

            What are your qualifications?
            What is your definition of “evolution”? You seem to be using an imaginary one.

          • John_33

            You’ve been denying that it’s an example of evolution, even though it is.

            You are demonstrating your ignorance by trying to pick a fight without reading. I already explained my position. I’m not going to explain it again.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            You are demonstrating your ignorance by trying to pick a fight without reading.

            Uh, you’re the one who wrote “You’re going to need a lot more than that to prove the theory of evolution” after I pointed you to the e. coli experiment. That DOES show evolution.

            I already explained my position. I’m not going to explain it again.

            Because your definition of “evolution”, whatever it is, is completely bogus.

          • John_33

            Uh, you’re the one who wrote “You’re going to need a lot more than that to prove the theory of evolution” after I pointed you to the e. coli experiment. That DOES show evolution.

            You aren’t even reading my posts. The E. coli is still E.coli. The theory of evolution states that the E.coli will eventually evolve into another lifeform. That has not been proven by the experiment. It’s still E. coli. You can leave that E. coli for billions of years and it will still be E. coli.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            The E. coli is still E.coli.

            SO WHAT?

            IT IS STILL EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT IDIOT.

            The theory of evolution states that the E.coli will eventually evolve into another lifeform.

            Like I said, you don’t know what evolution means. Thanks for demonstrating that.

          • John_33

            SO WHAT?

            IT IS STILL EVOLUTION, YOU IGNORANT IDIOT.

            You proved my point. All you have is e.coli. And that’s all it will ever be. If you had any further evidence to demonstrate otherwise, then you would have presented it by now. Since you have nothing else to say, I guess this conversation is over.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            You proved my point. All you have is e.coli.

            And a demonstration of evolution, you ignorant twit.

            If you had any further evidence to demonstrate otherwise, then you would have presented it by now.

            I certainly can’t demonstrate it to someone with invincible ignorance like yourself.

          • Kyle McHattie

            So what you’re saying is that an organism that shows a change in allele frequency over time is still the same organism? By that rational, every creature on earth is a clone of it’s own kind, right? No variation, no new species ever? We just look at them all and because they kind of look alike, we’ll just call them all E.coli. How convenient for evolution deniers.

          • Nofun

            So by what magic do they adapt? They just “know” how to adapt and what to adapt into? It makes no sense and you know it.

          • tabright

            No, that is adaptation, not evolution. A bacterium will never be more than that. It will not become something else.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            No, that is adaptation, not evolution.

            No, it really is evolution. Actual scientists call it evolution. You just don’t know what evolution is.

    • weasel1886

      It is fact. There is tons of stuff we don’t know about it but it is fact that organisms change over time and species adapt to changing environmental conditions. We can argue all day about the how and why and creation but evolution is fact

      • Nancy Stokes

        NO, they do not change! Tell me of one proven instance of one animal turning into another kind of animal. You can’t.

        • Nancy Stokes

          …and that is what evolution is all about. Adaptation of species is and was and will always be God’s plan.

          • weasel1886

            Adaptation is change thus evolution

          • Nancy Stokes

            Evolution is one kind changing into another kind.

          • Nofun

            It is allellic drift mediated by the environment. The fact that species diverge is just an outcome.

          • weasel1886

            What do you mean by kind ?
            Worms aren’t trying to become birds, just better worms

          • Sotmone

            Nope.

          • Cynic17

            No, it’s not. And the fact that you think so indicates how COMPLETELY you misunderstand evolution.

          • oregon_man

            Wrong. You’ll not find any real science documentation for your straw man argument. The only place you’ll see that is on the internet where religious try to void evolution. No one ever claimed one specie changes into another except through many years of evolution.

          • honeymonster

            That is a claim that one species changed into another. (Unless you are actually meaning coinage, then you would be right.)

          • Nofun

            One species diverges into another. There are no fixed end points or forms. This is one the trillion things you get wrong.

          • honeymonster

            Isn’t that lovely? you can get to make up any story you like and call it science.

          • Nofun

            All backed by solid evidence unlike your invisible god.

          • Bluesman1950

            Very, very, very, very, slowly.

          • Nofun

            Where is that written in the bible. Seems you are putting words in god’s mouth.

          • Nancy Stokes

            Why do you think that should be specific in God’s word? You’ve never read God’s word, have you? It is in knowing God through His word that you know His intentions and plans. He brought me into His word 10 years ago last October and it has been without a doubt the most important thing that has ever happened to me. I know the truth. I can see and hear and know what is untrue because I have His word. I pray that you can have this blessing also.

          • Nofun

            Well don’t say god or the bible said it when they didn’t.

          • Kimberly Snow

            you are insane

          • oregon_man

            You are correct. I think “guest” is also known as alias “hapalady”. You can read her and jmichael39 doing the same in other stories related to evolution. Same baloney, fairy tales and ad hominem.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You are lying, and everyone here, even your fellow delusionals, knows it. I think you know it too. For a good beginning, ask yourself what evidence you have that attributes which are sufficient and necessary to earn any thingie the right to be regarded as a god thingie exist in this Universe, and if you know of any, then ask yourself what evidence you have that your god thingies possesses these attributes, and finally, ask yourself what evidence you have that yours are the only god thingies possessing such attributes? Bear in mind that evidence is intersubjectively verifiable information which can be evaluated by anyone using their senses.

            Now, If you are up to it, try to share your answers. It should be easy. If I had asked you what evidence you have that attributes which are sufficient and necessary to earn any thingie the right to be regarded as a parent thingie, or pet thingie, or employer thingie, or child thingie, and then if you know of any, asked you at ask yourself what evidence you have that
            your parent/pet/employer/child thingies possesses these attributes, and what evidence you have that your parent/pet/employer/child thingies are the only such thingies standing in such relationships with you, you could have answered me at once and with little thought. If you can’t tell the qualitative differences in the thingies, your responses and the evidence, you really won’t understand why I am convinced that you are a liar, but I think you do, even if you pretend you don’t.

          • tabright

            Please reference Genesis 1, where is it described that God created “kinds”, which includes species within the “kinds” of animals. It is written of His creating the earth, heavens, sun, moon, stars, vegetation, animals, etc.

          • Nofun

            You said:

            “Adaptation of species is and was and will always be God’s plan”

            Where in the bible did god say this?

          • tabright

            I never said that. Please go back through the comments section to see who did. 🙂

          • Nofun

            Sorry I thought you were Nancy Stokes

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Tyger, tyger my mistake,
            I thought that you were William Blake!

          • Nofun

            Ahh the fearful symmetry.

          • David Cromie

            Which ‘god’ are you referring to?

          • oregon_man

            No God has ever spoken or written a single word, ever. All Gods are super powerful but none of the thousands of them invented by humans has ever been able to speak or communicate for itself. Instead we have self-proclaimed wise men that do all the talking.

          • sTv0

            “…was and will always be God’s plan”

            Yeah. I mean, I always thought Wotan’s plan was a good one, aight?

            You *are* talking about Wotan, aren’t you?

          • Sotmone

            Which god? The Abrahamic god of the Jews, Christians and Muslims? Greek, Roman, Norse, Hindu? The FSM? There are loads of gods in the human imagination.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            The creation myths in the so-called bible seem to have originated with the Sumerians or perhaps a common source to the Sumerians and the Canaanites, some of whom eventually became the Hebrews.
            As to the number of god thingies, there are an estimated 200,000 ones where we know them well enough to know or be able to guess at their names, but potentially billions if you include the various forms of ancestor and object worship. It always fascinates me to wonder how the religiots vesting belief in a subset of these determine which god thingies they are not going to vest belief in and how they justify it.With such a wide range to choose from, how did they get to follow the right ones in the right way and what makes them so sure. Particularly as the vast preponderance of religiots end up following either the god thingies of their parents or the most aggressively marketed, neither of which seems at all likely to be rigorously supportable.

          • jmichael39

            The irony of you bringing up the ancient accounts from other sources is that you fail to see the affirmation in that reality. Rather that realizing the amazing commonality of various civilizations about biblical stories like creation, the fall, Babel, and the flood, you see a conspiracy to steal some other culture’s stories as our own. Reminder, they didn’t have internet back then. If various cultures have common historical stories but with simplistic variations, it’s likely because those oral traditions have been passed down for generations within each of those cultures and/or because all those cultures have a common, though distance cultural connection.
            While you think such stories somehow demean, belittle or invalidate the biblical accounts, they, in fact, do the opposite.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            To be able to point out some of the actual history of syncretic myths does not affirm them. It merely shows how they migrated from one place to another, although the differences can occasionally be illuminating. So the fact that the Sumerian creator god thingies were supposedly evil god thingies who created man last from the dust of the Earth as their slaves, and that the snake came to help humankind by encouraging them to eat the fruit that would allow them to see the reality about their god thingies and so set themselves free of slavery was garbled by the time the nomadic Hebrew descendants of the Canaanites learned to communicate in writing, and had their founder fables assembled and recorded for them, first by the wickedly competent Persian memetic-engineers, and then by the Greeks, who at least taught them to stop engaging in child sacrifice, even if they reduced the children of El, the 70 Yahweh’s of every hill and their consorts, the Asherah, to a single genocidal deity, the stories were largely in the wildly confused, and utterly misleading form we have available through the Abrahamic religions, today. It took discovery of the 3300 year old Sumerian myths and rediscovery of how to read them, that made it possible to follow the story across geography, time and culture in a way not available to prior commentators, which is why this comes as an astonishing surprise to many religiots, particularly those who view their tattered myths as an inerrant work recorded with unfailing accuracy by scribes taking dictation directly from the lips of their god thingies, and so reject the emergent biblical minimalist consensus which, in stopping attempting to validate the bible as history, something it never was and never was intended to be, has allowed us to eliminate much of the dross and make more sense of Middle Eastern history than ever before.

            The fact that all normal human brains develop similarly, posses the same vulnerabilities at about the same time, and permit the psychotic to infest children and the weak-minded with ideas which damage their ability to discriminate between real and imaginary things does not validate religion either. It validates the fact that abstract thinking is not the brain’s primary function, that our brains are very vulnerable to invalid ideation and false-positive-pattern capture, and that once a psychotic delusion is embedded, it is very difficult to eliminate it.

            I don’t find this demeaning, but depressing. “For surely it is folly to preach to children who will be riding rockets to the moon a morality and cosmology based on concepts of the Good Society and of man’s place in nature that were coined before the harnessing of the horse! And the world is now far too small, and men’s stake in sanity too great, for any more of those old games of Chosen Folk (whether of Jehovah, Allah, Wotan, Manu, or the Devil) by which tribesmen sustained themselves against their enemies in the days when the serpent could still talk.” [Joseph Campbell; 1959;”The Masks of God: Primitive Mythology”; p. 12].

          • jmichael39

            “To be able to point out some of the actual history of syncretic myths does not affirm them. It merely shows how they migrated from one place to another” – isn’t that what I just said? Sheesh.
            You know what…when you can grow up and learn to talk like an adult “thingie” then we can perhaps have an adult ‘thingie’ over this. Until then, spare us you hate ‘thingie’.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I addressed your supposed “affirmation” and any hate is projection on your part.

          • jmichael39

            “thingie” yeah…truly projected…

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            God Thingies, noun plural. God thingies are anything claimed as possessing attributes qualifying them to be regarded as deities by anyone at any time, including by referring to any god thingies as deities without proving that such god thingies possesses such attributes, or indeed identifying what attributes would be sufficient and necessary to regard god thingies as deserving of being regarded as deities. In this Universe things may occur as objects (comprised of energy or matter) about which intersubjectively verifiable predictions may be made or as imaginary objects for which this is not the case. Until somebody explains what intersubjectively verifiable evidence there is for an attribute or attributes qualifying something possessing such an attribute or attributes as a deity, and then shows intersubjectively verifiable evidence that a particular god thingie or thingies exist and possesses those attributes, all god thingies will remain imaginary. God thingies are plural not only because mankind has introduced hundreds of thousands of such god thingies (billions if we include the various forms of ancestor worship) all of which are equally as valid only as imaginary objects, at least until the above conditions are met for one or more of them, but also because until the attributes of such a god thingies are fully qualified, it cannot be known whether or not such a god thingie is congruent with other god thingies.

            Godities are god thingies where their supporters though repeatedly challenged, still cannot provide any evidence that their god thingies possess any attributes that earn them the right to be regarded as deities and where they are prima facie ridiculous, in that they cannot assist their supporters in any way in this process, no matter the cost to their followers of their belief.

            Not knowing the asserted attributes of your asserted god thingies, I didn’t refer to them as godities. No projection needed.

          • jmichael39

            yeah yeah whatever you want to call your poor attempts at hiding your hatred for thingies you don’t like or believe in. Tell someone who cares.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            So much for being able to support your delusional beliefs.

          • jmichael39

            YAWN…come back when you actually have something of substance to argue. I presented my case…take your ‘thingies’ to someone who cares about your anger, hatred and bigotry.

          • Apostaste

            Bigotry? that the hell do you think that word means?

          • jmichael39

            I think it means exactly what it’s defined to mean: stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.

          • Apostaste

            They why are you crying bigotry when someone simply disagrees with you or has a criticism of the ideals you put forth crybaby? What can’t make an argument of your own?

          • jmichael39

            Read her damned post, idiot…she’s not making an arguing lacing her hatred for Christianity in with a bunch on nonsensical BS. YOU answer her argument.

          • Apostaste

            Or you could just drop the persecution complex, read a freaking book and actually have some idea what you’re talking about. Your pretense is both foolish and insulting.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…that’s funny coming from someone defending a woman’s post that said NOTHING. But thank you for your useless input.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            You have “nothing of substance” just stupid assertions that anyone but a cretin can recognise as invalid. What is more you know it, which makes you a liar and a hypocrite too. As you highlight, these are the inevitable fruits of religious delusion.

          • jmichael39

            And YOU have nothing ‘thingies’ and BS hatred. You wanna make a point worth responding to…TAKE OUT THE HATRED. Make your damned point without the smarmy attitude.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I’m not that desperate for the approbation of cretins (a word with a fascinating etymology). Even when they resort to moronic capitalization for added emphasis.

          • jmichael39

            wow, “approbation”…that’s much more intelligent than “thingies”.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            If you were not lacking in education, you might know that “x thingies” have a history of long use in philosophical discussions. Even now that philosophy is dead, “x thingies” remain useful, even if the terminology disturbs cretins and morons.

          • jmichael39

            Apparently not dead enough. I’ll remember the excuse about terminology when you and your fellow dead philosophers get upset at the terms others might use that people you tend to call racist or homophobic and such. I guess it’s okay to offend people you think of as lesser human beings but not people you like. Thanks for that lesson.

          • Nofun

            You sound angry. Seems Jesus is making you unhappy.
            Try reality.

          • jmichael39

            You sound like a troll? Must be nofun being you.

          • Nofun

            You still sound angry. Reality is just one doubt away.

          • jmichael39

            And you still sound like a troll.
            and belief is but one open mind away.

          • Nofun

            You can only believe by shutting out reality.

          • jmichael39

            YAWN!!!

          • Nofun

            Just like that, yes.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I’m sure you imagined that you had something to communicate there; but, it seems as if the complexity of the concepts involved may have vastly exceeded your grammatical capacity as it came out garbled. Maybe if you try simplifying your thoughts, or, take lessons in English, or something, you could be more successful in communicating whatever blurred ideas are lurking on the fringes of your limited cognitive capabilities.

          • jmichael39

            have ever thought of the possibility that you’re an ass? Because you really are. How’s that for proper grammar?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            While you still appear unable to ground your statements, relying over much on opinion and insinuated superiority unjustified by any evidence, the clarity of writing and grammar is greatly improved in this latest effort.

            Keep trying and try to keep it short.

          • jmichael39

            ZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzzz

          • Nofun

            You Hate Christianity.

            Translation: You are not validating my delusion so you are attacking me.

          • jmichael39

            You hate Christianity = you hate Christianity. No reason to deny it. Why else are you here?

          • Nofun

            To save you brother from wasting the only life you get pretending to be someone you are not. I am only motivated by love.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…you’re honestly sad.

          • Nofun

            You are the angry abusive one brother. Let Jesus go and the anger will go too.

          • jmichael39

            abusive? Now you’re just being an ass.

          • Nofun

            The bible proves the bible … top case … circular thinking proves nothing …challenge met …. got anything else.

          • jmichael39

            Try again…I never said I was ‘proving’ anything. So there IS no circular reasoning. If you have evidence to refute the facts presented, please do.

          • Nofun

            Again bible stories are not facts.

          • jmichael39

            Do you even know WHAT the bible is? It is a collection of 66 individual historical documents. Anything in any of those documents are of historical nature. You want to refute the credibility of anything in any of those documents, you have to do it from an historical perspective. Simply brushing them off, for no other reason, than because they are documents that Christians chose to pool together into one collection of pertinent historical documents to our faith, is terribly ignorant of you and honesty quite prejudicial. You want to be taken seriously? Treat them as you would any historical documents. If you can refute the stories in them…do so one by one. My challenge has been about the one story in those documents around which Christianity is built. Until you do so, you’re merely another prejudicial pseudo-intellect whose vanity won’t allow him to treat anything remotely Christian with the same intellectual dignity you would anything else.

          • Nofun

            Edited, translated and reedited constantly. They are stories not history. They aren’t even original …Horus and Mithra got there first.

          • jmichael39

            You don’t know much about contextual criticism, do you?
            Horus and Mithras assertion has been debunked. Just because you’re too lazy to respond to my rebuttal isn’t on me. But debunked none the less.

          • Nofun

            See above. Horus is almost exactly the same as Jesus Mithra is even closer. The debunking was a pretty weak theologians attempt to ensure his pay check keeps on coming in.

          • jmichael39

            SHow us the text from which you make these claims about both. Let’s see for ourselves from the texts.

            “debunking was a pretty weak theologians attempt to ensure his pay check keeps on coming in.” – I know you’re pretty at this debate stuff…but “liar liar pants on fire” is NOT a rebuttal.

          • Nofun

            See above.

          • jmichael39

            that’s not the TEXT dude. Gees. You just copied and pasted a list someone put together. Try showing the text that came from. Maybe the Book of the Dead?

            BTW, this whole theory “originated with Gerald Massey, an English poet, born 1828, died 1927. He published primarily poems, but had an interest in Egypt. He parlayed that interest in Egypt into several books and lectures in which he set forth the proposition that Horus was in essence the first Jesus, and Jesus was a cheap imitation. The primary basis for his writing is the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This is available on-line and you can easily look it up to read it yourself. Be forewarned that forced reading of this would be an extremely efficient form of torture.

            “It should be noted that Massey’s actual proposition was that Jesus was a copycat from more than just Horus. According to Massey, Jesus was a compilation of an innumerable number of Egyptian deities. There were over 2,000 deities who had every human and godlike characteristic one can think of…

            “Claim #1-Horus and Jesus are born from a virgin.

            “Horus’s mother is Isis. Isis was married to Osiris. We do not know for what length of time, but presumably the marriage was consummated. Whether it was or wasn’t doesn’t matter though. After Osiris is killed, Isis puts him back together again (he was hacked into 14 pieces) except for his penis which was tossed in a river or a lake. Iris fashions a substitute penis for him, humps him and here comes Horus. There is nothing virginal about that.

            “Claim #2-Both Horus and Jesus were born to a Mary and Joseph. (Seb)

            “As noted Isis is Horus’s mother’s name not Mary. In addition, Seb is not Horus’s father, Osiris is. Seb is Osiris’s father. Further, Seb is a distinct name from Joseph. Putting them side by side does not make them synonyms, and that appears to be what was done here.

            “Claim #3-Both were born of royal descent.

            “This is accurate.

            “Claim #4-Both births were announced by angels and witnessed by shepherds.

            “I can find nothing that mentions that the birth of Horus was announced by an angel or witnessed by shepherds. I have found that Horus was born in a swamp, which is a pretty unlikely place for shepherds. In addition Acharya mentions that Horus was born in a cave. Massey makes no mention of this, although he does represent that Mithra was born in a cave.

            “Claim #5-Both were heralded by stars and angels.

            “There is no star that heralded Horus’s birth nor is there any angel announcing it. Archarya in a footnote in The Origins of Christianity indicates that that there are three stars named the three kings in Orion and then relates this to the birth of Jesus. When we look to the stories regarding Horus, we find no star or angel announcing his birth. To the extent that Acharya S relies upon Massey and Massey relies upon what is depicted in the panels at Luxor

            “Claim #6-Both had later visitors (Horus-3 deities and Jesus-3 wisemen.)

            “There is no indication that there ever were 3 wisemen. The bible never mentions the number of wisemen, nor is there any document that reflects 3 deities at the birth of Horus.

            “Claim #7-Both had murder plots against them.

            “There is mention that Seth did want to kill Horus, and Herod wanted to kill Jesus. so this is accurate.

            “Claim#8-Both came of age at 12, were baptized and their baptizers were executed.

            “There is no indication that Horus was preaching in a temple when he was 12. In fact, Massey indicates that Hours the child was depicted as a “weakling.” That doesn’t jive with story of Jesus preaching in the temple. Again this appears to have been a confabulation from Acharya and repeated by others.

            “Horus was never baptized in any of the Horus stories. In addition, Acharya mentions that John the Baptist is actually Anup the Baptizer. This individual is never mentioned anywhere in any Horus account. There is not even a footnote in Archaya’s on-line work The Origins of Christianity to support this. There is nothing.

            “Claim #9-Both had 12 disciples.

            “According to the Horus accounts, Horus had four semi-gods that were followers. There is some indication of 16 human followers and an unknown number of blacksmiths that went into battle with him. Horus did not have 12 disciples. Jesus reportedly did. Acharya failed to give a footnote to support this.

            “Massey points to a mural in the Book of Hades in which there are twelve reapers. Horus is not present in this scene. For Massey to make this connection he goes to a different scene within the same mural. In this scene there is a picture of a god whose name is the Master of Joy. Horus is never depicted although in other murals the artists do depict Horus. Had the artists ascribed 12 reapers in any relation to Horus all they had to do was put Horus at the scene. They did not.

            “Claim #10-Both walked on water.

            “Horus didn’t, or at least there is no record that I can find that he did. Massey does not maintain that Horus did. Massey uses wild conjecture to connect the story of fish man, Oannes, not Horus, to Jesus. Oannes came out of the sea during the day, and went back into the sea at night. Massey makes the two analogous because by his calculations, Jesus walked on water during the day.

            “As to Acharya, she as usual provides nothing to substantiate this.

            “Claim #11-Both performed miracles.

            “This is true although the miracles were different in scope and nature.

            “Claim #12 Both exorcised demons and raised Lazarus.

            “The actual claim is that Horus raised Osiris from the dead and that the name Osiris morphed to Lazarus. It doesn’t matter because Horus did not bring Osiris back to life. There is no mention of this in any document regarding the story. Horus did avenge Osiris’s death, but that did not raise Osiris from the dead.

            “Claim #13-Both held a Sermon on the Mount; both were transfigured on a mountain, died by crucifixion along with two thieves and were buried in tombs where they paid a quick visit to Hell and then rose from the dead after 3 days time, both resurrections were witness by women, and both will supposedly reign for 1,000 years in the Millennium.

            “These are the most damning claims if they were proven true in my opinion. Yet, I can locate none of this. No sermon, no transfiguration, certainly no crucifixion w/ two thieves, no trip to hell and no resurrection. There was an incident in which Horus was torn to pieces and Iris requested the crocodile god to fish him out of the water he was tossed into, which was done, but that’s it. I am at a loss to refute this because I can not find anything to support it.”
            In other words, time to stop believing BS stories written by other atheists. SHeesh.

          • Nofun

            Why believe this sad little theologian trying desperately to keep his faith construct from poofing away?

          • jmichael39

            Do you have even the remotest idea how NOT to be a bigot? If you have a reason to not agree with what someone says, TRY REFUTING WHAT THEY SAY, moron.

          • oregon_man

            There you go again jmichael39. Ad hominem because you have no facts, no evidence.

          • jmichael39

            Are you still here? I thought you had crawled back under your bridge when you wouldn’t accept my challenge.

          • oregon_man

            Only in your mind. It is true however that all humans come from a common source, Southern Africa. Look it up. They all have creation stories because as humans became conscious and symbolic they needed a creation story, just as they needed gods. Those stories are not even remotely close to the biblical story.

          • jmichael39

            Maybe you’re thinking about Mesopotamia…the area between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers…that’s the area most commonly associate as the Cradle of Civilization. But I’m sure you can argue for other locations…since they’re not a chance in hell anyone can honestly prove anything…its merely theory based upon information available.

          • oregon_man

            No I am not thinking of Mesopotamia, more like the Great Rift Valley of Africa, where the first humans were found. This is example of you not knowing evolution. Paleoathropologists have traced the trail of bones and artifacts from the Rift Valley, then across the desert, which wasn’t so arid as it is today. Then to Mesopotamia and then groups forked east to Asia and west to Europe. I think that is the place of human evolution that intelligence, symbolic thought evolved rapidly, the birthplace of culture, agriculture and God–around 10,000 years ago.

            Africans also bounced along the coast to SE Asia, the aborigines inhabited Australia around 50,000 years ago. To the North humans kept on the move over the Bering Straight into North America and spread the New World.

            Not only did they leave trails of their bones, they also left DNA. DNA studies prove the same trail of humans inhabiting the entire planet.

          • jmichael39

            and you do know that that is just a theory based from the evidence available, right? There is also significant evidence that the Mesopotamian Valley is the cradle of civilization. You’re honestly free to accept the African version. Many accept the Mesopotamian Valley theory. I doubt you’ll ever prove you version is more true than theirs. But thanks for playing…you win the consolation prize.

          • oregon_man

            The DNA trail is NOT theory. It is factual evidence. So are the bones…factual evidence, something your religion totally lacks.

          • jmichael39

            the interpretations and dating ARE theory though. But nice try. Sleep well, little man.

          • oregon_man

            I don’t want to shake or rattle anyone’s paradigm, you just shouldn’t attack science and evolution. I would have never said a word. If you read the whole science story it is an incredible amazing story too, you would discover.

          • jmichael39

            I don’t attack science. I embrace it. Science is a good thing…just not a god. You assume again, because you utterly disagree with the conclusion of ID science that we somehow are attacking science. We embrace it. You seem to be the one incapable of opening your mind up to the possibilities of what is outside of science. That’s what’s truly sad. And they mock us and attack us…and get pissed when we defend our positions as though WE’RE the ones doing the attacking. You’re laughable.

          • oregon_man

            Oh God I can hardly stand it when an evolution science denier claims others have closed minds. You have never opened your mind enough to investigate the science behind any of it. All you do is read ID deceptive works to keep you in doubt of the obvious in favor of…religion. Your mind is closed as all get out. There are several dating methods that use completely different mechanics yet they amazingly almost always AGREE, proving the other methods. Your claim that dating is unreliable is a TOTAL LIE from ID’ers. If their religion is so right why do they have to lie and deceive?

          • jmichael39

            You’re lying again, OM. I never denied that micro-evolutionary theories have been proven. And I haven’t even rejected macroevolutionary theories as being based on legitimate science. I’ve merely accepted the reality that most elements of macroevolutionary theories have not been proven. You’re more than welcome to believe they have. But you’re also free to stop lying about my position on things too.

            And yes, you ARE close-minded. Have you ever even READ an ID paper or book? I highly doubt you can even name one off the top of your head, let alone picked one up. How can you possibly reject something where the only things you’ve ever read about the subject are the bad things other people have said about them. And to top it all off, the only things you’ve read about the subject are written by people with a vested interested in making sure others think badly of that subject. You know what that makes you? It makes you a freakin’ lemming. If you’re going to take the word of others about something without doing your own research, at least have the decency to keep your mouth shut about it. You’re like some cheesy gossip columnist who HEARD from a ‘reliable source’ that ________. Pick up a damned book on ID and read it, even if you are reading from a prejudicial view, and try coming up with an original thought sometime.

            “All you do is read ID deceptive works” – you’d be totally wrong about that. Aside from the fact that evolution is shoved down our throats as students, I’ve also read a Dawkins and even some portions of Darwin’s writings years ago. And I’ve read numerous research papers through various publications…all in the effort to know what the other side thinks I’ve even read the critical reviews some have posted about particular ID works. You see, OM, I actually LIKE seeing how other’s think and being able to analyze both sides of issues and come up with my own reasons for believing what I believe about them. Am I right all the time? hell no. But at least I don’t shove one side’s view down everyone’s throat because I’m terrified of dissenting thoughts…which is exactly what’s happening in these so-called peer-reviewed publications…where they ruin careers of men who dare to publish an ID piece for peer review (yes it’s happened). And it’s exactly what’s happening in schools where teacher’s are forbade from teaching both evolution and ID side by side…God forbid we should let our students decide for themselves whether ID is “real” science or not. We have to tell them. Sounds like intellectual cowardice to me.

          • oregon_man

            As with your other posts, you have nothing logical, rational or factual to say, so you fall back to ad hominem. I’ve read some ID stuff. I was very open to it once, in fact I still am because as I’ve already said I have a hard time accepting the “something from nothing” theory. But the bible and God of Abraham are just inventions of men. I realize you could go on forever with your psychobabble and denial. No need to carry this further.

          • jmichael39

            “As with your other posts, you have nothing logical, rational or factual to say,” – BS…you haven’t remotely attempted to refute anything I’ve said. If I’m being illogical, show the logical fallacy and prove it. If my conclusions on issues are irrational, show a more rational conclusion and justify it. And if I say something factual incorrectly, prove it. You’ve failed on every instance to even TRY any of those things. In your mind. “it is all baloney” is good enough … and you wonder why I insult your intelligence.

            “God of Abraham are just inventions of men.” – Prove it? And, yes, you must prove this statement. You’re claiming there is no God…but rather that He is the invention of men. Prove that to be true. Prove the God of Abraham isn’t just an ‘observation’ of man? You and the other are so hot for ‘real’ evidence. How do you know God didn’t speak to Abraham or appear to Moses in the ‘form’ of a burning bush? How do you know that all the things written about Him in the bible are not just observations and encounters with God. In other words, PROVE IT.
            “psychobabble”? do tell.
            “no need to carry this further” – yeah because you know you’re in a box that requires you to actually prove something for once and you’re dying to get out of that box.

          • oregon_man

            You most certainly do attack science. Go read your own posts.

          • jmichael39

            Questioning whether something is proven scientifically or not is NOT attacking…it is actually what a scientist should be doing. And btw, you most certainly do attack Christianity…so even if you can legitimately call what anyone here writes about science attacking it, live with it.

          • oregon_man

            What I do is irrelevant to what you do. I haven’t denied it, you did, and that is the point.

          • jmichael39

            Still lying. What have denied, OM? Show me

          • oregon_man

            I begin to question your mental state. For the last three days you have been vehemently trying to discredit and smear science and now you call it “questioning”. I see now, you lie to yourself then filter it out.

          • jmichael39

            You keep lying… You still can’t show where I ‘attack’ science. If questioning the accuracy of a dating method or accepting contra-propositions to explain certain things or attempting to refute certain propositions made is ‘attacking science’ I suggest you go find a plastic surgeon and have him give you some thicker skin.

          • oregon_man

            OK, you win.

          • oregon_man

            There is no such thing as “ID science”. I have a completely open mind to what is outside science. That is why I am agnostic and not an atheist.

          • jmichael39

            Sure there, OM…just because you and others who feel their worldviews threatened by it don’t want to acknowledge it as “real” science, it is indeed based completely upon science. ANd if you’d actually read ID material, you’d be extremely hard pressed to refute that. But, since you’re so “open minded”, obviously that not up to debate (yes, sarcastic font inserted).

          • oregon_man

            Sorry, dating methods are not pinpoint accurate, but they are indeed proven science and not theory.

          • jmichael39

            and don’t forget not 100% accurate. There are variables that can often throw off datings and rarely are they even accounted for.

          • oregon_man

            You are a fool. Of course they are not “100% accurate”. Who cares if a caveman lived 50,000 years ago or 51,000? They are accurate determining the geologic age of objects, which is what we want to know. We don’t need to know the caveman’s birthday. But you know that already, you’re just in DENIAL and it comforts you and this website to think science may have goofed. Just who do you think you fool? You haven’t the foggiest idea when the books of the bible were written, when Jesus was born or died, but you split hairs when it comes to science.

          • honeymonster

            As ancestors are clearly not the Creator of all, they can be eliminated. As can “demigods” and those who came about from cows licking blocks of ice and the like. Brahman and the Biblical Creator appear to be the only possible candidates for First Cause, there are remarkable similarities at the simplistic level, but the details show the difference. However if both originate from a primeval revelation and knowledge, which they would following a Biblical model, only further revelation would keep a purity of knowledge.

            Still that’s at least five zeros knocked off your random and arbitrary number. But that is nothing to the possibilities, against which your “scientific probabilities” stand in ratio.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            When people say, “clearly” they usually mean that it isn’t clear, but they hope that if they wave their hands a lot and talk really fast nobody will notice.

            Honeymonster is no exception to this general rule.

            He really doesn’t want anyone to notice that his “first cause” is not necessary or helpful and was abandoned by science in the 1930s. Given that the other stories predate the earliest emergence of the Hebrews by some 2,500 years, and the Hebrew scriptures by some 800 to 900 years more, we are quite certain which predated what and being further from the sources, whjich are more likely to be garbled and contaminated, and in examining the progression of these myths through other cultures, we can in fact see the confusion propagated, exactly as happens in children’s games of “Telephone” or “Whispers”.

            I’m not sure what Honeymonsters random and arbitrary ramblings were meant to convey in the last attempt at a paragraph. Perhaps he will try again, somewhat less cryptically and identifying which “numbers” he is babbling on about..

          • honeymonster

            “Usually”, but not in this case, and I very much doubt usually. Hermit, you are not quite certain about anything, you only imagine that you think, and there is often great doubt about that. For instance the only place in your post where there are five zeros is in your imaginary 200,000 gods. You should have shown it to your daughter, she could have helped you with the “cryptic” paragraph.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I had a long day, by the time I got to it she was in bed. I don’t see how you can possibly imagine that you have eliminated a single deity based on intersubjectively evaluateable evidence, for, despite your assertions, they all have precisely the same degree of support, which is to say none.

            Neither logic, nor myth can provide evaluateable evidence disqualifying thingies you have no other evidence about from being deities, nor can they qualify thingies that, from lack of evidence, appear imaginary, as god thingies. This means that any attempt to differentiate between such thingies, in the absence of evidence, is blatantly delusional. Either, as seems likely, they are all delusional and your assertion of exceptions is rubbish, because nobody, including you, seems able to provide intersubjectively evaluateable evidence of which attributes are sufficient and necessary to qualify any thingie as a god thingie, and if they could it would tend to make all god thingies more likely unless they could provide evidence that not all god thingies possessed such attributes, or all god thingies, including those you have never heard of and have no evidence about are equally likely and your assertion remains nonsense for that reason.

          • Sotmone

            Thanks for your expansion of my point. Indeed. how do people know their god is real–beyond the reality of their faith wich is personal. Certainly laws based on belief
            that govern those who do not share such beliefs are wrong.

        • weasel1886

          I agree. That is not part of evolution. So it is meaningless to argue about it
          Pigs don’t turn in birds. fish don’t turn into squirrels

          • Bellfri

            But reptiles turn into humans.

          • weasel1886

            Maybe on late night TV LOL

          • jmichael39

            actually, mutations between species is a part of evolutionary theory commonly known as macro evolution. Evolutionary biologists have essentially theorized the extrapolation of the mechanisms behind mutations WITHIN a species to project mutations from one species to another. There is no solid evidence of such mutations. And various schools of thought have tried to explain the lack of evidence while still sticking to their guns about cross species mutations. But no matter what they do, they are pretty sold on the idea of evolution being the cause. They just can’t figure out how.

          • weasel1886

            Evolutionists don’t use the terms Micro and macro evolution

          • honeymonster

            No, they prefer the equivocation that provides their wriggle room.

          • Nofun

            There is only Evolution …. the micro and macro nonsense is wiggle room for creationists like IDers.

          • weasel1886

            All science has wiggle room as is open to challenge and change

          • honeymonster

            Hence the foundation of weasel words, but this is not taught to our children, no, the latest manifestation is taught as “gospel truth”, ironic isn’t it?

          • weasel1886

            Not in my science class. It is taught that there is much that we do not know and scientific thoughts are always open for change. I do teach that evolution is established science with overwhelming evidence to back it up

          • honeymonster

            Although there is not overwhelming evidence to back it up? There is only a joining up of dots to follow a presupposed pattern based on atheistic philosophy. It reminds of the signs of the zodiac; creatures in the sky imagined with stars dotted unconvincingly around the outlines. The stars fit, but they don’t trace out the creatures. fossils will fit into the pattern as will mutations, but neither give form to evolutionary theory, they only follow it.

          • weasel1886

            Have a good day

          • Bluesman1950

            If that is your understanding of how evolution works, no wonder you don’t believe it! Neither would I. Fortunately it’s not!

          • honeymonster

            That would be because it doesn’t work on the macro level at all. Yet you believe it does, and apparently that there are no such things as neutrino detectors, and that neutrinos have been observed, judging by your upvoting of Nofun

          • Bluesman1950

            See above. There are detectors and neutrinos have been observed.

            Rather like radio waves, we can detect the effects they produce. Or do you not believe in radio waves because you can’t hold one in your hand?

          • honeymonster

            Do you mean like deny the existence of God by putting your fingers in your ears closing your eyes and going ‘la, la, la’?

          • Bluesman1950

            No, by keeping my eyes, ears and mind open and waiting for some real evidence. Until then ……………..

          • honeymonster

            I believe, you are the selective unbeliever.

          • Bluesman1950

            I am selective. I believe in what has been proved and I don’t believe in what has not.

            If what I believe is proved to be untrue I will change my belief. If what I disbelieve is proved to be true I will change my belief.

          • honeymonster

            I believe in what has been proved too, and I don’t believe in what has not. Adaptation of species has been proved, macro evolution of species has not. (I use “macro evolution”) so as to guard against the sleight of hand that is equivocation).

          • Bluesman1950

            Could you ever change your opinion if you were presented with indisputable evidence that disproved god and creation?

          • Nofun

            Sticking to that neutrinos are magic nonsense, hey. Don’t let that nasty real world in … you just world view it away.

          • honeymonster

            Who says neutrinos are magic? They appear to a part of God’s wonderful creation. But you accept there existence on circumstantial evidence, while rejecting God on the same grounds.

          • Nofun

            What part of “they can be detected” is difficult for you. They are real, god isn’t.

          • honeymonster

            You should probably stop commenting on things beyond your grasp.

        • Nofun

          The whale and man have the best fossil lines. Look it up.

        • Spencer Carriveau

          MRSA. It did not exist prior to 1961, it evolved from earlier bacteria to become resistant to our antibiotics.

          • Beleaguered

            Proven to be adaptation

          • Nofun

            They don’t adapt. Point mutation and natural selection does the work. They don’t decide one day to adapt.

          • honeymonster

            Staphylococcus aureus remains what it is. it may be Methicillin/oxacillin resistant, but it has not mutated to become a new organism.

        • Edward Woelke

          If think think evolution means one animal turning into another animal you had better just stick to reading the Bible and leave the debate to people who are smart enough to understand difficult concepts such as natural selection, random mutation, genetics and the scientific method.

        • Anthony Ray

          Nancy, is there just a giant conspiracy by scientists to destroy your world view? Have you done your research and attempted to understand biology? If so, then why are you so determined to deny the evidence? You and Nathan Solomon represent a large population of like-minded people. It boggles my mind how someone can be so jaded when they’ve ACTUALLY put the work in to try and understand evolution. But maybe you HAVEN’T put the work in. I prefer to just give someone like you the benefit of the doubt, as opposed to just name-calling and passing judgement. I hope you’ll take the time to do a little “Google” search in the near future.

          • jmichael39

            and what’s your excuse with those scientists who HAVE put in the work and yet still reject the common Darwinian theories mostly associated with what many call macro-evolution? Are they jaded, stupid, corrupt, not “real” scientists? Have you read any of their work?

          • Tony Patterson

            I’m aware that these scientists exist. And I’d almost guarantee they are also creationists. But, either way, all they have to do is get their ideas peer reviewed and the science would change. Scientists are not looking for ways to prove any particular idea right. It’s the exact opposite.

            And Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a long period of time. This is a dead horse that creationists like to beat because it’s very hard for all of us to grasp a timescale of that magnitude.

            Personally, evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow and I wouldn’t care. Except for the fact that o think it’s really beautiful, I’d get over it pretty quick. Because I understand how science works and I’m prepared to change my mind. But even if it WAS proven wrong(highly unlikely), it would give no weight to the creationists’ argument.

          • Nofun

            Yes that is point. Religionists think Evolution creates atheists.

            It doesn’t.

            The complete lack of real world evidence for a god does that.

          • honeymonster

            Do you mean like the complete lack of real world evidence for neutrinos?

          • Nofun

            Neutrinos confirmed extraterrestrial sources so far are the Sun and supernova SN1987A.

          • honeymonster

            And yet no one has seen or directly detected a neutrino; strange that.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Google for Ernie at the IceCube Neutrino Observatory.

            PS Neutrinos were predicted by a number of scientific models, experiments devised to disprove the predictions were devised and performed. The tests failed to disprove the theory, and so the results confirmed that the models make good predictions, making neutrinos as close to a certainty as it gets in this Universe.

          • honeymonster

            God is also predicted by science as all science is based upon the presupposition that all things have a cause. Scientific predictions require a cause and effect to be possible otherwise the results would be meaningless.

            Neutrinos are postulated on the grounds of circumstantial evidence are they not? via the gamma radiation and photons they allegedly emit? It reminds me of John 3:8 “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” All test have failed to disprove the statement “so the results confirmed that the models make good predictions”

          • Nofun

            No cause requires god. Neutrinos were predicted by physical mathmatics and have been observed. They are not magic.

          • honeymonster

            True, no cause requires God. however the effect of the physical universe does require a cause, and that cause I suggest is God.

            Neutrinos have not been observed. They have been predicted, and gamma radiation and photons allegedly caused by them has been observed by the neutrino detectors that you say don’t exist. But neutrinos themselves have not been observed.

          • Nofun

            Any evidence of that ….. “I believe” is not good enough.

            You have been given a ton of real world evidence about neutrinos which you choose to ignore. Maybe you are ignoring the evidence for Evolution and the Big Bang too.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Belief is not evidence. Belief is what you bring to the party when you have no evidence.

            What is an “observation”? Have you ever observed light? By your standards, it seems that nothing has been “observed”, because all “observations” made by humans are simply photons mediating electrons triggerring charge displacement in the optic nerve and resulting in a pseudo-image in the neurons of the visual cortex from which the brain (or a brain imaging system) can infer the existence of something related to that pattern. You can’t tell whether the pattern was put there by your eye, delusion or current injection, anymore than you can detect whether an impulse to move your arm was generated by the brain, delusion or external current injection. All are merely the consequences of shifting charge distributions, and you will justify any to yourself as “natural” without questioning it – because that is how our brains operate.

            So how are the observations of neutrons different?

          • honeymonster

            Your first statement is false. All belief is based on some evidence even if that evidence is that you trust your parents, and they tell you to put your tooth under your pillow for the tooth fairy, therefore there must be a tooth fairy.

            You make this point yourself in the second paragraph, “You can’t tell whether the pattern was put there by your eye, delusion or current injection”, we do however work on the belief that what we see is actually there, though it may not be.

            You also make a good case for your self justifying your belief that there is no God, rejecting the evidence as only proving the opposite.

            Foisting your beliefs upon children and refusing them the counter-view is no better than the popish attitude of the past.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Shees, I replied forgetting that this site hates the provision of links. Here is the same reply without the link in case it never emerges from moderation as is so often the case.

            You appear to imagine that opioid dreams, discredited scribblings and the all but worthless testimony of individual perceptions are somehow “evidence.” You are wrong. Perceptions may be suggestive, but they are not evidence.

            Today the emergent scientific approach (the only known approach that works to systematically correct errors including its own errors) regards evidence as comprising models producing testable predictions about things which may be intersubjectively criticised or weyken. Your ideas do not rise to this level. You can not even provide evidence that attributes exist which are sufficient and necessary to qualify any thing as a god thingie.

            You may operate on beliefs. Other more educated and more careful people do not. We know how tenuous or hold on rationality and how easy it is to leap to incorrect assumptions, and having adopted such belief, how impossible to eliminate them.

            I have no knowledge of any attribute that would cause me to regard any entity with whom I am familiar in this Universe as worthy of being regarded as a deity, and despise all the alleged entities suggested as candidates about which I have been able to discover anything. You are welcome to attempt to change my mind. So far you have signally failed.

            Again, I don’t do belief. Research proves that the damage done to children’s ability to differentiate between reality and fiction by involving them with imaginary goddities is, as you exemplify, powerful, harmful, lasting and challenging to correct (cf e.g. Corriveau, Kathleen H., Chen Eva E., Harris, Paul L.; 2014; “Judgments About Fact and Fiction by Children From Religious and Nonreligious Backgrounds” in “Cognitive Science; 1–30; DOI: 10.1111/cogs.12138).

          • honeymonster

            You seem to have a personal definition of “belief” not shared by anyone else. Do you believe your eyes? your ears? your touch? Do you believe that scientists always tell the truth? Do you believe in truth? Have you personally verified every testable prediction? Did you believe your eyes, ears, etc?

            Thank you for the invitation to attempt to change your mind, but all I want is freedom of information so that I and my fellow humans can decide for ourselves what is truth. Biblical Christianity provided a stable society so that science could blossom, sadly the fruit of that errant tree is the loss of liberty, equality and fraternity.

          • Nofun

            So all scientists are lying? Its a bit silly and desperate isn’t it?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Again I forgot that this supposedly “tolerant” site moderates anything containing links. Here is my last post minus links in order to prevent censorship by people vesting belief in “Biblical Christianity”. And a third time because even mention of “this dot that” results in “moderation” which, seeing that nothing ever emerges from”moderation” amounts to rank suppression.

            You seem to have a personal definition of “belief” not shared by anyone else.

            Hardly, although the number, so far, is small, a few tens of thousands at most. Most people do not have the advantage of having to study linguistics, learn and a large number of languages, which despite the investment required, comes with the advantage of having to carefully consider precise meanings of words in order to use them effectively, and most of those who do, have not had the advantage of spending as much time talking about belief as those I have spent time with, or as much time on the underlying neurology, or nearly as much effort attempting to perform differential analysis of varying forms of beliefs, including delusional beliefs, and attempt to identify common causes.

            There are two forms of belief. Both involve the assignment of a truth value. One is where this is a result of a rational process, the other is dogmatic. None of this is controversial in any way. However this dual-usage provides a veneer of utterly spurious credibility to shifty-eyed equivocators like yourself, and this reality largely escapes those who use words without the opportunities that I and a few others have had.

            This lead to the interesting discovery that the people who initially introduced the general use of belief to mean not just their theistic delusions, which is where belief began, vide e.g.

            belief (n.) late 12c., bileave, replacing Old English geleafa “belief, faith,” from West Germanic *ga-laubon “to hold dear, esteem, trust” (cognates: Old Saxon gilobo, Middle Dutch gelove, Old High German giloubo, German Glaube), from *galaub- “dear, esteemed,” from intensive prefix *ga- + *leubh- “to care, desire, like, love” (see love (v.)). The prefix was altered on analogy of the verb believe. The distinction of the final consonant from that of believe developed 15c.

            “The be-, which is not a natural prefix of nouns, was prefixed on the analogy of the vb. (where it is naturally an intensive) …. [OED]

            Belief used to mean “trust in God,” while faith meant “loyalty to a person based on promise or duty” (a sense preserved in keep one’s faith, in good (or bad) faith and in common usage of faithful, faithless, which contain no notion of divinity). But faith, as cognate of Latin fides, took on the religious sense beginning in 14c. translations, and belief had by 16c. become limited to “mental acceptance of something as true,” from the religious use in the sense of “things held to be true as a matter of religious doctrine” (a sense attested from early 13c.). [My emphasis, sourced from etymonline dot com (link removed)]

            And the projection of this to mean the fruits of a rational process deliberately confabulated the two disparate meanings.

            This is why, just as Huxley was forced to establish a new word, agnosticism to:

            Agnosticism, in fact, is not a creed, but a method, the essence of which lies in the rigorous application of a single principle. That principle is of great antiquity; it is as old as Socrates; as old as the writer who said, ‘Try all things, hold fast by that which is good’; it is the foundation of the Reformation, which simply illustrated the axiom that every man should be able to give a reason for the faith that is in him, it is the great principle of Descartes; it is the fundamental axiom of modern science. Positively the principle may be expressed: In matters of the intellect, follow your reason as far as it will take you, without regard to any other consideration. And negatively: In matters of the intellect, do not pretend that conclusions are certain which are not demonstrated or demonstrable. That I take to be the agnostic faith, which if a man keep whole and undefiled, he shall not be ashamed to look the universe in the face, whatever the future may have in store for him.

            The results of the working out of the agnostic principle will vary according to individual knowledge and capacity, and according to the general condition of science. That which is unproved today may be proved, by the help of new discoveries, tomorrow. The only negative fixed points will be those negations which flow from the demonstrable limitation of our faculties. And the only obligation accepted is to have
            the mind always open to conviction. [” Agnosticism,” 1889]”

            and even

            That it is wrong for a man to say he is certain of the objective truth of a proposition unless he can provide evidence which logically justifies that certainty. This is what agnosticism asserts and in my opinion, is all that is essential to agnosticism. [“Christianity and Agnosticism,” 1889]

            in response to:

            When I reached intellectual maturity, and began to ask myself whether I was an atheist, a theist, or a pantheist; a materialist or an idealist; a Christian or a freethinker, I found that the more I learned and reflected, the less ready was the answer; until at last I came to the conclusion that I had neither art nor part with any of these denominations, except the last. The one thing in which most of these good people were agreed was the one thing in which I differed from them. They were quite sure that they had attained a certain “gnosis”–had more or less successfully solved the problem of existence; while I was quite sure I had not, and had a pretty strong conviction that the problem was insoluble. And, with Hume and Kant on my side, I could not think myself presumptuous in holding fast by that opinion …

            So I took thought, and invented what I conceived to be the
            appropriate title of “agnostic”. It came into my head as suggestively antithetic to the “gnostic” of Church history, who professed to know so much about the very things of which I was ignorant; and I took the earliest opportunity of parading it at our Society, to show that I, too, had a tail, like the other foxes. [Quoted in Encylopaedia of Religion and Ethics, 1908, edited by James Hastings MA DD]*

            It became quite apparent to a number of people considering this issue, that just as the process leading to belief could be gnostic or agnostic, so too the result was qualitatively different and cried out to be differentiated verbally, separating the meetings. Belief having a well establish etymology and userbase that would resent and object to transformation, a diligent search for suitable words was undertaken, and when that failed, a neologism, “weyken” was developed to describe “Data internalized as supportable knowledge with a sustainable provisional truth value ascribed to it through the medium of critical rationalism and reasoning based on intersubjectively verifiable evidence (for example – and ideally, through the scientific method).”

            Do you believe your eyes? your ears? your touch?

            I do not personally vest belief in anything ever. I do not vest unconditional trust in my or anyone else’s senses but will regard reported, claimed or experienced sensations as data to be considered and weighed up in forming tentative conclusions.

            Do you believe that scientists always tell the truth?

            Asked and answered. I do not vest belief in anything. I weyken that a scientist who communicates poorly will shortly be unemployed, and that scientists found deliberately falsifying information will be forced to find alternative employment.

            Do you believe in truth?

            Asked and answered. I do not vest belief in anything. I do not regard “truth” as a useful word, as all truths are dependent on perspective, observation, interpretation, communication and internalization, none of which can ever be completely shared.

            Have you personally verified every testable prediction?

            The development of an intersubjective consensus by competent in-field professionals means that It is not always necessary to test every prediction personally.

            Did you believe your eyes, ears, etc?

            Asked and answered.

            Thank you for the invitation to attempt to change your mind, but all I want is freedom of information so that I and my fellow humans can decide for ourselves what is truth.

            Did you believe your eyes, ears, etc?

            In so far as any “truth” exists, it is personal. As far as any truth is valid, it depends on non-falsified intersubjectively verified evidence, and is provisional.

            Biblical Christianity provided a stable society so that science could blossom,

            This is a lie. The people vesting belief in “Biblical Christianity” had to lose the ability to supress books and kill researchers before science could develop.

            sadly the fruit of that errant tree is the loss of liberty, equality and fraternity

            This is another lie. The people vesting belief in “Biblical Christianity” were always implacably opposed to “liberty, equality and fraternity” (many still are) and seem always to have sought the ability to impose their beliefs on their fellow men in so far as they were able. It was in the face of “Biblical Christianity” that “liberty, equality and fraternity” developed, and in every country where people fought for these liberal humanist ideals, including France, Italy, Russia and the UK, the people vesting belief in “Biblical Christianity” have been, and largely are still, set in malevolent antagonist demurral.

            *Above quotes by Huxley sourced from infidels dot org (link removed).

          • honeymonster

            If as you say “In so far as any “truth” exists, it is personal” why do you support those who seek to make it institutional by restricting the free flow of ideas? Especially as your conclusion that there is no God can, by your own standard, only be tentative.

            People “vesting belief in Biblical Christianity were those who stopped the suppression of books and promoted research. It is therefore no lie.

            “Liberty, equality and fraternity” are central tenets of Biblical Christianity so your accusation of falsehood falls flat again. (although where there is no truth how there can be a lie I would like explained). It was not in the face of Biblical Christianity but Romanism, which is more about politics than Christianity, that “liberty, equality and fraternity” developed. The revolutions in France and Russia were more extreme than in the UK, because the monarch Henry VIII had already set the process in motion for his own personal reasons.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            How do you imagine that I “seek to make [truth] institutional by restricting the free flow of ideas”?

            I agree that there may be some thingies in the Universe which if I knew about them and the attributes they posses I might regard them as god thingies, though I cannot imagine what the attributes would be. I am completely certain that these thingies must be nothing like the impossible god thingies of the so called bible which, if they were not imaginary, I would despise for their cruelty, brutality and lack of ethics.

            Your ideas about “people vesting belief in Biblical Christianity” appear, like your ideas aboiut god thingies, not to be based on any intersubjectively validateable evidence.

            Torture, slavery and supposed child sacrifice are not compatible with “”Liberty, equality and fraternity” which blows that assertion out of the water.

            Your idea that the churches other than Catholic were somehow less nasty is not supported by history. For several centuries they were more thuggish than the Catholics.

          • honeymonster

            Not just you then, again without the link, “‘There Are Not Two Sides’: Atheists Seek to Stop Teacher from Presenting Alternative to Evolution” is the title to this piece. What are atheists afraid of?

            Self torture, such as that resulting from a guilt complex, slavery, as desired rather than the offered liberty, and self-sacrifice for the deliverance of others are exactly in line with “Liberty, equality and fraternity”. That man prefers his corrupt lust to holiness and is willing to pay the price later is his right and freedom. A God who rode roughshod over this would be accused of “cruelty, brutality and lack of ethics”, and be despised. But then for one who hates the thought of God, either good or evil, who so accuse Him either way.

            There is only one church, as defined in the Bible “the Lord’s” (κυριaκον). Some seek to apply the “No True Scotsman” fallacy to this, but loyalty and bravery are not germane to Scottishness: whereas the marks of Christianity are.

          • David Cromie

            “Biblical Christianity” has repeatedly tried to obliterate any scientific facts that might bring into question the beliefs of christians, throughout the centuries. In other words christians do not believe in science, preferring fables, and ‘faith’. However the ‘god’ of the gaps is continually having to trim the chasm between fact and fiction, by eventually acknowledging that there is evidence that the earth is not flat, or that it is not the centre of the universe, for example.

            Some christians are even trying to conflate Creationism and Evolution in an attempt to retain the alleged historical ‘truth’ of Genesis!

          • honeymonster

            What absolute nonsense. Science and Christianity have no disputes, the dispute is with armchair philosophers who imagine that science disproves God. God is not a God of the gaps, He is the God that gives validity to scientific research. Scientists make predictions on the basis that the universe is predictable. Foolish men imagine that chaos becomes order through chaotic interaction. God never stated that the Earth was flat, that was the product of the scientists of the past basing their assumptions upon their observations and intersubjective verification or Hermit’s weyken.

          • Nofun

            There are such things as neutrino detectors … look it up.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Do you like falling on your face? See below.

          • Bluesman1950

            Apart from the fact that they were observed in the 1940’s, winning the 1995 Nobel Prize for Physics and later supernova neutrinos winning their discoverers the 2002 prize.

            Or does that not count as ‘real-world’ evidence? Were you expecting a box full of labelled neutrinos, gift-wrapped?

          • honeymonster

            Perhaps you are not aware of the meaning of “observe”. Their effects are allegedly observed, but no one has seen a neutrino. As no one has seen the Spirit of God, but we have all seen the effects.

          • honeymonster

            But again bluesman, They were not observed. They were predicted, and experiments were set up to detect what was predicted, there was gamma radiation and photons. These effects were taken as evidence that neutrinos exist. As a Christian I have no problem with this, cause and effect is a part of my expectation as a creationist. But you deny that the effect of the work of the Spirit of God is any evidence at all that there is a Spirit, and you as a materialist also reject a need for a first cause. Why then do you accept the evidence for neutrinos but not for God?

          • Bluesman1950

            Because the evidence for neutrinos is obtained from verifiable, repeatable and falsifiable experimentation and observation.

            Belief in gods is based on blind faith that ‘something must have made it all’ (although that criterion is not, apparently, to be applied to your particular god) supported by various contradictory and confused religious ramblings, many of which have been totally refuted by science.

            Your argument that I deny the effect of the ‘Spirit of God’ as evidence of the spirit is a classic example of begging the question. You assume that the spirit exists as a reason for me not to deny it. There’s no proof of any such spirit. Plenty of proof of neutrinos though.

          • honeymonster

            Actually belief in God is based on the effect of the Spirit of God, and supported by the Scientific premise that every effect has a cause. “The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit.” “Now faith is the substance (ὑπόστασις, hypostasis undergirding, stanchion) of things hoped for (ἐλπίζω elpidzo, anticipated), the evidence (̓́λεγχος, elenchos – proof) of things not seen.” Do you think that God has not seen this line of argument?

            You set aside the scientific premise of cause and effect, and set it either into the gap of the unknowable, or shift it to some possible future discovery. In the meanwhile denying not only the solution, but people’s right to suggest it as a solution.

            You have no primary cause, and yet it is sought, – a grand theory of everything, currently “string theory”. For you the answer is always around the corner, but even String Theory will not give an ultimate cause, only a unified effect.

          • Bluesman1950

            Your philosophical musings may have some meaning, although cutting and pasting Greek phrases is not as impressive as you may think.

            I am quite prepared to agree that gods could possibly exist, although I have not yet seen any reason to believe that they do. I do not, therefore, think that ‘god’ has seen anything.

            What I do find impossible to swallow is the assertion that a specific god not only actually exists but has also dictated a somewhat confused tome allowing murder, rape and slavery, whilst being picky about diet, clothing and who you are allowed to love!

            Making up a god of the gaps to fill in what science has not yet discovered, the unknown rather than unknowable, is not improved by cloaking it in pseudo-philosophical quotes.

          • honeymonster

            They were only Greek words, so that you can check my assertions.

            The Bible is not a confused tome, the confusion only arises for those who seek to find fault. The Universe is confused unti you begin to unravel its perfections.

            The Bible does not allow murder, How much more clear can that be than “Thou shalt not murder”? Neither does it permit rape, from the beginning, a man should leave father and mother and cleave to his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. No other sexual interaction is permitted. As for slavery, you are judging the slavery of Israel by that of the gentiles, and later of Europe and America. Men stealers were to be punished, Exodus 21:16 “And he that stealeth a man, and selleth him, or if he be found in his hand, he shall surely be put to death.” There was no welfare state, some became slaves because of debt, some by birth until jubilee, some by choice.

            There are many slaves today, who cares for them?

          • Anthony Ray

            I’m aware that these scientists exist. And I’d almost guarantee they are also creationists. But, either way, all they have to do is get their ideas peer reviewed and the science would change. Scientists are not looking for ways to prove any particular idea right. It’s the exact opposite.

            And Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution over a long period of time. This is a dead horse that creationists like to beat because it’s very hard for all of us to grasp a timescale of that magnitude.

            Personally, evolution could be proven wrong tomorrow and I wouldn’t care. Except for the fact that I think it’s really beautiful, I’d get over it pretty quick. Because I understand how science works and I’m prepared to change my mind. But even if it WAS proven wrong(highly unlikely), it would give no weight to the creationists’ argument.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            The only way it could be “disproved” is if a better theory evolved not only capable of explaining changes in allele frequencies over time, the fossil record and the legacy of evolution and speciation encoded in the genes and mitochondrial genes of all things, but also explaining the success of evolutionary algorithms in AI and circuit evolution.

            These are also the reasons why the evolutionary synthesis has proved to be the single most powerful scientific model, and one reason why it is among the most tested, making it one of, if not the, most robust model in use. The other reason it has been tested so well is because generations of credulous religiots have resented the message of evolution, that life had to evolve and that humans are not in any way special or differentiated from other life forms, that no act was required to produce us, and so have sought desperately to overturn the implications of evolution, all without the slightest success, but instead serving to confirm the theory’s elegance and resilience.

          • Tito Salgado

            Not to you but millions of others yes which is why the creation view should also be shown in school.

          • Bluesman1950

            Perhaps we should also teach the ‘Stork Theory’ of human reproduction alongside the accepted medical opinion!

          • Nofun

            If a million people say a stupid thing it is still a stupid thing.

          • DeserT BoB

            Example: Any Republican National Convention.

          • Anthony Ray

            Be specific with your responses. Otherwise I can’t help you out.

          • oregon_man

            There you go again jmichael39, calling people “stupid” and other names. Later you’ll be crying that some opposing comment is ad hominem. You’re really something.

            You bet, anyone who call evolution wrong is not a real scientist.

          • jmichael39

            What’s with the double negatives. Didn’t they teach you English in your English classes.
            Spare us your no real Scotsmen arguments and take up the challenge I presented you. Or are you just too scared to lose a debate to a…gasp…Christian.

          • oregon_man

            Gee was that my comment that got deleted? Strange. Your challenge? that I disprove the ascension of Jesus floating up through the sky to sit at the right hand of God, in golden chairs floating in the cumulus clouds and blue sky of heaven? Your challenge is ridiculous. If you held it so dear to your faith you probably wouldn’t use it on the internet the way you do. I’m sorry to shake your foundation again, but you have no evidence of any supernatural act in the life of this planet.

          • jmichael39

            “that I disprove the ascension of Jesus floating up through the sky to sit at the right hand of God, in golden chairs floating in the cumulus clouds and blue sky of heaven?” – Let’s just focus the Resurrection. You remember the challenge. Just the resurrection.

            “Your challenge is ridiculous.” – Shall we take that as your opening statement?

            “If you held it so dear to your faith you probably wouldn’t use it on the internet the way you do, as a wager” – I don’t Paul had the internet in his day. He’s the one who set this up. I’m just following his lead.

            “I’m sorry to shake your foundation again, but you have no evidence of any supernatural act in the life of this planet.” – Then you shouldn’t have any problem with the challenge, should you? You merely have to come up with a natural explanation for the facts surrounding the resurrection account that we’ll go over if you accept the challenge.

            Which so far, you’ve avoid like the plague. You’re not scared, are you?
            Neanderthals? really? Couldn’t you come up with a better red herring than that? Now try to focus. OM…resurrection..challenger. You prepared? Or are you still too chickenshit to take a shot?

          • oregon_man

            How many posts have you made about your ‘challenge’, which has absolutely nothing to do with either of the articles discussed? Why don’t you just spill what you are talking about and get it over? You want to milk it for something I suppose. I guess that is one of the ways you manage to maintain what you know is a baseless, unprovable fairy tale. I’m not going to play your silly deflection from the topic.

          • jmichael39

            The Resurrection account is the single most important event to Christianity. Even Paul says in I Cor. 15 that if there was not resurrection of Christ then all of Christianity is moot (paraphrasing obviously). Over the years there have been numerous ways Christian
            apologists have approached this subject. But in recent years there’s been a more simple approach to it. Rather than debating all the complex details, for which there is significant debate about, a man by the name of Gary Habernas put together what’s called the “minimal facts approach”.

            What that means is that he only presents the facts that meet two criteria. 1) these must be facts that have significant historical evidence to support them and 2) this evidence must be so significant that even the most skeptic of scholars accept them as facts.

            Habermas pulled together more than 2200 sources on the subject of the Resurrection written since 1975 (in multiple languages) and narrowed the list of minimal facts to a couple of dozen. He later simplified it even more by raising just FIVE FACTS….broadly
            accepted by the vast majority of scholars on the historicity of the
            Resurrection account…from their own words.

            Fact 1 – Jesus was killed by crucifixion. Even liberal, John Dominic Crossan says, “That he was crucified is as sure as anything historical can be.” Skeptic John Tabor said, “I think we need have no doubt that given Jesus’ execution by Roman crucifixion he was truly dead.” Both Garth Ludemann, who’s an atheist, and Bart Ehrman (yes, that Bart Ehrman) an agnostic, call the crucifixion an indisputable fact.

            Why do they come to this conclusion? Because all four gospel (independent accounts) speak of it. And several non-biblical sources also speak of it…Tacitus, Josephus, Lucian, Mara Bar-Serapian, and even the Jewish Talmud confirm the biblical accounts.

            Fact 2 – Jesus’ disciples believe he rose and appeared to them. There are three strands of evidence for this. 1) Paul’s testimony about the disciples. Paul’s letter to the Corinthians dated around A.D. 55 is what I referred to earlier as Paul’s statements about how vital the Resurrection is to Christianity. 2) oral traditions passed down by the early church. What you read in I Corinthians 15 is considered by many scholars to nothing less than a “creed”…the earliest of Christian creeds that many trace back to Paul’s time with Peter. Many of the sermons recorded in Acts by the disciples are considered summaries of the original sermons passed down orally during the early church. and 3) written works of the early church. Even the most skeptical of scholars date the gospels as being written in the first century…within 30-40 years of Christ’s death. Then there are very early Church fathers, Tertulian, Irenarus, Clement, Polycarp and others spent time under the discipleship of some of the apostles, like John. I can present some of their writings dating the late 1st and very early 2nd centuries affirming the Apostles believed they had encountered the risen Jesus.

            Fact 3 – The conversion of the church persecutor, Paul. We know from multiple sources that Paul, then known as Saul of Tarsus, was an enemy of the Christian church. Whatever Paul experienced, it changed his life completely so that he was willing to die for the belief that Jesus rose from the dead.

            Fact 4 – The conversion of Jesus’ half-brother James. Both John and Mark report that none of Jesus’ brothers believed in him. While this isn’t necessarily sufficient evidence, one has to wonder why anyone would report that such a prominent first century Rabbi’s own brothers didn’t believe in him at first. Paul even writes about James’ conversion in that I Corinthians ‘creed’. James even writes about his own doubts. Nevertheless, whatever converted James, he was willing to be
            martyred for his beliefs. In addition, James’ conversion and martyrdom is spoken about by several of the early church fathers.

            Fact 5 – Jesus’ tomb was empty. While not as universally accepted by Habermas’ list of scholars, Habermas says that more than 75% of those scholars do accept this fact. That being said, there are three fundamental strands of evidence supporting this fact. 1) The Jerusalem Factor…namely that it would make little sense for ANYBODY to go around preaching about the resurrection of Jesus in Jerusalem
            where anyone could simply point to where Jesus was buried, the stone could be moved and the resurrection claims could be refuted. 2) Enemy Attestation – Not only does Matthew report that Jesus’ enemies made up a story that Jesus’ body was stolen by his disciples, but Tertulian and Justin Martyr both speak of these accusations. But here’s the point, why would Jesus’ enemies have to say his body was stolen if the tomb were not empty? and 3) testimony of women – This is rather often missed reality. Women in NT times were never permitted to testify about anything. They were the lowest on the totem pole of society (as
            horrible as that is to accept). The very fact that the Resurrection account begins with Jesus’ female disciples discovering the empty tomb is the wrong foot to start off on if these Apostles were trying to make up some story about the risen Jesus and they wanted any semblance of credibility. William Ward of Oxford University put it this way, “All the strictly historical evidence we have is in favor [of the empty tomb]. and those scholars who reject it ought to recognize that they do so on some other ground than that of scientific history.”

            So what’s the best explanation for the evidence…an explanation that doesn’t leave out any of the facts or strain to make anything fit?

            N.T. Wright once wrote, “It is no good falling back on ‘science’ as having disproved the possibility of the resurrection. Any real scientist will tell you that science observes what normally happens; the Christian case is precisely that what happened to Jesus is not what normally happens.”

          • oregon_man

            You could have shortened that long diatribe to simply, “the bible tells me so” because that is all you have. Good luck with that.

          • jmichael39

            That’s your rebuttal? That you’re too illiterate to even read a few paragraphs? Aside from the fact that there are more than just Bible references in there, you’re intellectually disingenuous if you think you can merely brush off the historicity of the bible documents without refuting their reliability in this issue.
            I knew you were a freakin’ intellectual coward…thanks for proving it. You don’t even have the decency to ATTEMPT to sound intelligent.

          • Nofun

            Here’s a rebuttal: When you decide which facts are pertinent do you think that makes it easy for you to prove something you want to be true?

            It is nonsense because you are saying the bible proves the bible. That is circular thinking. There is no first century evidence of Jesus. But we do know it is a precise retelling of the Horus and Mithra myths.

          • jmichael39

            “When you decide which facts are pertinent” – fine then YOU present the ‘pertinent facts’. If you don’t like using the facts that the vast majority of experts in the field accept as true…then YOU present better ones. Or present a better criteria by which to determine ‘pertinent facts’. Gees, man, if the facts that most scholars accept as fact aren’t good enough for you then what is?

            “it easy for you to prove something you want to be true” – except I’m not trying to prove anything with the presentation of the facts. I’m presenting the facts and letting YOU decided a conclusion that accounts for them in a rational way. I don’t see you doing that.

            “It is nonsense because you are saying the bible proves the bible.” – Since I’m not trying to prove anything, that’s already a false accusation. But additionally, I presented several non-biblical references and can provide much more if you wish.

            You can try to refute the facts or you can provide your own conclusion as to what possibly explains those facts. But at this point, you’ve done nothing.

            “There is no first century evidence of Jesus” – A pure canard

            Tacitus –

            “Christus, the founder of the [Christian] name, was put to death by Pontius Pilate, procurator of Judea in the reign of Tiberius. But the pernicious superstition, repressed for a time, broke out again, not only through Judea, where the mischief originated, by through the city of Rome also.” Annals XV,

            Tranquillus –

            “As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, [Claudius] expelled them from Rome.” Life of Claudius 25.4

            Pliny the Younger –

            “I asked them directly if they were Christians…those who persisted, I ordered away… Those who denied they were or ever had been
            Christians…worshiped both your image and the images of the gods and cursed Christ. They used to gather on a stated day before dawn and
            sing to Christ as if he were a god… All the more I believed it necessary to find out what was the truth from two servant maids, which were
            called deaconesses, by means of torture. Nothing more did I find than a disgusting, fanatical superstition. Therefore I stopped the examination,
            and hastened to consult you…on account of the number of people endangered. For many of all ages, all classes, and both sexes already are brought into danger…” Pliny’s letter to Emperor Trajan

            Celsus –

            Celsus was a second century Roman author and avid opponent of Christianity. He went to great lengths to disprove the
            divinity of Jesus yet never denied His actual existence. Unfortunately for Celsus, he sets himself up for criticism by mimicking the exact
            accusations brought against Jesus by the pharisees which had already been addressed and refuted in the New Testament. There are two very
            important facts regarding Celsus which make him one of the most important witnesses in this discussion:

            1. Though most secular passages are accused of being Christian interpolations, we can accept with certainty this is not the case with
            Celsus! The sheer volume of his writings (specifically designed to discredit Christianity) coupled with the hostile accusations presented
            in his work dismiss this chance immediately.

            2. The idea of Celsus getting his information entirely from Christian sources (another recurring accusation against secular evidence) is
            wholly absurd. Though he is obviously aware of his opponents’ beliefs (as anyone who is engaging in a debate should be), Celsus wrote
            his exposition in the form of a dialogue between a “Jewish Critic” and himself. This gives us cause to believe he used non-Christian
            (probably Jewish) sources.

            Mara Bar Serapion –

            “What advantage did the Athenians gain from putting Socrates to death? Famine and plague came upon them as a judgment for their crime. What advantage did the men of Samos gain from burning Pythagoras? In a moment their land was covered with sand. What advantage did the Jews gain from executing their wise King? It was just after that their kingdom was abolished. God justly avenged these three wise men: The Athenians died of hunger. The Samians were overwhelmed by the sea. The Jews, ruined and driven from their land, live in complete dispersion. But Socrates did not die for good. He lived on in the teachings of Plato. Pythagoras did not die for good. He lived on in the statue of Hera. Nor did the wise King die for good. He lived on in the teaching which He had given.”

            This is not to mention the fact that the preponderance of evidence that the 27 documents we know as the New Testament were written in the first century. We can go over the evidence for this, if you need.

            “it is a precise retelling of the Horus and Mithra myths.” –

            Please!! – The myth of Mithras as it supposedly parallels Christianity are absurd. There is no ‘virgin birth’ in Mithras as some falsely state. He is called the rock-god because he was supposedly born out of a rock as an adult. This fallacy likely came from the part of the story that had a virgin goddess named Anahita as one of Mithras’ cohorts…not him mom.

            There is no record of Mithras being any sort of teacher with 12 disciples as some suggest.

            Nor was Mithras crucified, as some suggest. The myth says he was taken to heaven in a fiery chariot when his mission was complete. No Death, No Resurrection.

            As for Horus – Interestingly, if anyone actually bothers to look up the source texts for the Horus myth, a very different picture arises. For Horus, there’s no mention at all of twelve disciples, three king visitations, and death by crucifixion and the three day entombment. In fact, Horus was stung by a scorpion and a magic incantation by the god of wisdom, Thoth, purges the venom from his body. This all happens while Horus was a young child, well before his adulthood and battle for the throne. It’s nothing like Jesus’s resurrection at all. And that just scratches the surface.

            So would you to try again? Maybe you can come up with something a little more original.

          • Bluesman1950

            So let’s see you disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

          • jmichael39

            That’s a lovely red herring there…but I’m not asking you to prove or disprove anything. And I’m especially not talking about proving the ‘existence’ of anything. I’m talking an historical event. Did it occur or didn’t it occur? There are certain well accepted facts about the so-called incident. Some have looked at those facts and asserted certain conclusions from them. THAT’S it.

            All I’m asking you to do is look at those facts. Either refute them as facts or assess them and provide an intelligent explanation for them that explains them.
            What’s so difficult about that?
            If you want, after you do that, we can look at the historical facts surrounding this so-called spaghetti monster and decide whether he existed or not.

          • Bluesman1950

            Habermas asserts as ‘facts’ a number of things.

            2. Jesus’ disciples believed that he rose and appeared to them. Well, quelle surprise! A real trustworthy source!

            3. Paul, a non-believer changed his mind. So? People often do. It speaks only of their belief and state of mind, not the truth of what they believe.

            4. Jesus’ half-brother changed his mind. See 3 above!

            5. The tomb was empty. Accepted by 75% of ‘scholars’. Therefore not accepted by 25%. That qualifies it as a fact? Hardly!

            The Professor of Apologetics who has a case to make may accept the story as fact, but it is nothing more than the biased accounts of partial followers keen to confirm their beliefs. There is nothing substantial to refute.

          • jmichael39

            So, in other words,

            –The original disciples, who were scared for their lives, hiding in terror over the death of their beloved leader, concocted a story that Jesus rose from the dead? And they not only concocted this story, but they convinced 500 other people to lie about having seen this resurrected Jesus. And then, like the brilliant people they were, they decided to tell this story for the first time in the very city where Jesus was killed where anyone could have simply walked over to Jesus’ tomb and showed that He was still in there. And these disciples did this despite the reality that virtually every one them would eventually be killed for telling others about this resurrected Jesus…and actually succeeded in convincing tens of thousands of others to put their lives on the line for this concocted story. And they not only succeed in doing that for a short period of time while every power around them attacked them and killed many of them. but succeeded in perpetuating this fraud without any evidence to back up their claims. That would, unquestionably, be the most amazing conspiracy in the history of the humanity, by far.

            –Why in the world would Paul change his mind? That’s the point of presenting this fact. Paul was directly involved in killing dozens of early Christians. He was the early church’s greatest attacker. WHY…what could have possibly happened to have changed his mind?

            –Same with James. What could have possibly happened to have changed the mind of Jesus’ own brother? He didn’t believe in Jesus His entire life. What could have possibly happened AFTER His death to have changed his mind? You’re not refuting anything by simply saying people change their minds. People don’t change their minds and devote their lives to something that would surely cost them their lives for NO REASON.

            –That’s you’re refutation of this fact that there was an empty tomb? Where is it? How in the world do you explain that no one simply walked right over to Jesus’ tomb when Peter and the rest of the first disciples first concocted this crazy story? Hmmm? I know it makes you FEEL better that 25% of scholars don’t necessarily believe this is true…but really, come on…you can do better than that.

            Come on, man…surely this isn’t the extent of your intellect. Please tell me the extent of your argument isn’t that these fishermen and tax collectors made up this story and figured out a way to perpetuate this fraud upon the humanity in the face of certain death? And that not a single one of them, even as they were being killed, recanted their lies in hopes of saving their life If you presented that argument in a court of law you’d be laughed out of court.

          • Nofun

            The bible does not prove the bible. How many times do you need to be told.

          • jmichael39

            Learn to read. I’m not trying to PROVE anything. The five facts I presented are historical facts…that virtually scholar in field denies. The challenge is to provide an alternative explanation for those facts. I don’t see you trying.

          • Nofun

            They are bible stories not facts.

          • Bluesman1950

            So the accounts of mohamed’s ascent to heaven on a winged horse must be true because nobody would make that stuff up? The willingness of jihadist suicide bombers to die for their cause must mean that they are right too?

            The fact that certain people believed certain things is evidence only of their beliefs. If I suddenly declared that, contrary to all my previous statements, I now believed the Earth to be flat and orbited by the Sun, that would be no evidence of a sudden change in cosmology, rather that I had just gone somewhat mad!

            And as to the empty tomb, which is more possible, that a dead man, who was also god, came to life and ascended into heaven, or that, if the body was there in the first place, somebody moved it? See which of those explanations is more likely to be “laughed out of court”.

          • jmichael39

            I have no idea whether Muhammad literally went to heaven and traveled the distance of 1000 miles over night, hitching his al-Buraq to the same hitching ring at the Temple that the prophets used to use. It is not something that, apparently, anyone witnessed…except for Muhammad himself. And it seems to me that it would have been a little difficult to do literally since the Temple had been destroyed over 500 years by that time and was actually being used as a garbage dump at the time. BUT, that doesn’t preclude it from having been, as many Muslims believe, a vision, and not an actual ascension.

            The fact that 500+ people believe they saw the risen Jesus IS a testimony of what they believe they saw and were willing to, in many cases, testify to in writing. What you have yet to do is explain how they all saw the same thing.

            As for your illustration for a flat earth, it’s flawed on so many levels. What did you experience that converted you? Is there evidence that contradicts your belief? What evidence is there to contradict what those 500+ witnesses saw and many attested to in writing? If you were lying or making up a story about a reason to convert your thinking about a flat earth, would you be willing to maintain that farce under the threat of almost certain death? Why would the disciples make up such a story…especially in light of the fact that anyone could have easily walked over to Jesus’ tomb and refuted the claim? Why would you make up such a lie when you know anyone could prove you wrong without any problem?

            None of those issues are resolved by your illustration.

            I’m glad you brought up the point about stealing the body. That was the thoughts of the Jewish leaders at the time as well. But answer these questions about that possibility.

            1) how did the disciples get to the body when there were Roman guards placed on duty to keep that very thing from happening? Do you have an understanding, as a law enforcement officer, of exactly what it meant for Roman guards to be placed over the tomb? You make a mistake on duty and you might face a suspension or something to that effect. If these guys didn’t do their jobs, their lives were at stake.

            2) how do you explain Paul’s and James’ conversions which occurred later and in Paul’s case, years later?

            3) did all 500+ people participate in this theft? If not, why in the world would they say they had seen the risen Jesus?

            4) If they were going to do this and make up this story, why would the lead in to the story be that some women discovered the risen Jesus first? Do you have any clue what that meant in that culture at that time?
            While your theory of a stolen body is common, it fails on many levels. At this point, your only reason for rejecting the account as testified by witnesses is because there doesn’t seem be a natural explanation for what they say happened. While I can understand the tendency to believe that only that which is natural is possible, you would be hard pressed to prove that assertion.

            Oh and btw, with 500+ witnesses, at least 2 of which were NOT followers of Jesus at the time, testifying in that court of law that they saw the risen Jesus, only a monkey court would laugh them out.

          • Bluesman1950

            Do you have the names and sworn testimonies of the 500 witnesses, or just the unsupported assertion of a few followers that 500 people had seen it? I have experience in English courts of law and am familiar with the rules regarding hearsay. “500 people saw it, but I can’t tell you their names and they’re not here to give evidence. ” would certainly not go down well with the judge.

            So you think that the ‘stolen body’ explanation is less likely than the supernatural ‘son of god, made man by virgin birth, allowed himself to be killed, then rose from the dead and ascended into heaven’ theory? I’d be happy to let a jury decide on that one!

          • jmichael39

            You’re right, it would not go down well with that judge…but the affirmative written testimony of at least six would NOT be laughed at except by those who have prejudged the case before even hearing the testimony.

            I’d be more than happy to let the jury decide on that too. The losing part of your argument in this case is that you cannot, under any circumstance, prove that it is utterly impossible for a man to be raised from the dead after three days. You can try explaining what you know about the science involved in such an incident, but all you can do is prove that it is scientifically improbable.

            While those 500+ people can’t testify now and only, I believe, seven of them wrote about their experiences that led them to believe Jesus rose from the dead, you cannot account for how no one in that day ever came forward with any account as to how the disciples possibly stole the body…how they overwhelmed Roman trained Roman guards and successful convinced ANYONE that he actually did rise from the dead. But most assuredly, you cannot even remotely, by your stolen body assertion, account for Paul or James. Neither of these people were believers before their supposed encounters with the risen Jesus.

            So you think you can prove that the improbability of something that is clearly not natural at its core is going to convince a jury to ignore the written testimony of at least seven people who say they saw the risen Jesus, two of which encountered him long after the incident and would have never been party to stealing the body.

            NT Wright is right, “”It is no good falling back on ‘science’ as
            having disproved the possibility of the resurrection. Any real scientist will tell you that science observes what normally happens; the Christian case is precisely that what happened to Jesus is not what normally happens.” Therefore the burden to you is to prove that normal always happens. Which, of course, you could never do.

          • Bluesman1950

            Perhaps you think that the 30-100,000 ‘witnesses’ who allegedly saw the Sun dancing and zig-zagging wildly towards the Earth at Fatima in 1917 are proof that it happened, despite the fact that the many astronomical observatories with a view of the sky at that time saw nothing of the sort?

            Witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, particularly when the witnesses are biased or subject to wishful thinking and preconceptions. Your ‘500+’ witnesses are actually 7 partial and unreliable ones.

            Science does not need to disprove the resurrection, it has never been proved in the first place.

          • jmichael39

            That’s great, but what bias did Paul…who was quite involved in actually killing Christians….have when he says he encountered the risen Jesus? What bias did Jesus’ brother have when he says he saw the risen Jesus and started calling him “Lord”? He was not a believer or follower.
            And if witness testimony is so unreliable then why do courts use it so much?
            “Jesus was not defined as dead by modern medicine”… you don’t know much about crucifixions and what the Romans did to assure a person was dead, do you? But that IS another quite common alternative that skeptics propose.
            There are a few problems with it though. There is a great deal of knowledge of what crucifixion entailed and when the Romans went to break the legs of the other two being crucified…an act that was designed to stop the prisoner from pushing up to allow himself to breathe…they were essentially putting an end to the entire ordeal for them. When they got to Jesus…according to the records…they saw him dead. But to be assured of it, they shoved a spear into his side and blood and water came out together. Any MODERN doctor can tell you this a clear sign of death.
            But even IF he were not dead, you’d then have to explain to the jury how a man who’d been beaten the way he was and then endured crucifixion was able to move that stone and overwhelm several Roman guards and then crawl back into Jerusalem and convince ANYONE he’d actually risen from the dead. You got lots of splaining to do, Lucy.
            With the written testimony of seven witnesses (including Paul and James…who had no reason to believe Jesus had risen or any reason to want anyone to believe it) and 500+ other people sitting there in history who supposedly saw him and an empty tomb and several Roman soldiers assigned to prevent anyone from stealing his body…there is nothing you can do except try to discredit the witnesses. Your science can only explain what is normal. And we are clearly not talking about something normal.
            In refuting these witnesses, don’t forget to explain what reason they could possibly have for perpetrating this supposed ruse. Why they would perpetrate a lie when they most assuredly faced death for it. Why not a single one ever broke down and retracted their supposed lie. And, of course, how they got away with it with Jesus’ body under heavy guard.
            You’ve explained away none of that. All you’ve done is express your skepticism in relation to what you feel is possible and not possible. And you think they’d laugh ME out of court.

            “there is no way this Jesus could have risen from the dead, your honor. I’ve never seen anything like that before and science can’t really explain it. So please rule in my favor.”

          • Bluesman1950

            Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You think that a man was actually a god, died and arose again, then ascended into some undemonstrable paradise? Prove that before asking me to disprove some conspiracy or con trick by a bunch of cult fanatics.

          • Nofun

            If your god does not stick to the wall he isn’t done.

          • Nofun

            I don’t know why … its not like you are going to be resurrected into this world like the Jesus story.

          • jmichael39

            Well, if you can actually refute the Resurrection, then you’d be right…our faith would be useless. But I don’t see you trying to refute anything yet.

          • Nofun

            No evidence except bible stories ….consider it refuted.

          • jmichael39

            intellectual coward and liar. There were NOT just bible stories in there.

          • Nofun

            Yes they are brother. Having faith they are not does not change that.

          • jmichael39

            they’re historical documents…66 of them. Refute the historicity of them as you would any other historical document.

          • Nofun

            Really? Genesis is a historical document? Revelations which hasn’t even happened yet, historical too. Find out about Horus below before you start thinking ancient myths are true. They are just cracking stories you are supposed to believe them.

            1.Both were conceived of a virgin.

            2.Both were the “only begotten son” of a god (either Osiris or Yahweh)

            3.Horus’s mother was Meri, Jesus’s mother was Mary.

            4.Horus’s foster father was called Jo-Seph, and Jesus’s foster father was Joseph.

            5.Both foster fathers were of royal descent.

            6.Both were born in a cave (although sometimes Jesus is said to have been born in a stable).

            7.Both had their coming announced to their mother by an angel.Horus; birth was heralded by the star Sirius (the morning star). Jesus had his birth heralded by a star in the East (the sun rises in the East).

            8.Ancient Egyptians celebrated the birth of Horus on December 21 (the Winter Solstice). Modern Christians celebrate the birth of Jesus on December 25.

            9.Both births were announced by angels

            10.Both had shepherds witnessing the birth.

            11.Horus was visited at birth by “three solar deities” and Jesus was visited by “three wise men”.

            12.After the birth of Horus, Herut tried to have Horus murdered. After the birth of Jesus, Herod tried to have Jesus murdered.

            13.To hide from Herut, the god That tells Isis, “Come, thou goddess Isis, hide thyself with thy child.” To hide from Herod, an angel tells Joseph to “arise and take the young child and his mother and flee into Egypt.”

            14.When Horus came of age, he had a special ritual where hsi eye was restored. When Jesus (and other Jews) come of age, they have a special ritual called a Bar Mitzvah.

            15.Both Horus and Jesus were 12 at this coming-of-age ritual.
            Neither have any official recorded life histories between the ages of 12 and 30.

            16.Horus was baptized in the river Eridanus. Jesus was baptized in the river Jordan.

            17.Both were baptized at age 30.

            18.Horus was baptized by Anup the Baptizer. Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist.

            19.Both Anup and John were later beheaded.

            20.Horus was taken from the desert of Amenta up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Set. Jesus was taken from the desert in Palestine up a high mountain to be tempted by his arch-rival Satan.

            21.Both Horus and Jesus successfully resist this temptation.

            22.Both have 12 disciples.

            23.Both walked on water, cast out demons, healed the sick, and restored sight to the blind.

            24.Horus “stilled the sea by his power.” Jesus commanded the sea to be still by saying, “Peace, be still.”

            25.Horus raised his dead father (Osiris) from the grave. Jesus raised Lazarus from the grave. (Note the similarity in names when you say them out loud. Further, Osiris was also known as Asar, which is El-Asar in Hebrew, which is El-Asarus in Latin.)
            26.Osiris was raised in the town of Anu. Lazarus was raised in Bethanu (literally, “house of Anu”).

            27.Both gods delivered a Sermon on the Mount.

            28.Both were crucified.

            29.Both were crucified next to two thieves.

            30.Both were buried in a tomb.

            31.Horus was sent to Hell and resurrected in 3 days. Jesus was sent to Hell and came back “three days” later (although Friday night to Sunday morning is
            hardly three days).

            32.Both had their resurrection announced by women.

            33.Both are supposed to return for a 1000-year reign.

            34.Horus is known as KRST, the anointed one. Jesus was known as the Christ (which means “anointed one”).

            35.Both Jesus and Horus have been called the good shepherd, the lamb of God, the bread of life, the son of man, the Word, the fisher, and the
            winnower.

            36.Both are associated with the zodiac sign of Pisces (the fish).

            37.Both are associated with the symbols of the fish, the beetle, the vine, and the shepherd’s crook.

            38.Horus was born in Anu (“the place of bread”) and Jesus was born in Bethlehem (“the house of bread”).

            39.”The infant Horus was carried out of Egypt to escape the wrath of Typhon. The infant Jesus was carried into Egypt to escape the wrath of Herod. Concerning the infant Jesus, the New Testament states the following
            prophecy: ‘Out of Egypt have I called my son.'”

            40.Both were transfigured on the mount.

            41.The catacombs of Rome have pictures of the infant Horus being held by his mother, not unlike the modern-day images of “Madonna and Child.”Noted English author C. W. King says that both Isis and Mary are called “Immaculate”.

            42.Horus says: “Osiris, I am your son, come to glorify your soul, and to give you even more power.” And Jesus says: “Now is the Son of Man glorified and God is glorified in him. If God is glorified in him, God will glorify the Son in himself, and will glorify him at once.” Horus was identified with the Tau (cross).

          • jmichael39

            cool…show me the text from which this all comes from.

          • Nofun

            The Magdalen Manuscript and many other medieval texts. Look it up lazy man.

          • jmichael39

            You were the one copying and pasting…and you call ME lazy for asking for the reference. LMAO…your arrogance rises to a new level.

          • Nofun

            I gave you one. It is a large body of work spread over many manuscripts. I am not here to spoon feed you.

          • DeserT BoB

            To “look it up,” he’d have to know what he was looking FOR first, and that’s not looking very promising about now.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            So…in reality you have ONE FIRST PERSON ACCOUNT. That is not enough evidence for something like a resurrection. The rest is myth, conjecture, or outright Church propaganda. Also anyone using ONLY the Bible as proof of an event fails at cross referencing facts. The Bibles evidence would need an outside source or reference to be corroborated.

          • jmichael39

            One person account? Do explain. I really want to hear how you came to that conclusion from what I presented.
            As is typical of people like you, you have no understanding, at all, of exactly what the bible is. And no, I’m not about to tell you it’s the ‘word of God’. It’s doesn’t have to get that complex. There was no “bible” when the documents that make up the “bible” were written. The bible is merely, from an historical and literary perspective, a collection of 66 independent historical documents. Some are written AS a recording of history. Some as letters from an early church leader to some particular individual or group of believers. Some as pure poetry. But as any piece of writing from any time period, there is history, at the very least, injected into each document.
            While you’re correct that verification of the historicity of each document in the bible and each story in the Bible is extremely useful and important in verifying the historicity of that particular story or document, one need not go outside the realm of the 66 books in the bible to find some form of corroboration. When Matthew and Mark write of the same story in their individual documents, those do represent of corroboration of the events. You only consider them self-corroborating because certain people in the fourth century already verified the historicity of those two documents in deciding to include them in their collection of ‘sacred’ documents. But just because those people in the fourth century decided to put together a codex of writings that the Church deemed sacred to their beliefs, does not eliminate the independent nature of those 66 documents. Only a person redisposed to reject anything associated with Christianity as legitimately historic would summarily reject that reality and treat the 66 documents of the Bible differently than they would any other historic documents.
            That being said, there are also extra biblical documents of historic nature. Many from later church leaders and some from secular sources who also verify the facts AS I PRESENTED THEM. Bear that in mind…I presented those facts in a very specific fashion. Nowhere in there do I proclaim that Jesus actually was raised from the dead. Nowhere.
            Therefore, as I presented these facts…all of which are universally accepted as facts regarding the resurrection story by scholars in these fields…even from atheists, agnostics and other skeptics. Denying them as facts is tantamount to saying you know more than these scholars. If you wish to suggest that, then, by all means, refute them as facts with whatever evidence you have.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            No, there is no “first person account.” See my rebuttal posted directly to jmichael39 a little earlier today.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You are correct. I was responding with the assumption that the one disciple written to have witnessed the act had written his claims, as is often claimed. Even if you give them their claim, it is still ridiculous.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Who would believe that someone rose from the dead without proof? If someone told me that I’d call them insane. Prove it.

          • jmichael39

            You’ve seen the simple facts surrounding the story of Jesus’ resurrection…I shared them. They’re simple….only the five most purely accepted facts regarding the event. Facts accepted as true by the VAST majority of scholars in the fields…even atheists, agnostics, and those who still refuse to believe they lead to the irrefutable conclusion that Jesus actually rose from the dead. I didn’t present them to prove anything. I presented them for you or anyone else so inclined to provide an alternative conclusion to the resurrection conclusion. If you can account for those facts with your alternative conclusion, great. And like those other scholars who see these facts, accept them as true, and still won’t accept the resurrection conclusion, you’re free to do the same.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            The supposed “resurrection” of a physical body was a very late syncretic addition to christinanity, with edits intended to respond to the “heresy” of rejecting a physical as opposed to the “spiritual rebirth” spoken of by earlier fabulists.

          • jmichael39

            you’d be quite wrong about that assertion. The preponderance of evidence points to early authorship of all the 27 documents that make up the New Testament. Not only do those documents assert the resurrection and the importance of it, but hundreds of other supporting documents, written by various late first century church leaders, affirm this. In fact, those various documents fully support the text of the New Testament to a 97% degree of certainty. If you had studied contextual criticism, instead of merely reading someone’s vain attempt to discredit the authorships and content of the New Testament documents, you’d know that.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Horsepuckey. Not only did the christers spend vast amounts of time and effort hunting down and eradicating early copies of the Tanakh, they did it to their own documents too, so as not to leave contradictory earlier versions around. It is why the Qumran (cached at the time of the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135CE), Oxyrhynchus Papyri (thrown out in the 600s), Sinaticus and Vaticanus manuscripts (both written in the mid fourth century and edited and extended for centuries after) are so important. The earliest fragments of christer’s so called New Testament are Matthew 21 and John 18–19 both dated (textually) around 150 CE. Practically everything else other than fragments so small that only a few words are present, tellingly including the so-called apocryphal books, date from after 250 CE, with an explosion in volume after 325CE reflecting the divergence of the Roman christers from their Jewish roots and the development of an industry inventing and writing back-stories for Paul’s rather noxious spiritual messiah.

            Paul saw his “Christ” (Messiah) as a humble, obedient,
            dying, rising spiritual messiah (1 Corinthians 15; 2 Corinthians 4:6-5:8; Philippians 2), and it is only long afterwards, with the so-called Gospel of Mark’s syncretion of pagan mystic cult figures’ miraculous births, magical doings and supposed resurrection to the Pauline “Christ” fables, do we see the first intimations of a pseudo-historical “Jesus.” Even the unknown author of Mark left the grave empty and a young man standing there to frighten away visitors, and it was not until after 450CE that the details of the physical resurrection were tagged onto the end of Mark. This is why all that we really know about any historical prototypes behind the christer myths is that the rather nasty Herodian anti-Semite Saulus/Paul and James (the so
            called brother of Jesus (not a Jewish name), and head of the Community
            of the Poor (of spirit) in Jerusalem and like his alleged brother, a zealot for the law (and the law was of Moses, which made him an insurgent as far as the Herodians and Romans were concerned), were real people living in the mutually antagonistic Graeco-Roman-Judaic-Syriac framework of the 1st century Palestine, with the Community of the Poor which was indubitably the Semitic “church”, being an armed messianic fundamentalist revolutionary group, similar in many ways to the Taliban of today, we know for sure that the strongly anti-Semitic and highly blasphemous sayings attributed to the so called Jesus are utterly out of character and must have been later syncretions. Practically everything else is speculation with little or no basis in dated manuscripts not copied and probably tampered with by generations of shifty-eyed christers, all with their own agendas.

            The best researched and supported works of scholarship evoking the early development of what is known today as the new Testament are “James the Brother of Jesus: The Key to Unlocking the Secrets of early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls” and “The New Testament Code: The Cup of the Lord, the Damascus Covenant, and the Blood of Christ” both by Robert Eisenman (Professor of Middle East Religions, Archaeology, and Islamic Law and
            director of the Institute for the Study of Judaeo-Christian Origins at California State University Long Beach). While he is not a biblical minimalist, his perspective, bolstered as it is by a vast number of extra-biblical cross-references, is utterly at odds with yours.

            Which is why, if you can point to a single authenticated and dated document, now part of the so called “New Testament” showing a physical resurrection (and not merely a “missing body”) written before the mid third century and the need to respond to the physical vs spiritual “heresies”, I will publicly eat my hat without the benefit of condiments.

          • jmichael39

            “Horsepuckey” – now there’s a rebuttal.

            “Not only did the christers spend vast amounts of time and effort hunting down and eradicating early copies of the Tanakh, they did it to their own documents too, so as not to leave contradictory earlier versions around.” – while I have little doubt or concern whether early Christians may or may not have destroyed pagan literature, I find no evidence in my research or past readings to affirm they have ever destroyed any of their own docs.

            “both dated (textually) around 150 CE.” – actually I believe the date is closer to 130.

            I believe there is an even earlier fragment, dating the end of the first century.

            But honestly, none of the matters much. The strongest evidence for the early authorship of the NT lay in two places. First, the Patristic Quotations. Bruce Metzger, one of the leading authorities on textual criticism said, “if all other sources for our knowledge of the text of the New Testament were destroyed, [the patristic quotations] would be sufficient alone for the reconstruction of practically the entire New Testament.” – Metzger, Bruce M., The Text of the New Testament (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1968), p. 86

            These included dozens of writing from late first century church leaders.

            Second, there are some findings in the Qumran scrolls that give indication that, among other things, that Mark was written within just a few years of Jesus’ death and resurrection. One of the fragments Jose O’Callaghan, a Spanish biblical scholar, found was a segment that looked amazingly like Mark 6:52-53. The New York Times responded, “If O’Callaghan’s theory is accepted, it would prove that at least one of the Gospels, that of St. Mark, was written only a few years after the death of Jesus.” The Los Angeles Times headlined, “Nine New Testament fragments dated A.D. 50 to A.D. 100 have been discovered in a Dead Sea Cave.” It stated that “if validated, [they] constitute the most sensational biblical trove uncovered in recent times.”

            “Paul saw his “Christ” (Messiah) as a humble, obedient, dying, rising spiritual messiah” – Ironic how you quote Paul in I Cor. 15 to infer that he saw Jesus as somehow not being real…but spiritual.

            Paul is very clear that Jesus was real and that his resurrection must assuredly be real too or our faith is futile. In that very passage he affirms the testimony that many had actually seen the resurrected Jesus, including himself.

            “Even the unknown author of Mark left the grave empty and a young man standing there to frighten away visitors, and it was not until after 450CE that the details of the physical resurrection were tagged onto the end of Mark.” – You’re referring to the Sinai Bible….the supposed earliest full version of the bible we have. You’re referring to the fact that Mark 16 is not part of the manuscripts we have in the London museum (where it’s shown). The problem with your argument is that there are also many other fragments of all portions of the Sinai bible we do not have. You assume it was never there because there is nothing that goes beyond Mark 16 anyway. And you also fail to account for the fact that the many other portions of the bible which DO describe the resurrection ARE there in the Sinai Bible…including Matt. 27-8, John 21, Luke 24, Acts 2 and many others.

            “if you can point to a single authenticated and dated document, now part of the so called “New Testament” showing a physical resurrection (and not merely a “missing body”)” –

            If I understand you correctly, you want an actual manuscript from the first century that says that Jesus rose from the dead. Your being utterly unrealistic. That is not even remotely how contextual criticism and authorship/dating of ancient documents works. Perhaps, as I suggested elsewhere, you should actually take a course on textual criticism.
            Based up numerous sources and evidence, there are few scholars who doubt the 1st century dating and authorship of letters like I Corinthians and the gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. There is strong evidence they were all written prior to 70A.D. even by Preterists.

            All those documents clearly contain reference to testimonials of those who saw what they believe to be a resurrected Jesus. Whether that’s what they actually experienced is for discussion. If you can come up with a rational alternative explanation for those testimonies…the empty tomb…the conversions of Paul and James who had literally no justifiable reason for converting outside what they say happened…an encounter with a resurrected Jesus.

            Bruce Metzger, one of the leading scholars in textual criticism once suggested that even if ever copy of the New Testament were to be completely destroyed, we could still put together nearly the entire New Testament purely from the writings of the early church leaders like Polycarp, Tertulian, Irenaeus, Justin Martyr, and others. Their writings were ALL pre-4th century and in the case of people like Irenaeus and a few others, men who were converted by first generation Christians like John

            Irenaeus (circa A. D. 120-190) wrote that Polycarp was “instructed” and “appointed” by the apostles, “conversed with many who had seen Christ,” “having always taught the things which he had learned from the apostles,” “the accounts which he gave of his intercourse with John and with the others who had seen the Lord. And as he remembered their words, and what he heard from them concerning the Lord, and concerning his miracles and his teaching, having received them from eyewitnesses of the ‘Word of life,’” So his view of Jesus is very important.

            Polycarp wrote the following to the church in Phillip:

            Now may the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, and the eternal High Priest himself, the Son of God Jesus Christ, build you up in faith and truth and in all gentleness and in all freedom from anger and forbearance and steadfastness and patient endurance and purity, and may he give to you a share and a place among his saints, and to us with you, and to all those under heaven who will yet believe in our Lord and God Jesus Christ and in his Father who raised him from the dead.

            Irenaeus (AD 120-200)

            Irenaeus also was closely linked to the New Testament writers. He knew Polycarp who was a disciple of the apostle John. Irenaeus wrote: “…He [Christ] suffered who can lead those souls aloft that followed His ascension. This event was also an indication of the fact that when the holy hour of Christ descended [to Hades], many souls ascended and were seen in their bodies” (Fragments from the Lost Writings of Irenaeus XXVIII, Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. I, Alexander Roberts, ibid., 572-573). This is followed (in XXIX) by this statement: “The Gospel according to Matthew was written to the Jews. For they had particular stress upon the fact that Christ [should be] of the seed of David. Matthew also, who had a still greater desire [to establish this point], took particular pains to afford them convincing proof that Christ is the seed of David…” – Why would he write of Matthew’s Gospel in the mid-first century, if it was not written until much later?

            Trust me, I understand why a person like you would simply HAVE to doubt the resurrection of Jesus by whatever intellectual means possible. You can’t remotely dismiss Christianity as cavalierly as you do when there is something so unnatural at its core. It would call into question all your other world views…as it should. So please don’t think I’m here to change your mind. I know I can never change the mind of someone suffering from Pharaoh Syndrome.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Horsepuckey is not a “rebuttal”, it is a comment on your indefatigable ad hominem attacks on me and my sources, as well as the primary character of your limited and partisan pseudo scholarship and attempts to make your preferred view look better by denigrating others.

            By the way, I am familiar with, and discount, textual criticism. I seek evidence, not hearsay interrupted by generations and interpreted by interested shifty-eyed parties.

            You didn’t look very hard, did you? Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria, a brutal thug revered by the church, issued a letter demanding exactly this in his so-called festal epistle of 367 CE which is available at archive dot org. It was followed by centuries of bookburning, including bible burning, by the church. For example, the Council of Toulouse of 1229 and Council of Tarragona of 1234 adopted prohibitions on bible ownership, e.g. (vide “”prohibemus, ne libros Veteris et Novi Testamenti laicis permittatur habere”) “Canon 14. We prohibit also that the laity should be permitted to have the books of the Old or New Testament; unless anyone from motive of devotion should wish to have the Psalter or the Breviary for divine offices or the hours of the blessed Virgin; but we most strictly forbid their having any translation of these books.” The third synod of Oxford declared, “It is dangerous, as St. Jerome declares, to translate the text of Holy Scriptures out of one idiom into another, since it is not easy in translations to preserve exactly the same meaning in all things. We therefore command and ordain that henceforth no one translate the text of Holy Scripture into English or any other language as a book, booklet, or tract, of this kind lately made in the time of the said John Wyclif or since, or that hereafter may be made, either in part or wholly, either publicly or privately, under pain of excommunication, until such translation shall have been approved and allowed by the Provincial Council. He who shall act otherwise let him be punished as an abettor of heresy and error.” The author’s corpse was dug up, burned and thrown into a river for good measure. In 1535 William Tyndale was strangled and burned at the stake for translating the bible into English. The Ubi Primum of Pope Leo X!! of 1824 contains a stern condemnation of “vernacular scripture” as do the Traditi Humilitati of Pope Pius VIII of 1829 and Inter Praecipuas of Pope Gregory XVI of 1844, Quanta Cura and Quibus Quantisque> of Pope Pius IX of 1846 and 1849 respectively. As late as 1918 (Code of Canon Law), the Catholic church demanded that “Catholics shall not publish any books unless they have first been subjected to the approval of the Church, and to forbid for a good reason the faithful to read certain books, no matter by whom they are published. The rules of this title concerning books are to be applied also to daily papers, periodicals, and any other publication, unless the contrary is clear from the Canons.” and this remained extant until replaced in 1983.

            So much for your “research.”

            You would be wrong about the dating. Only somebody blatantly seeking to push an early date and unfamiliar with palaeographic methods would cite “130” as a date for either the fragments traditionally but improbably attributed to “Mark” or “John”. That is because a palaeographic date (as opposed to a radionuclide dating which provides specific error bounds and establishes an earliest date based on when the material written upon was harvested, or cache dating when it is known from when the cache was created, or contextual dating based on historic events mentioned in the text) always has a broad span and is given in steps centred on 50 year intervals with error bounds of 70 to 80 years. I am not aware of authenticated claims for earlier materials than P51 and P1 respectively, although there certainly have been many unsupported claims made by shifty-eyed christers.

            Like most theologians of his era, Bruce Metzger was a christer first and a scholar second. He sought confirmation of his beliefs in everything he examined, had no notion of the null hypothesis and exemplified everything that is wrong with “textual criticism” based on nothing more than juggling hearsay and wish fulfilment and “historical criticism” which, in following Paul’s “Risen Christ”, rather than the zealotry (for the law of Moses) of Jesus, avoided the problem that modern christianity is blatantly a strongly anti-Semitic product of Rome, rather than any legacy of Judaism.

            Your problem is that the so called “Patristic Quotations” suffer from the same problems as the alleged texts. We have alleged copies of alleged copies dating much later than the alleged sources and the copyists were all devoted shifty-eyed christers.

            Aside from the fact that Irenaeus was born between 130 and 142 or a century after the alleged execution of the prototype and long after anyone who knew him was dead, from internal evidence, his most famous work, “Against Heresies“, is dated 180 CE or later. So he is as relevant to the facts of the case as your writings would be. Nevertheless, “Against Heresies” “is amongst the earliest non-controversial confirming
            documentations for many of the sayings of Jesus and the Letters of Paul. A similar problem exists for Polycarp, who lived from 80-167 CE, half a century after the supposed execution. Anyone who had been 30 at the time of the alleged execution of the so-called “Jesus” (not a Jewish name) would have been 100 by the time PolyCarp was 20 – in an era when life expectancy at birth was about 27, and literacy almost non-existent. And he didn’t live on Patmos where the alleged “John the Apostle” was supposedly exiled. How credible is this? I suggest that only a “true believer” would find it particularly persuasive.

            Radionuclide dating only sets the earliest possible date for a document, being the date the material was harvested, not the date that it was written upon. The discovery of coins dated to the Bar Kokhba revolt in 135, when the Qumram site of the Community of the Poor (of spirit) was destroyed and not reoccupied, sets the latest date for the materials located there.

            Jose O’Callaghan’s “discoveries” are centimetre sized fragments with a few letters and even dots from the tops or bottoms of letters which he trolled through looking for possible New Testament paragraphs, and instead found a few word sized matches. Had he looked for passages from “War and Peace” or “Moby Dick“, he would indubitably have found them too. It is amazing he did not find more, as his “methodology” was akin to picking up seashells to discover which provided a true representation of the sound of the ocean. He would find the sound of the ocean in every seashell, because all seashells reflect back the sou8nd of blood passing through the vessels of the ear – which sounds a lot like the sound of the sea.

            Nothing allegedly said by by the noxious Saulus/Paul sustains your assertions. His “visions” were not physical, they were “revelatory” or as a psychologist would say, delusional. Jjust as any modern christers’ claims about “talking” with god thingies are delusional, not involving the sensory apparatus but rather self-assessment centres of the cortex. This is why Paul never writes of a supposed physical “Jesus”, but of his “Christ” and believes that the “Christ” experienced by the others he mentions was the same. Which it was. Did you actually read the citations I made? From 1 Corinthians 15, “There are also heavenly bodies and there are earthly bodies; but the splendour of the heavenly bodies is one kind, and the splendour of the earthly bodies is another. … So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. If there is a natural body, there is also a spiritual body. … The spiritual did not come first, but the natural, and after that the spiritual.” What case is there here for resurrection of an “earthly body”?

            Nowhere in the other epistles, the seven thought to be written by Paul or the six others ascribed to him by tradition, is there a reference to a “bodily resurrection.” Even much later (c. 90-100 CE) works such as 1 Peter and the so-called epistle to the Hebrews contain a “spiritual resurrection” and “ascension” of Jesus to heaven at the time of his death [1 Peter 3:18; Hebrews 2:9; 4:14] rather than a physical resurrection. Christ is portrayed as the high priest of Psalm 110, sitting at the right hand of “God”, not a resurrected person.

            So, despite all your unsustainable claims, and irrespective of your beliefs, what the new testament initially contained was a “spiritual rebirth” with nothing physical about it. For all your verbosity, the absence of suitable documentary citations simply confirms your inability to support your contention, and your “understanding” of me is so far from the mark as to be as ludicrous as it is presumptuous.

          • jmichael39

            ” it is a comment on your indefatigable ad hominem attacks on me and my sources” – Spare me your vain attempts to claim the moral high ground. Your posts have been nothing BUT attacks on Christian beliefs from the very beginning. So save your incredulity for someone else.

            “By the way, I am familiar with, and discount, textual criticism. I seek evidence, not hearsay interrupted by generations and interpreted by interested shifty-eyed parties.” – Familiar…lmao. In other words, because textual criticism refutes many of your asinine claims, you reject it. Sounds about your style. However, if you had the slightest idea what you were talking about you’d know the validity of textual criticism in validating the text of ancient documents for which we do not have the original manuscripts.

            Even Bart Ehrman, Metzger “prodigal son” student, admits that 97% of the textual variations in the bible manuscripts are simplistic variations akin to spelling “Andrew” as “Andruw” or adding a comma where one wasn’t before. And of the remaining variations, almost none carry any contextual significance at all. And Ehrman now considers himself an agnostic.

            The vast majority of your next monologue only confirm what I said…the post Constantine Church did a great many things to try to use Christianity to control people. Including trying to destroy all bible manuscripts from the church in Antioch…which is the focal point of the opposition to the Roman/Alexandrian Church. Constantine tried to abscond with Christianity because he and the emperors before him couldn’t seem to destroy it. He thought he could re-write the texts to appease his pagan populace. But the church in Antioch saw what was happening and thus they canonized the original writings of the church fathers to ensure they survived. That’s why the writings of other early church fathers, Tertulian, Iraeneus, Justin Martyr and others were so important because nearly 97% of the NT was quoted within THEIR various letters and writings. Their writings helped to sustain the text of the NT as it was originally written. And today, those writings substantiate both the original authorship of the NT documents and the original text. None of this is in doubt historically and none of this addressed in your arguments. And it substantially refutes your claims of later authorship.

            “This is why Paul never writes of a supposed physical “Jesus”, but of his “Christ” and believes that the “Christ” experienced by the others he mentions was the same” – it must be fun making stuff up. The way your posts just ramble from one thing to another suggests you’re quite intelligent but not very well versed on certain subjects and merely make up for your shortcomings with fancy words and long posts. But the reality is much different.

            Paul speaks of Jesus (and more times than not as “Jesus Christ” or “Christ Jesus” more than 150 times in his letters. John addresses him as Jesus nearly 300 times in his writings. And Peter 18 times in his two short letters and Mark (a disciple of Peter’s) another 121 times.

            Then again, Paul DOES speak of a PHYSICAL resurrection numerous times…I Cor. 15 the most strongly worded occurrence…where he says,

            3 For I delivered to you first of all that which I also received: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 and that He was buried, and that He rose again the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that He was seen by Cephas, then by the twelve. 6 After that He was seen by over five hundred brethren at once, of whom the greater part remain to the present, but some have fallen asleep. 7 After that He was seen by James, then by all the apostles. 8 Then last of all He was seen by me also, as by one born out of due time.

            The entirety of the Greek in this passage is quite literal. There is no sense of illusion or non-physical resurrection. But it’s even more prominent in the next section.

            12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. 15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up—if in fact the dead do not rise. 16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. 17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable.

            There is absolutely no question that Paul is speaking of a literal resurrection, not some illusion of a resurrection. No one can be potentially a false witness over something that only happened ‘spiritually’. It’s absurd to think otherwise. While I understand and accept the reality that the resurrected body is glorified and no longer natural in the same sense as we are now…there is no doubt that the Jesus they saw resurrected they saw in bodily form. And frankly, what use would they have for the body of Jesus if when He was raised, that body was not what was raised…but in a glorified state?

            “Nowhere in the other epistles, the seven thought to be written by Paul or the six others ascribed to him by tradition, is there a reference to a “bodily resurrection” – False. I Peter 1:3 – resurrection from the dead

            Romans 1:4

            Romans 6:5

            Phil. 3:10-11

            2 Tim. 2:18

            Hebrews 6:2

            Romans 4:24-25

            Romans 6:9

            Romans 7:4

            Romans 10:9

            2 Cor. 4:14

            I Pet. 1:21

            Col. 2:12

            Eph. 1:20

            I Thes. 1:10

            2 Tim. 2:8

            and so on and so on.

            Not a single one, in context, can be taken to mean anything remotely that Jesus was only spiritually raised. Nor do they imply anything other than a literal rising from the dead in glory for all who believe. Sorry. You can mock that and reject it all you want. You can even try your hand at rewriting the bible…others have tried. No matter how twist or turn it, Paul, Peter, John, Mark and all the others are assuring those they write to that they have seen the literal risen Jesus. When Thomas is invited to feel the holes in Jesus’ hands and the piercing in His side, he’s not being invited to touch a spirit Jesus, but the physical one. The Greek word for “witness” as Paul uses so often, is strong implying a literal observing…not some vision.

            You want to call into question whether they’re lying or not, feel free.

            You can also try all you want to re-date and re-assign authorship of the 27 NT documents, but as I said, the preponderance of evidence and the vast majority of scholars point to accurate authorship and datings that range from between 40 AD and 95 AD (in relation to John).

            “Jose O’Callaghan’s “discoveries” are centimetre sized fragments with a few letters and even dots from the tops or bottoms of letters which he trolled through looking for possible New Testament paragraphs, and instead found a few word sized matches.” – More wishful speculation.

            “Dr. O’Callaghan did not set out to look for papyri of the New Testament at Qumran, but his interest was identification of the fragments that the editors could not fully clarify. More than a dozen years after certain scraps were printed, it dawned on O’Callaghan that certain of the clear and identifiable letters on them might be part of the occasional New Testament name for the sea of Galilee, the Sea of Genneseret. Hitherto it had been assumed that such letters were part of the Greek word for “to beget,” yet no one had been able to find any piece of ancient literature which fit with this identification of the letters and the surrounding necessary context of other letters.[3]

            “The results of his work with the small fragment brought him to the conclusion that 7Q5 could be a fragment of the Gospel of Mark and he published his investigation in 1972 in his work “¿Papiros neotestamentarios en la cueva 7 de Qumrân?” (New Testament Papyri in Cave 7 at Qumran?). The reaction of scholars, especially those committed to the conventional wisdom of how the Bible became formulated, was almost universally against Dr. O’Callaghan. His identification was viewed as an almost impossible claim since the papyrus itself had been dated prior to the identification as having been written no later than 50 CE, much earlier than some scholars thought the New Testament had been written. The Catalan scholar’s career was frustrated and he was practically isolated until 1982 when Prof. Carsten Peter Thiede reviewed the research of O’Callaghan. Thiede came to the conclusion that O’Callaghans’ proposals were not illogical and his scientific method was serious and possible. Thiede revived the discussion again in his work “The Earliest Gospel Manuscript?” in 1982. However, even today the majority of papyrus scholars disagree with O’Callaghan’s conclusion, even though a better theory has yet to be put forth by anyone”

            “Like most theologians of his era, Bruce Metzger was a christer first and a scholar second.” – You’re hilarious. What was the word you used? Oh yeah, “horsepuckey”

            “Horsepuckey is not a “rebuttal”, it is a comment on your indefatigable ad hominem attacks on me and my sources, as well as the primary character of your limited and partisan pseudo scholarship and attempts to make your preferred view look better by denigrating others.
            Nuff said.
            Let’s be clear on one thing. You’re a troll. A well-spoken troll. But a troll none the less. You don’t come here to do anything but mock people who believe something you find distasteful and intolerable. If you were interested in honest debate, with your level of understanding of issues, you wouldn’t come here in hopes of finding someone with your level of knowledge on these issues. You would go to sites where Christian scholars blog and write. You’re here for one reason only, to listen to the sound of your own intelligence as you blabber on about what you think you know. And yes, that’s me pissing in your pond. You don’t like it? Tough shite.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I don’t need to claim the “moral” high-ground. I’ve been sitting here since forever watching you roll around in your own excrescence with a copraphagic grin smeared across your countenance as you project your own inadequacies onto others.

          • jmichael39

            Yeah, while you insult every person who disagrees with you…nice moral high ground. Stay there…you’re suited to it.

          • honeymonster

            Brilliant, thanks jmichael39.

          • David Cromie

            Considering the deficiencies in the Dead Sea scrolls, mostly caused by damage to them as they were unrolled, it is pure conjecture on the part of the academics who examine them, what they come up with to ‘make good’ the textural deficiencies. There are literally thousands upon thousands of scraps to sift through, before a likely candidate is chosen.

            The other disturbing factor was the reluctance of the Israeli authorities to release the scrolls for examination outside of specific Israeli academic institutions. This may be because they appear to be the work of Jewish sects, and the suppression of their more unorthodox ideas might be politically desirable.

            Whatever the case, it would be very difficult to ‘perfectly’ recreate any scroll, without a large dose of guess work, or ad hoc textural exegesis, on the part of the compiler of any such document. Much the same tarting up, to suit the contemporary zeitgeist, went into the translation of the King James, or Latin Vulgate, versions of the bible as we know them today.

          • jmichael39

            “One can hardly quote any part of the NT, or the OT, to prove any point about authenticity or date of compilation, much less the ‘truth’ of the content.” – You’re assuming the Bible is one book. It is not. It is 66 books…66 historical documents. just because a bunch of people in the fourth century decided to codified those 66 books into one collection because they felt they were ‘sacred’ to their faith does not change the fact that they are 66 unique historical documents.

            If the content of one of those documents is about the same incident in history they are considering supportive of one another. It is obviously not as strong as when those same incidents are spoken of in other documents as well, but the 66 documents that make up the bible are completely independent of each other from an historical perspective.

            “Considering the deficiencies in the Dead Sea scrolls, mostly caused by damage to them as they were unrolled, it is pure conjecture on the part of the academics who examine them, what they come up with to ‘make good’ the textural deficiencies. There are literally thousands upon thousands of scraps to sift through, before a likely candidate is chosen.” – So what? You think because there are thousands upon thousands of pieces that these scholars are somehow completely incapable of making anything out of them? What kind of argument is that.

            “This may be because they appear to be the work of Jewish sects, and the suppression of their more unorthodox ideas might be politically desirable.” – HUH? Again, so what? All we CAN go by is what we DO have access to and what we can garner from them.

            “Whatever the case, it would be very difficult to ‘recreate’ any scroll, with a semblance of accuracy, without a large dose of guess work, or ad hoc textural exegesis, on the part of the compiler of any such document.” – That’s not even remotely true. The more manuscripts experts have to work with, the EASIER it is to recompile the original text. You’d know this if you’d ever taken even a single class on contextual criticism. And there are nearly 10x as many manuscripts for the NT alone than the next nearest historical work. And that doesn’t even take into account the writings of the later church fathers who often quote those 27 documents that later make up the NT. Bruce Metzger, one of the leading scholars in contextual criticism suggests that 97% of the entire NT could be restored to its original content without ever having a single manuscript simply by reading the various writings of those church fathers.

            Of the 42000 or so contextual variations in all those manuscripts, the vast majority are so simple as to be utterly meaningless…such as a minor misspelling of a word…and upwards of 99.7% of them carry no contextual importance. You can’t even come close to that much accuracy with any other ancient document.

            Now if you honestly want to have a discussion about what these variations are or about the evidence of early authorship dating of the books or anything like that, feel free. But if the best you’ve got is some ‘zeitgeist’ conspiracies, save ’em.

          • David Cromie

            As I indicated, the bible is a compilation. Whatever the facts about the history of the bible, any argument ad antiquam is beside the point as long as there is no proof forthcoming such that it would give any reasonable person cause to believe in the existence of gods, or even the possibility that they might.

          • jmichael39

            You jump multiple steps to reach your conclusions. What the Bible does it provide certain events and stories that history must judge as real or not…based up the evidence within the stories themselves and others sources when possible. Some of those stories are of such a nature that it would be difficult for anyone to deny…at the very least…that they are not natural (but rather supernatural). Probably the most prominent of these stories…and likely the one that points Christians towards our God…is the resurrection story. There are certain ‘facts’ surrounding that story that are relatively well accepted as facts by the preponderance of scholars in the field…even those who are not Christian. While most Christians look at those facts and accept the conclusion that they point to a real event known as the Resurrection of Jesus, some people see the evidence and don’t see that as plausible, and thus choose not to believe. But to those who see it is as a real event, it makes perfect sense to believe the rest of what the books of the bible say about the God who raised Jesus from the dead and sent Him in the first place. It’s really quite simple. You’re free not to accept such events, but like the others who view those facts and refuse to accept the resurrection conclusion, you’ll have to do the same….you’ll have to find some alternate conclusion that best accounts for those facts.

          • David Cromie

            Just more mumbo-jumbo in the form of a circular argument, and you have the gall to call others liars and hypocrites! Where is your argument for the reality of any gods which does not depend on some fabulous account of their doings?

          • jmichael39

            What’s circular about it? Are they or are they not 66 unique historical documents? Do you or do you not treat them as uniquely independent historical documents? Would or would not any historical documents be used in verifying the information in each other?

            Do you even KNOW what the commonly accepted facts are surrounding the resurrection account? And if so, what it you alternative conclusion as to what accounts for those facts?

            What LIES and what HYPOCRISY? Tell me.

          • David Cromie

            Just because many believe that X is true, does not make it true (unless it is true by definition, 2+2=4, or today’s date, for example), without evidence for its veracity. The same goes for any claims of a supernatural nature.

          • jmichael39

            So what? And you get to determine the filter through which all truth must pass?

          • David Cromie

            Did I even suggest that is the case? So, to the point, you cannot claim anything attributed to a ‘god’ is true, if you cannot give any logical reason for believing tat ‘gods’ exist in the first place. Got it?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Actually we now think that Neanderthal was much smarter and stronger than their human cousins, but bred less frequently and having a much larger head at birth, probably less successfully. However, from DNA studies we know we interbred and that some 6% of our DNA is shared, meaning that humans and Neanderthal co-evolved. Rather than the Neanderthal being wiped out, they were subsumed.

          • oregon_man

            I challenge your claim Neanderthals were much smarter. To the contrary Neanderthals did not have art, which means they didn’t have symbolic expression. Their brains were larger in size but they did not have all that abilities Cro Magnon revealed. Yes homo sapiens have Neander DNA, around 4%, but that could be easily explained by forced crossbreeding, as in rape and conquest. As for co-evolved, Neanderthals were in Europe long before homo sapien. Not long after homo sapiens occupied Europe the Neanderthals disappeared. Throughout history what happened when different people occupy the same land? They didn’t make friends. Ultimately one conquered the other.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Callaway, Ewen; 2014; “Neanderthals made some of Europe’s oldest art” in “Nature; doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15805

            Appenzeller, Tim; 2013; “Neanderthal culture: Old masters” in “Nature; doi:10.1038/497302a

            Villa, Paola, Roebroeks, Wil; 2014; “Neandertal Demise: An Archaeological Analysis of the Modern Human Superiority Complex” in PLOS One; DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0096424

            The percentage of admixture depends on the population examined, and the temporal proximity to the Denisovan admixture events. It is highest in the more recent strains of humans, particularly the Melanesian genome.

            I agree that humans may have been nastier – indeed we may still be, but DNA research shows that humans and Neanderthals were still breeding together at 40-60kYbp in areas of Asia where they had lived together for 100kY. Refer e.g. Fu, Qiaomei et al; 2014; “Genome sequence of a 45,000-year-old modern human from western Siberia” in Nature; doi:10.1038/nature13810

            Current thinking is that it was not a conquest. but a slow love affair [Villa et al, 2014, supra. Ultimately, rather than elimination, the Neanderthals were as smart as us, rather successful at what they did, and are our ancestors.

          • oregon_man

            That would be the first time humans did not conquer as they invaded, so I am very skeptical. How do I look at your references such as:

            “Callaway, Ewen; 2014; “Neanderthals made some of Europe’s oldest art” in “Nature; doi:10.1038/nature.2014.15805”

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            “on the barely-got-published fringe”?

            In the scientific world’s preeminent peer reviewed journals, Nature, Science and PLOS One. By scientists affiliated with some of the world’s most respected genetic research organizations including the Max Planck Institute?

            How do you figure? Your “sekrit decoder ring|?

          • oregon_man

            So a genetics super scientist claimed those scratches on the cave floor are evidence of Neander art? I never said or implied that old argument that Neanders were stupid.

            I’ll say one thing I’d bet on: Your references are not supported by the main stream consensus of paleoanthros. Surely you know that already, just as you know what happened when two different groups collided throughout all of history. It wasn’t a love affair. These are not even theory yet, they are speculation. Yep, barely passed peer review.

          • Nofun

            You have yet to raise an argument.

          • jmichael39

            Maybe you should read. Thanks for the worthless post.

          • Nofun

            I did. It is still circular nonsense.

          • jmichael39

            prove it’s circular. If that’s your accusation, prove it. Bearing in mind the context of the challenge…not what you THINK the challenge is.

          • Nofun

            1) We know god only through the bible.
            2) The bible says this and that about Jesus
            3) These stories are true because I believe in god
            4) We know god only through the bible.
            5) So the bible proves the bible is true.

            Give us one real world shred of evidence for your god which is not a bible story? Meet that challenge.

          • jmichael39

            1. False – hundreds of millions of people throughout history have had tangible real life experience with God. You’re free to try to refute everyone of those experiences. But you don’t get to brush them off an untrue simply because YOU haven’t had one of those experiences. That, like most of everything you’ve so far, is pure logical fallacy.
            2. So what. Several other non-biblical sources tell us of Jesus. Refute them. If you can.
            3. No, a multitude of the biblical stories have significant historical and archaeological evidence to support their veracity. Refute them one by one if you dare.
            “real world”? really? you’re going to present a challenge based off a logical fallacy? You accuse ME of rigging the challenge to prove my ‘truth’ and now you want ME to take a challenge where YOU get to decide what’s “real”? BS. The burden of proof is upon you…’brother’… There are millions of people who have had REAL life experiences with God. You want to call them all crazy just because their “reality” doesn’t jive with your reality. How laughably arrogant. You want to restrict reality to what only our five senses can observe and our minds can somehow comprehend? And you think I’m the close-minded one. LMAO.

          • Nofun

            1. No they have not. They have a faith which is real as any human behavior … god however has no reality. Attributing things to god is not the same s evidence.

            2, There is no first century proof of Jesus.

            3. Yea no one noticed the Sun stopping so a murderous god lover could continue his slaughter. Talking donkeys are thin on the ground. No proof at all for great floods and Genesis is ridiculous with plants being created before the sun. Its all very silly.

            4. You believe in a fantastic being no one can see, it is up to you to prove it.

            5. Reality is constricted by your 5 senses and what your mind can comprehend. If God is such a fantastic, incomprehensible, unknowable beast then how on earth can you know anything about him. Maybe he hates being worshiped. It does make him look a little needy.

            6. Show me some real world evidence and I all ears. Go.

          • jmichael39

            1. Logical fallacy… nor is not attributing them to God a refutation that they are. In other words, you can no more prove that anyone else has not had an encounter with God than you can prove that there is no God. Unless and until you can show yourself capable of knowing all things at all times, at best you can claim to have personally had no experience that you feel you can attribute to an encounter with God.

            2. Already provided. You still haven’t responded. In addition, please provide 4th century BC documents proving that Alexander the Great existed.

            3. You’ve personally met every donkey and can attest that none have ever talked. Wow. That’s amazing. You should have told me. Obviously YOU’RE a god. There’s plenty of evidence for a great flood. You’re welcome to not accept it. But like ALL you assertions, you can NEVER prove there is NO evidence whatsoever…not unless you’ve personally viewed every thing on this planet and have the mental capacity to understand what you’re seeing as NOT evidence for…for whatever.

            4. I’ve had a personal experience with God…we can go over those experiences if you want. But the onus to prove they’re NOT an experience with God is on YOU. Just like the Resurrection Challenge, you can look at the historical events that are there and decide for yourself the most acceptable explanation for those events. You’ve still not done that with ANYTHING I’ve present. For some mysterious reason, to you, if you say something is…then it is. You’re honestly amazing. You should start your own religion.

            5. So, you’re telling me that if you can’t see it, taste it, touch it, hear it or smell it, it doesn’t exist? And unless or until some human mind can comprehend, it’s not real? Are you seriously that self-absorbed?

            “If God is such a fantastic, incomprehensible, unknowable beast then how on earth can you know anything about him.” – that might just be the stupidest statement you’ve made yet. There’s no false dichotomy here. You assume that because you can’t know everything about God that he is unknowable…no such false dichotomy exists. You assume that if YOU haven’t observed Him with your five senses that no one has. Another fallacious assertion. You assume a lot.

            6. More “real”… shall I try this is French – Ceci est un argument fallacieux connu comme le “pas de véritable scotsman« sophisme. Or how about Koine Greek – Αυτό είναι ένα παραπλανητικό επιχείρημα είναι γνωστό ως το «όχι πραγματική Scotsman” πλάνη
            Either way you put it…you’re asking me to appease your fallacious logic.

          • Nofun

            1. You can attribute things to magical invisible gods but they don’t talk back nor do you experience anything real. God is a faith construct nothing more.

            2. Plenty of proof for Alexander. You see the problem of the historical Jesus is that most of the work is done by theologians who can’t be objective. They will find a historical Jesus whether is one or not. You haven’t supplied any proof I can see. Maybe you dreamed you did.

            3. So you are going with the taking donkey nonsense because there must be at least one that talks, hey. Funny. Once you find one though the search for talking snake must happen. There is no evidence of a world wide flood. None.

            4. For the zillionth time, bible stories are not historical facts. But I am interested about your encounter with god. Did you see or hear him or did you just pretend you felt the spirit. That is one the church’s tricks by the way that was enlarged upon by Billy Graham …. crowd hysteria. Works every time.

            5. Not at all if he is so incomprehensible how can you comprehend him? And why does he want to be worshiped?
            No one has any evidence of a magic god.

            6. So you got nothing. How unsurprising.

          • jmichael39

            1. “they don’t talk”…maybe not to you. But others say He’s spoken to them. And you have no ability to refute that. AGAIN, you make the fallacious conclusion that because you have not experienced something and because it doesn’t fit neatly into the limited world of natural science that it can’t possibly be real.
            Everything is a faith construct. Faith is merely a confidence or trust in a person or thing. It comes in degrees. Some things we have more confidence in than others. Do you believe…yes believe…that 2+2 always equals 4?
            2. “theologians” – What theologians? Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Josephus, the Talmud and many others provide evidence of the existence of Jesus. And nothing in your logic accounts for the very existence of the church in the first century. Who started this religion without a real Jesus…fishermen? women? And based upon what? the resurrection from the dead of a man who never existed? Come on, man, show SOME intelligence.
            3. “must be”? No…could be? Of course. But that’s not event he point. You’re stuck trying to pigeonhole every possible reality with ONLY those things that your senses can perceive, your mind can conceive and/or natural science can explain. You summarily reject the possibility of their being a reality that is NOT ‘natural’. And you do so simply because you personally have never had a personal experience that you identify as not-natural. Again…logically fallacious thinking.
            4. Let me make this simple for you. The Bible didn’t exist until the 4th century. Until then, what we now know as the Bible were simple 66 documents…historical in nature. The stories in those documents can either be verified by external evidence, refuted by external evidence or neither (because there is no evidence either way). But the documents are historical…the stories in them are either records of real events or fabrications. You don’t get to simply dismiss those documents and stories as false simply because Christians decided in the fourth century to compile those documents in a collection of ‘sacred’ documents to their faith. Fact is, by NOT treating those documents in the same exact manner that you would treat any other historical document wreaks of prejudice on your part. You want to refute the historical reliability of any one of those 66 documents or portions thereof? Feel free to try. But you’re being intellectual disingenuous by simply tossing out the historical significance of those 66 documents simply because Christians consider them sacred.
            5. Again you’re being illogical. There is no logical reason to equate incomprehensible with the notion that nothing can be known of him. YOU are incomprehensible, if you think about it. NO ONE can know everything about you. But that doesn’t mean they can’t know anything about you or even know you personally.
            6. No, I’ve got plenty…You’ve got no logic is what you. Make a request that isn’t based upon a logical fallacy and I’m happy to show you what I got.

          • Nofun

            1) So you heard god talk to you? Really? You heard sound? Or was he talking in your head and was someone other than your normal human duality?

            2) Reality is not a faith construct.

            3) Talmud is another collection of bible stories.

            Pliny the Younger, Roman Official and Historian (62-113 CE)
            Tacitus (AD 56 – after 117)

            Both way after the death of your imaginary Jesus.
            Also
            x = y
            x^2 = xy;
            x^2-y^2 = xy-y^2
            (x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y)
            x+y = y
            2y = y
            2 = 1
            1 = 0
            Now since 2+2 = 2+2+0 and we apply the lemma proof so that 0 = 1, 2+2+0 = 2+2+1 =5
            THEREFORE
            2+2 = 5

            4) You perceive everything with your mind. If said thing is more incomprehensible for you to process you can’t know anything about it. No phenomena has ever been found to have a supernatural cause.

            5) And bible stories are no historical documents they been translated and retranslated and edited several times.

            6) If there is no reality to what you believe why believe it. Why not believe in the infinity of other notions which have no evidence

          • jmichael39

            1) What do you care? There is no inherently superiority to any of those options. Only a fool who thinks our pathetically limited physical senses are superior to any other form of sensing reality.

            2) You’re right REALITY is not a faith construct. It doesn’t require anyone to believe it for it to be real. Faith is purely a means by which to observe reality. A new born child has no concept of what 2+2 even is, let alone whether it always equals 4. As the child grows, someone tells them 2+2=4…and sooner or later, the child gets it…understands the terminology, understands the concept to some degree and has some vague perception of trusting the person who teaches them this. But even as he grows up, someone comes along and tells him that 2+2 doesn’t always equal 4. That sometimes it equals 11. And that sometimes 2+2 isn’t even a reality at all…because the number 2 doesn’t exist. Unless he is able to maneuver his mind into a completely different construct of reality…namely binary or a base three construct, he’ll never understand or perceive this reality, let alone accept it.

            While you may think you may know all reality from your base 10 construct or even from a binary or base 3 construct. And maybe you do…from that perspective. But you can’t even begin to suggest you know all the possible constructs from which reality is perceived.

            You mock the notion of a human hearing the voice of God, but by your own vain argument that God can never be fully comprehended you ignorantly acknowledge that there is a construct…the God-construct, if you will…that neither you nor I can ever fully comprehend. Yet you think because it’s never fully comprehensible that it somehow makes God non-existent. That doesn’t even remotely make sense. The only logical thing to do, when you become aware of even the possibility of a new or different construct is to pursue trying to understand it. That is absolute basis of ALL science. Yet, somehow you summarily reject even those notion of a ‘god-construct’ because you don’t think you’ve ever perceived it.

            God is a reality whether you can or willing choose to observe the construct by which He is observed. Just as 2+2 = 11 is reality even if you never figure out how or choose to understand reality from a base-three construct.

            3) If X=Y then X-Y = 0

            And you go from (x+y)(x-y) = y(x-y)

            which simplifies to (x+y)(0) = y(0)

            you can go no farther…because to get to x+y = y you have to divide by 0 which you cannot do.

            My wife, who is an AP Math teacher and has been in charge of reviewing curriculum for her school for 10 years doesn’t know of a single math book that allows you to divide by zero. According to her, you can’t even do that in imaginary numbers.

            So…what’s you’re point? That you know math, but not enough to know you’re not allowed to divide by zero?

            And more curious, what does this have to do with point #3 from prior post?

            Now…regarding Pliny and Josephus and Tacitus – SO WHAT…they are first century historians…that’s what you asked for. Give it up, dude. Jesus lived. And there ain’t a thing you can do about it. All you’re doing now is showing you utter prejudice against religion of any kind. How sad that someone who prides himself on being so rational and open minded would allow himself to be so prejudicial that he loses all ability to be either.

            4) No, you comprehend things with your mind. There are a multitude of ways to perceive something.

            There is no logic to “If said thing is more incomprehensible for you to process you can’t know anything about it.” Of course we can know something about something that is too incomprehensible to know completely. By your own argument, because I can never know everything about you, I can never know anything about you.
            Key word being “found”…how do you know what’s been found or not found by all the people who’ve ever lived. You can’t You simply know of no instance in which anyone you know of has found an instance where pneumonia was caused by supernatural means.

            5) You’re free to have that opinion about the documents that make up the bible. There is little agreement from anyone with credentials in this field. And I would challenge you find any expert in these fields who would dismiss the biblical documents as non-historical in nature.
            As for the rest of that sentence, you’ll need to become an expert in contextual criticism to even be able to debate me about the accuracy of what we read as the bible now in relation to the original manuscripts.

            This is a field I HAVE studied a bit. And you couldn’t be more wrong. I suggest you take a class on contextual criticism and then get back to me. Just to put it succinctly, there are nearly 10x as many ancient manuscripts of the various books of the bible from which contextual critics piece together what they believe is the most accurate version of the original manuscripts than any other ancient document. They have pieces from as early as the late 1st century. In addition, there are so many extra-biblical documents written by late 1st and early 2nd century church leaders that quote virtually every portion of what would later become known as the New Testament (97% to be exact) that contextual critics have almost no trouble putting together what they are certain is the most accurate rendition of the full text of any ancient document ever.

            6) once again, you’re missing my point. I’m rejecting your request for “real world evidence”…not because there is no evidence for the existence of God, but because by your own words you’re predisposing as to what is “real evidence” and what is not. You reject all sorts of reality (proven by many of your posts), simply because those realities don’t always fit neatly into your five senses or within the confines of your limited mind.

            For example, I perceive our universe to be of great order and design. And since I reject the notion that something of design exists outside of a designer, I perceive the universe to be more than sufficient evidence for the existence of a designer. In doing that, I’m not expressing an opinion as to the nature and character of that designer, but simply that there is a designer.

            Even Einstein came to that conclusion. In his further pursuit as to the nature and character of that designer, he concluded in what essentially is a deistic view of God, but none the less, he accepted that his perception of the universe most definitely pointed to a designer. As I said earlier, you’re free to reject that construct, but your rejection of it doesn’t make it any less or more real.

          • Nofun

            1) If it is beyond your senses and knowing you don’t know it.

            2) and 3) 2 + 2 = 4 in binary too. If X =t then x -y = 0, didn’t pick up the actual error in the 2 + 2 = 5 equation breakdown hey.

            4) No, if something is incomprehensible to your tiny mind you can no nothing about it.

            5) Again it is up to you prove your fantastic claims not me to disprove them. If it requires so much study and translation etc it isn’t really a collection of simple truths is it. The more you translate and edit it the more it can follow anyone’s desired narrative.

            I tend the think the story where Jesus approves of the severe punishment of slaves was added just to keep to slaves in line. Clearly someone with an agenda added that one.

            6) Sure I am. I am open to any evidence you have. Yo just don’t have any. Design is an opinion so the designer is too. The problem with that is your deigned must be as complicated, if not more complicated, than his deign. If the axiom is “no design without a designer” who designed your god and who designed them and so on. Its a dead end.

          • jmichael39

            1) even if that were true…and again, being beyond full comprehension does not equate to knowing nothing…so what? I don’t need to comprehend the fullness of God to encounter him or enjoy him. Perhaps that’s where you are most weakest. You have to know before you can experience or enjoy. Oh well.

            2) & 3) no, 2+ 2 cannot exist in binary, because 2’s do not exist in binary based systems. And in a base 3 system, 2+2 = 11 because 4 does not exist there. As for the x-y thing, that’s on my wife. Being a math teacher for 31 years she says when she sees an answer that, even on the surface, looks illogical, she always looks for the division by 0 problem.

            4) I strongly disagree. I can never count to infinity, thus only know ‘infinity’ in somewhat incomprehensible terms But I can certainly know all the numbers I count on my way to trying to count to infinity. I may not be able to know all elements of the set known as “God” but I can certainly know some of them.

            5) “The more you translate and edit it the more it can follow anyone’s desired narrative.” – let me address this first. The very field of contextual criticism has more than affirmed the accuracy of the text of the bible. I definitely recommend taking a class on the subject. It’s truly amazing to learn. As for the various translations…yes there are hundreds. I will not even remotely suggest that there are not people who try to re-translate the original Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic to suit their own desires. That being said, most any biblical scholar can safely point to about 5-7 translations that are extremely accurate to the original text. The only difference between them being that of word choices…which carry very little effect upon the original text.

            As for the rest of your #5…which ‘fantastic claims’ am I supposed to be proving? That the bible as translated is accurate to the original texts or that what? I’m afraid you lost me on that one. Clarify and I’ll respond

            6) So now it’s “any” evidence. Until now, you were only interested in what you perceived as “real” evidence. So what do you want evidence for again?

            Nobody has to have designed God. But the very idea of God, he is the first cause…the uncaused cause. If he were not the first cause/uncaused cause, they something else would be the cause and we would keep going until we have no cause and thus the first cause and thus what we call the “designer”

          • Nofun

            1. True you don’t. You can make anything and say its god and what god wants. Ever religion does.

            2. 10 in binary is 2. Are we being educated yet?

            3. Your wife is smarter than you.

            4. How do you know all the numbers you are capable of counting describe infinity well at all? I suggest they never could. Ditto for god. The bit you think you understand maybe too small to make the claim you know god in any way.

            5. I doubt that. Most the editing decisions were done by the various Councils of Nicea. Men.

            You do know that the very English the King James version is written in, never existed outside the bible. All the thees and thous were added to make it look like ancient wisdom. Its a con. Thus Spoke Zarathustra parodies the language.

            6. Evidence has to be real otherwise its faith. But the problem with that I have already pointed out. There does not need to be any first cause, and if there is, why isn’t your god’s designer the first cause …. or his designer … or his designer …or his designer…..

          • jmichael39

            1) you wanna try again…not sure you typed that the way you wanted. Cause it’s not making sense…grammatically anyway.

            2) Except there IS no 2 in binary. (I’m not one who had to be shown the error in his equation…feeling like a hypocrite yet? probably now…true self awareness is not high on atheist/agnostics’ bucket lists)

            3) Not according to her…though I think she is. But she’s obviously smarter than you.

            4) “How do you know all the numbers you are capable of counting describe infinity well at all?” – I never say anything of the kind. In fact, I think that while I can know some of what infinity is by whatever numbers I CAN count, I can never know it in it’s fullness. But I certainly know about it and parts of it…which all I need to know to appreciate it and accept it’s reality.

            “The bit you think you understand maybe too small to make the claim you know god in any way.” – a completely self-refuting assertion. What I do know of God is knowing in “any way”. Even YOU know something of God. You merely reject him. Your choice to do so. Good luck with that.

            ” I doubt that. Most the editing decisions were done by the various Councils of Nicea. Men.” – you can doubt all you want, but you would have to utterly reject all facts to do so. Which seems to be a common event for you. There is utterly no evidence any document was altered by the Council of Nicea. In fact, the Council didn’t do anything except finalize a vote from an earlier Council.

            And frankly, the greatest evidence of all is the fact that earlier church fathers, such as Tertulian, Justin Martyr and others, in various letters and documents they wrote far earlier than the Council of Nicea contain quotes from the NT that equate to roughly 97% of the entire NT. Additionally, with nearly 42000 manuscripts dating as early late first century and maybe earlier, there is little problem for contextual critics to successfully determine the original texts of the documents. You really SHOULD take a class on contextual criticism…it’s very enlightening. And it might actually keep you from sticking your foot into your mouth in this area.

            “You do know that the very English the King James version is written in, never existed outside the bible.” – never read much Shakespeare, or other Medieval or Renaissance literature, eh?

            6) “Evidence has to be real otherwise its faith” – Ah, I knew it was a slip of the tongue for you to ask for ‘any’ evidence…back to the “no true Scotsman” argument. Who gets to decide what’s “real” evidence? You? You do realize I won’t be biting on that ‘worm’ right?

            “There does not need to be any first cause” – sure there does. In more abstract philosophical language, the proof goes this way. Every being that exists either exists by itself, by its own essence or nature, or it does not exist by itself. If it exists by its own essence, then it exists necessarily and eternally, and explains itself. It cannot not exist, as a triangle cannot not have three sides. If, on the other hand, a being exists but not by its own essence, then it needs a cause, a reason outside itself for its existence. Because it does not explain itself, something else must explain it. Beings whose essence does not contain the reason for their existence, beings that need causes, are called contingent, or dependent, beings. A being whose essence is to exist is called a necessary being. The universe contains only contingent beings. God would be the only necessary being—if God existed. Does he? Does a necessary being exist? Here is the proof that it does. Dependent beings cannot cause themselves. They are dependent on their causes. If there is no independent being, then the whole chain of dependent beings is dependent on nothing and could not exist. But they do exist. Therefore there is an independent being.
            Does that ‘independent being’ need to be the God I serve? Not in this philosophical sense. I am more than willing to stipulate for the argument of proving there is a “first cause/uncaused cause” or “designer” that this “first cause/uncaused cause” or “designer” need not be characterized or associated with any religion’s god. One cannot argue the character/nature of a being until both parties agree there IS such a being.

          • Nofun

            1) Whatever do you mean.

            2) There is every number in binary.

            3) I told you there was a deliberate error and you asked your wife. You weren’t involved except in the confusion part.

            4) Any number you can count to will be so imperceptibly small it will be equivalent of nothing at all. Much like your invisible god.
            I see no evidence of any god so I am not rejecting anything. Show me some real world evidence.

            5) Existence itself relies on perception. No perception then no existence. Perceiving existence is not the same as expecting a single cause for something .. that is a presumption. You cannot use existence to support a presumption

            Perceiving existence is about self-substantiating reality. The cause of that existence is an opinion until some evidence in reality suggest it … at least.

            6) Again gods, designers and first causes are opinions and not supported by realities..

          • jmichael39

            1) that’s what I asked you…

            2) No, every non-binary number can be translated INTO binary. But not every number is in binary. You can play your games all you want. But the point of bringing it up…unlike your asinine 2+2=5 equation…is that all truths can be perceived. Sometimes it requires a different perspective. You personally choose to live you life in a base system that rejects all truth that doesn’t line up with your five senses and whatever you might somehow conceptualize. But there are truths that don’t fit neatly into that base system…like resurrections and God and so much more. You can pretend like those things must somehow translate into you base system in order to be real. But they don’t. You can, as you did, try to translate into your base system to somehow make some semblance of sense of them…but that still doesn’t make them fit neatly into your base system.

            I personally choose to view the world from whatever base system I need to use in order to perceive it. It doesn’t fit neatly into my five senses all the time. I don’t really care. Because I understand that the universe or God doesn’t revolve around me.

            3) You think I’m embarrassed somehow that I ask my math teacher wife for help on a math equation? Are you seriously that petty?

            4) “Any number you can count to will be so imperceptibly small it will be equivalent of nothing at all.” – LMAO…mr. word games…Yet as small as it might be it is NOT equal to zero or nothing. IS IT?

          • Nofun

            1) Who’s on first.
            2) That’s right you can have numbers of any base.
            Any reality that can’t be observed or has no real world evidence can be ignored. Anything can be true bit only real things are. If isn’t real it doesn’t matter.

            Truth is a direction not a destination. Your problem is you chose to believe in something without reality because you basically wanted to. Belief does not make things real.

            3) Yes.

            4) No …. but it will always be so extremely close to nothing at all that it hardly matters. Why do you think an infinite wants to be worshiped?

            5) If it can’t perceived it doesn’t exist. You think you percieve a god but you really don’t. Its just an idea in your head hiding in a few neurons. Do you worry about men with 50 heads? No? Why? Because there is no evidence of such things thus such notions do not matter.

            I can think about men with 50 heads, believe with all my heart, attribute daily happenings to it, attribute feelings I have to it …. but at no time does make men with 50 heads real.

            6) Opinions are real, the existence of the subject of the opinion does not necessarily exist. You can’t prove negatives. Which is typical of the creationist who demand their nonsense be refuted by others rather than manning up and providing proof their wild notions are real.

            That and there is no evidence of gods, creationism, creation, design, or any other such notion.

          • jmichael39

            1. I’ll take that to mean even you don’t know what the hell you’re saying.

            2. “Any reality that can’t be observed or has no real world evidence can be ignored.” – Why? Because you only accept reality that you can observe in your base 10 world? That’s fine, if you only want to live within your base 10 world. For me, I want to observe what’s real in all base systems. You’re free to ignore what your base 10 world doesn’t observe if you want. What you are NOT free to do, logically, is subject all reality to your base 10 system.
            3. Thank you for admitting your pettiness. I’m glad it makes you feel better to think my wife knows more about math than I do. Considering she’s a math teacher, I’ll accept that with pride in her brilliance in that field.
            4.

          • Nofun

            2. All whole number systems are real. I have no problem with any of them … why would I. None are magical, invisible and non existent like your god.

            3. Your welcome.

            4. Do you count in a different fashion or is your infinity more finite than mine. A single cell compared to the universe is as close to nothing as you can get.

            The problem with all of this is you are seeing the issue from your perspective …. try seeing from infinity’s perspective.

            5. Blind men have sense problem. Others can point out to the blind man the sky is real because the sky is independent reality that can be perceived by them. A christian can’t point to any independent reality to perceive in order to say god is real.

            He is just a thought, like a man with 50 heads is just a thought. I don’t know your thoughts …. thank Jebus …. but thoughts and perception of realities are different critters.

            6. True the difference between the two is real world evidence. It is up to you make a positive assertion based by evidence. In the absence of that the default position is that there is no god. Again if there is no evidence of a man with 50 heads, there is no such man unless you can prove otherwise.

          • jmichael39

            2. Actually you do have a problem with them…and your statement about there being a 2 in a base 2 system shows it. In a base two system, 2 does NOT exist. The CONCEPT of what a 2 is in systems like base ten can be converted in a base two system….but there is NO 2.
            You’re like the guy who learns to speak another language but still has to translate everything in your head back into English before you can understand it. ANd you have to think of the English word you want to say before you can translate it in your head to the other language.

            You understand the concept of the other language but you don’t understand the language beyond that. You think of it always in terms of your base language.

            It’s the same way with how you see base two math. You understand the concept, but the only way you can functionally understand it is to translate it always back into your base ten math language.

            The same applies with reality and truth. You see everything through the base language of what you use to perceive things…i.e. – your five senses and science But when someone speaks in a language that lay outside the bounds of those five senses/science you may have some semblance of the concept of what’s being said…but you have to try to translate it back into your base language and by the time it gets there, it’s lost its core meaning.

            It’s a problem I had when learning ancient Greek for bible exegesis. I understood how to transliterate the Greek letters at first back into an Anglican version of the words. Then I had to, of course, translate that word back into English. You think, by that time, you understand the word. But it’s not until you dig harder and research deeper and immerse yourself in the language that you even begin to truly understand the meanings of words as they were used 2000 years ago.

            And that’s the problem that ANYONE who rejects faith has to deal with. You get a general ‘transliterated’ understanding of what faith is, but you’re always trying to understand it from the base worldview you have when you observe anything. It’s foreign to you.. We try to help you understand it somewhat when we talk about how some things, even in science, have to be taken by ‘faith’…but because the ‘faith’ language just doesn’t translate well into your base worldview, you can’t imagine how that’s possible.

            I’m not trying to mock you or ridicule you for not understanding how perceiving the world through faith is. I just wish you’d afford us the same understanding.

            3) Oh, btw, you’ll have to show me where you told me ahead of time there was a purposeful mistake your 2+2=5 equation. Because I looked back and didn’t find that anywhere.

            4) Interesting that you would ask me to see that cell from the infinite universe’s perspective. I would suggest you do the same thing when it comes to the world…to see it from the perspective of eternity.

            And yet, here’s the cold hard reality…as infinite as the universe is…we don’t know if there is an end to the universe…but we DO know there was a beginning. So in that sense, from a time perspective (thus why I asked you see things from an eternal perspective), the universe is NOT eternal. It IS finite from that perspective that it had a beginning.

            And even as far a space is concerned, the idea that the universe is expanding, by mere definition, suggests that there IS an end to the universe (even if we don’t know where it is)…because if the universe is expanding, it has to be expanding beyond where it already is…which presumes it has reached a point from which it can expand.

            So no matter how minute a single cell is in relation to the universe..it is something. It is greater than nothing. And no matter how little I may know about God in comparison to His eternal and infinite character, I still know more than nothing…and since I am capable of knowing more, I choose to do so…thus why I choose to pursue the relationship with God I must have in order to better know Him.

            Again, I don’t expect that to translate well into your base ten worldview language. But it is perfectly understandable to anyone immersed in a life of knowing God.

            5) “A christian can’t point to any independent reality to perceive in order to say god is real.” – sure we can…unfortunately for you, those of us who can and do point to such an independent reality, don’t translate well into your base ten worldview language. God is as real as that sky is to the blind man. And you’re the blind man. I can describe God to you in a million ways, but so long as you’re still blind, those descriptions mean nothing to you. You have nothing in your blind language that those descriptions accurately translate into.

            “He is just a thought” – in your base ten worldview language He IS just a thought. Because he doesn’t translate into your language. The funny part is, God understands that. Which is why He sent Jesus…to help, translate, so to speak, God’s language into our world. But you even reject that. It would be like a doctor coming to that blind man and offering him a procedure to give him eyesight. But he rejects it because he refuses to believe there is any reality outside his four senses.

            6) “True the difference between the two is real world evidence.” – in all honesty, you had your real world evidence. As I just said in #5…God gave you a chance to see Him in your so-called ‘real world’…and you still rejected Him. Thus my point about the Pharaoh Syndrome…namely that God could:
            a) send sign after sign after sign to you and you still won’t believe.
            b) write in the clouds above your home “Hey, I’m here and I’m real and I’m God” and you’d still find some excuse.
            c) send His Son to live the God life in our “real world” and even die and rise again…and you’d still not accept Him
            You’re the blind man, whose ‘real world’ doesn’t include the ability to see the evidence as it is. And God has offered you a means by which to see and you rejected even that. Why? Because you’re happy living in your world of blindness…or at least you think you are.

          • Nofun

            2. Base ten 2 in binary is 10. There is 11211233 in base ten even though it is base ten. Everything is referenced to something more familiar. Considering I have programmed assembler in the past I think I know more than you.

            None of this is justification for saying that imaginary things are real. It a process of telling yourself something is true and real when you know it isn’t.

            Base 2 and base 10 are nothing like reality and the supernatural. Using mathematical bases is the same way of thinking. Being a realist requires analytic, logical and rational thinking. Believing in supernatural non-existent things requires magical thinking.

            Look if you have learn other languages and have to retranslate things, this biblical truth becomes more and more subjective. Shouldn’t it be clear, straightforward and not some tangled web of nonsense to unravel.

            5) Reality is reality. Magical thinking is magical thinking. I don’t care what nonsense you believe or why you believe it … the problem is when you try forcing this magical thinking into real world science, education, medicine, civil rights and govt. This is not the place for magical thinking. Keep your base 2 thinking for a base 2 world.

            6) You have no experience of a god and you know it. The only thing real about your belief is your faith behavior. Magical thinking allows you the delusion to think you have.

            a) What signs?

            b) No, if you could provide real world evidence I still might immediately not believe as you do but I can no longer dismiss as I can now. Atheists do nothing but accept real world evidence.

            c) Silly stories borrowed from other legends.

            d) No, blind man is that which thinks his magical world of thought is equal to reality and has some place in it. It is delusion and god is a faith construct. Stop believing and god disappears and leaves no hole … then you can start to live YOUR life and stop pretending to be someone or something else.

          • David Cromie

            What about those of us who live in an octal, or even a duodecimal world? When did you last converse with a ghost, or poltergeist?

          • jmichael39

            what do you care? Whatever the explanation is for those things does not explain another thing.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            @jmichael39:disqus @disqus_0Xf4ohmEwF:disqus

            Donkeys cannot talk because nothing in the gene expression for a donkey produces a vocal tract capable of creating appropriate sounds, and no gene expression for the donkey brain encodes for a speech centre, so if you ever meet a “talking donkey” under controlled conditions that preclude e.g. ventriloquism or a radio, then its DNA will prove that it is not actually a donkey.

          • Nofun

            But.. but … Francis the Talking mule.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Wrong, a few people convinced others that a few people had these experiences. Right off the bat a false fact.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            @jmichael39:disqus @disqus_KTVaRQsOxH:disqus
            We can induce such experiences with drugs, dopamine, hypnotism, sensory deprivation, electrical stimulation and transcranial magnetic induction. We can suppress such experiences with drugs, surgery and electrical stimulation. We have evaluated people remembering such experiences and have proved that they are remembering self referenced, rather than external interactions. We know exactly how much energy is required to activate a neuron, and know that people supposedly interacting with their god thingies in sensory deprivation monitoring units do not exchange sufficient energy with anything external to imply an external source for such interactions.

            While I expect more high precision experiments, and much better imaging and localization in the future, I do not expect them to reflect anything more than we already know. Anecdotal “tangible real life experience with God” are lies, deliberate or delusional, by believers who have experienced nothing more than aberrant brain processes from the slow, flawed, error-prone processors, lacking all error-detection, let alone error-correction, with which we are all afflicted.

          • jmichael39

            You couldn’t prove that if your life depended upon it.
            Take a course of logic before you stick you foot in your mouth again.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You mean those Churches where the preacher slaps the practitioner on the head and they flop on the ground like a sardine? Or the gibberish they spout like they are making fun of aborigines.

            Belief is fine. The moment you claim it as truth YOU have the burden of proof.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…you made an affirmative assertion…not a negative one. Therefore, the burden of proof for that assertion is upon YOU. But thank you for playing the logical fallacy game. You might what to take that course on logic…really.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Incorrect. Claims aren’t only made verbally. Con artists often use body language and shills in their cons.

            So they are making the claim they are healing someone with “power” from God. They support that with their preaching as well through out their sermon. Its all a show.

          • jmichael39

            LMAO AGAIN…what body language do you really think we can exchange in this forum?
            YOU made an affirmative assertion…and have done so again in this last post
            “Its all a show”…prove it. Prove there is no healing by ANY person of faith. You can’t. Which is why you’re trying desperately now to throw the burden of proof on me. I don’t need any more proof. I’ve seen people healed. You can doubt all you want. Just because you’ve not been around when someone has been healed does NOT mean it doesn’t happen.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            What???

            Are we even talking about the same thing?

            I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about the priests.

            THEY make the claim they are healing. So THEY have to prove it. I am claiming that it is false. If they do not provide evidence of their healing claim, then i do not have any requirement to provide it to dispute it.

            The ONLY way you can claim that I need evidence for any of my statements, is if you challenged the claim I made that there were priests peforming these healing “rituals”. If you are claiming that, I will be glad to provide you with some references, but I think you and I both agree that there are priests that make such claims with their actions and speech.

          • jmichael39

            Start here. Read the summaries. Read the book. Write to Dr. Casdoph (if he’s still alive). Do whatever you need to and then refute them. If you want more, let me know. I can keep sending them to you and they will all be just as verifiable and these.
            Dr H Richard Casdorph is an experienced doctor and medical researcher. His CV shows he has published more than a hundred research papers in a career that has spanned almost 6 decades.

            In the mid 70s he undertook a research project with a difference. He interviewed ten people who claimed to have been miraculously healed of serious conditions. He examined all the case histories – X-rays, medical reports, etc – and also submitted them to medical specialists for review.

            In all ten cases, the evidence showed that an unusual healing had taken place after the patient received prayer for healing. The cases were written up in a book, The Miracles, which includes some of the X-rays.

            Lisa Larios

            Lisa was diagnosed with cancer of the hip when she was 12, and was unable to walk unaided. Her family decided chemotherapy was too traumatic and called it off after one dose. The family were Catholic, though not very religious, and a family friend invited the family to a christian healing meeting conducted by ‘healing evangelist’ Kathryn Kuhlman. The friend fasted and prayed for a week beforehand.

            During the service, Lisa felt a warm feeling in her stomach, and Kathryn Kuhlman said someone in her section of the auditorium was being healed from cancer and should stand up. Lisa, against her mother’s wishes, stood up and was able to walk without pain for the first time since the problem had appeared. Lisa was X-rayed several times after that, and it became clear that something strange had indeed occurred. Further X-rays (reproduced in the book) were taken and reviewed by several doctors, and these showed that Lisa’s hip had been fully restored and the cancer was gone.

            Elfrieda Stauffer

            Elfrieda was ‘critically ill’ with chronic rheumatoid arthritis, and unable to walk or dress herself, when she was taken to a healing meeting by her husband. She had avoided going because “she did not believe in that kind of thing”, but after much prayer by her husband and urging by some friends, she agreed to go. During the meeting she felt that parts of her body that had been in extreme pain were becoming pain-free, and she was able to move them. Dr Casdorph points out that gradual spontaneous remissions can occur with this disease, but “she emerged from this severe disability to complete normalcy within a matter of seconds or minutes. This is not spontaneous remission.”

            Marie Rosenberger

            In 1970, at age 44, Marie started suffering from severe headaches. She underwent brain surgery, and a tumour was removed, but the surgeons could not remove it all, and the biopsy showed is was malignant. The tumour began to grow back, and Marie was not expected to live. The family decided to spend an evening praying for her healing and her husband stayed up all night. He had a vision of the tumour being healed, but Marie seemed little improved when she woke. However she stopped taking her medication, and continued to improve, as visits to her neurosurgeon confirmed, with some amazement, until she was healed. The book discusses the medical documentation and reproduces arteriograms.

            Marion Burgio

            When multiple sclerosis first affected Marion in 1958, she was pregnant and not yet 30. She felt numbness in her hands, kept falling over, and generally started losing coordination. But it was not diagnosed for four years, by which time she was deteriorating steadily. Ten years later, she had bad headaches, a deformed forearm, was incontinent, had a marked loss of hearing and vision and was unable to eat or even hold her head up. A friend visited regularly to pray for her and invited her to a Kathryn Kuhlman healing meeting.

            Marion at first refused to go, but eventually was taken in a wheelchair. She can’t remember exactly what happened, but during the service she found herself standing up, with her back and limbs straight for the first time in years. She began to walk immediately, and later her surprised doctor found she had been healed of all symptoms, including the deformities. She and her husband became strong believers in Jesus.

            Marvin Bird

            Arteriosclerotic heart disease was (and I assume still is) the most common cause of death in the western world. Marvin Bird had his first heart attack at age 46, and over the next 16 years was hospitalised 17 times because of his heart condition. One artery was completely blocked and the others were half blocked (as shown in angiograms reproduced in the book), but he declined a coronary artery bypass because, at age 60, he didn’t think he would survive surgery. He attended a healing meeting even though he wasn’t then a believer, and an assistant, believing he had been healed, invited him to stand up. He couldn’t previously do this on his own, but now was able to. Doctors later confirmed he was fully healed, and Marvin started to attend church and believe in Jesus.

            Ray Jackson

            In 1972, Ray Jackson had a kidney removed in the Duke University Medical Center because of cancer. He recovered well, but two years later doctors had to remove a finger because they found cancer had spread there. Shortly after they found cancer in his spine, pelvis, breastbone and leg, and this time surgery was out of the question. (Two bone scans are reproduced in the book.) He was booked in for radiation treatment, but advised he could expect to live no more than a year.

            Many friends were praying for his healing, and before he began the radiation treatment, he woke in the night to hear a voice tell him he would be healed. The next day he attended a ‘Kathryn Kuhlman miracle service’, during which the pain disappeared instantly. Tests the next day still showed the lesions, but subsequent tests showed that healthy new bone had filled in where the lesions had been. This case is notable because of the wealth of medical detail available from Duke to confirm the healing.

            Pearl Bryant

            Pearl was a doctor of speech therapy who had suffered from a range of medical problems – arthritis, kidney, gall bladder and liver problems – for most of her life. By the time she was in her sixties she had to wear long-leg braces whenever she was out of bed because of weak knees and many falls. Other physical problems (fainting, headaches, nausea and digestrive problems) also worsened at this time. A devout christian, she began praying for healing in her late seventies, then finally managed to get to a healing meeting. During the meeting she felt an unusual ‘grinding’ sensation in her body, beginning with her left hip and gradually moving around her whole body and ending in her neck. She couldn’t take the leg braces off in public to test her healing, but next morning she was able to walk unaided and regained full movement. She was fully healed.

            Anne Soults

            Over just a few weeks, Anne began to have serious problems reading, speaking and remembering. A series of brain scans (some of which are reproduced in the book) and visits to different specialists revealed she had a lesion that was increasing in size, consistent with a tumour. However following prayer from a prayer group and at a healing service, further scans showed no evidence of an abnormality. Dr Casdorph comments: “This lady’s brain abnormality was well documented by the standard diagnostic techniques and she was seen by many specialists.”

            Paul Trousdale

            Paul, a successful businessman, was admitted to hospital with severe gastrointestinal bleeding after fainting several times. He required many blood transfusions over several days. He had only recently begun to attend church, and his minister visited one morning and prayed for him. The minister said that he had been healed, but doctors would not release him from hospital until his condition was re-tested. All tests showed the bleeding had ceased and there were no abnormalities. Paul’s condition before and after were “well documented by medical records”.

            Delores Winder

            Delores had severe spinal problems and pain for years, necessitating four spinal fusions and two cordotomies (a procedure that disables part of the spinal cord to reduce pain but results in no feeling in the legs). For fourteen years she wore a body cast and neck brace to relieve the pain and enable her to walk. At the end of this time, the doctors told her there was little they could do for her, she had so many conditions, but that she could prolong her life by staying still in bed, advice she was unwilling to take.

            Although she was a christian, she didn’t believe in divine healing, but she was persuaded to attend a Kathryn Kuhlman meeting. She experienced a burning sensation in her legs (the first thing she had felt in her legs for a time) and was completely healed. She was also strongly renewed in her faith. Dr Casdorph says he has medical records for Delores “an inch thick” showing seven serious spinal procedures and the increasingly desperate medical diagnoses, culminating in the doctor’s acceptance that she had “gotten an excellent result physically”.

          • jmichael39

            Start here. Read the summaries. Read the book. Write to Dr. Casdoph (if he’s still alive). Do whatever you need to and then refute them. If you want more, let me know. I can keep sending them to you and they will all be just as verifiable and these.

            Dr H Richard Casdorph is an experienced doctor and medical researcher. His CV shows he has published more than a hundred research papers in a career that has spanned almost 6 decades.

            In the mid 70s he undertook a research project with a difference. He interviewed ten people who claimed to have been miraculously healed of serious conditions. He examined all the case histories – X-rays, medical reports, etc – and also submitted them to medical specialists for review.

            In all ten cases, the evidence showed that an unusual healing had taken place after the patient received prayer for healing. The cases were written up in a book, The Miracles, which includes some of the X-rays.

            Lisa Larios

            Lisa was diagnosed with cancer of the hip when she was 12, and was unable to walk unaided. Her family decided chemotherapy was too traumatic and called it off after one dose. The family were Catholic, though not very religious, and a family friend invited the family to a christian healing meeting conducted by ‘healing evangelist’ Kathryn Kuhlman. The friend fasted and prayed for a week beforehand.

            During the service, Lisa felt a warm feeling in her stomach, and Kathryn Kuhlman said someone in her section of the auditorium was being healed from cancer and should stand up. Lisa, against her mother’s wishes, stood up and was able to walk without pain for the first time since the problem had appeared. Lisa was X-rayed several times after that, and it became clear that something strange had indeed occurred. Further X-rays (reproduced in the book) were taken and reviewed by several doctors, and these showed that Lisa’s hip had been fully restored and the cancer was gone.

            Elfrieda Stauffer

            Elfrieda was ‘critically ill’ with chronic rheumatoid arthritis, and unable to walk or dress herself, when she was taken to a healing meeting by her husband. She had avoided going because “she did not believe in that kind of thing”, but after much prayer by her husband and urging by some friends, she agreed to go. During the meeting she felt that parts of her body that had been in extreme pain were becoming pain-free, and she was able to move them. Dr Casdorph points out that gradual spontaneous remissions can occur with this disease, but “she emerged from this severe disability to complete normalcy within a matter of seconds or minutes. This is not spontaneous remission.”

            Marie Rosenberger

            In 1970, at age 44, Marie started suffering from severe headaches. She underwent brain surgery, and a tumour was removed, but the surgeons could not remove it all, and the biopsy showed is was malignant. The tumour began to grow back, and Marie was not expected to live. The family decided to spend an evening praying for her healing and her husband stayed up all night. He had a vision of the tumour being healed, but Marie seemed little improved when she woke. However she stopped taking her medication, and continued to improve, as visits to her neurosurgeon confirmed, with some amazement, until she was healed. The book discusses the medical documentation and reproduces arteriograms.

            Marion Burgio

            When multiple sclerosis first affected Marion in 1958, she was pregnant and not yet 30. She felt numbness in her hands, kept falling over, and generally started losing coordination. But it was not diagnosed for four years, by which time she was deteriorating steadily. Ten years later, she had bad headaches, a deformed forearm, was incontinent, had a marked loss of hearing and vision and was unable to eat or even hold her head up. A friend visited regularly to pray for her and invited her to a Kathryn Kuhlman healing meeting.

            Marion at first refused to go, but eventually was taken in a wheelchair. She can’t remember exactly what happened, but during the service she found herself standing up, with her back and limbs straight for the first time in years. She began to walk immediately, and later her surprised doctor found she had been healed of all symptoms, including the deformities. She and her husband became strong believers in Jesus.

            Marvin Bird

            Arteriosclerotic heart disease was (and I assume still is) the most common cause of death in the western world. Marvin Bird had his first heart attack at age 46, and over the next 16 years was hospitalised 17 times because of his heart condition. One artery was completely blocked and the others were half blocked (as shown in angiograms reproduced in the book), but he declined a coronary artery bypass because, at age 60, he didn’t think he would survive surgery. He attended a healing meeting even though he wasn’t then a believer, and an assistant, believing he had been healed, invited him to stand up. He couldn’t previously do this on his own, but now was able to. Doctors later confirmed he was fully healed, and Marvin started to attend church and believe in Jesus.

            Ray Jackson

            In 1972, Ray Jackson had a kidney removed in the Duke University Medical Center because of cancer. He recovered well, but two years later doctors had to remove a finger because they found cancer had spread there. Shortly after they found cancer in his spine, pelvis, breastbone and leg, and this time surgery was out of the question. (Two bone scans are reproduced in the book.) He was booked in for radiation treatment, but advised he could expect to live no more than a year.

            Many friends were praying for his healing, and before he began the radiation treatment, he woke in the night to hear a voice tell him he would be healed. The next day he attended a ‘Kathryn Kuhlman miracle service’, during which the pain disappeared instantly. Tests the next day still showed the lesions, but subsequent tests showed that healthy new bone had filled in where the lesions had been. This case is notable because of the wealth of medical detail available from Duke to confirm the healing.

            Pearl Bryant

            Pearl was a doctor of speech therapy who had suffered from a range of medical problems – arthritis, kidney, gall bladder and liver problems – for most of her life. By the time she was in her sixties she had to wear long-leg braces whenever she was out of bed because of weak knees and many falls. Other physical problems (fainting, headaches, nausea and digestrive problems) also worsened at this time. A devout christian, she began praying for healing in her late seventies, then finally managed to get to a healing meeting. During the meeting she felt an unusual ‘grinding’ sensation in her body, beginning with her left hip and gradually moving around her whole body and ending in her neck. She couldn’t take the leg braces off in public to test her healing, but next morning she was able to walk unaided and regained full movement. She was fully healed.

            Anne Soults

            Over just a few weeks, Anne began to have serious problems reading, speaking and remembering. A series of brain scans (some of which are reproduced in the book) and visits to different specialists revealed she had a lesion that was increasing in size, consistent with a tumour. However following prayer from a prayer group and at a healing service, further scans showed no evidence of an abnormality. Dr Casdorph comments: “This lady’s brain abnormality was well documented by the standard diagnostic techniques and she was seen by many specialists.”

            Paul Trousdale

            Paul, a successful businessman, was admitted to hospital with severe gastrointestinal bleeding after fainting several times. He required many blood transfusions over several days. He had only recently begun to attend church, and his minister visited one morning and prayed for him. The minister said that he had been healed, but doctors would not release him from hospital until his condition was re-tested. All tests showed the bleeding had ceased and there were no abnormalities. Paul’s condition before and after were “well documented by medical records”.

            Delores Winder

            Delores had severe spinal problems and pain for years, necessitating four spinal fusions and two cordotomies (a procedure that disables part of the spinal cord to reduce pain but results in no feeling in the legs). For fourteen years she wore a body cast and neck brace to relieve the pain and enable her to walk. At the end of this time, the doctors told her there was little they could do for her, she had so many conditions, but that she could prolong her life by staying still in bed, advice she was unwilling to take.

            Although she was a christian, she didn’t believe in divine healing, but she was persuaded to attend a Kathryn Kuhlman meeting. She experienced a burning sensation in her legs (the first thing she had felt in her legs for a time) and was completely healed. She was also strongly renewed in her faith. Dr Casdorph says he has medical records for Delores “an inch thick” showing seven serious spinal procedures and the increasingly desperate medical diagnoses, culminating in the doctor’s acceptance that she had “gotten an excellent result physically”.

            Ten people, all prayed for by christians who believe in divine healing, all healed. That is surely enough to make any open minded person think.

            At the very least, we can say that something quite unusual happened in each case. Coincidence? The odds seem against it. Poor diagnosis? Ditto. Lies? The documentation suggests not.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Not a big fan of “doctors” that have a big discovery that instead of going to have it reviewed by peers, they instead write a book. There also are rumors (not much on the Internet outside of second hand stories either way), that the lady that stood up collapsed the next day from complications of her illness. I couldn’t find much one way or the other, proof or not, but it would have been nice to have other doctors support him, instead of having a Cardiologist remark on a brain tumor being healed.

            Be skeptical about everything.

          • jmichael39

            What a lame ass response.
            “Oh my, he made money from a book he wrote on it. So he MUST be corrupt.”
            “Oh, I’m too lazy to read the damned book…so I’ll just assume there’s no corroborating medical reviews.”
            “Oh, I’ve heard of phony cases like this…so these must be phony too.”
            Can you BE any more obvious? Your name should be Unrepentant and Irrational Atheist.
            You asked for cases…there are ten. Refute them all…one by one or get lost. Or better yet, buy a plane ticket to Mozambique and go look for Heidi Baker and her husband. You won’t be there long before you’ll see a live miracle or two. Then you can refute them. Either way…I’m done with you unless and until you’re ready to actually be rational.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I answered your comment a few hours ago, so I haven’t even had the time to get the book if I did want to read it.

            My first research is to go online. Where I didn’t find much other than rumors, but what I did find gave me concern regarding the accuracy about the information portrayed.

            Can I find what he reported in the medical journal? Is there other Doctors that have went over his research? If I remember correctly, there was a Doctor that put his name all over some weight loss drug 10 or so years ago that caused people to die. Just because a “Doctor” took pictures doesn’t make it true. When doctors, pharmaceuticals, and other medical companies make a claim, it is tested and tested again by teams of people, not one. Heck, if he believed his actual story, he do more than just write a book, he would try to market the healer.

            But you are right, motivations and such, do not prove him false, but he hasn’t done anything to justify his claims. Too many questions pop up from me that would need to be answer. Questions that have been asked, but gone unanswered for almost 40 years since the book was written. Questions asked by people with way more knowledge of the medical field than I have. So yes, when I find a book about healing incurable diseases, and it is shelved in religion, I am skeptical, but it doesn’t make sense, and I require quite a bit of evidence to convince me it is real. I have read a few of the pages that I found online, and is written to convince, and not to explain the medical facts in a way that another doctor could go “oh that’s amazing”. Instead, it writes it in a way that someone with no knowledge could be easily fooled.

            I admit I have yet to read the book. Probably wont. There is a very robust medical field that would be in a uproar if this was anywhere CLOSE to being defensible.

          • jmichael39

            Such a humorous post. You’ve not read a thing about the cases and here you are already looking for excuses to reject them. Do you even KNOW how to be impartial and open-minded…non-prejudicial?
            Seriously, you might as well just write, “look dude, you can give me a thousand cases and it won’t matter how legitimate they are, I’ve already made up my mind that because SOMEONE somewhere was a scam, this is too.”
            You have what I call Pharaoh’s Syndrome. It wouldn’t matter if Jesus, Himself, came down from heaven and healed you personally of stage 4 cancer, you’d still find some reason to call it a scam and still reject God.
            Jesus even talked about people like you in Luke 16. You should read it sometime. Even if someone should rise from the dead, they will still not believe.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Unlikely, but lets say I did have a Jesus experience, I would understand I would have a hard time describing that to another. It isn’t proof to anyone but me. Plus with the message the Bible has, it would be akin to bribery. Not only do I not believe that God exists, but I also find fault with the message as a whole. I’m not a slave to anyone.

            The medical industry, like the science industry, has set standards to get widespread recognition. and acceptance. As a doctor he knows this, but he did not get that recognition. This is a flaw. I also tried looking up those ten people to see where they are now….. nothing. Outside of his book and the healer, there doesn’t seem to be much evidence of the people themselves. I actually believe they exist, but they should be walking miracles, yet are no where to be found.

            I’ll give you this much though, it is better evidence than anything you find in the Bible, but that isn’t saying much.

          • jmichael39

            “I’m not a slave to anyone.” – LMAO…Yeah, okay…if you say so.

            “The medical industry, like the science industry, has set standards to get widespread recognition. and acceptance. As a doctor he knows this, but he did not get that recognition. This is a flaw.” – You really don’t read these things, do you? “and also submitted them to medical specialists for review.”

            “I also tried looking up those ten people to see where they are now….. nothing.” – So…all that says if you can’t find them. There’s plenty of medical evidence in the book, actually. And there IS outside medical review…as I said. I’m beginning to doubt your sincerity here.

            “it is better evidence than anything you find in the Bible” – That’s only because you continue to treat the bible as some sacred text…instead of as historical documents…which is what they were long before some church people decided to canonize them in the fourth century. You simply can’t bring yourself to treat them as historical documents and verify or refute them accordingly.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Why would I treat the Bible like a historical document? It has been pieced together and edited more times than I can count, remarks on exact quotes years after they were actually supposed to have been spoken and I am supposed to take it as a unbiased source of non-fiction? It consistently rips off of other religions that pre-date it, contradicts itself, and promotes mass delusion. It also includes positive descriptions of immoral acts (genocide, rape, and slavery), preaches about the abandonment of responsibility in return for servitude, unending torture for those that disobey, fail to believe, or live in the wrong place with the wrong skin color, and then tries to describe how “loving” the god is. Having that be considered as a historical document makes me want to vomit.

            The book belongs in the Fantasy section of a Barnes and Nobles.

          • jmichael39

            “Why would I treat the Bible like a historical document? It has been pieced together and edited more times than I can count, remarks on exact quotes years after they were actually supposed to have been spoken and I am supposed to take it as a unbiased source of non-fiction?” – So has every ancient document. Do you REALLY think we have the original manuscript for something like The Iliad? Contextual Criticism is all about taking the various manuscripts we DO have for an ancient document, along with other documents where we might find quotes from those documents, and piecing them together in an effort to find what the original manuscripts said. THAT is how you treat historical documents. And, in case you didn’t know…which apparently you didn’t…the more manuscripts and outside quotes we have, the more accurately we can trace back the original text. There are 8-10x as many manuscripts and hundreds times more outside quotes for the 66 documents that make up the Bible than the nearest other ancient document. In fact, virtually 97% of the entire NT is quoted by outside sources we have. There is little doubt as to the accuracy to the original texts of the bible. Only a prejudicial fool would reject that without even investigating.

            “It consistently rips off of other religions that pre-date it,” – More canards and lies. You’ll buy into any POS lie so long as it makes you feel better about your hatred for religion, won’t you. Besides which, to even use this as an excuse it a pure logical fallacy. Funny how atheists like to tout themselves as rationalists until its required of them to argue their own beliefs. Then you can’t even come up with a logical argument. Do you REALLY think that the fact that several other ancient cultures have creation stories and flood stories and so on invalidates the Bible? If anything it affirms that not just the Judeo-Christian cultures are aware of those events.

            “It also includes positive descriptions of immoral acts (genocide, rape, and slavery)” – and think humanity WITHOUT God is any better? Come on, man…come up with something better than that.

            “preaches about the abandonment of responsibility in return for servitude” – Oh? where’s that? If anything the bible teach taking FULL responsibility for one’s actions but merely being spared the eternal consequences for them when one is willing to allow the death of Jesus to be the final eternal consequence.

            “unending torture for those that disobey, fail to believe, or live in the wrong place with the wrong skin color” – You’re getting desperate, man. You first say we’re taught to abandon our responsibility…then you want God to NOT hold your responsible for rejecting him. LMAO. Such a narcissist. God doesn’t torture anyone. You want a life without God? You want an eternity without God? Then that’s your choice and you will face the consequences for that choice. You’ll have no one to blame but yourself. But don’t worry, you don’t believe that stuff…so it must not be true. LMAO. “Skin color” really? Where does one begin to address such illogic?

            “then tries to describe how “loving” the god is.” – Yeah, no love at all…he creates a fabulous universe…gives us everything we need and yet we still reject him…spit in his face and act like we know better and don’t need him. Yet he still sends his own son to pay the price for our asinine behavior. But some STILL reject him…spit in face and would rather shoot someone who follows him than have to treat them with respect. And still he gives you time and opportunity. No, not love at all. You’re like those petulant teenagers who scream how they hate their mom or dad because they take away your credit card or won’t buy your a new car. Spoiled little brat. And yet he still gives you opportunities to get your head out of your ass.

            “Having that be considered as a historical document makes me want to vomit.” – a lovely testimony to your obnoxious prejudice and hatred. And you honestly think YOU are the rational one. You’re laughable.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Btw. Your whole post is one big straw man argument.

          • jmichael39

            You mean the one of me mocking YOUR previous post? LMAO…spare me. Refute the damned cases properly or bug off.

          • Bluesman1950

            Medical science is far from infallible and misdiagnosis and misattribution far from impossible. That spontaneous remission can occur is well known. Why is not necessarily understood, but that does not justify attributing unexplained recoveries to god.

            How many seriously or terminally ill people have been prayed for or attended faith healing and not been cured?

            How many people have spontaneously regrown an amputated limb after prayer? That might be more convincing!

          • jmichael39

            You’re excuses for unbelief are sounding more and more desperate.

            “That spontaneous remission can occur is well known. Why is not necessarily understood, but that does not justify attributing unexplained recoveries to god.” – it certainly isn’t attributable to science either. Not that you can remotely prove. And, unless you’re willing to utterly dismiss the medical opinions of untold numbers of doctors who have witnesses these things, you’re just digging a bigger hole of prejudice.

            “How many seriously or terminally ill people have been prayed for or attended faith healing and not been cured?” – so now God has to cure EVERY illness or it don’t count. You’re getting REALLY desperate now.

            “How many people have spontaneously regrown an amputated limb after prayer? That might be more convincing!” – no it won’t. You’re suffering from Pharaoh Syndrome. God could appear in your bedroom and heal you of stage 4 cancer and you’d likely still not believe. It’s your choice not to. You prefer to live quietly within your safe little world where you don’t have to believe in a God who might actually make you stand accountable for what you do and say.

          • Bluesman1950

            Not as desperate as praying for miracles!

            The vast majority of people prayed for and recovering are healed by medical science. Virtually all diagnosed as terminally ill that cannot be cured by medicine die, regardless of prayer.

            That you call 10 cases of ‘miraculous’ recoveries to counter the millions of deaths which have occurred despite the prayers of various faiths is sadly laughable in its futility.

            So why won’t god heal amputees then? Is it beyond his omnipotence, or does he just not exist?

          • jmichael39

            “Not as desperate as praying for miracles!” – why create a false dichotomy when none exists. Medicines and prayer have ALWAYS gone hand in hand. Where in the world do you think the symbol for the AMA came from?

            “refusing to believe your fantasies although you insist that I must or disprove them.” – I don’t insist you believe anything. You’re the one walking around mocking things you don’t understand and refuse to accept…and yet…are finally accepting them.

            The fact that you think that it’s just 10 is sadly ignorant and pathetically illogical. I already told you, those were just to start. I could send you down thousands of paths towards people who have been healed miraculously…including a boy whose eye was gouged by a piece of plastic from an ice scraper. The doctors saw the white of his eye missing. They weren’t sure if he’d lose his sight…but after a group of people prayed, the next day not only was his vision fine, but the gouge in his eye grew back. Or the young man whose arm was severed at the elbow and his arm was restored through prayer. Or the young woman who had lost one kidney already and was about to lose another had her previously removed kidney restored. The doctors were certain she had to have had a transplant, except the for the simple fact they’d just seen her in their office a few days earlier and there was no incision. Or the 53 or so people raised from the dead by various pastors in Mozambique over the past 30 years.

            No, I don’t expect a man suffering from Pharaoh Syndrome to believe any of that. Nor do I expect you to go research for yourself. You’re a coward in that regard. You don’t wanna know the truth. Because if somehow, some way you find ONE PERSON was healed miraculously by prayer, you’re confronted with an uncomfortable choice…if that’s true, what else is possibly true about this God you don’t want to be accountable to?

            And that’s proven by your simply vain statements above…where you stipulate that 10 miracles occurred but refuse to believe unless ALL people are healed who pray and/or God performs some parlor trick for you by restoring an amputee in front of your very eyes. Your excuses are just like those of the Pharaoh. God doesn’t perform parlor tricks for people who have nothing but contempt for him unless he acts as your major domo. He doesn’t perform parlor tricks at all. You don’t want anything to do with God, fair enough. But stop trying to justify your rejection of Him by pretending like He can’t possibly exist. What threat does His existence cast upon you? Can’t you simply reject Him without having to pretend like He can’t possibly exist? What’s the deal with that? Seriously. You don’t want Him healing you or your wife or kids when they need it? Fine…don’t ask Him to. But WHY must you act like His existence is impossible as are his miracles? MUST you stomp on someone else’s faith, hope and life…simply because you choose not to have the same faith, hope and life? Is it that much of a threat to you?

          • Bluesman1950

            That’s right, god doesn’t perform ‘parlor tricks’ because he can’t!

            You try to prove your point by alleged ‘miracles’, but when it comes to something which would actually be a convincing demonstration, oh no, that would be a ‘parlor trick’ unlike all his other miracles which, of course we’re nor ‘parlor tricks’! How cheeky of me to ask God for a convincing demonstration!

          • jmichael39

            “That’s right, god doesn’t perform ‘parlor tricks’ because he can’t, mainly because, as far as we can tell, he doesn’t exist! ” – how nice of you to speak for “we”. But if it’s alright with you, WE will think for ourselves, thank you very much.

            You try to prove your point by alleged ‘miracles’, but when it comes to something which would actually be a convincing demonstration, oh no” – I’ve already given ten examples with medical records and third party medical evaluation. I don’t see you even addressing those and you’re wanting more and more and more. Make up your mind, dude.
            But as soon as you refute those ten cases, I’ll take you to the next level. Get back to me when you actually do what you’re supposed to do…you know REFUTE THE EVIDENCE. It’s right there in a book. Everything you’ll need. Go read the book and get back to me. In other words, stop worrying about thinking for WE and start doing some actual thinking for yourself….read the damned book. Sheesh.

            Get back to me when you’re done. I’ll be here.

            All other cases will wait for you to return as well.

          • Bluesman1950

            Sorry, by ‘we’ I meant rational people. I was not, of course, trying to speak for you.

            You have given ten examples of recoveries which are either explicable by natural means, or where the explanation is currently unknown. You take these as proof of divine intervention. A hundred years ago reviving someone by CPR would have been counted as a miracle. Calling it a divine miracle now would only expose you to justified ridicule. Just because there is no obvious current medical explanation does not mean ‘goddidit’.

            You post some unexplained cures as miracles. What about the 150000 or so people who die daily across the globe? Did nobody pray for them? Did nobody pray for the babies dying of starvation, or malaria, or did god just want ‘another angel in heaven’? God seems to have a pretty cruel way of manufacturing angels.

            Your ten cases need no refutation, as they don’t prove anything, except that medical science is not always 100% accurate in its predictions and some conditions do spontaneously remit or disappear for physiological reasons we do not yet understand.

          • jmichael39

            “Sorry, by ‘we’ I meant rational people. I was not, of course, trying to speak for you.”

            Unbelievable. a statement which, itself, is irrational.

            “You have given ten examples of recoveries which are either explicable by natural means, or where the explanation is currently unknown.” – You have no clue what’s been explained because you have not read a damned thing. So again, another irrational conclusion based off presuppositions and conjectures. Keep going. You’re doing so well.

            “You take these as proof of divine intervention.” – I didn’t take it as ANYTHING…moron. I presented ten cases to you. Figure out what happened…or accept the conclusions those directly connected to the cases came to. Or don’t. I won’t want you to start being rational now.

            “A hundred years ago reviving someone by CPR would have been counted as a miracle.” – great, then by your rational…perhaps a hundred years from now reviving someone via prayer will be considered normal.

            “Just because there is no obvious current medical explanation does not mean ‘goddidit’.” – you don’t shit about the cases and you sit here still making meaningless presuppositions without having looked at a single bit of the evidence. You honestly think yourself ‘rational’ when you make prejudgments about something without having looked a single bit of the evidence?

            “What about the 150000 or so people who die daily across the globe?” – and yet another logical fallacy. Simply because others don’t experience the same ‘miracles’ doesn’t mean anything as regards to what DID happen. You can’t refute one event by providing what didn’t happen in a completely different event. You’re on a roll, dude…you haven’t said one rational thing yet in this last post.

            “God seems to have a pretty cruel way of manufacturing angels.” – where do you get that idea that dead humans are turned in angels? It’s certainly nowhere in the bible. Yet more irrational statements from the one who dares to speak for all rational people. LMFAO.

            “Your ten cases need no refutation, as they don’t prove anything” – what the hell do you know what they prove? You STILL haven’t read anything about any of them. Please tell me again just how rational you are. I love laughing that hard.
            I hope you realize by now that you’re stuck. You can’t say a damned thing about any of those ten cases unless and until you read the evidence presented. And you can’t say a damned thing about any other cases, or try to demand any the evidence until you do read those cases. If this were a chess match, you’d have only one move…read the evidence and refute the conclusions the authors and others present. Otherwise, lay down your king and move on.

          • Bluesman1950

            Try me on the regrown arm. Your evidence for that would be interesting! Otherwise you have presented no serious case for divine intervention, just a load of people who unexpectedly got better!

          • jmichael39

            As soon as you read the ten cases and bring us a better conclusion than those who were part of it came to…sure…we can talk about limbs and other such stuff. Ten cases first. CHECK.
            It’s your only move, dude. Put up or lay down your king.

          • Bluesman1950

            Looked at them. No evidence of god. Stop flanelling and present something that might be impressive. The guy with the regrown arm, evidence or just another fantasy?

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…so you can tell us what the evidence concludes? What a lying POS. Come back when you’ve decided to some thing other a lying ass.

          • Bluesman1950

            That you take this as evidence shows, as well as the fact that you believe in talking donkeys, that you are a gullible fool. The fact that you also say that you have evidence of a man who regrew an amputated arm, but then won’t or can’t produce it demonstrates that you are a liar too!

          • jmichael39

            That you would make conclusions WITHOUT viewing all the evidence says everything we need to know about you. You’re a lying, hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual, fraud.
            Take all your red herrings (which is exactly what the rest of your post is) and shove ’em. Unless and until you take the time to actually read the full evidence presented on those ten cases and provide a legitimate alternative explanation to what the medical professionals and others quoted in the book concluded you’ll forever just be a lying, hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual fraud.
            What a sad human being you are. You come to sites like this to try to mock and ridicule people of faith and here you go leaving with your tail between your legs simply because you’re too damned arrogant to buy a stinking book and do what any other rational human being would do.
            Now you have a few choices as I see it. You can 1) continue to beat your chest and throw out more red herrings; 2) admit that supernatural healings are possible, as is the potential for a supernatural God, 3) tuck tail and run (maybe create another new ID and come back again; 4) buy the stinking book, read and actually behave like the rational human being you like to think you are. But otherwise, you’re done here.

          • Bluesman1950

            Sorry that the ‘evidence’ of miracles actually being reviewed by a medical professional (Dr William A Nolen) and found to be false upsets you. He followed up the alleged beneficiaries of the miracles, so I don’t really need to, any more than you needed to research the original ‘miracles’ for yourself (which you didn’t! ).

            Also sorry that you were unable to confound me with your devastating proof of the man with the regrown arm! Did that get lost somewhere?

            You have the red herring monopoly round here and you’re welcome to store them wherever you wish about your person!

            If you don’t want to be ridiculed, don’t go around spouting the ridiculous nonsense that you do and certainly try not to get too tearful when the grown-ups tell you that Santa isn’t real.

            As long as the religious go around whining that they are being challenged when they try to feed children superstitions nonsense as fact, then realists will exercise their right to respond.

          • jmichael39

            Yada yada yada. I don’t see you reading the book little man.
            Put up or shut up…mr. fraud.

          • Bluesman1950

            Of course I’m not going to waste time reading your book which has already been debunked by proper investigation.

            As to put up or shut up, how’s the regrown arm evidence coming on?

          • jmichael39

            of course you’re not…you’re a lazy, hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual fraud. And unless or until you go buy the book and read it and provide a lovely alternative explanation for the things that are recorded there, you’ll always be a lazy, hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual fraud. You have nothing of use to say to me until then. You keep trying to say more, but it’s all gibberish, lame excuses for being to damned lazy to buy a damned book and read it. Do it or lay your kind down.

          • Bluesman1950

            So, no evidence of the arm then? Thought not!

            Dr Nolen has already proved that the claims are a fraud. Why should I duplicate it?

          • jmichael39

            ZZZzzzzzZZZZZzzz…. what, you’ve still not read the book? Come back when you have, FRAUD.

          • Bluesman1950

            You seem hooked on me reading this fraudulent book, which has been debunked by a better authority than either of us who actually checked up on the people, following them up personally. Obviously I’m not going to waste time or money on a known fraud.

            You consistently fail to back up your lies about the regrown arm. You are as fake as your fake book and I don’propose to spend anymore time labouring the point.

            You have no evidence to support your fantasies. You are the fraud.

          • jmichael39

            You seem hooked on being a complete intellectual fraud. You have NO way of determining anything about the book… YOU HAVEN’T READ IT.

          • Bluesman1950

            Regrown arm? Liar!

          • jmichael39

            READ THE BOOK, FRAUD.

          • Bluesman1950

            Regrown arm? Liar!

          • jmichael39

            We can get to the arms after you read the book and refute those 10 cases…if you can. LMAO…CHECK MATE

          • Bluesman1950

            Regrown arm? Liar!

          • jmichael39

            READ THE BOOK…and come back when you do

          • Bluesman1950

            Still lying about the regrown arms?

          • jmichael39

            never claimed anything about limbs. You’re lying if you say I did. Still not read that book…and trying to sound intelligent? LMAO…

          • Bluesman1950

            Sorry I’ve not been able to reply earlier, as I was on a tour and cruise in Canada and Alaska with inadequate internet access, but now I’m back!

            Well, how interesting, you say now that you never alleged that someone regrew an arm through prayer! Perhaps you also didn’t say that ‘pastors in Mozambique raised 53 people from the dead’ in the same post!

            Doubtless you’ve been back through your posts and deleted some of your more ludicrous nonsense. I certainly can’t be bothered to research all your waffle to find out if it’s still there.

            Strange though that, after no fewer than 9 demands that you provide evidence of that silly statement, this is actually the first time that you have denied saying it. All you’ve ever done before is demand that I read your book of nonsense which has been thoroughly debunked, as I have pointed out several times, by a doctor who actually followed up the claims and demonstrated that they were false. This was obviously your strategy to cover up the fact that, of course you cannot prove that someone regrew an arm through prayer!

            If you didn’t say it, why wait until now to deny saying it? You’re like a little kid, face smeared with chocolate, who stands there saying “I didn’t eat the cake.”

            I know that you will deny saying it in the first place and doubtless seek to strengthen your denials with lots of ‘LMAO’ and ‘ROFL’, which actually only make you sound like a giggling, uneducated, teenager.

            The point is that you know that you did say it. You know that it was a lie and now you are making up another lie to try to cover the first one. You also know that, whatever you try to post here as a cover, you and I both know that you are lying. You have to live with that, the fact that your religion can only be asserted and defended by lies .

            Keep on ‘lyin’ fer jesus’ if you want, but don’t try silly evasions when adults catch you out.

            It’s been interesting discussing these matters with you and has done a great deal to confirm my opinions of people like you, who want the minds of children polluted by your mendacious and superstitious nonsense. I think we can safely say (after you have tried to have the last word and declared ‘checkmate’, and LMAO obviously) that this discussion can now be concluded.

          • Verisimilitude

            Constabulary Notes:

            You got him dead to rights on that one, Officer.

            Should be a crime: Lyin’ fer Yeshua.

            On that topic…why do ‘they’ call him Jesus?

            Methinks ’tis merely the first of their lies…the rest follow naturally.

          • jmichael39

            READ THE BOOK AND REFUTE THEM…you want evidence…there it is.

          • Bluesman1950

            Too late, already refuted, as are your silly lies about arms growing back! Bye!

          • jmichael39

            What a delusional man. You haven’t even read the book, let alone evaluated the data presented. And you think you’ve refuted it…LMAO. Such delusions. You and Piney both need psychological help.

          • Bluesman1950

            Reading comprehension is obviously not your strong point. Your book was refuted, not by me, but by a doctor, quoted above, who followed up the ‘cures’ and proved that they were fake.

            Any evidence of imaginary regrown limbs to try to prove your point?

            Still LYAO I notice. Very convincing!

          • jmichael39

            That’s really cute coming from a man who refuses to read the book. It’s funny how you’ll take someone else’s word on the subject without ever once having read the material yourself. Do you typically let other people do you thinking for you? I guess the answer to that would be “yes” considering you’re quite obviously an intellectual fraud.

            Would you like to buy that ticket to Mozambique or would you like to just take someone’s word on that too? LMAO. You’re truly and honestly pathetic.

          • Bluesman1950

            Did you check out the Piltdown Man yourself, or do you accept the words of those who discredited it?

            I do not have the time, money or inclination to find, buy and read your book and then go and check on the individual cases myself! That has already been done by a reputable doctor, who demonstrated that the ‘cures’ were faked.

            You apparently accept the truth of the bible without having been party to the events. I accept the word of a reputable doctor who was party to these events.

            No I’m not going to Mozambique, did you? The alleged raising of the 53 dead made surprisingly little news, none at all in fact, on any of the reputable media. Neither did the re grown arm! A suspicious person might think that you just made it all up. Unfortunately, 30 years in the police made me a suspicious person!

            As I have already pointed out, “LMAO” adds nothing to your argument, except to confirm further that you are not only a superstitious, credulous liar, but an immature one too. Give my regards to Santa Claus when you write to him this Christmas.

          • jmichael39

            Read the book, coward.

          • Bluesman1950

            “never claimed anything about limbs. You’re lying if you say I did. Still not read that book…and trying to sound intelligent? LMAO…”

            I know I said that I could not be bothered to check up on your lies, but guess what I came across whilst going through this discussion? Posted by jmichael39 19 days ago i.e. 25/5/15. God certainly does work in mysterious ways doesn’t he!

            “Or the young man whose arm was severed at the elbow and his arm was restored through prayer.”

            So, I was lying that you’d claimed anything about limbs was I?

            That is just part of one paragraph from a much longer and more tedious post. I will reprint the paragraph in case you think I’m ‘taking it out of context’.

            “I could send you down thousands of paths towards people who have been healed miraculously…including a boy whose eye was gouged by a piece of plastic from an ice scraper. The doctors saw the white of his eye missing. They weren’t sure if he’d lose his sight…but after a group of people prayed, the next day not only was his vision fine, but the gouge in his eye grew back. Or the young man whose arm was severed at the elbow and his arm was restored through prayer. Or the young woman who had lost one kidney already and was about to lose another had her previously removed kidney restored. The doctors were certain she had to have had a transplant, except the for the simple fact they’d just seen her in their office a few days earlier and there was no incision. Or the 53 or so people raised from the dead by various pastors in Mozambique over the past 30 years.”

            Obviously, the original claim was a lie, otherwise you would have confounded me by producing the incontrovertible proof for which you were repeatedly asked. Also some evidence of the regenerated eye, the reappearing kidney and the Mozambique resurrections might have been useful. (Strange that god only seems to be raising the dead in Mozambique and not Memphis, Milwaukee or Manchester, where medicine is a little more advanced and superstition not so widespread!)

            I’m not sure whether, 5 days after making the claim, you were deliberately lying about making the claim, or that you lie so often, that you had just forgotten that one. Either way, it was a lie and you are the liar.

            LMAO and checkmate, as you are so wont to say!

          • jmichael39

            Have you still not read the book. Intellectual coward…fraud..
            Come back when you’ve read and refuted it all…you DO know how to read right?

          • Bluesman1950

            I do know how to read and I read your lies as exposed above! Can you read them? Can you explain them? You call me an intellectual coward and fraud! You really have no concept of irony do you?

            It’s like trying to argue with a parrot, who can only repeat “read the book, read the book”, and a gullible dishonest parrot at that!

            There are no further discussions to be had with you Polly!

          • jmichael39

            Then you should have no trouble reading the book and all the data presented…letme know when youdo, coward

          • Bluesman1950

            Who’s a silly boy then!

            “Or the young man whose arm was severed at the elbow and his arm was restored through prayer.”

            Naughty lying Polly!

          • jmichael39

            ZZZzzzzZZZZZ – are you still talking, coward? Read the book, loser.

          • Bluesman1950

            Regrown arms! Liar.

          • jmichael39

            Grab your ticket Mozambique right after you read and refute the book, COWARD.

          • Bluesman1950

            Regrown arms. Liar!

          • jmichael39

            Read the book and refute, then we can fly to Mozambique….COWARD. Come one man, show me what you got, COWARD.

          • Bluesman1950

            Liar.

          • jmichael39

            READ THE BOOK.

          • Bluesman1950

            Liar!

          • jmichael39

            You accomplish NOTHING until you read the book. Red Herrings get you nowhere. READ THE BOOK, COWARD. What’s the matter, afraid you won’t be smart enough to understand what you’re reading?

          • Bluesman1950

            Liar.

          • jmichael39

            Take you meds, blueboy…..you’re a sick, delusion, intellectual coward. READ THE BOOK…if you can

          • Bluesman1950

            Still lying for Jesus?

          • jmichael39

            Still being an irrational rationalist? An intellectual coward amongst intellectuals? Still trying to divert attention from you own losing argument? READ THE BOOK COWARD!!!

          • Bluesman1950

            Keep on lying.

          • Verisimilitude

            ROFLMAO…he is crushed…so CRUSHED, he probably doesn’t even know it yet…

            …nice work, Bluesman!

          • Bluesman1950

            The sad thing is, he won’t even realise it. In his own world, he’s won!

          • Verisimilitude

            So true, Bluesman….so very true!

          • Nofun

            Attributuing things to god do make them acts of god. As Bluesman says below lets see those regrown limbs.

          • jmichael39

            Start with the ten cases…if you think you’re so smart. YOU look over all the medical records and reports and conclusions the MEDICAL professionals made and YOU come up with a better conclusion. Put up or shut up.

          • David Cromie

            There is, of course, the ‘placebo’ effect to take into consideration, although it has never been shown to work with amputees, for example!

          • David Cromie

            …and your lack of cogent reasons for ‘mere faith’ are non-existent.

          • jmichael39

            Well THERE’S some cogent reasoning. Gees. Do you guys ever get tired of being intellectual hypocrites?

          • David Cromie

            …and there are others who claim they can cast out devils and demons. In Africa they are known as ‘witch doctors’.

          • David Cromie

            What about all the numerous cases where ‘faith healing’ has signally failed? How do you explain these?

          • jmichael39

            Where the hell do you guys learn logic? I don’t have to explain them. Assuming everyone of those who were found to be fake were truly fake has literally NO bearing on the ones that WEREN’T proved fake. It’s called an inductive fallacy. Just because you saw one faith healing proved to be a fake does not infer that all faith healings are fake.
            You want to read the book and go over the medical records and the multiple medical opinions and figure out an alternative explanation for these ten cases…feel free. But logic does not allow for you to discredit one incident by means of another discredited event.

          • David Cromie

            Where does fakery fit into your version of logic? ‘Faith’ healing ether works or it does not, assuming the whole enterprise in not fakery (or more to do with the placebo effect when it appears to work).

          • jmichael39

            there are fake people in every element of life. So what? There is no logic to trying to refute the reality of one incident by pointing to another incident.

          • David Cromie

            Which ‘incidents’ are you referring to? Have you never heard of the placebo effect?. If you want an example of fakery, try Lourdes. I had a neighbour, now dead, who went to Lourdes faithfully every year, hoping her mild deformity would be cured, Each time she was disappointed. She had spent thousands of pounds on these trips, but could not see that a good surgeon could have rectified her problem for free, using the NHS!

          • jmichael39

            Oh dear God…read your previous posts. You asked, “where does fakery fit in”? From which I responded that the fakery of one incident does not refute another incident.
            And this applies to your Lourdes incident. I don’t know anything about the Lourdes incident. And I don’t really whether it was real or fake. Even if it were fake, it has no bearing on any other incident anywhere else. There is no logic in saying it does.

          • Bluesman1950

            In 30 years as a police officer I dealt with many people who were hearing god’s voice. Unfortunately he was usually saying something like “Jump, you deserve to die.” or “Kill her she is possessed by the evil of satan.”. Rarely anything nice or useful. A formula for world peace or a cure for cancer might have been better.

            The USA also appears to have (4 million) citizens who have been abducted and probed by aliens, apparently. Do you brush them off as untrue?

          • jmichael39

            You need to get out more then. Because of all the hundreds of times I’ve met people who have heard the voice of God, it was always for something good. I am pretty certain that many of my fellow Christians would suggest that what those people you’ve encountered heard were voices…but rather voices of demons.
            Alien encounters? No, I don’t brush them off. I don’t attribute it to necessarily aliens. But I am not here to say they have no real encounter with something…just because I haven’t had the same encounter. I’m not sure why you think you can.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            There are alternate explanations for their experiences, so prove their reasoning is the correct conclusion.

          • jmichael39

            what alternate explanations. Give me one that accounts for these facts.

          • Bluesman1950

            As I said, I was an operational police officer for 30 years. I got out quite a bit! I also learned the need for actual evidence rather than unsubstantiated, untestable, anecdotal feelings.

          • jmichael39

            “actual” as in “real”?

          • Nofun

            Paid for liars.

          • jmichael39

            there is literally nothing in that statement worthy of comment. You just jumped right off the logic bridge didn’t you.

          • Tito Salgado

            No research is needed. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to observe the fact that one species does not turn into another species. Quit sweeping that under the carpet. Mutations which are a step backwards and not forwards along with adaption are not proof of evolution and certainly do not ever create a new species. Mice do not evolve into cats and cats do not evolve into zebras. Use all the scientific legalese that you want, it just doesn’t matter.

          • Nofun

            A species turning into another species is NOT Evolution.

          • Anthony Ray

            Where do you get your information? Look, either we are going to agree that scientists are a reliable source for understanding our world or we are not. We aren’t going to play this game where we agree on science except when it steps on the toes of your favorite creation myth. So are scientists a credible, reliable resource? If not, then we disagree and the discussion is over. The rest of the world will progress and you can continue to hang back. Just don’t propagate your bullshit to young minds. They deserve better.

        • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

          The chimpanzee and the human share a common ancestor at around 5.7 Mybp, yet after the speciation of humans we fused ancestral chromosomes 2 and 4 into a single large chromosome which does however retain remnants of the centromere and telomeres of ancestral 2 and 4 allowing direct comparison with those of our cousins with whom the differences are small, many related to indels and transpositions in the human genome after the speciation event, as can be seen in multilateral comparisons with the other great apes where genetic distances have confirmed the fossil record of the speciation sequence.If you search for doi:
          10.1101/gr.3737405 you will find a very informative paper on the subject.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          Failure of understanding Evolution and Natural Selection.

      • bowie1

        Some deny that man has evolved from a marine to ape to caveman to modern saying that’s not what evolution is all about even though I have seen illustrations showing that very thing, which of course I deny has happened. As Nancy Stokes pointed out there is adaption of species which, incidentally, creationists support.

        • Nofun

          Adaption is also been wise after the fact. The reason there is adaption at all is because of point mutation and natural selection. No god is required.

          • bowie1

            Perhaps God doesn’t require you either.

          • Nofun

            No a faith construct only needs believers.

        • Nofun

          Why do they support something that is not in the bible. The bible says everything was poofed into existence at the same time heathen.

      • tabright

        Species may change, but “kinds” do not. That is one of the distinctions between evolution and creationism. A “kind”, (i.e., canine) does not change. A canine has always been and will always be a canine. It will never evolve into a feline. Just as a fish is always a fish, despite the different species.

        • weasel1886

          Dogs will not evolve in to cats. Snakes won’t evolve into birds.
          Evolution theory doesn’t claim that anyway so whats your point?
          What is a kind?

          • tabright

            A kind is a bird, a fish, a squirrel, a canine, a feline, etc. One of the disagreements is only in the semantics. We use the word kind, I believe evolution uses the “genus”?

          • weasel1886

            A hummingbird is vastly different looking than a penguin yet they are both birds.
            Man classifies animals

          • tabright

            Exactly. Although they look different they are both in the “bird” kind. 🙂

          • weasel1886

            Thats evolution

          • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

            Wow. You just described several vastly different levels of taxonomy with the same term. Your grouping is useless.

          • tabright

            Thank you for the kind remark. Have a good evening.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            And your kind appears to be of the nutty persuasion. 😛

          • tabright

            Thank you for your “kind” remark 🙂

          • Nofun

            If a dog turned into a cat that would disprove Evolution.

          • oregon_man

            Yes, but they have to use that same ridiculous straw man argument every time because they have no real case. You’ll see that argument virtually every comment section on evolution on the internet.

      • jmichael39

        It is not a known fact mutations occur between species…but what you did say IS fairly well accepted fact.

      • Beleaguered

        Right because you cannot prove evolution
        Darwin’s based his THEROY on the human cell having at most 200 functions micro biologists have found over 2000 . Making it randomly impossible ,if someone can explain soft tissue in dinosaur bones please let me know . With all the fossils found where is the link between two species ?

        • weasel1886

          Darwin didn’t know about cell function, soft tissue is bogus, plenty of links

      • Tito Salgado

        Evolution is your opinion which thank goodness does not make it a fact. It is not my opinion so keep it real.

        • Nofun

          Science is not an opinion. Faith in non-existent gods is an opinion.

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        I think we rely on that term “fact” too often. Cold Fusion is fact…but it’s not science. It can’t be proven. It can’t be replicated. It can’t be done…yet. So Evolution (including abiogenesis) is not scientific fact. You can’t replicate it, thus you can’t prove it. In addition…guess what…you don’t (no one for that matter), knows the exact state of the Earth at the time this abiogenesis took place.

        If you scream and holler that a meteor brought organic matter onto Earth, then you’ll need to find its source. But you can’t do that either….it’s not science. It’s speculation with a lot of probability and statistics that mean nothing because ultimately, Evolution scientists can’t even after doing their E.coli experiment show that they were able to produce a new species. Yes…there was mutation…but no new species was produced. Cancer is a mutation…that doesn’t mean a malignant tumor is a new species.

        Let me tell you where I’m at:

        I have no problem with a school system providing a learning opportunity for Evolution (even with abiogenesis)…as long as all the dirty laundry to that theory is exposed…specifically the gaps. Ever heard of Piltdown man? You may want to look that up. But explain to the students. “This” is what we know. “That” is what we don’t know. We have gaps.

        In addition, hold a class to discuss all religions including origins as stated by their texts. Withholding that information is like saying “These glasses of water are good. But these other glasses are bad”. Let the student make up their own mind. Stop force-feeding them with a one-sided argument. Otherwise you and the rest of the Evolutionistic scientists are showing their fear of other knowledge…just like during the Dark Ages when people of religion cried out that only God-knowledge was good. You wouldn’t want to repeat that now…would you?

        Let the students find their own way by telling them the truth…the whole truth….everything.

        • Nofun

          Cold fusion is not fact. It can’t be reproduced by others.

        • weasel1886

          Piltdown man was a fake proven to be. All good science admits there are ” gaps” and science is always adding new evidence and ideas. What is your point ?
          Seems to me modern Christianity says only God knowledge is good or correct and leaves no room for questioning or revision.
          A class where creation ideas would be great but that wouldn’t be a science class

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I wonder if the curriculum that is being taught by this school system makes that statement so that all the students in the class know it. If not, then those who created the curriculum are being disingenuous (i.e not telling the complete truth). Therefore, the school system is relegating those students to the Dark Ages…the very thing people constantly call into question about Christians. That’s my point. All the gaps, all the failures…everything known and unknown must be brought to the table…otherwise, it’s lying.

            I’m a Christian and to me, all knowledge is of benefit. So if you’ve classed us together as believing only God knowledge is good, then you’re incorrect. I know a number of people like me. We aren’t as vocal as other groups, but we exist.

            Agreed…a class not just for creation ideas, but for religious ideas. All ideas should be up on the table, provided to children to learn, explore.

            If Evolution is to be taught in a science class, then there better be some science experiments to go along with it…otherwise, just teach Evolution in a non-science area. A science class is made up of bunsen burners, test tubes, microscopes, etc. If the teaching of Evolution does not involve any of these apparatuses, then why teach it in science class?

          • weasel1886

            I knew Piltdown was a fake 30 years ago so I doubt it is in any textbooks are part of evolution teaching.
            I disagree with your idea that science is just test tubes, bunsen burners, etc. Science can be learned many different ways. It does not always rely on experiments and lab work. Field studies are a way of learning as well as models, mathematics, observations. In fact i believe we do a disservice to students to just put them in a lab without much context.
            I personally see no conflict between science and faith but i too am in the minority

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Just to help with understanding…you are right…science is not about test tubes, etc. I’m just referring to the classroom that it’s taught in. Does Evolution need to be taught in a science classroom that’s a lab? If there are no experiments to go along with the curriculum, then why do that? A standard classroom will do fine.

            As you know, there is a certain expectation by students to be in a science lab classroom, such as dissection, or experimentation or physics models being built. If none of those are part of the curriculum, then, again, why teach Evolution there? But here’s the real issue. If, indeed, (and I don’t know this), Evolution is taught in a science classroom without accompanying experiments, is it just being taught there for further validation that it’s a science? If a science is a true science (archeology, paleontology, chemistry, biology, etc), then it doesn’t need validation. It already is a science.

            Before we were a minority. Now we are a minority+1. 🙂

          • LightningJoe

            Nathan, evolution is not a part of science “because” it is taught in a science classroom. It is a taught in a science classroom because it is part of science. “Thinking” it out backwards as you seem to be doing, one cannot see any connections at all (perhaps that is your intention, in putting it that way?)

            Science classrooms ARE science classrooms, because of all the messy things that so many aspects of science play with. But not all sciences play with those things. Some sciences, like math or logic, are so far from that messiness that it is not necessary to have sinks and lab tables handy.

            But evolution is inextricably linked to biology, and as such it rests most happily in a setting which can also accommodate messes. Students will get far more from it, if they can actually test it by doing experiments on bugs or whatever.

            Hard to imagine an equivalent setting for teaching Cretinism (OR Creationism).

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I, personally, would never recommend Creation be taught in a classroom. Actually I would include Creationism along with all theories concerning origin taught in a classroom.

            You may say that Biology is a part of Evolution and that it is science. I have shown that i disagree and the basis for that disagreement repeatedly.

            Tell me what science experiments would you include in your Evolution curriculum that would prove to the students that evolution is science?

          • Nofun

            1) Fossil examination
            2) Isotope dating
            3) Relative animal physiology
            4) Ecoli Collection, plating, strain isolation
            5) Test Ecoli cultures against an array of antibiotics. Isolate resistant
            strains.
            6) Independent / Group Project: Use strains to investigate dynamics
            of Ecoli antibiotic resistance.
            7) Allozyme variation in Silene alba
            8) Principles of DNA sequencing
            9) Independent projects using DNA sequence data.
            10) Genetic drift as seen in beans
            11) Demonstrate how alleles contribute to phenotype through the indirect
            method of estimating additive genetic variance through butterfly wings

            There is only about 10,000 more.

          • Nofun

            Yet 99.9999999% of all scientists say differently.

            Maybe, just maybe, you are one that is wrong.

            Otherwise we have to assume you believe in global conspiracy of atheists that spans 150+ years and includes nearly every biologist on the planet.

            Which one is more likely really?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I would challenge them to find examples of fossils of beings that the neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis predicts as having developed later in earlier strata, or to attempt to identify genes that evolved after speciation in animals we know descended from common ancestors (e.g. Elephant and Hyrax, humans and chimpanzees, chimpanzees and orang-outangs) or even to explain how not yet speciated variatikon occurs (e.g. the elimination of third-molars in the most recent humans (the Tasmanian Aborigines) as opposed to older largely isolated communities (e.g. indigenous Mexicans) as a result of changes in the PAX9 gene (which would probably have lead eventually to speciation had the communities not remerged), and even to the fact that there was sufficient successful interbreeding between humans and Neanderthals for modern humans to carry some 6% of Neanderthal’s DNA.

            In other words, the neo-Darwinian evolutionary synthesis makes good predictions which is why it is a science. Creationism in any of its guises does not, which is why it is not.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Predictions, do not, science make. Sorry…just because Dr. Moore believed that CPU density would double every 18 months doesn’t make it science.

            I can easily create a probability model and show that the Earth is going to explode within 2 seconds of my response. I can give you bell-curve, I can provide the Algebraic formula, and I even give you an alpha = 0.001…which is extremely likely as well as a P-value of 1…it just doesn’t make is so.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            As always, you are wrong. I didn’t say “predictions”, I said, “good predictions”, which encapsulates all that is science:

            “The sciences do not try to explain, they hardly even try to interpret, they mainly make models. By a model is meant a mathematical construct which, with the addition of certain verbal interpretations, describes observed phenomena. The justification of such a mathematical construct is solely and precisely that it is expected to work” [John von Neumann, ed. L. Leary; 1955; “Method in the Physical Sciences” in The Unity of Knowledge, p 158]

            Also applicable:

            “What is important is the gradual development of a theory, based on a careful analysis of the … facts. … Its first applications are necessarily to elementary problems where the result has never been in doubt and no theory is actually required. At this early stage the application serves to corroborate the theory. The next stage develops when the theory is applied to somewhat more complicated situations in which it may already lead to a certain extent beyond the obvious and familiar. Here theory and application corroborate each other mutually. Beyond lies the field of real success: genuine prediction by theory.” [John von Neumann; 1964; “Formulation of the Economic Problem” in Theory of Games and Economic Behaviour;p 8]

            Or, if you prefer:

            “We may if we like distinguish four different lines along which the testing of a theory could be carried out. First there is the logical comparison of the conclusions among themselves, by which the internal consistency of the system is tested. Secondly, there is the investigation of the logical form of the theory, with the object of determining whether it has the character of an empirical or scientific theory, or whether it is, for example, tautological. Thirdly, there is the comparison with other theories, chiefly with the aim of determining whether the theory would constitute a scientific advance should it survive our various tests. And finally, there is the testing of the theory by way of empirical applications of the conclusions which can be derived from it.” [ Karl R. Popper; 1968; “The Logic of Scientific Discovery”; New York: Harper & Row; pp. 32-33]

            “In order to make this idea a little more precise, we may distinguish three requirements which our empirical theoretical system will have to satisfy. First, it must be synthetic, so that it may represent a non-contradictory, a possible world. Secondly, it must satisfy the criterion of demarcation… i.e. it must not be metaphysical, but must represent a world of possible experience. Thirdly, it must be a system distinguished in some way from other such systems as the one which represents our world of experience.” [ibid.; p. 39]

            Methodological rules … might be described as the rules of the game of empirical science. Two simple examples of methodological rules may be given… (1) The game of science is, in principle, without end…. (2) Once a hypothesis has been proposed and tested, and has proved its mettle, it may not be allowed to drop out without “good reason”. A “good reason” may be, for instance: replacement of the hypothesis by another which is better testable; or the falsification of one of the consequences of the hypothesis. [ibid.; pp. 53-54]

            Which is why, even without knowing your hypothesized destructive mechanism (if any), I can intersubjectively validate that your theory appears to have been falsified by the continuing existence of the Earth more than 2 seconds after your theory articulated its destruction, meaning that your theory is no good as it failed to make good predictions.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I appreciate all the quotes.

            If I’m always wrong, why bother discussing with me? Are you hoping by throwing enough words at me that you’ll make me “right”? Just wondering? Seems to me that I’m a waste of your time.

            One thing to know is that I meant my prediction to be wrong. I was showing that I could put all kinds of Probability and Statistics behind a false idea. Yes…I know the Earth didn’t blow up….but it could have and what would you have done then? 🙂

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Well, given the lack of a mechanism or calculations, that “example would have been a bit difficult to peer review…. but if your “prediction” (which wasn’t scientific prediction) had been right, I’d have died, like everyone else, and I wouldn’t have done anything and it wouldn’t have bothered me a bit.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            But if I had been right, I would be in heaven, you would not.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Wrong again (don’t you ever tire of this game?). We would both be dead. For why this is the case, you might google for the “YouTube video of physicist Sean Carroll’s acceptance speech on receiving the Freedom From Religion Foundation’s Emperor Has No Clothes Award” (hint, use the bit I put in quotes and tell Google you are feeling lucky), which is delightful, as well as being educational.

            Even if physics is wrong about everything (which is far beyond unlikely), and your wish and delusion that there is something after death (and there is not) were somehow fulfilled (and it will not be), you couldn’t possibly know that there is a heaven and that you are going there without knowing for sure if there are god thingies, and if there are, whether or not you have picked exactly the right god thingies, done exactly what they want in all the right ways, and that the source of wherever you got all your ideas about this mythical stuff is precisely correct in every little detail, and even that you are not the butt of some cosmic joke. It seems to me that you have no realistic way of being certain of any of this. After all, Quetzalcoatl may be waiting for you to perform a suitable sacrifice to him. You can’t know that, because his writings were destroyed by European invaders seeking to prove that the Meso-Americans were illiterate savages, granting papal dispensation to murder, despoil and enslave them in the name of their genocidal gods. And then consider all the hundreds of thousands of deities, not all of which have heavens, or hells, of which you have never heard. What if one or more take a dislike to your god thingies, or made up the whole god story you vest so much belief in, in the total absence of credible compelling evidence, and the face of everything we know about the world and the Universe.

          • Nofun

            … or you would wasted the only life you get pretending to be someone you are not. Also do you really think your imaginary god can’t see through “just in case” faith.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Also, if I may, a genetic mutation, does not Evolution make…otherwise we’d see Cancer as a method of becoming a new species…but all that happens is that people die.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Most (70% to 80%) pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, some because of mutations precluding normal development. Even so, every animal, including human, born, contains some 60 or so “mutations” in DNA which are caused by indels or transpositions which are not inherited from their parents. When they result in significant changes in expression, they may be selected upon, or if, as they often are, mutations are linked to other significant alleles, which are selected upon, they may spread through a population, When populations are separated geographically or through behaviour, selected mutations may accumulate over time, and may eventually preclude or inhibit reproduction, resulting in recognition that a speciation event has occurs. As this occurs over long periods it is not expected that humans will recognise the process while it is occurring, but it is, none-the-less life’s principle method for introducing new variations on an old theme.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            You’re anthropomorphizing life. (i.e. “Life’s principle method). Unless you believe that life is a god or goddess, then I wouldn’t continue down that “road”.

            So are you suggesting that the spontaneous abortions that take place are limiting evolution? I wouldn’t mention that to the parents of these children who are never born.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I am not at all above anthropomorphising if it makes for more effective or more readable writing, but on this occasion, I was speaking of life as an emergent concept, which it is, made up of components subject to known rules, which they are, including the methods through which changes in allele distributions occur over time, the most powerful of which, though unintentional and unpredictable, is mutation. Nothing to do with god thingies of either sex – or humans except in so far as we are the ones who sometimes classify things, rather arbitrarily and crudely, according to allele distributions.

            “Children” who are “never born” are not “children” (which are born, or at least delivered) or “lives” (which for mammals are conventionally accepted to begin at or near delivery with a potentially viable cortex and successful transition to pulmonary respiration), but are rather, irrespective of biological development, unattained potentials, evolutionary nulls, except in so far as they select against reproduction by incompetent parents, and, or, the delivery of incompetent neonates. Evolution, being as it is, an aspect of nature, always bloody in tooth an claw, the easily distressed are advised to avoid staring too deeply into its workings which the squeamish and those seeking to find justice in an uncaring Universe are apt to find unappealing and possibly confusing.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            It is amazingly painful to watch as you attempt to describe a baby that hasn’t been born. Uncaring Universe…eh? The Universe has a conscious? If you are true believer in evolution (a-biogenic evolution), then there is no good or bad. There is no uncaring Universe, Life is nothing, but a state of being.

            Allow me to describe an unborn child. When an egg and sperm meet, they the two sets of DNA join together to form what’s called in biology, a zygote, a.k.a. a baby. If the baby dies while in the womb it’s called a mis-carriage. If a baby is aborted, a life is destroyed. If a baby is born too early, then they are placed in the neonatal unit….they are still babies. If you were in a neonatal, you would look at your baby and know it’s a baby…not a neonate. Terminology like that is there to avoid becoming attached to the baby.

            I have stared into that place. I know injustice and I know pain and loss and I know depression such as would cause me to seriously consider destroying myself. Does that mean I’m unfit? I should be put down because I’m not “fit”. Fortunately for me, what I found was not unappealing or confusing. It actually brought order to where there was none.

            But from what I understand from all of you who are Evolutionist, that suicide would have been the more appropriate action, as I was unfit. In addition, all those who are mentally ill should simply be killed or kill themselves. They will damage the gene pool. Worse yet, because of solum scientia, you will never be able to stare into that place, because if you do, you, too, will become part of the unfit.

            A hypothesis is based on a bias. It is not randomly generated.

            I think I’m done with this discussion. Because I keep trying to tell you all that reality is based on both matter and consciousness. If you consciously limit yourself to science, then science is all you have. But if you go beyond that (I won’t say where), then reality starts to become a bit bigger and better and you can stare into that unknown place. But none of you seem to get that and I can’t explain it any better. So please forgive me when I don’t respond further. I think I’m done.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I don’t know why describing a pregnancy or the idea of a Universe that isn’t conscious of anything, and cares less than that, should be painful to anyone but the histrionically bathetic.

            I do not vest belief in anything. What is is, whether or not we choose to acknowledge it, and even if we are incapable of perceiving it.

            Evolution has more than a sufficiency of intersubjective evidence to compel acceptance. Rejection of its simple explicatory elegance is always an ultimatum of delusional denial.

            Your desperate attempts to reword standard terminology in order to attempt to impose some alternative descriptions, presumably in the mistaken idea that this will magically reform the world in accord with your delusional perspective would be very amusing if it were not rather sad to watch you weaving your epistemic bowsprit into an inseparable and uncomfortable aggregation with your ontological rudder leaving your stern unclothed and unimpeded by any hint of rationality (with a nod to Charles Ludwig Dodgson who always comes to mind when hunting Snarks).

            You seem to have become lost in an imaginary world of Churchillian eugenics, when I was speaking merely of the ability of a pregnancy to survive to term and thrive, possibly with clinical intervention. The cases are very far apart. As is the idea that depression renders a person somehow “unfit”, where the reality is that sufficient great contributors to humanity have been depressive to suggest a strong correlation between depression and creativity.

            I empathise with your decision, dealing with dissonance is always difficult for those vesting belief in their opinions (even though such belief is neither requisite nor helpful), nevertheless, if there is one message to take home from the magical spoonless world of the Matrix, it is that Neo and his companions would have been just as effective and very much happier living with the consequences of the blue pill, even if it would not have made for much of a movie.

          • Nofun

            No such thing as an unborn child. Do you describe dead father as you your unalive father? The act of miscarriage terminates the fetus just like abortion.

            DNA does not justify forced pregnancy or evil fetus worship.

            Suicide is the last thing a secular person wants as they value every second on the only life they get. The afterlife-ist thinks he is immortal so he instantly devalues his real life into something just to mark time in before his better and infinitely longer afterlife begins.

            Limiting yourself to what is real is the only way to know anything. Thinking everything is magic achieves nothing.

          • David Cromie

            What kind of convoluted mind produced this illogical nonsense, exhibiting a propensity to fail to compare like with like?

          • Nofun

            Extremely retarded fetuses are naturally aborted in many cases. Look it up.

          • Nofun

            Genetic mutation is exactly 50% of evolution. Again find out about this concept you are told to hate.

          • rationalobservations?

            Creationists and Scientific Logic
            Prof Scott Anderson

            “Creationists are of the opinion that creationism constitutes a better explanation of the evolutionary process? By what standard would they consider it better? Creationism demands that the logic of the scientific method be abandoned in favor of whatever logic one might be able to scrape out of the Bible.

            Special creationism demands that we believe that some six thousand years ago the universe was magically created, with the sun appearing long after plants, and man apparently living concurrently with carnivorous animals (perhaps including dinosaurs). It demands that all the planetary evidence that coincides with evolutionary theory (the geologic table, continental drift, erosion, et cetera), all the biological evidence (DNA, biochemistry, microbiology, anthropology, et cetera), all the historical evidence (the fossil record, archaeology, anthropology, et cetera), all the astronomical evidence (quantum singularities, the age of stars, the history of the universe, et cetera) has been misinterpreted. The evidence from physics and chemistry (the speed of light, the laws of thermodynamics, amino acids and proteins, et cetera, et cetera, ad infinitum, ad absurdum) have all been misinterpreted. And I’m even leaving out several fields.

            They are all in error, I take it? Why, then, has it all seemed to fit so well? Was it a conspiracy, or was it simply science’s way of hiding the fact that they had no idea?

            Creationists still have to show that science is, in fact, wrong. This must first occur before they can begin postulating how the errors (as they must call them) persisted for so long. Creationists are more than happy to accept scientific reasoning but are unwilling to accept the conclusions. That’s why the battle is not creation versus evolution. Perhaps many creationists believe that, but it is not the case.

            The same thoughts and processes thereof that led to the theory of evolution exist in all branches of science. It’s called the scientific method. In addition, evolution gets direct and indirect support from a thousand different facts from every constellation in the sky of science. In addition, evolution gives direct and indirect support to every constellation. Science is not a batch of unrelated theories – science is a unit.

            To replace evolution with creationism would dictate that we throw out all the data we have about the age of the universe (all of it points to billions of years, not thousands). We would have to throw away the psychological data gained from testing on, for instance, lab rats. How could the data from rats relate in any way to the inspired, specially created souls of human beings? Anthropology would have to be dispensed with. Archaeology would find itself in the trash bin. Biology books would be so much toilet paper. In short, a thousand different independent but strangely cohesive facts and theories – a million tidbits of knowledge about ourselves and our world – would have to be destroyed in favor of magic and mysticism.

            We’ve been through that before – it was called the Dark Ages. I see no logical reason why we should return to them.”

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Excellent response.

          • weasel1886

            I have taken college level astronomy classes that are not taught in a lab settings or space and many quantum physics don’t require a lab or experimentation. I would also point out that every biology class must include some evolutionary theory if you study genetics

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I agree that informational sciences should do not and should not be taught in a science classroom…not because they aren’t science, but because they don’t require the various apparatuses that a science classroom has. For anyone to perform some sort of lecture in a science classroom without that lecture leading to a lab experiment is wasting a perfectly good classroom for nothing more than lecture. I’m talking pragmatics, economy, efficiency, etc.

            The evolutionary theory has bee pushed into all the various forums. You can’t watch TV without Evolution being brought up. For me, that makes no difference. Today’s verse kinds of spells things at for me.

            Heb 11:1-2 The fundamental fact of existence is that this trust in God, this faith, is the firm foundation under everything that makes life worth living. It’s our handle on what we can’t see. The act of faith is what distinguished our ancestors, set them above the crowd.
            3 By faith, we see the world called into existence by God’s word, what we see created by what we don’t see.

            Notice the words “set them above the crowd”. In other words, I fully expect that 97% of all scientists will say that Evolution is true. It makes no difference to me because I believe in my 2 precepts. If I haven’t told you what they are, let me know.

          • weasel1886

            Can we believe that science can be used to discover how God created everything? There were tons of things unknown when the Bible was written and very little was revealed to man. Ancient man had no idea what caused lightening or storms. They knew about the stars but nothing of atomic structure. Does it mean we shouldn’t try to explore and discover now ? God didn’t tell people 2,000 years ago about such things because man wasn’t ready for it or wouldn’t understand, just as he wouldn’t have understood about micro organisms or TV
            To me the thought of evolution does not mean I hate God, but I find learning about the world and it’s history and evolution and how God created it is fascinating.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            What did you understand from that verse? Whatever it was, that’s pretty much what it means.

            I’m not saying anything actually…you’re interpreting that from what you read. What I believe is that science is an important pursuit. But if we are great…God is so, so, so much greater. He’s not just some advanced Alien. Let me put it this way, if I were God and the creator of the entire Universe, do you think I could create one so vast that man could never figure it out? I think so.

            I believe that you will find as you review God’s Word that He values faith so very much. It’s not blind faith that He values either. It’s a faith that struggles against pain, sorrow, the unknown, the crowds…even as Nofun has pointed out…99.99% and more don’t believe what God has to say on the matter. It doesn’t matter because I choose to have faith. I have also recently found out that of the many servants to whom money was given, 3 examples were disclosed: One was given 5 talents, one 3 and one 1. The conclusion was that those who risk is all on faith in God will receive much. Those who play it safe will not.

            We’ve come a long way and knowledge, according to measurements, is moving exponentially. That’s not a bad thing.

            From my understanding of the Bible, I know that God gave us this Universe to explore, to live in and enjoy. Unfortunately, I also believe that sin created major problems for both us and this Earth. We are tied together. Thus we have Earthquakes, volcanoes, etc. According to Romans, it’s the Earth’s way of crying out because it was never meant to support sinful man.

            Though I have tried to make sure I’m not foot-loose with terminology, there is a segment of evolution that is non-abiogenetic (life from nothing). More specifically from Louis Pasteur, biogenesis. Life from Life. I know a number of people who, like yourself, believe that God created the Earth and then created the seeds to start life. I have no problem with that…myself. I used to believe it. But now, I leave the specifics to God…by faith. Same with end times…which are a whole other story. I do believe that geologists are correct when they establish the Earth as being 4.5 Billion years old. When Genesis 1 says “day”, it could very well mean period.

            Keep learning, keep growing, keep searching…or as Jesus said it, “Keep asking, seeking, knocking”. Your efforts will not go unnoticed nor unrewarded. It’s all about effort in seeking the truth. Oh…and don’t ever be afraid. Be fearless in your pursuit of the truth.

            But I kid you not, I do not in anyway enjoy this life. I have found peace, but it’s peace in the midst of a storm. I’m looking forward to the next one…to the eternal home as stated in Heb 11.

            Blessings to you!

          • Nofun

            Why would a super being want pond scum worshiping .. what goes he get out of it. It is a bit needy. You worship to support a faith constrict that would disappear without your belief.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            It is worse than you think. We know that other people had long had a much better idea of the natural Universe than the Abrahamic religiots by the time their scriptures were written, and because the order, values, and classifications are wrong, if they are supposedly the word of some entity who supposedly knew better, then that it seems as if that entity lied or relied upon deception, but however it happened, it is sufficiently wrong to have resulted in massive resistance, up to and including the murder of numerous people who contradicted the lies in the Abrahamic scriptures.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            And I can’t turn on TV on Sunday without looking at Joel Olsteens mug or the 700 club…..

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            So? What do I care?

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You probably don’t. But thus is the way arguments go with Christians.

            You: Waaaah. Evolution is on TV.

            Me: So is Christian propaganda.

            You: I don’t care.

            Go ahead not caring. Its.exactly what your Bible preaches.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Allow me to bow out gracefully. But I want you to know that the reason I don’t care is that you sound sensitive to Christian messages. If you don’t like them, don’t turn them on. I listen to Dr. Tyson all the time and even Bill Nye. If they talk about Evolution, it was my choice to turn them on. So, please consider not blaming my inability to deal with your heart boundaries as a sign I don’t care. I do. But I will never interfere with your choice. That is your inalienable right…(I would even say, God given right).

            You need to find your truth. The path you take to that truth will be up to you. It doesn’t matter to me and shouldn’t matter to you how you get there….you’re the one making the journey. I am not making your journey for you.

            However, if you don’t believe in your truth, then why do you need to convince others of it when you don’t believe it yourself? I have found my truth. Allow me to believe that. Otherwise you’ll be doing the same thing you hate about Christians…proselytizing…beating people over the head with atheism. I’m not doing that to you. I would hope you would not do the same to me.

            But to show you that I do care, but will not further discuss on this discussion, you may look me up on Facebook and friend me. Just state your discussion name and I’ll trust you.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            I don’t use Facebook, but thank you for the offer. Good luck with your truth.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            You are now saying that the students now have to come in with knowledge on the subject and you complain with HOW the students are taught.

            Depending on the grade level things are.simplified so they understand it. Remember how Thanksgiving was this nice peaceful meal with the “Indians” and not the bloody pox ridden history that it actually is?

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I don’t mind that students are taught Evolution (a-biogenetic or otherwise), what I care is that there is no “force” to push the Evolution agenda anymore than there is to push Creationism or Hinduism, Islam, etc. Truth is found by each person.

            Now if you’re attempting to indoctrinate or program a person, that’s another story all together.

          • Nofun

            They are teaching science not reiligion. For the zillionth time religion is not science. The only agenda is science … science and reality you can’t accept.

          • rationalobservations?

            Your apparent argument is that pupils should be exposed to all hypotheses and all evidence regarding the origin of the Universe and life on Earth?

            There are many thousands of imaginary “gods” – not just the one in which you have been indoctrinated to believe.

            There are hundreds of “creation” myths that were dreamed up by primitive and ignorant men – not just the scientifically absurd and evidence free one you fail to defend or justify..

            If you are true to your apparent argument – you will obviously be happy to open all schools to all religions and all religious mythology in addition to the evidence supported science of evolution?

        • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

          Every gene in your body is calling you an idiot right now, because every single one of them, including those ancient genes in your mitochondria, are calling you all kinds of an idiot right now.

          • jmichael39

            You don’t resort to ad hominem….no…never…LMAO…what a damned hypocrite.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            That isn’t ad hominem. That is sarcasm.

            All living creatures DNA stretches back through time to reflect the genetic differences between it and other species. Despite the fact that DNA was discovered nearly a century after the theory of evolution, it confirms it and the phylogenetic tree. Which is why people attempting to deny evolution are contradicted by their own DNA. Which is why it is an idiotic thing to do. Observing on that might be perceived as abusive but it is a consequence, not a cause and so would not be perceived as an argument except by an idiot.

            Q.E.D.

          • jmichael39

            “That isn’t ad hominem. That is sarcasm.” – LMAO…whatever you say.
            Having read Darwin’s Black Box, Darwin’s Dilemma, Signature in the Cell and other books on the subject have led me to different conclusions. Feel free not to read those books. I would so thoroughly hate to see you have to struggle with defending your world views against them. Take care.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Maybe reading some medical and biological textbooks would have served you better than your wasted investment in discredited theological nonsense posing as biology.

          • jmichael39

            I don’t see you reading and discrediting anything. What a waste of a troll’s mind.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            That is because one of us has a life, and given how hard you seem to be working on your projections, it doesn’t seem to be you.

          • jmichael39

            You know what’s really hilarious about the way you brush off opposing papers by highly intelligent people…is that by your standards…namely: all it takes to discredit someone’s work is for someone somewhere to write something else that at least attempts to refute that work….EVERYONE’S work is pretty much discredited.
            In other words, little girl…time for YOU to read those books and put up YOUR own refutations for them. Put up or shut the hell up.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I’ve earned my sheepskins already. Your childish, repetitious insults, ignorant challenges, incessant bloviation on matters about which you appear to have little knowledge and no expertise coupled with your delusional inability to recognise the utter invalidity of your noxious memeplex, holds no fascination for me.

            And I feel not the slightest pressure to “shut the hell up.” They are your god thingies, and your hell. Why don’t you try it for a bit if you value silence?

          • jmichael39

            LMAO…aw is poor hermie a wee bit upset? Awww. Might wanna do something about that sequoia in your eye…it must be killing ya.

        • Unrepentant Atheist

          “Mr. Madison, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it.”.
          Principal, Billy Madison

          Where to start….. First, read up on Scientific Theory. Nothing in science is fact to the point it can not be refuted if new evidence shows something different. It still is a fact in the meantime. Just like when I was in school there was 9 planets, but not anymore.

          Lol @ Cold fusion. No more needs to be said.

          Evolution can be observed. The fruit fly has short enough generational spans to observe evolution. There is also evidence of the results of evolution though other means such as fossils. Every new method of testing Evolution has NOT found it to be faulty.

          Abiogenisis is a different theory on a different issue and not dependent on evolution nor does evolution depend on it. I don’t know if Abiogereligion even taught in schools.

          Your religion idea is legally possible, however do you want Scientology taught to children? How about Satanism? Allow in the Church of Bacon? Yes, it does it exist.

          Science is taught in schools, not religion. That is for parents and churches, and in my opinion considering the different variations of Christianity, that might buy preferable so your children don’t learn the wrong version.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Again, a-biogenetic evolution…not biogenic evolution.

            If it’s so idiotic, then stop responding to my message. You’re not going to change my mind and I’m certainly not going to change yours. So just stop already.

            The idiot in the discussion is the one who calls another an idiot.

          • Nofun

            Biogeneteic?

            Genetics is evidence of Evolution, it is not a type of evolution. Why not find out about what you have been told to hate.

          • Unrepentant Atheist

            Well, if you aren’t going to change your mind, at least confront the issues that are before you. Your definitions of what you are fighting against is wrong. You don’t know Scientific Theory. You don’t know anything about Cold Fusion. I don’t even know where you got the biogenic from my post.

            If you are going to argue against something, you had better damn well be informed about it. Otherwise you are going to be attacked by those who know better. If you were a good sport, you’d learn from it so you can be better prepared next time.

        • rationalobservations?

          Your feeble diatribe is filled with straw men and inaccuracy.

          The “Piltdown man” hoax was sloppy science that was exposed by science. The rapidly growing mountain of millions of genuine fossils contain the evidence of some 4,000,000,000 years of the biological evolution of life on Earth.

          All of past and present life on earth is demonstrated to be the product of past and ongoing evolution.

          There are no “missing links” since all life forms are transitory. Some are very clear transitions however. Look up Archaeopteryx.

          There is a mountain of fossil and DNA evidence – and real time observation – that confirms the processes and fact of evolution. There is no evidence that an imaginary super-spook merely wished the infinite Universe into existence (from nothing!) only a few thousand years ago.

          There is no evidence that supports the existence of any of the many thousands of imaginary “gods” or the hundreds of diverse – and equally scientifically absurd – “creation” myths.

    • David

      Newton’s law of gravitation is the same throughout the universe, above the quantum scale. We do not YET know how to reconcile Newtonian and quantum mechanics. The universe is not calibrated; it is what it is. By the anthropic principle, everything that exists would naturally then be dependent upon things being the way they are.

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        In other words, things always existed? Please, correct me if I’m not understanding you correctly. If they are naturally dependent upon things being the way they are, then things always existed as they are. But that’s not way I understand Evolution or Intelligent Design or Creationism. In some way or another, the Universe as we know it now, was established (i.e it wasn’t there and now it is). In my statement, calibration doesn’t necessary imply static states. Cycles are part of calibration as well…just as the Ozone layer is cyclic or the Earth revolves around the Sun, etc. HTH. 🙂

        • Nofun

          Evolution and the universe are different things.

        • David

          No, I’m saying that if universe X exists, then any life it contains will depend upon the universe having the properties of universe X.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            If I may follow through with what I believe you’re saying: There are multi-verses…an infinite number of them…each with their own characteristics. Some of those multi-verses have life because they were “meant” to do so? Or is it that if you add enough random 1’s and 0’s together you’ll eventually get the entire Shakespeare library? What’s the probability of that happening?

            I don’t think those of you who believe in multi-verse/evolution (in an attempt to eliminate God’s involvement) realize just how un-probable all that is. As I understand Statistics, when one action is followed by another, the probabilities are multiplied. If I have a die (6) and a deck of cards (52), then for me to get a 4 and choose the queen of hearts I take 1/52 * 1/6 to get a total probability of 1/312. If I have a multi-verse, let’s say a google of them (1×10^100)…big number. We now believe we know (scientist are always updating information) that there are 500 Billions galaxies. There are, according to this same article, there are over a 100 billion goldilocks planets in the Milkway, alone. That means that there are 5*10^22 possibly habitable planets in the universe.

            As we know, probabilities are meant to be deal with the undetermined. Don’t give me the stupid line that the Probability is 1 because we exist. So, looking back in time, going back to the beginning of all multi-verses, what is the probability that this particular universe with 5*10^22 habitable planets would be created? Remember, you have to multiply the probabilities of each of the different actions taking place…i.e. a probability tree. Don’t forget to multiply out that from all those planets, we only know of 1 that has life where that life creates technology, advancement, science. Based on what we currently know, 1/5*10^22. If you multiply in the probabilities of the multi-verse forming this universe, you’re into the inverse of Google or Google-plex. 1/1*10^100^2.

            Do you all really understand the possibility of that one event under those conditions happening? I’d rather believe in God.

          • David

            I’m not asserting a multiverse. That question is nowhere near settled, and I lean against it, actually, but it’s a big unknown. I’m merely invoking the anthropic principle.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            That’s fine. Probabilistically speaking you’re saying that because we’re here, the probability is 1 that we are here…which is true. We exist. Cogito Ergo Sum.

            But review the statements in my previous post. In order to get to the “1”, there was a process. That process was a set of actions put in place…through some means. Because evolution asserts no “control” (i.e there is no God), therefore Evolution removes that control and replaces it with randomness. Again, create the probability tree from the start of whatever you call “origin” and go from there. Establish the probabilities. Why? Because once you do, you’ll find that it is a statistical improbability that you exist…i.e impossible based on randomness.

            DNA, itself is a miracle because bringing together the 4 nucleic acids (ACTG) in an appropriate order to create any life because a set of meteors brought them to Earth and they survived or somehow these complex proteins were formed here on Earth…I mean, seriously? Some say that to create a DNA strand…just the strand mine you…not the outer coating, not any intelligence or instinct…the probability alone is 1/10^400,000.

            If you decide to avoid all this probability because, after all, you’re already here, let’s take a look at the affect of “you” under evolution. You’re a random convergence, made of star-stuff, you’re evolved from animals, etc. You’re purpose is what?…from the Evolutionist’s point of view…your purpose is to survive. To be the fittest or, at the very least, live until you die of natural causes. Even that would not be considered “success” under Evolution. No. What’s needed for humans to “enable” Evolution is to use our brains to keep it going….create fitter people, beings. So if you’re not fit, then you should die. After all, that just contaminates the gene pool. If you have MS or some other disease, you’re a drain on society and on those who are “fit”. If you have cancer, you’re only real value is to become part of a study so that others who are fit may benefit from your existence. But don’t think altruistically at all here. This is the “fit” ones having you pay the cost so that they can benefit. Control is what’s truly important for the Fit ones.

            When you die, that’s the end of story. Your knowledge, your experience, all that you’ve learned deteriorates…with the exception of those who have left a legacy (i.e children, monuments, peer-reviewed papers (i.e Ph.D’s)) Medical Doctors are only of benefit when the Fit receive benefit…again, this is all about natural selection…survival of the fittest.

            I don’t believe any of the above, but you have to. There is no God for you. There is no after-life. There is nothing. You are just a cog in a machine, here today, gone tomorrow, just like the amoeba from which you randomly arrived.

            This is the Doctrine of Evolution. You are random! Is this what you truly want?

            Don’t forget, when you go to a hospital or when there’s an emergency in your life, don’t be calling out to God, like most people naturally do. There is no God. Don’t be praying, because there’s no one there to hear you. Don’t think that murder is bad because that’s just the judeo-christian law that our Fore-fathers embraced as part of the Constitution. No, kill or be killed.

            But let’s look at the other side, for just a minute. As a result of my belief (whether God exists or not), in God, I now have hope. I believe that there is an after-life. I believe that even when I’m alone physically…I am not. I have hope. I trust. I seek others benefit…not my own. I don’t mind if I die. I believe in the Judeo-Christian laws. I believe that society benefits from them, and they do. If you don’t like them, go to China, where the mineworkers were simply left in the mines to die. Their religion is the State. Work 7 days a week. Remember weekends are a by-product of Genesis 1. No rest. Keep working for who? For the benefit of the Fit ones. They control, you lose. We are free in America because of those Judeo-Christian values. Without those values, you have anarchy or communism, or some other form of rule where the Fit control the weak for the Fit’s benefit.

            Keep going. Keep thinking this through. The ramification of living as an Evolutionist are painful, hurtful, hopeless, except for those who are the Fit ones…the Movie Stars, the top Sports Players, the CEO’s of big corporations, the politicians who wield power. These are the “masters” whom you serve because they are the Fit…you are not.

          • David

            Just to get it out of the way, the implications of evolution upon my outlook and behavior are completely irrelevant in determining whether it’s true or not. We want to adapt ourselves to reality, not adapt our beliefs to our preferences.

            But back to our actual discussion. Suppose that you are right (and I’m not conceding that you are) that the odds of creating DNA are 1 in 10^400K. You have to then apply those odds against the total number of events. But how many total events are there? We have no idea. What if there are 10^100M events? Well, then the odds are not low enough to preclude the occurrence.

            In any case, we truly have no idea how to properly calculate the probability of all of this, because we only have one data point. And if we are going to get into outcome probabilities, then we have to compare it against the probability of special creation leading to the universe that we see. How would you suggest calculating that probability and then comparing the two?

            Finally, we also have to remember, by looking at a “long tail” of outcomes, that extremely unlikely events happen all the time. In fact, most events are extremely unlikely. But as I said above, there are also a LOT of events.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            We know that we can create more amino acids than we have detected in nature on Earth, together with tars exhibiting many of the properties of life, within two weeks of operating a Miller-Urey experiment. The likelihood that a multitude of kinds of life will occur in billions of years in an Universe sized experiment is not high, but a certainty, not just because it has happened (and it has), but because given that something is possible in this Universe, it will happen; including the production of all the works of Shakespeare (they have, after all, already happened at least once) although you may not recognise their encoding.

          • David

            “because given that something is possible in this Universe, it will happen.” To be true, wouldn’t that require a universe of infinite time and matter/energy? To my knowledge, ours is not.

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Everything we have ever experienced, and arguably anything we can experience is baryonic and made up of quarks to which the these laws apply. Consider the implications of Feynman Path Integrals as the functional integral, over an infinity of possible trajectories to compute any quantum amplitude, the infinity of reference frames implicit in General Relativity and the branching nature of time in M-theory which implies at least an uncountably large number, perhaps an infinity, of past and future Universes. My understanding is that all of them demand the model I articulated, and that our experience with the bizarre world which Feynman described as, “It is impossible, absolutely impossible to explain it in any classical
            way,” makes it seem likely to in-field physicists that we will eventually confirm that all viable probabilities (i.e. any pre-requisites are fulfilled and no confounding realities supervene) are certainties in at least one of all the possible Universes at all possible scales.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            When you say, “given that something is possible in this Universe, it will happen”, I think you’re making too large a leap here…logically. From the 2nd law of Thermodynamics, you haven’t got a whole lot of time…so not everything is possible. You only have 5 Billions years to go. 🙂

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            I’m married to a physicist (amongst other things), so I have come to learn that whatever else quantum mechanics and M-theory are, logical, at least the way I learned logic, they are not.

            Notice that there were some prerequisites to what is possible. Many things are simply not possible. A larger than critical sphere of fissionable material will detonate. An infinite bowl of noodles would implode long before it became infinite. An building sized mouse would be unable to move and with insufficient area to dispose of internal heat would cook itself from the inside out. A human giant would suffer labral damage and slipped capital femoral epiphysis or worse, as our hips are already straining the limits of bone and cartilage carrying capacity.

            However, with a probable infinity of paths and Universes, there is no need for any particular action to be constrained to any particular Universe, though sadly, any instances of ourselves not present in the Universe in which it occurred, or one of its successors, could never know that it had happened, and so could not adjust the probabilities.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I would love to take quantum mechanics. Sounds like fun…along with biochem, inorganic biochem, etc. I love to learn. There is some scary strange stuff out there. But in order for that to apply to the science of Evolution, it must be known prior to making the statement “Evolution is a science”. It’s placement within the Evolution process must be known and repeatable.

            Yep…if you choose a multi-verse theory, you end up with lots of Universes which have no meaningful communication between each other, unless you ascribe intelligence to a Universe. But then you’re into the god thingy.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Everyones’ worldview is the basis for their actions. Your belief in an origin of Evolution is foundational to your worldview. My worldview is that God exists and He inspired men to write books that are now assembled as the Bible. That worldview affects the way I act. So you have 2 choices. You can either live by that worldview or live in denial of that worldview. If you’re in denial, then why accept Evolution as a worldview. It would be just like a person (and this is very common) who proclaims Christianity while being insincere. They claim Christianity, but they don’t live like it. That’s fine. It’s your choice to claim Evolution, but not live like it. But know that I see you just like I see those Christians who are insincere. You don’t actually believe what you’re dishing out. Again, your choice.

            Mathematically you are absolutely correct. It’s good to know someone who has a grasp of Probability and Statistics. But what you’re suggesting is that there were 10^100 events where the opportunity for nucleic acids to be created and assembled existed…just the right temperature…just the right materials…just the right electricity (if there was some), just the right environment in all 10^100 areas on this Earth or even the 5*10^22 habitable planets throughout the currently known 500 Billions galaxies. Seems to me though…and this is just my take on things, that Evolutionists are too fancy free with their probabilities. Something akin to Federal politicians playing with 1000’s K, millions M, billions B and trillions T. The move this type of money around as if it’s nothing…but it’s not. Each dollar has a value of 1 dollar. But it doesn’t matter to politicians because, ultimately…it’s not their money. Just like for evolutionists. Instead of looking at the raw probability, they consistently look at the fact that we exist and say, “It doesn’t matter how we got here…we are here. Therefore, we can multiply all the probabilities we want until we get the outcome we desire…which is 1. Not very scientific or realistic to me. Just like saying I rolled a die and got a 4 and I picked a card and got a Queen of Hearts. Therefore the probability = 1.

            I don’t believe it is my problem to determine how to calculate the probability of all this. I think that’s your problem. For me, I only need to tell you that any set of probabilities concerning the creation of the Universe via Evolution are untenable. The only reason Evolutionists have the burden of proof is because Evolutionist claim scientific evidence.

            Creationist claim that “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the Earth” Creationist don’t know how He chose to do that. We just believe that He did. Evolutionist’s actually have the more difficult origin argument. You must prove those probabilities. You must…otherwise, Evolution is no longer scientific. It’s all faith-based. You are believing in Evolution because you choose to do so…or you trust someone who knows someone who may have calculated a piece of the Evolution process. But until you get the whole thing in one place…proof isn’t there. There is no real science because there is no proof. Evolutionists have pieces…yes. But the whole thing together is what is missing. If I were you, I wouldn’t claim Evolution as the origin just because someone else said so. I certainly don’t rely on my faith in God because someone told me to do so. I have faith in God because I choose that faith and that faith makes sense to me. Thus I live by that faith. I did grow up in this faith…sort of…but have thoroughly examined my faith and choose this one. I could have chosen anyone I wanted…but I choose this one. I choose this God and it’s based on reason…not just blind faith…ie. there is a reason for my belief in God.

            Again, for you, that long tail of outcomes must produce the entire Shakespeare Library…start to finish, spaces included in 1’s and 0’s without error, mistakes (unless that’s what was incorporated by Shakespeare) in 8-bit bytes or unicode. Let’s say I “give” you 1 * 10^100 random number generators. Do you believe it would be possible? I’m being extremely gracious here…1 Google of random number generators putting out 1’s and 0’s for all eternity (long tail). Do you think any one of them (and it can only be one) of those machines creating the entire Shakespearian library complete, intact with spaces included in one long strip of 1’s and 0’s?

            Actually I found out that Shakespeare’s library is only 5MB long meaning that there are 8 * 5MB. A KB is 1024 so that means all that those machines have to put out is 41943040 bits. Which means that you have a choice of 1 or 0 and assuming proper sequence of those bits…since they aren’t just random bits that are going to be churned out, that would mean a specific 41943040 bits. Since there is a 50% chance of that one bit being the correct bit, we just need multiply each opportunity by 50% (.5)…thus .5^41943040. I tried to do it on my calculator, on my spreadsheet and online, but all I got was 0. I can tell you that .5^400 or .5^4*10^2 is 3.8*10-121. Just think how small .5^4*10^7…and this is only asking for Shakespeare’s Library made of 1’s and 0’s. But, I only included 1 machine. Let’s add the rest of the Google machines and see what happens then. So even with a Google of machines, it didn’t overcome the number. It still ended up being 0. So I once again plugged in (.5^400)*(1*10^100) and it came up as 3.8*10^-21…which would make sense since I’m just decreasing 3.8*10^-121 by positive 10^100. If I change the number to (.5^1000)*(1*10^100), then I get 9.3*10-202. That’s only 1000…not 41 million. Again, we’re only talking about Shakespeare’s Library and I’ve given you a Google of random number generators to generate them. Do you think that in any known timeframe that they could generate Shakespeare’s Library?

            Just pointing out the “gravity” of the situation with Evolution. People don’t want to face these types of odds. But that’s what “scientists” are “preaching”…and people like you accept and even defend.

            I have enjoyed our conversation though. I hope that I have helped you think about what you’re defending. I am in no way trying to convince you of something or another something. I’m just trying to make sure you understand what you’re defending…that the science of probability makes it absolutely impossible for chaos (randomness) to create something so beautiful, capable, wondrous as both you and the Earth we exist on are.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            David, I was sure I spent a lot of time responding to this particular post last night…but it’s not here….whether the moderator or something else is at fault, I know not.

            So allow me to try again. This time will be, if nothing else, shorter.

            I do understand that the more events there are the greater the probability. But let’s just say as an example, that you want to write “create” Shakespeare’s Library. The Library is 5MB in length. Let’s say that you want to do so randomly…because Evolution believes that all this stuff came to be randomly…i.e. no controls. Now Hermit, has stated that there were constraints, but I content that those constraints (controls) did not exist in the beginning. If you believe that there were constraints, then you have to mention them and prove their existence…again, Evolution is claiming science. I have not claimed I can prove God scientifically. Evolution has the most difficult proof.

            Back to Shakespeare: 1MB = (1024×1024) bytes = 1048576 Bytes * 8 to convert to bits = 8388608 bits and 5 times that amount would = 41943040 bits. Now, since Evolution makes the claim that the process is scientific (i.e Evolution is science). Therefore the process must be 1) reproducible 2) repeatedly 3) with the same results…start to finish. So taking our example of Shakespeare we will apply those same criteria using a random number generator (for now until you can let me know, and prove, what constraints already existed). We’ll use a random number generator. Just 1 to begin with. Statistically speaking the success and failure will be based on all the ones and zeros lining up into the one sequence that is Shakespeare’s Library. So out of all the different sequences of 1’s and 0’s, there is only one sequence that will be correct. Thus we create a probability tree that will have as many “leaves” as there are bits. Since there is a 50% chance that the random number generator will be correct, and 50% that it will be wrong, then we multiply that .5 (50%) times the next success, times the next success, etc because we are trying to prove that the entire process (start to finish) was completed. So order is necessary.

            That calculation comes to .5^41943040. Unfortunately, I can’t calculate that number. It’s too small. But I can calculate .5^1000 which = 9.3326 * 10^-302. Now if that number isn’t small enough for you. Remember, that it’s only 1000. Think about 4 million. Extremely small. Oh…but wait. you mentioned 10^100 events. Let’s add a Google of random number generators. (.5^1000) x (10^100). Ready? As you would expect, the negative exponent dropped by 100. So the result of (.5^1000)*(10^100) = .93326*10^-202. Again, remember, we’re only talking 1 thousand….not 4 million.

            Thus, I contend, that given no constraints (i.e random), that it is untenable for you to prove Evolution randomly created the Universe…or more specifically that Evolution is a science…especially since no one has re-created evolution start-to-finish and been able to successfully repeat the process. If you think I’m asking for the impossible, remember this. I didn’t state Evolution is a science. Evolutionists did.

            HTH

          • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

            “Now, since Evolution makes the claim that the process is scientific (i.e Evolution is science). Therefore the process must be 1) reproducible 2) repeatedly 3) with the same results…start to finish.”

            You have literally no clue what you’re talking about. “Scientific” does not mean “deterministic.”

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            You tell me, what are the requirements, then, to prove something is scientific. Cold fusion was not science because it could not be a) reproduced b)consistently. Are you saying that Evolution has a special pass on Science?

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            No clue huh? LOL!

            I only pointed out Shakespeare’s Library improbability to show how untenable Evolution is. Science is the ability to, within natural law, prove something occurred and be able to repeat that proof under the specific circumstances specified…from start to finish.

            You tell me, what’s your understanding of “scientific”?

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Evolution does not assert no control (binary pruning algortihms are very good at forcing rapid adaptation to new situations, even though it is really wasteful) and not random at all. Less successful phenotypes are brutally pruned based on momentary advantages, even though potentially beneficial genes such culls may carry are often lost. This resulted in the wide diversity of life competing for most available niches other than apex predator we saw, at least until humans began applying selection pressure at a rate faster than new species could evolve.

            The oligarchy are not the best that could evolve. Often they are amopngst the very worst (think of the Hapsburg Lip, Haemophilia across the European royal houses, and the exuberant mental incompetence of the Hanoverians and the feeble wits of the descendants of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha.

            Speaking biologically, if any humans can be said to be more evolutionarily “fit”, as opposed to vastly over-privileged by a broken social system, they would be the F1 hybrids between long separated branches of mankind – who tend to be amongst the lowest orders, which subjects them top the indignities consequent to poverty, mitigating most of the benefits they might otherwise enjoy.

            When you go to a hospital, remember that science and medicine have, in the past century increased life expectancy between two and three times at birth, much more for women, and still somehow managed to provide most of the people on the planet enough food to ensure that when th3ey starve, they starve fairly slowly, which is more than all the god thingies, priests, shamen and soothsayers have managed throughout history.

            Consider that before you can decide whether or not to follow a god thingie that purports to offer a moral code, that you would have to have the independent ability to make considered ethical decisions or you could not tell whether the code offered by any deity were good or bad, invalidating any claims to ethical or moral beneficence.

            When you evaluate god thingies, should you consider the Abrahamic, consider their love for the smell of burning fats, their history of stoning people to death, encouraging genocide, enslaving people, demeaning women and encouraging genital mutilation. Consider that Yahweh was one of the 70 sons of El the God of Gods and Lord of Hosts renowned for child sacrifices, which only ceased as the Greeks taught the Hebrews monotheism and that children needed to be cherished, not sacrificed. When you are told that the so-called “Jesus” (not a Jewish name) is an improvement, despite the blatant anti-Semitism of the religion supposedly named after him, don’t forget that he was a zealot for the law (of Moses),

            of which he supposedly said no part would be changed until heaven and Earth were no more (which has not happened), who called people of other races dogs, who reminded the Pharisees that the law demanded the slaughter of children who did not respect their parents, who stole the possessions of other people, who didn’t know when trees bore fruit, and said, “bring those who would not I rule over them, and slay them before me” in a syncope that as only one possible interpretation, and who, as the horned god of Revelations supposedly is going to have people tortured before him forever. And this is supposed to be loving. These are the deities that oversaw crusades where the populations of entire cities were killed, based on 2 Timothy 2:19, “Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius” [Kill them all, for the Lord knoweth them that are His], where inquisitions, slavery, pogroms, feudalism, ignorance, wars and poverty were regarded as normal, rather than a condition to avert.

            And as for weekends, that was a benefit obtained for most people by liberal humanistic labour unions, who had to fight the deeply conservative church-going leaders of business for a right to a family life. After all, as Dicken’s reminds us,

            “O let us love our occupations,
            Bless the squire and his relations,
            Live upon our daily rations,
            And always know our proper stations.” [The Chimes, 2Q, 1844]

            Far from the Judeo-Christian, it was the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 that mandated the long lost dream of a five-day, 40-hour work week for many workers. And as for freedom, the USA, which is no longer a republic in anything but name, but an oligarchy, is, by rate of incarceration, the most totalitarian state in recorded history. The fact that our police kill, per month, more people than the British police have in a Century, that you are more likely to be killed by a firearm than in a car accident and that your children would have a better chance of economic advancement anywhere in Europe than in the USA speaks volumes to its absence. And personal freedom, education and wealth, along with intelligence and generosity all correlate inversely to religiosity, which does however correlate well with divorce, lack of access to health-care, abortion and child abuse. I’m not sure that these statistics can be argued to suggest that religiosity is, in any way a good thing, but try to keep an open mind about it. One should, after all, always attempt to follow the facts where they lead.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Good morning, Hermit! 🙂

            I can understand how that once the evolution gets started and moves forward that it can keep on moving in a general direction. But before you can go there, you have to establish the origin. The origin is as much part of the Evolution “science” as anything. As I’ve mentioned to others. Science – by it’s own definition – is 1) repeatable (start to finish) 2) consistently repeatable (start to finish). That, in itself, is a great burden…too much to bear…at least for now. But despite my sorrow for Evolution’s choice of calling itself a science (I’m anthropomorphizing), the riggers are there. They must be completed and under no circumstances can they be “faked” or piece-meal. They must be complete…start to finish.

            I realize that I have poked fun at “science”, but I think it’s more “political science” that I’m poking fun at. Why in the world did Dr. Keyes come to the conclusion that fat is bad for us? I have no idea. Nevertheless, that was his choice and the people around him joined him in his “science”…including former (now dead) President Eisenhower. We have conclusive data that show that no matter how much meat or fat the President got rid of out of his diet, it actually increased his cholesterol….eventually he died of a heart attack…the very thing that Dr. Keyes said that he would prevent by eliminating fat. We have learned since then. Cholesterol is not bad…unless it’s “bad” cholesterol (which brings me to your next point that stuck out to me).

            Sorry, I jumped to the end of your awesome response….which I enjoyed reading. I would never try to push something. My apologies for misleading (if I have), to suggest that the opposite of Evolution is God. I do, however, believe that God exists and that He inspired men to write books that are brought together as the item known as the Bible. On those 2 items I have no open mind about. They are my worldview. These are foundational items for me. They influence all that I say and do.

            I do realize that the 40-hour work week (for some workers) was not a direct result of the Judeo-Christian law. Thank you for letting me know. But God had the first weekend. On the 7th day, God rested. 🙂

            I would never, ever defend evil done in the name of God. That would be stupid on my part. The crusades were a response, a horrid response to the desire to gain access to the “Holy land”. If those people knew God like I know Him, it doesn’t matter where you worship Him.

            I have come to realize that it’s not so much the horror that we deal with, but how we respond to it, that is important, both to ourselves and to God.

            Jumping around (Yes…God is a jealous) Those Israelites (His People), when they worshipped a false god at the foot of the mountain where the law was being given, God gave them a choice. Either leave that false god and come with me or remain with the false god. Many men, women, children were killed that day because of their choice….they chose. God only set the parameters for that choice.

            God is eternal…and therefore His Word is eternal. Not one jot or tittle will be lost (these are two small marks in the Hebrew Language). There are 2 Covenants in the Bible (Old and New). Something changed…otherwise, what would be the point of 2 of them? I leave that to you to figure out.

            Just to reiterate. I do not follow facts. I learn, I grow my knowledge, but as I stated above, I hold to 2 foundational items, which I will not release. 1) God exists 2) He inspired men to write books and those books were assembled into the Bible.

            If I’ve missed something, it’s only because I’m trying to wake up. Just mention them briefly in your next post and I’ll be glad to do better next time. 🙂

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            Your argument is utterly invalid, because no matter what the Universe looked like, if cognitive life developed in it anywhere*, and that life looked at its local environment, it would necessarily see exactly the environment required for it to develop. We can make this apparent by applying exactly the same probability argument as you, but approaching the question from the other end of the bet.

            Could a life form such as ours have developed in the first 8 billion years of existence of our Universe (No, we needed the second generation of stars), in most of the first 4 billion years during which our solar system and planet developed (No, there was too much radiation or a noxious atmosphere), or some 500 million years from now when our sun will sterilise current forms of life living on Earth (Probably not), or in some 3.5 billion years from now when our sun will expand to beyond the orbit of mars (Definitely not), or in tens of billions of year time when the main sequence stars are no more (No, not enough available energy), until, hundreds of billions of years later, the last baryonic particles in this Universe evaporate (No, we are baryonic particles). So, the answer to all of these questions is, naturally enough (I set them up, after all), no, proving that for most of the existence of this Universe, solar system and planet, they have and will be inimical to our form of life, proving that, if there were a god thingie involved in any of this, that it hates humans.

            Q.E.D.

            PS We are probably here because life on Earth developed to perform the complex chemical process of economically transforming vast quantities of available CO2 into Methane using cheaply available solar energy, and developed in trillions of little steps into what we see today. We developed a brain to control movement as it is only required for that purpose, and that is still its primary role, but it is slow, imperfect and error-prone allowing it to perform other tasks (like wondering about the likelihood of life developing in the Universe).

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I thoroughly enjoyed reading your synopsis…valuable information and loved the latin and especially the conclusion. 🙂

            That’s the problem with approaching probability at the other end. When a person gets a Full House in poker, they say that the probability = 1 that they got it. Of course it is. They got it. But the actual odds of getting a full house are 693:1 (i.e prior to the cards being dealt). Since Evolution claims the scientific burden…it needs to be able to explain fully that science is on their side…in all matters…biologically, statistically, etc. They need to reproduce the entire process. Cold fusion wasn’t reproducible after the initial paper; therefore it wasn’t considered science. I believe some people somewhere are working on this.

            But having been on the Creationist worldview side, I may be able to help you understand why the “god thingy” looks like it hates humans….if you’re interested. Not pushing anything. I am now going through a difficult time in my life and can honestly tell you that I understand why it must happen and the beauty of its purpose.

            Again, thank you for the enjoyable post. 🙂

          • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

            My pleasure 🙂

          • John Q Public

            “I don’t think those of you who believe in multi-verse/evolution (in an
            attempt to eliminate God’s involvement) realize just how un-probable all
            that is.”

            I’m sorry but how the universe started never used “god” as part of the equation. There is no attempt to eliminate a supernatural cause for a natural event.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Hi John Q…You are absolutely correct. Not all Evolution scientists (the 97% of them according to Pew 2009) are attempting to eliminate God. I stand corrected.

            Nevertheless, Evolution has called itself “science” and by uttering that statement, they have inexorably tied themselves to 2 things which are requirements for science. 1) They must repeat the entire process…start to finish. 2) They must do so repeatedly…successfully. Until they do so, they can say they are a science, but that’s like saying (at least currently) that Cold Fusion is a science. When Cold fusion first came out, many repeated it. Everyone hoped that it would solve our energy problems (I included). But the process was never repeated, consistently, successfully. Recently, I’ve heard good news about Cold Fusion, but until that “good news”, Cold Fusion isn’t science. It’s speculation, it’s hope, it’s faith.

          • John Q Public

            Nathan, That is correct. The experiments that use the evolution theory are fully testable, repeatable, demonstrable, and falsifiable.. As an example, There were several new transitional species found in 2014 alone using the theory. The theory was used to determine where to dig to find these new species. A relatively new idea using the theory is gene switching. An interesting experiment was using gene switching on chicken embryos to get them to grow teeth (since birds are actually evolved dinosaurs). It was predicted that chickens came from dinosaurs. This experiment produced that evidence.

            As for cold fusion, it is a hypothesis, not a theory. As you have pointed out, it is not successfully testable or repeatable as of yet. It hasn’t reached the theory phase . Science depends on speculation for it’s progression.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Totally on board with everything you’ve just stated. We make assumptions all the time and use those assumptions to make the best decisions we can.

            My hope is (though I doubt I have any bearing on it) is that the FFRF and the RDFRS would not have Evolution taught as fact like gravity, but teach it as a theory with all the gaps and wholes. Otherwise, the children who do grow up to be scientists will remember their disingenuous teachers stating Evolution as fact only to find that it’s a theory that needs work.

            In addition, those children who hear Evolution as fact, will most likely consider the matter fata-compli…when it isn’t…yet. As a result, they will start spouting incorrect information and after all, aren’t we looking to teach our children about the world as we know it?

            Too many times I was taught in school that the Civil War was about slavery…when it wasn’t. It was about States vs Federal Rights…under which slavery was one of the subtopics. I realize that the teacher was attempting to simplify so that I could learn it better, but I wouldn’t, as a teacher, simplify the reality out of History. Same with science. Teach those things that we know as we know them. Don’t sugar coat, don’t mince words, etc.

            I truly believe that in the light of reality, there’s a lot to learn and much that we assume in our daily lives to push forward in our total human knowledge.

          • http://www.miketheinfidel.com/ MikeTheInfidel

            “If I have a die (6) and a deck of cards (52), then for me to get a 4 and choose the queen of hearts I take 1/52 * 1/6 to get a total probability of 1/312.”

            David’s entire point is that you’re rolling a die and picking a card, and THEN deciding *after the fact* what you want to pick and roll. The circumstances of our existence are exactly as they would have to be for things like us to arise. That’s *why* we arose. It wasn’t designed for us – we adapted to it.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Sorry…you still have to prove how that happened. Again, Evolution says it’s science. Proof is necessary…otherwise it isn’t science. There is a process involved. It started from A and came to “us”. What’s A and how did we get to “us”…prove it!

      • Spencer Carriveau

        Einstein’s theory of relativity describes gravity much more accurately than Newtonian physics.

        • David

          Agreed.

        • Nofun

          But Newtonian physics lives on as a limited case and is still used extensively and most likely always will.

    • Nofun

      It isn’t a fact it is a scientific theory that remains unassailed for 150+ years. Scientific theories are the highest level of certitude in science and don’t grow up to be facts or laws. The facts are evidence. Theories explain the evidence.

      The Universe fine calibration is just being wise after the fact. It is no more exciting than my last sentence containing 11 words …. not 10 or 12 … it must of been designed … no we are just wise after the fact.

      The fact that 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999%+ of the universe is lethal to life sort of shows it was not created for us by a magic, invisible god.

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        I think you’re missing an important point…that you just made. “The fact that 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999%+ of the universe is lethal to life…” also shows that 0.00000000000000000000000000000000001%- is livable is absolutely astounding! It means that this planet, in particular, was created for life. When we deal in probabilities such as these, we’re talking probabilities that could never come true by random aspects. Can you imagine the z-score on the probability curve in this case? We’re not just talking about possibility. We’re talking a P-value of 1 (i.e. life exists here on Earth). Amazing…isn’t it.

        • Nofun

          What is astounding about it? If it were different we wouldn’t be having this conversation. It just is. The probability is 1 since it happened.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            The probability that I’m writing to you is 1. But you described a percent of the Universe lethal to humans. I performed an inverse ratio and found the amount of space that isn’t so simply based on your number…whether it’s correct or not. Certainly the probability that it happened is 1. But what’s astounding is that on such a small amount of space, that it happened. It’s astronomically impossible. Think about it…The odds of winning the Powerball lottery are 1:750,000,000. The number of 9’s and thus the number of 0’s of the inverse are actually 1×10^-31. If the equivalent of a Powerball win is the same as getting struck by lightning 2 times or being bit by a shark, surviving and then being struck by lightning. How astronomical is the probability that of just that small amount of space 1×10^-31 just happened, just happened to start “life”. It’s too much for me to think about. It requires way more faith than I’m able to muster and so I’ll just stick with God as the creator.

          • Nofun

            The probability can’t be 1 and astronomically impossible.
            It did just happen. I am in it. No faith required.

            Now show us the evidence of your God that makes something as real as earth hard to believe?

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Nofun…YOU are the one who said that Evolution is evidence-based..scientific…in all aspects. The burden is on you to prove it using the scientific method. If you can’t, then that’s your problem and worse…it means you’re defending something you don’t understand. You’re defending something based on what someone else told you and someone else told them, who told them….etc.

            You’re holding on to the probability of 1 because you’re here, but you can’t show me the process of evolution…the complete, whole, “known” (but it’s not) process. If you can’t do that, then like cold fusion is currently (although it may not be that way for long), scientifically IT DOESN’T EXIST. It isn’t real science!

            To connect with God, you have to believe (using faith). Sorry…there is no other way. So, from where I’m standing and from all that I’ve shown…the choice is really one of faith or one of faith.

            Now if you want to do so, you can wait for the entire process of Evolution to be recreated by someone…because that, after all, is a requirement of science…and hope that someone is able to do that successfully, or you can continue to believe in faith that Evolution is real. Your choice.

          • Nofun

            Read up on it.

          • Mike Mitchell

            Nathan, I’ve thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts, you are without a doubt extremely intelligent and, by my reckoning, a better representation of a christian than so many other people. The only issue I have is your argument about evolutionists using the “probability of 1”. While it is indeed low on the probability scale, using just math, that life formed exactly as it did, it is also just as improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient being exists that created life. However, you assert that this is so, you are also using the “probability of 1” argument, i.e god exists, while saying that your opponent may not use the same logic.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Hi Mike. I’m glad I’ve been, if nothing else, entertaining. 🙂 I also appreciate your compliment and recognition of some of my capabilities.

            I understand where you’re coming from. God exists therefore His probability = 1. But, I have never claimed, nor would I ever claim, that I can scientifically prove God. It can’t be done. Therefore, there is no science I would offer (biology, mathematics, etc) that I would use in any way to prove God’s existence. However, unfortunately, Evolution has made that statement. Evolutionists have said, “Evolution is a science” or “Evolution is a law” (scientific law). Therefore, by their own statements, they doom themselves. They must (because this is the criteria which they hold themselves to) repeat the entire process…start to finish…and be able to do so repetitively….start to finish.

            So where am I going with all this? Why disprove Evolution is science when I have no “agenda? I will do my best to explain that after I finish today with those who have written to me in a summary at the bottom (toward the bottom).

          • Mike Mitchell

            While I can’t dispute your statement that “some” evolutionists have said “Evolution is science.” or “Evolution is a law.”, I do dispute that that is the prevailing attitude in scientific circles. The vast majority of the reputable science community calls evolution a theory, one with flaws, one that needs additional work and information before it can be proved to be true. However, just because a complex theory has flaws in it, that does not negate the entire theory, it only negates the parts of the theory based on the flawed information. In many of the cases, it is not even flawed information or things proven to be untrue, but is actually a lack of any information so some guesswork is required to fill in the gaps. The guesswork is usually proclaimed as such and is based on in-depth knowledge of the subject matter, comparing similar cases, and using the broad amount of information available to create a scenario as close to accurate as possible, without having the pure hard facts right in front of them.
            As I said before, just because all the facts aren’t there, is no reason to stop looking for them. That’s how our body of knowledge has spread as much as it has. If no one ever questioned anything, and simply said ‘It’s the way it is because god made it that way.” we would still be living in the Dark Ages. Science is a process, the process of continuing to delve for the hows and whys of the universe. Some day science may even prove that god exists, though if that happens I strongly doubt that he/she/it will fit the current form of god that is promulgated by so many of today’s religions.
            At least you aren’t declaiming “Evolution says birds can turn into fish.” like some of the other posters ; )

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I have no problem with Evolution being taught as a theory and the teacher listing all the gaps in it. Of course, if the FFRF did that, then they would have to open the floor to other originating theories, like Creation, as one example.

            If a scientist wants to continue to look into the Evolution Theory, let them. It’s their time. That’s the only way we learn and I totally agree that we need to keep looking for answers. But as we do so, can we stop indoctrinating children telling them that Evolution is a fact, a scientific fact? Bring all the theories of origin together and let them be studied by children. Let it be a learning experience that we build on assumption and those assumptions are proven, disproven and repeated until finally you have “fact”. But let’s not tell them Evolution is fact…when it isn’t scientifically provable (repeatable, consistently, so). Otherwise, we’re giving Evolution a pass that cold fusion never had.

            Thanks again for the good discussion.

          • Mike Mitchell

            Thank you sir, for your insight and logical discussion. There is one other thing that is a bit of a sticking point, however. You have repeatedly said that something must be repeatable in a lab experiment, giving the same results each time, before it can be declared scientific fact. In many things, and evolution is one of them, that is impossible to do. The simple process of evolution takes place over the space of billions of years, that is not possible to repeat in a lab, so it is unfair to say it isn’t true if you can’t repeat it. We know how volcanoes erupt, but we can’t create eruptions in a lab, that go off on cue, does that mean that volcanoes don’t erupt the way we think they do? We cannot recreate in a lab an experiment where an asteroid collides with a planet, but have observed it happening. Does that mean it isn’t science? We have observed stars in various stages of going from normal to supernova, but we can’t cause that to happen ourselves in a lab, so that means it doesn’t happen?
            As far as “Evolution as fact” goes, in my school days, and even in college, it was always called a theory. Of course they also taught you the difference between a fact, a theory and hypothesis back then, which seems to have passed by a lot of posters. I agree, it needs to be taught as a theory, but there are parts of it that are proven fact, and they need to be taught as such. I have no issue with teaching Creationism as well… as long as it is taught as “This is what the bible says about how life began.” and NOT as “This is how God created life.”. There is a fine line between those 2 statements, and one that is crossed far too easily.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            When I look at science and they create something like Math…then within that subject area, there is a logical progression that is provable. You can prove 2 + 2 = 4. It’s repeatable. There is theoretical mathematics, but it is well stated as such…theoretical. When another mathematician comes along and proves the theory, and that proof is peer-reviewed, then there is some (not complete, but some), evidence that shows that it is valid. As you know, there have been a number of falsified papers that even made it through peer review…although I hope that number is diminishing. But when it comes to natural phenomena, science isn’t so clear cut. As you say, it’s difficult know how a volcano erupts. Yes, you can say because of pressure from an underground location has too much pressure due to heat and that sounds reasonable and plausible. But is it truly known? Is that science when something is simply plausible? I don’t think so. Chemistry is another good science. You can take Hydrogen and put a flame to it and it ignites. You can repeat that. Interestingly enough, even though you put a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen together it doesn’t make water. Put a lit match and it becomes a ball of fire. All I’m saying is that there is much we do not understand and I’m fine with that and even moving forward based on that limited understanding…after all…it’s all we have.

            Perhaps I’ve been too lose with my terminology. Perhaps, instead, I should say that Evolution is not scientific-fact.

            I, too, learned the same (hypothesis, theory, law) and it allowed me a way forward to determine what I chose as the origin of the Universe. I still read about Evolution. I love dinosaurs.

            I agree. Actually talking with another person, I would agree on Evolution being taught in science class, as there may be and hopefully should be science experiments for those non-gapped portions and another class where religions (not just the Bible) of man are taught to include their understanding of origins and even putting Evolution in the mix. This, too, would be a fine line to deal with where a teacher might say, “Evolution is a scientific-fact, whereas the rest are just religions.”

            Unfortunately that’s not what the FFRF is suggesting…nothing as reasonable as that.

          • Mike Mitchell

            Sorry it took so long to reply, work has been hectic the past few days. From your last post, I would say that you and I are extremely close on our views of how things should be taught. We may disagree on which origin is the true one, but we both feel that all the information should be given, even the things that we “think” are wrong, but haven’t been disproven. Though I’m not a “god-botherer”, as Sir Terry Pratchet put it so humorously, I have a good deal of respect for your views, your logical thought processes and the fact that you can debate rationally. Way back when, before I lost my belief, I agreed with many of things you have said. Unfortunately, too many times other religious people and even a few church leaders have been so close-minded and belligerent about their beliefs, that it pushed me further and further away. As I said in an earlier post, if god does make an appearance, I feel that many of the people that so fervently push “god’s” agenda will find that they have been working at cross purposes to the true meaning of the bible’s word. I wish you a very good day, and hope that your faith brings you peace and joy.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            Thank you for your kind words. I agree with your assessment of religious people. It’s like they take on God’s identity and then perform judgement on others…when they themselves came from that very place. My opinion is that God didn’t provide the assembled Bible as something to beat others (or even ourselves) over the head with.

            Each person must make their own journey through life to what they believe is truth. If you’ve found truth…awesome! If someone hasn’t found truth and they are looking…great! But if someone withholds truth or in any way intentionally pushes a “truth” on someone, that’s downright untruthful and should never be allowed or tolerated. In addition, if someone blindly accepts truth from someone(s) else, then they aren’t being honest in their search for truth.

            I would say this about my faith, like Paul, I have had plenty and am actually now in need. But no matter what state I’ve been, I have learned to be content and am content now. So I’m satisfied with my pursuit of the truth.

            You have a great day too!

    • Kyle McHattie

      Ken Ham is a joke. There is no such thing as historical science. There is only science and it’s predictions.

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        I’ve heard of Ken Ham…but that has no bearing on anything I’ve said.

        You, as an evolutionist, have a terrible burden. I truly feel sorry for you because You…not me or anyone else…You have claimed science. Science, (as Hermit pointed out) has benefits…but it also is rigorous. One of the most rigorous items you as an evolutionist HAVE to prove is that you can repeat the entire Evolution “law”….from start to finish. Cold fusion couldn’t be, with consistency, replicated. As such, it became a “non-science” (i.e. it wasn’t scientific). So, not only does the science of Evolution have to be able to repeat the entire process…start to finish. It has to do so repetitively and successfully. Otherwise, it’s not science.

        • Kyle McHattie

          You are saddled with the same burden. The theory of evolution is based on rigorous scientific study and predictions based on that study and observation. It is the best explanation for how life evolved on earth. That’s why the comparison was made to gravity, since we don’t fully understand it either. Evolution, if you understand it, has repeatedly shown to accurately predict how life has proliferated on this planet. Yes, like gravity, there are aberrations, because we are still studying. Yet it is still the best explanation.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I regret to say that I do not have such a burden. I am in no way obligated to prove God’s existence scientifically. I have never made that argument.

            Interesting you are calling it the Theory of Evolution when others would attempt to berate me for using such a nebulous term. Those who berate me call it Science…Fact…which is, of course, what this article is about. The FFRF and the other organization maintain that Evolution and NOT Creation must be taught because Evolution is “as much a fact as gravity”. But in order for Evolution to be fact, it must go through scientific rigor.

            I am in no way saying that you can’t believe in Evolution. You can do whatever you want. What I am saying is that Evolution is not a fact. It’s not a science. It may be a theory and it may be a belief and that’s fine…attempt to prove whatever you wish. But the FFRF is saying that it’s a fact…and it isn’t.

            The fact that “we are still studying”, is fine with me. But don’t call gravity fully known or Evolution a fact…until everything about it is known. We, as human beings, are in process of learning. Even now, we’re studying anti-matter and it’s affect on gravity…we just don’t understand it completely. We don’t even understand electric current. If we did, then superconductors would be all over the place. Would they not?

          • Kyle McHattie

            I see, so you don’t have to prove god(s)’ existence but scientists have to prove evolution. That is intellectual dishonesty at it’s finest.

            No true scientist calls it a fact. they say it is “as much a fact as gravity” because it is as close to a fact as can be logically concluded based on the scientific method. This is the standard that has been used for centuries to determine the natural laws and processes of our world. Evolution is a theory based on science and is in fact rigorously proven out time and time again. The fact that you don’t understand it doesn’t make it wrong.

            And to claim that we need to understand every aspect of natural process in order to how things work is ridiculous. Every advance in technology that has been made to date has been because of our study and application of science. It is a fact that when I throw something up in the air, it is going to come down. That is a fact. Gravity is the best explanation for that.

            You can have faith in god(s). But to try to claim that god(s) created anything, you also have to PROVE it.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I never said God was Scientifically provable. I never said that God is a fact. You said Evolution is a fact. Evolution is science. If I had said those things then I would be liable as you say. But I did not. Therefore, I am in no way being intellectually dishonest.

            Evolution as defined is considers the origin of life. If I’m not correct, let me know. If so, then make life…but not just any life will do. No…you have to be capable of making human life from whatever you choose to believe existed at the time that life began. You can say a meteor came down with amino acids already prepared…but that’s an assumption and it must be stated.

            No it isn’t ridiculous at all. In order for us to have learned to fly, we made assumptions. Those assumptions actually still exist…yet we fly. But most people don’t care how that happens. They just care that it does. Most people don’t care about gravity and the implications of not fully understanding, we build stuff and we deal with gravity all the time…but we don’t fully understand it. We claim it as “fact”, but it really isn’t until you can apply the full rigor of science on it.

            Here’s a fact: 2 + 2 = 4. That has been proven. You can measure the gravity on earth 32m/s^2. That’s actually the affect on the object falling. We don’t even know if centripetal force is real. There’s real division at that level.

            Look, people do this all the time. They say something is “fact” when it isn’t. How do you think that the “Civil War was about slavery” came about. It’s taught in school. But that’s not what the Civil war was about. It was about State vs Federal rights. A subheading under that was the right of States to allow for slavery. But it wasn’t the primary effort behind the Civil War. Same thing with Evolution. People treat it as fact. It just isn’t until you can prove it.

            Study and application yes…that’s fine….all based on theory which have been provable. Evolution isn’t provable. It isn’t science. My statement is in order to consider something fact, it must have stood the rigors of science (repeatable, start-to-finish, etc.) If that weren’t the case, then cold fusion would be a fact. But it isn’t…yet.

            Again, I have nothing to prove. I’m not leading you to “something”. I’m leading you away from something. If you should finally accept that Evolution is not fact and not science, then you may feel you’re left with nothing about how the origin of the Universe started. Not my problem! I’m not here to evangelize. If you need to seek proof of God, then do that on your own time.

          • Kyle McHattie

            Did you read even one of my replies? How many times do i have to say that no real scientist calls it a fact? I did not call it a fact. Learn how to read and comprehend ok? It is a theory. And it is the best theory available to explain how life evolved on earth. Science is not about proving, so there is your first wrong assumption. It is about disproving assumptions. It is a constantly evolving process. Evolution IS a scientific theory.

            You are correct that math is the only science that can prove anything.

            There is actual evidence, strong evidence from fossil records and DNA that the theory of evolution is correct. That is how we come to scientific conclusions; evidence.

            I am not talking about how the universe started (that also has a very strong theory explaining it). I am talking about how life evolved on earth. There is no better, logical, evidence based explanation than the theory of evolution.

            Creationism is a ludicrous political term used to confuse the ignorant into reconciling the bible with science. It is a farce.

            If there is a creative force that started the universe, it certainly isn’t the thing called god, or allah, or described in any “holy text”.

            That you say you don’t have to prove the existence of god(s) is in fact dishonest, when you claim that science does have to prove it’s theories. You’re either too stupid to understand the lack of basic logic or you’re lying.

            Faith is 100% incompatible with science. You can have faith in god(s), but you can’t use that assumption to logically come to a scientific conclusion. It’s called bias, and it obscures any objective result.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            So let me try again…and make sure I read all of your reply.

            You can say “no real scientist calls it a fact”. But FFRF does and so does RDFRS…see above.

            So let me see if I can help you here. If, you contend that Evolution is a theory…I’m O.K. with that. I’ve very O.K. with that. But referencing the article above, it should not be taught as a law. It should be taught as a theory…with all the gaps and problems that are currently known to current scientists.

            If you truly believe that is the case (i.e. Evolution is a theory), then shouldn’t all other possible origins be mentions so that children can make up their own mind? It doesn’t just have to be creationism as presented in the Bibie, what about the Quor’an, what about Indian or Asian, etc? If Evolution isn’t a scientific fact then it should never be taught as such. Don’t you agree?

            I don’t agree with your statement that Creationisms’ intent is to confuse the ignorant, but that’s your assumption to make. I use the term to reference the 1st chapter of Genesis, as it is stated. There is no science in Gen. 1. God did something miraculous, according to the Bible. Miracles aren’t science.

            If there is or isn’t a God (gods), again, that’s something you have to wrestle with. You, Kyle, have to wrestle with this tension that’s inside you. I have no such tension, nor need to push God (gods). I guess I don’t understand. Why do you bash creationism on one hand and then tell me I have to prove it? I don’t care. It doesn’t bother me.

            Here, maybe this will help you. I totally agree that Faith is 100% incompatible with science. I wouldn’t even try. Why would I?

            This may also help. I’m not like any other Christ-follower you have ever met. Unlike many others, I’m not going to beat you over the head with a Bible until you believe. That’s all your choice. I totally respect that. I respect you, as a person…a knowledgable person.

            I hope this helps you understand where I’m coming from. To reiterate:
            1) Evolution taught as a theory is a good thing….not as a fact. Present all the gaps, all the unknowns to whatever age group it’s being taught to. Tell them that these are areas to explore, if they are willing. But also tell them that with that there are other non-science-related origin theories that can be/should be studied. But the above is not what the FRFF and RDFRS is saying. It legally demands that Evolution be taught as fact…scientific fact…absolute truth. It isn’t that….yet. Maybe someday…but not yet.
            2) Faith is 100% incompatible with science. That’s why I would never even suggest that God is provable. I wouldn’t even try.

            Does this help?

          • Kyle McHattie

            It does help. But you’re still trying to overlap faith and science.

            If you agree that faith and science are incompatible, why would you want faith based, non scientific, ignorance based origins teaching in a classroom? What was wrong with teaching genesis in church? Would you want evolution taught in your church?

            I bash creationism because it in general fosters ignorance and faith based thinking instead of logical, science based reasoning. Neither creationism nor evolution can be proven but Evolution is certainly more plausible, by an exponential factor. Wouldn’t you agree? Especially because it has been studied ofr a century, tweaked and tested, reworked, and continues to be studied. As opposed to a static representation in a book written millennia ago, by people who didn’t even know that the sun revolves around the earth. Do you want that to be the example of “science” taught to our children that are trying to further our understanding of the world? Why would you even argue for this unless your agenda is to have people use faith instead of reason?

            The FRFF is simply trying to keep religion and science separate. They don’t state the theory of evolution is fact. They say it is as much a fact as gravity. It is a metaphor to get people to understand that it is as close to a practical fact that we as thinking humans with logical faculties can come up with. And because it removes god(s) from the equation, the religious are dug in like it’s the end of the world. So instead of trying to just tell people to have faith, they are demanding that their ancient book be equated with science. It’s dishonest.

            You make another assumption, that I struggle with a tension inside about the existence of god(s). I don’t struggle with it at all. I simply don’t believe in god(s). It’s very peaceful.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I didn’t say that the classroom had to be the same classroom. Creationism, etc should not be taught in science class. It shouldn’t. But you already agree that there are gaps in Evolution. Those gaps should be pointed out to those children…completely…fully. If those gaps are not fully revealed, then that teacher, that curriculum is being disingenuous (a.k.a lying).

            You may deem Evolution more plausible. I do not. You can add exponents and multiplication and even factorials. It’s a theory with gaps and holes. Those gaps and holes need to be stated in the science class. But let me ask you a question, because my guess is that some child will ask the question. “If Evolution is a theory with all these gaps and holes, why should we accept it?” The answer is, the child doesn’t and shouldn’t have to accept Evolution as the only answer.

            Ultimately, the problem is with religion being kept outside the school system is that it’s like having a glasses of water. It’s all water, but you can only have “these” glasses. This knowledge (religion) is forbidden. It is bad knowledge. Do you see how ridiculous that is? Why would someone do that? All knowledge is there for us to learn from. If we separate some as good and some as bad knowledge, then who are we? Communists? Freedom is all about open exploration….of everything. Limit that knowledge in any location, and you’re censoring. That’s not freedom. That’s censoring. Notice that I’m saying knowledge. I’m not saying experience. Knowledge of heroin is good…it’s bad for you, it causes these symptoms after you’ve done it, etc. These are known results. Knowledge of Islam or knowledge of Christianity or knowledge of hinduism….all of these are knowledge and children need to be allowed to both explore and learn about them.

            Metaphors are inaccurate. The problem in this situation is that when you legally allow for a group or groups to lawfully state that Evolution is a fact, like gravity, a problem occurs, if the case is won. Now the legal system “believes” that Evolution is a fact. As you and I have discussed, it is not. Now you have a bunch of lawyers making cases that Evolution is absolute science (provable, replaceable, etc), when it is not. It is a theory.

            That’s good to hear that you’re not in tension and not believing in a God (or gods) is your choice.

          • Kyle McHattie

            You’re still equating faith with knowledge. Faith is not knowledge. It is in fact the opposite of knowledge.

            Religious studies are not bad or good, but they are classified separately for a good reason. i.e. they are based in entirely different schools of thought. That is why secularists are trying to keep creationism out of public schools and put back into churches.

            Religious thought is based on faith. Science is based on logic, reason and observable phenomenon that predicts observable outcomes. As you have agreed, they are mutually exclusive.

            Science can still be used to discover the origins of the universe because if a conclusion is later found to be inaccurate, it can be corrected. That is why it is used to further learn.

            But being taught that there is an infallible god that created the universe in 6 days, that the earth is only 6000 years old and that everything we have learned since then is wrong, is dangerous and inappropriate in a science class.

            Yes, kids SHOULD be allowed to think for themselves. But it doesn’t work if they are being lied to and deliberately deceived into thinking creationism is equatable to science.

          • Nathan Z Solomon

            I don’t think so. Knowledge about different faiths is what I’m suggesting…not proselytizing. Again…knowledge.

            Why? Why are the separate? They are knowledge…like anything else. There is no reason for the separation…at least at his point in your message, I don’t see one.

            Religious thought is not based on faith. Religious thought is based on knowledge…that is, there are certain things to learn about a religion. For example, I learned about the cast system, which is a religion in India. It has no bearing on my faith in the cast system nor in my acceptance of it as a faith. Learning a procedure does not automatically imply a faith. For example, I could learn the procedure to do what Catholic Priests do. I could find out why they do what they do. Does that mean I become in any way, shape or form, Catholic? I don’t think so. I don’t think children would simply swoon over a religion just because it was described to them.

            But allow me to be as clear as possible. Religion is a man-made set of rules established based on a group of people’s understanding about a sacred text. Since people are individuals and groups disagree, we have different sects. Sunni and Shiite, Catholic and Protestant, etc.

            Perhaps it can. You believe that and that’s fine. I do not….simply because of what I’ve stated in the past. To become a non-assumption fact (e.g. 2 + 2 = 4), there must be the ability to replicate all the facets of Evolution, from start to finish. There’s this nasty thing call Bias…that exists in science. My favorite guy (NOT), Dr. Ancel Keys, a renowned scientist stated that fat was bad for anyone. Because he was so renowned, for a long time people equated cholesterol as all bad. That fat caused cholesterol and fat made you fat and gave you heart attacks. But now we know better. But that’s not because science was unbias in the process of that discovery. It’s because people who are not scientist starting putting things together, like Gary Taubes, who wrote Good Calories/Bad Calories. Once that happened, people started examining that themselves. Slowly…ever so slowly…there is now a trend to stop vilifying fat…and not just that…but also saying some fats are good…like Omega 3’s, etc. This investigation into fats didn’t get underway until this past decade. Yet, Dr. Keys’ bias lived on from before 1941 to a little over the year 2000. About 50 years living under the scientifically, incorrect bias. I wonder if the same scientists who study Evolution are willing to acknowledge its gaps and holes and accept another explanation, should that come about. Personally…I don’t think that would be easy for anyone.

            As I mentioned, it shouldn’t be taught in science class. But it should be taught.

            You are right. A lie is a lie…be it misleading them in the gaps in Evolution and not allowing them to make their own minds up as well as censoring the study of religion from them in the same school…that is deception. It relegates the same type of information (not faith) from them. I hope you will agree that these are also deceptions. If not, that’s O.K. It’s still a deception, creating a bias through elimination of information within a teaching environment….which should never, ever, be allowed.

          • oregon_man

            No gaps, no holes in evolution. Keep rationalizing and throwing out straw man arguments.

          • oregon_man

            Evolution is not a theory. It is a scientific fact, but we know you’ll keep repeating the same statement over and over and over because it is all you’ve got.

          • oregon_man

            You have a short memory about “proving God”, as your post a page or two above says ” I assure you that I have enough knowledge to know 2 things 1) God exists 2) Evolution does not. I have proven it time and time again. I have broken Evolution. It is an untenable position. “

    • Zasz

      If any creationist thinks he/she is capable of disproving the theory of evolution, write it down, get it peer reviewed. Either collect your nobel prize or continue to whine.

    • Nofun

      Evolution is colloquially more of a fact than gravity as we know more about it.

    • Tangent001

      “Recently it was found that gravity is not a constant in the Universe.”

      The functional laws of gravity can vary slightly in rare and extreme circumstances/conditions, yes, but that is not really ‘fluctuation’.

      “For the Universe to be calibrated so accurately is literally impossible in the “change” game that’s setup by Evolution.”

      Normally I would say that evolution and cosmological physics are two not the same thing, but actually, evolutionary principles apply to your problem with the apparent ‘fine-tuning’ of this universe. If we posit a multi-verse where many, possibly infinite, permutations of the ‘properties of reality’ are possible, only those universes with a stable configuration would survive. That we happen to find ourselves in one is actually unremarkable.

      “But don’t tell me it’s a fact.”

      That isolated populations of organisms change over time is a fact. That all organisms have at least some level of genetic similarity is a fact. That 95% of the species that have ever existed on Earth are now extinct is a fact.

    • LightningJoe

      “For the Universe to be calibrated so accurately is literally impossible in the “change” game that’s setup by Evolution.”

      Calling the “changing” strength of gravity a “calibration” implies that someone DID that calibration (yes I know (yawn)). This error is of the same order as looking at the fact that there are ONLY and EXACTLY twelve inches in a foot, and calling THAT a “calibration.” Or praising the “calibration” that says that ONLY and EXACTLY two will be left, if three are taken from five.

      In other words, the values of the universe’s constants, and the operation of the universe’s rules, are what they are because all the OTHER values are what THEY are. Change ANY of them (if you could), and the rest MUST change to match (indeed, that is one of the rules).

      That ADAPTATION is the closest thing to “calibration” that the universe is capable of.

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        Before I begin, allow me to say that if you’re looking for truth or you believe you’ve found it….that’s great! If you’re looking to convince me of your truth…not so much. I’m not open-minded. I have 2 rules on which all the foundation of my knowledge is based and thus creates my worldview:

        1) God exists (God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob)
        2) God inspired men to write a book or books that are compiled together as the Bible.

        Whether you choose to believe the above or not is immaterial to me and my views. Like Morpheus said in the Matrix when told that “not everyone believes as you do”. His reply was “My faith does not require them to”.

        Before I continue, do you understand what I have just said and are you willing then to proceed in a discussion with me? Yes or no will suffice.

    • Unrepentant Atheist

      It is fact until such time as evidence points to a different conclusion. That is how science works.

      • Nathan Z Solomon

        Interesting. So if I start out with a bias in one direction and create a theory that becomes popular, then that theory remains in place until it becomes unpopular?

  • weasel1886

    Why use e=mc2 as a graphic? What does that have to do with the subject?

    • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

      Evolution and physics are both seen as scary sciency stuff by the kind of unlettered primitives that tend to hang around this site. Presumably their wannabe editors are similarly simian.

      • Liberal Kuhn

        I heard the EPA had your smelly old tw-t designated a toxic waste dump.

        • http://emilie.hermit.net/ Hermit

          Your religion does not seem to inspire particularly witty repartee. Does it have any positive effects in your life, or does it just make you unhappy. While we are on the subject, is your tooth loss caused by meth use, or is your dental hygiene as poor as your mental hygiene?

    • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

      @Hermit. I wouldn’t be quite as disparaging.I think it just shows laziness and a touch of ignorance, both of which can be cured. I assume by “unlettered primitives that tend to hang around this site” you aren’t referring to yourself, or me for that matter.

  • Tito Salgado

    Evolution is not a law it is a theory. The law of thermodynamics #2 completely dissagrees with the THEORY of evolution which is a religion. Since it cannot be proven then you have to have faith in order to believe it thus it is a religion. If you want all religion to be taken out of the class room then evolution must go as well. Proper protocol would be you show both sides and let the kids decide for themself or you show neither side. To say that a theory is a fact is absolutely irresponsible and creates a veil of credibility loss.

    • weasel1886

      T2 has nothing to do with evolution or biology

      • Tito Salgado

        Entropy or heat death and a long long evolution cannot both exist at the same time. I go with the law. Needless to say evolution is a religion, you have to have faith in it. Don’t debate the laws of thermodynamics that is senseless. Instead try to prove that evolution isn’t a religion. Good luck.

        • Rebus Caneebus

          Entropy or heat death and a long long evolution cannot both exist at the same time.

          You might want to take note of that big yellow thing in the sky.

          • Tito Salgado

            Yes that big yellow thing in the sky out there is putting out less nutrinos every year. It is dying. T#2.

          • Rebus Caneebus

            Yes that big yellow thing in the sky out there is putting out less nutrinos every year. It is dying. T#2

            WHOOSH is the sound of the point going over your head.

            The earth gets energy from the sun; evolution isn’t violating the 2nd law.

            And you’re just lying about the sun’s output; it’s quite stable over its 11-year cycle.

          • Nofun

            It provides energy to the earth.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          You misunderstand the terms “theory” and “law.” When you say “theory” what you are really describing is “hypothesis.”

          Here are some definitions I found on the web site chemistry dot about dot com.

          “A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. Usually, a hypothesis can be supported or refuted through experimentation or more observation. A hypothesis can be
          disproven, but not proven to be true.”

          “A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproven. Basically, if evidence accumulates to support a hypothesis, then the hypothesis can become accepted as a good explanation of a phenomenon. One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis.”

          “A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law. Scientific laws
          explain things, but they do not describe them. One way to tell a law and a theory apart is to ask if the description gives you a means to explain ‘why’.”

          As you can see, there is no ‘proof’ or absolute ‘truth’ in science. The closest we get are facts, which are indisputable observations. Note, however, if you define proof as arriving at a logical conclusion, based on the evidence, then there is ‘proof’ in science.”

          Science will continue to call evolution a “theory” until evidence appears that contradicts it. So far that hasn’t happened in spite of the constant attempts of Creationists to interpret scientific data in a way that appears to refute evolution. However, for a believer, there are two kinds of truth: empirical truth which is the realm of science, and revelation which is the realm of faith. I sincerely believe that God reveals himself both in His creation and in revelation. The two cannot contradict each other, so it doesn’t have to be an “either/or” situation.

          • Nofun

            Wrong. Sceintific theory is the highest level of certitude in science. It has to be peer reviewed, falsifiable and explain all the evidence. If future evidence come to light it may be overturned.

            The evidence is fact and theories do not grow up to be facts or laws. Theories like Evolution are treated colloquially as facts because they been around so long and no evidence has been found to question it happens.

            Their is still of course plenty we don’t know but that it happens is not one of those things.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            That’s not exactly what I said. I did not say that theories “grow up” to become laws. The reason “creation science” is not science is precisely because it is not falsifiable and is not peer reviewed. The fact of evolution was already documented well enough in the fossil record to make it the best model available at the time, and nothing has come along to falsify it. There are, of course, differences among biologists regarding specific aspects of evolution, such as the debate about continuous variation versus punctuated equilibrium (Gould), but these in no way shake the foundations of our current understanding. Now that we can map the entire genomes of species, the evidence points more strongly than ever to an evolutionary model. As a devout Christian, I have no problem believing in a God who designed the universe in such a way that life was inevitable, and who chose evolution as the means of man’s creation. I have no trouble believing that every genetic mutation it took to get to man was itself an act of divine Providence.The only people who have still have trouble with it seem to be those who insist on reading Genesis as if it were a news report.

          • Nofun

            Sorry I was misunderstood.

            BUT…..

            Man is not some endpoint or goal. Evolution doesn’t have endpoints or goals.

          • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

            You are correct. A process driven by chance mutation and statistical selection cannot possibly have a goal. I’m not a literal reader of Genesis and do not subscribe to the notion of man being created in his present form ex nihilo. But that does not preclude religious faith. Pierre Teilhard de Chardin presents the issues much more succinctly than I could here and I urge you to read “Christianity and Evolution” if you are actually interested in this subject. Personally, I believe that man has a purpose which can be known both by revelation and by studying God’s creation. Even if we aren’t the endpoint it has no bearing on my life today.

        • http://bbcatholics.blogspot.com/ OneBreadOneBody

          And by the way, evolution is entirely consistent with the second law of thermodynamics. All that says is that more ordered systems have lower entropy. It requires energy to reach such a state and that is why life depends on a constant energy source in order to maintain its lower entropy. The entropy of the entire universe always increases but it need not do so locally.

        • Nofun

          How many times do you need to be told that the earth is not a closed system so the 2nd does not apply.

      • Nofun

        Terminator 2?

    • Nofun

      Not this again … the earth is not a closed system …. see that big yellow ball in the sky …. it provides energy.

      Can point out any education where a teacher points out both “sides:” and students choose which is right? Geography, Maths, English, etc.

      Evolution is the only scientific theory of speciation. If you tell a child creationism is science you are lying to them no matter how much you believe it.

      • Tito Salgado

        You are lying to them if you try and say that evolution is not a religion. 5000 or 5 million years ago a monarch butterfly was a monarch butterfly. You cannot duplicate evolution in a lab, there is no missing link therefore it is a religion because you have to have faith whether you like it or not. Teach them both or neither of them. Faith faith faith. You can’t get around it. The religion of evolution.

        • Nofun

          We have seen organisms in the lab develop new abilities due to point mutation and natural selection. For it take place until a new species emerges takes a very long time. But we have fossils and genetics that show us this reality.

          If it was taken on faith it would not be science.

        • Nofun

          Humans Chromosome 2 is the human/chimp missing link.

    • oregon_man

      Your nonsense is exactly why only science should be taught in schools.

    • Nofun

      Theories don’t grow up to be laws as they are the highest level of scientific certitude.

  • SFBruce

    It’s intellectually dishonest to suggest there’s “another side” to evolutionary theory, which virtually all biologists accept today. Creationism belongs in biology class no more than heliocentrism belongs in physics class.