I've not really had time recently to reply in the sort of length needed to the questions Mariska keeps thowing out to "proove" life was formed by an act of will in the recent past, but anyway now, here goes.

The second law of thermodynamics states, as I remember it, that the total entropy of a closed system (one where no matter or energy leaves or enters) cannot decrease. So according to that she says that everything must become less complex and organised over time. If that were true then snowflakes or mineral crystals would be impossible because they are complex things which have formed spontainously from disordered parts. The key thing is though that the second law allows parts of a system to decrease in entropy as long as other parts increase to offset the increase. So in the case of the earth the sun pours light and heat on it and our planet can grow more complex which is more than offset by the greater entropy associated by the suns nuclear fusion. Simple organisms can fuel their rise towards complexity by comsuming other forms of life and non living materials.

Regarding mutations only eliminating traits, there are examples all the time of mutations generating new traits. How about bacterial resistance to anti biotics?

I'd never heard of Dinosaur bones containing viable DNA. The only case I can find has been pretty well discredited but maybe I am wrong.

That's all I have time for at the moment more to follow if you want it.

The bottom line is believe what you want to but don't expect me to.

Ratcatcher spouted:
If that were true then snowflakes or mineral crystals would be impossible because they are complex things which have formed spontainously from disordered parts.

As I have explained earlier biology is my specialty. I have heard a response to the snowflakes and mineral crystals though. Something to do with them forming from properties already present within the organism.

So in the case of the earth the sun pours light and heat on it and our planet can grow more complex which is more than offset by the greater entropy associated by the suns nuclear fusion. Simple organisms can fuel their rise towards complexity by comsuming other forms of life and non living materials.
Petrol supplies energy for a car to move, but the car has to be built in the first place. If you chucked petrol over a pile of metal, rubber, glass etc it wouldn't suddenly form into a car and start moving.
And are you suggesting that if I start eating pigeon pie I could develop the ability to fly? Sorry, but that one was also discredited.

Regarding mutations only eliminating traits, there are examples all the time of mutations generating new traits. How about bacterial resistance to anti biotics?


I remember reading about a body that had been dug up after being preserved in ice for a very long time. Tests revealed that his already body had an imunity to bacteria that had not even been discovered at the time of his death.

Go ahead and believe what you like. No skin off my nose, but it does make me wonder why so many of you are totally hostile to the idea that God just might be real. What are you really afraid of?

Mariska spouted:
..hostile to the idea that God just might be real. What are you really afraid of?

Maybe we are afraid of people drunk on their religion flying planes into a building, or setting off a bomb on board a crowded train? All this in the name (albeit not a christian one) of a being that no-one has actual scientific evidence for.

ywi

ywouldi spouted:

Maybe we are afraid of people drunk on their religion flying planes into a building, or setting off a bomb on board a crowded train? All this in the name (albeit not a christian one) of a being that no-one has actual scientific evidence for.

ywi

Valid point, but what about the atrocities committed by people who have NO belief in a supreme being or a day of judgement?
I'm not suggesting that the only thing that stops people from committing crime is a fear of eternal punishment - I think most of us would do the right thing by one another because it IS the right thing. However, now that those who ARE inclined to hurt others for their own gain no longer have to fear divine retribution, it's just one less restraint against them.

Now I suppose someone will say that religion was only 'invented' to control the masses, won't they?

Mariska, its been said on the first page of the thread. I see all religions as "gangs", with different initiation ceremonies and clothing and the likes.

I am definitely not against any religion, but am against anybody who tries to enforce their belief on me. I grew up in pretty much an atheist family who sent me to church to make up my own mind. Atheists can definitely be as bad as religious fundamentalists. Spiritual beliefs are a personal thing so I hate people who stick their noses in.

Religion serves two purposes. 1) as an explanation for how to live your life correctly - thou shalt not steal, kill etc. Pretty much all religions have the same principles on this front. and 2) an explanation for what happens to us when we die.

For 4.5 billion years I have not existed. Now I do. Why should I be so arrogant to assume it is impossible one day I will not exist again?

Religion is like a language. Where you are born will largely shape the religion you follow. Gods are not "fixed" - they evolve over time, and when people die out their gods die with them. Over the millennia as human understanding has expanded gods have been pushed back from being physical things (the sun, moon, rivers, lakes) into personifications (man with beard) to a "force". If I live on a desert island, never come into contact with other humans, it is impossible to know the story of Jesus. How then can it be essential to my life on this planet?

Animals are not conscious creatures - they cannot understand their own existence - and consequently have no need (or capability) of god. Yet is a lion any less remarkable than a human? genetically, hardly so. Evolution went through hundreds of millions of years of dead ends before it hit the jackpot with human beings. Nobody believes lions go to heaven.

There is not a single element of organised religion that is "other-worldly" - purported miracles notwithstanding, and considering the definitive guide to Jesus' life wasn't written until 70-80 years after his death, we all know how reliable that's likely to be. A cathedral may feel like a holy place, but it is designed and built that way deliberately by human architects.

To summarise then, religion is not fixed; it serves that inner desire to know that it may not all end in death (even though we live in a universe made of beginnings, middles and ends); while it brings people together it has been used for violence and bloodshed throughout history; God can only exist for those who can imagine him; and it is possible to live by Christian principles and morals without worshipping a god.

All of which makes it irrelevant, in my opinion.

I'm mortal, I'm not happy about it. Personally the way I look at it - the price I must pay for being able to experience this incredible world is death. Better that than never having being born at all.

Actually, you say that you didn't exist... when in theory you did but as different atoms. Since SPERM and an EGG created YOU... other things created them... thus you did exist but not in your present form merely as many other forms.

I am more than just the sum of my parts.

If I am not a conscious being, then to all intents and purposes I do not exist. If I cannot look at myself and say "I am", then how is that existing?

My atoms may well find themselves being part of a future human being - but if consciousness is gone, I am gone.

so are the trees gone? are the rocks and the hills gone? the sea and the badger?

You following me around today blue skies.? ;o)

From a rock's point of view, it never existed. Ditto tree, ditto badger, ditto sea etc.

What I mean is, when we say "death" what we're really talking about is the end of consciousness isn't it? I can be reincarnated as a new person (let's call him 'Audission2") with 100% of the atoms of Audission... but if I have no memory of my former life, to all intents and purposes, Audission is dead.

Having come to the conclusion that the vast majority of people here believe themselves to be randomly evolved pond scum why should it surprise me that their thinking patterns are consistant with that?

So boy pond scum meets girl pond scum and they make love (anyone know how pond scums have sex?) and produce lots of baby pond scum..........and in the end there were Rocket Scientists. (Makes lots of sense, doesn't it?)

Seriously though, how did these pond scums develop sexual differences and where, just by Mr pond scum sticking his bit into Mrs pond scum's bit, did the ability to produce little pond scums come from?

Charles Darwin never actually got onto that did he? He called his book 'The Origin Of The Species' but he seems to have started with creatures that had ALREADY developed to the point of being able to sexually reproduce.
Shall eagerly await someone's answer.

Mariska spouted:
Shall eagerly await someone's answer.

Actually I believe it's the key to his theory and revolves around the idea of spontaneous mutation. That for a certain non-specific reason a creature might aquire a trait that is preferential in it's environment and thus the mutant thrives while others fail. So presumably sexual differentiation came about through just such a process.

A fairly basic understanding of the function of sexual differentiation and the need for two sexes is that it promotes genetic variation and removes stagnency and instigates a system whereby the strong are more succesful at breeding and thus a species remains strong.

But I still want to know how one pond scum fucked another and produced baby ones.
How did we go form a single cell (and from what I've heard even a single cell contains one hell of a lot more information than you'd expect from a pond scum) to something with a sex organ. And where did the one of the opposite sex come from? And how did the ability to sexually reproduce come about in the first place so that these favourable characteristics could be passed on?

How dirty are you ! In my day we didn't ask such provactive and rude questions about a pond scum's private life !

Mariska spouted:
How did we go form a single cell (and from what I've heard even a single cell contains one hell of a lot more information than you'd expect from a pond scum) to something with a sex organ.

The chain of events you describe here would have taken place over such a massively long time scale as for it to be impossible for me to speculate. The formation of a second sex or the ability for a cell to undergo meiosis rather than mitosis would occur aeons before complex beings with specific reproductive organs and processes to facilitate their specific needs would evolve.

What I can say is that the origin of sex would have been the first cells ever to undergo meiosis and chromosome splitting. Wheras mitosis is simply replication and the production of a cell identical to the parent cell, meiosis allows for the production of a distinct and new cell. The specifics of the process are a little hazy but... well I am sure there are plenty of books in your local library.

Now the shift in cell reproduction from straight copying to the production of distinctly different cell offspring might have occured only once in the vastly long history of everything and been a random mutation. But once it had happened then the offspring of the first cell would split through meiosis creating another generation of different cells and so on and so on until after a relatively small number of generations you would have a population of cells with massive genetic diversity. Now say at some point down the line these cells aquire a means to interact with each other and share chromosome information to produce offspring with hereditory traits then you have the beginnings of sexual reproduction as we know it in higher animals such as humans.

Naturally over time as more complex organisms formed the process through which chromosome information was transfered would evolve to suit circumstances. Mutations would occur and the strong ones would flurish and the weak would die out.

So now in humans you have the chromosome information held in the female egg and the male sperm which fuse during sexual intercourse.

Any help? It's a lot of botched GCSE Biology there mixed with some quick Google searching but I think I got the jist.

The most important point, and one which Stoke is trying to get across is the utter immensity of the time involved. Try to imagine 4.5 billion years, you can't. The possibilities for mutation during that time are huge and compounded by the violent chemical and geological events taking place.

If God didn't exist we'd have to invent him. It's part of the human condition to need a God.

It's ok to believe in God IMHO but it's not ok in my mind to believe in heaven and hell. It's a stupid prehistoric belief that demeans humaity.

As long as you're willing to accept that God could be a natural force (ie gas) and not a being then you are being rational. Otherwise you are living in a fantasy world. That's why I find people of the cloth ridiculous.

pardon? spouted:
If God didn't exist we'd have to invent him. It's part of the human condition to need a God.

I think it's less specific than that. I think there is a fundemental need for us to question our existance and who we are as part of our nature as self-aware beings. And God fits as a good explanation up to a point. And in more technologically forward times science fits.

Does it really matter what people believe in? Atheists dislike it when religious people force their views down others throats, but do exactly the same themselves.

If religion is used to comfort people I don't see a problem. I believe religion is a personal thing, and others have no right to question that.

One of the bigegst criticisms of religion is the amount of wars that have started because of it. However it would be naive to believe that those wars wouldn't have happened.

People quote Darwin when science tries to explain the creation of mankind (or evolution) but Darwin believed in some pretty dodgy things relating to the survival of the fittest. Science has yet to come up with anything satisfactory to explain the creation of life on earth to be honest.

Does my belief, whatever it is, actually hurt anybody?

thesmileyone spouted:
Science has yet to come up with anything satisfactory to explain the creation of life on earth

I'm glad you mentioned this.

I was talking to a friend about this and I told him about my belief that everything comes from a creator i.e God. He said there is documented evidence that gives us answers to the question of creation. I refuted him by saying that no scientist has proved anything and that it will be theories at most (with lots of formulas and terminology that the average person could not understand). When I asked him why he stated there is evidence and why he believes in it when he himself does not understand.....he accused me of being blind and not believeing in science!!!

But at the end of the day we are stuck with the 'something' that 'somehow'. Nobody really knows and, in spite of that mind boggling suggestion that organisms can take on the characteristics of things they ingest (in that case I should be able to lay eggs and fly) we still have the problem of the laws of genetics/inheritance having to be reversed to make the theory fit.
And where is this piece of landscape that comes with the 4.5 billion year old tag? As I've mentioned before that imaginary date came about after some 'very clever little scientist in a clean white coat' deduced that it would take 4.5 billion years for those naughty over-sexed pond scums to evolve into people. People are here so Voila! 4.5 billion years must have passed. Circular reasoning.
Now here is an example of the biased reasoning of some scientists when it comes to dating methods.

Professor A: Look what I've found while digging out a basement for my new house! It's a piece of bone. Maybe it belongs to one of our caveman ancestors.
Professor B: Could well be, Henry. Lets send it to the lab for testing.
----------------A WEEK LATER
Professor A: Did my results come back?
Professor B: Yes, the Smith Lab reckons your sample is 150,000,000 years old, but the Jones Lab thinks the sample could only be 50-100 years old.
Professor A, scratching his head: Well I doubt that I'll win any awards for discovering some old bones from the last century. (Reaches inti his dufflebag and pulls out a rusted Coke can) Look I found this right next to the fossil.
Professor B, clutching at the wall to stop himself from fainting: Henry do you realise what a great momentous occasion this is?
Professor A: No Bruno. What do you mean?
Professor B; You have just proven, my learned friend, that Coca Cola was around 150,000,000 years ago.

BELIEVE ME, THAT IS NOT AS OVER-THE-TOP AS YOU MIGHT THINK!

It's funny people who believe in the theory of evolution don't like proper scientific principles applied against it :) It is full of flaws that would not withstand proper scientific testing.

The scientific community dismiss people who blindly (for want of a better word) who believe in the creationist belief, but like you say Zed they also blindly believe in evolution.

Of course there are gaps in the theory of evolution, and parts where we are only guessing.

However, it is a theory honed from the observation of the natural world, using hypotheses, logic and mathematics. Unlike God, who is 100% based on belief, need, fear and control.

Evolutionary theory will leave you spiritually empty... so if you fill the rest in with God, that's up to you. My original point was I intend to find spiritual calm for myself, without simply believing in something that purports to have all the answers, conveniently packaged up for me in the form of organised religion.

thesmileyone spouted:
It's funny people who believe in the theory of evolution don't like proper scientific principles applied against it :) It is full of flaws that would not withstand proper scientific testing.


Please could you describe these flaws and explain how 'proper scientific testing' would uncover them?


The scientific community dismiss people who blindly (for want of a better word) who believe in the creationist belief, but like you say Zed they also blindly believe in evolution.

Do they? Or would that be 'individual, fundamentalist members of the scientific community'?

thesmileyone spouted:
Science has yet to come up with anything satisfactory to explain the creation of life on earth

Well, science has done a much better job of trying to explain evolution than the church has.

Darwinian theory is a little bit more thoughtful than a guy called God created the world in 7 days

OK, do we actually have any proof that mankind evolved from Apes? Sure there are similarities to our makeup but does that mean we are really descendents. Why are there still apes in mankind needed to evolve - surely apes would have died out in they couldn't adapt to survive.

*Sigh*

Do we have any proof that God created the world in 7 days, except a few spurious, 4000-year-old transcribed oral myths.

But I digress. Could you provide an explanation of the flaws in the theory of evolution and explain the application of scientific method that will uncover them; or just admit that you're bluffing and you can't. Please.

Oops my mistake:

http://www.loudoun.net/mainstream/Education/evolution.htm

For those that can't be bothered to read it, they are saying that evolution isn't regarded as a scientific theory. Most of the anti-evolutionist sites have some sort of Christian backing unfortunately.

I have never said I believed in the simplicity of the creationist theory, and I stand by my previous point.

I wouldn't call myself Christian by any means, and am suggesting that science is just as intolerant and christian fundamentalists.

Thanks for that link, smileyone. I'll read it in detail when I have more time.

To be honest, I've always considered the science/religion split to be a false one. It will persist, however, while the following conditions apply:

1) America remains in charge of the culture of the West
2) There is no better way of making money and power out of both.

Come on Dazzla! Religion and Science were at loggerheads (at least in large parts of Europe) long before the U.S. achieved any kind of cultural dominance.

Ever heard of Copernicus, or Galileo?

the pope spouted:
What do you mean the earth isn't the centre of the universe?

BURN THE HERETIC!

Dazzla spouted:
I've always considered the science/religion split to be a false one

This may be slightly off topic, but it reminds of a story I heard from a former soldier in the South African army. When apartheid was in full effect, the government would constantly look to the religious leaders for examples in scriptures that black folk are sub-human. This was then taken to scientists who were asked (told) to prove that black people are indeed inferior to whites, which they did.

[more off topic stuff] I have a conspiracy theory about another subject that was discussed regarding alcoholism. I came to the conclusion that it was a bunch of alcoholic doctors (or financers, or financially interested parties) that introduced alcoholism as an illness. This, of course, means it is okay for people to drink shitloads and not be responsible for it, or the consequences of actions whilst under the influence. But that is another thread.........

My point is this: Politics. When people can manipulate science and reserach to build a case for their own agenda, the whole thing becomes farcical.

harry007jnr spouted:
Come on Dazzla! Religion and Science were at loggerheads (at least in large parts of Europe) long before the U.S. achieved any kind of cultural dominance.

Ever heard of Copernicus, or Galileo?



Well, my contention would be that it was exactly at the point of the Copernican Revolution that art, religion, manufacturing and science parted ways. That was the beginning of the tension between science and religion.

Western interests ensure that the false opposition is maintained.

So you're contending the very thing that brought Europe out of the dark ages and into more enlightened times, where people have the freedom to question without being persecuted?

I don't think Copernicus had 'western interests' at heart when he was convinced by George Rheticus to publish De Revolutionibus.

harry007jnr spouted:
So you're contending the very thing that brought Europe out of the dark ages and into more enlightened times, where people have the freedom to question without being persecuted?

Of course I'm not. read the words, stop shovelling them into my mouth.

I don't think Copernicus had 'western interests' at heart when he was convinced by George Rheticus to publish De Revolutionibus.

Indeed not. But I'm pretty sure that the Holy Ghost wouldn't have had buggery of quoirboys in mind when he initiated Mary's parthenogenetic pregnancy.

Evidently, even the omniscient make mistakes.

GOD Vs. SCIENCE
Definitive answer to the ultimate question!

http://www.googlefight.com/cgi-bin/compare.pl?q1=god&q2=science&B1=Make+a+fight%21&compare=1&langue=us

Arf!

Okay Dazzla you were contending that the tension between science and religion was a false one perpetuated by the U.S. I contended that it existed long before the Americas were even found by Europeans (in fact I would contend that America was found partially because of the tension, world isn't flat an all that). I think we at least agree on that, right?

I would also contend that the split is a very good thing which has had some very benificial effects for our society. Or do you believe the explosion of the sciences and arts in European culture to be a coincidence, and has nothing at all to do with casting aside the yoke of religion and the embracing of free thought?

I also need to ask, if science seems to flourish so readily in the absence of religion, and vice versa, why do you think that the tension between them is a false one?

God may (or may not :P) have put man on earth, but he didn't put a man on the moon, right?

BTW these are just questions so don't get pissy, give me your ideas. You never know you may even manage to get one of them to stick in this blunt instrument I tend to use for a brain.

God? No Such Thing.

As an agnostic, I'd have to say, maybe.

Where's is that fence?

Most of the anti-evolutionist sites have some sort of Christian backing unfortunately.


Yes, that IS unfortunate. It means some people might have to concede the possibility that we are RIGHT.

I have several shelves of books and magazines written by scientists of every stripe showing that evolution just CANNOT work. No matter how many billions of years you want to throw in you are not going to get something as complex as the human, or any other body for that matter, to evolve from pond scum. In fact many evolutionists have now abandonned the 'micro-evolution theory and have jumped aboard the even more ludicrous 'punctuated equilibrium' bandwagon.
Many of these scientists are Christians but they didn't start out that way. Most were raised in good atheist homes and were indoctrinated with evolution as FACT at school. It was their scientific studies that showed them the flaws in evolutionists 'Just so' stories and which caused them to shift their thinking around to the possibility of God.
Now to the person who said that we had to invent God to fullfil a need. Yes? What need was that then, and why don't you have that need yourself? (And why can't it be fixed by chocolate?)
Simple. People don't perceive themselves as needing a God. Gods can be so damned inconvenient, expecting to be worshiped and making rules like 'Thou shall not commit adultery'. Who in their right mind would invent a party pooper like that? It's only when you become confronted with the fact that there IS one that you try to find out more about him. You'd be mad not to.
I know a bloke who claims to be a really devout Christian, because of the scientific thing, and yet he HATES God. Why, because he is a sex addict and wants to cheat on his wife. He's like a child who obeys his parents because they are bigger than him, but resents them. He says things like 'I wish I'd screwed more women BEFORE I found God.'
Does that sound like an invented need? Surely if you are going to invent a God you'd come out with one who is more easy going and ready to turn a blind eye to blokes wanting a bit on the side, wouldn't you?

bob marley = god

ziggy marley = son of god

:troll:

Hiya

I respect everybody's opinions on deity, after all nobody knows for sure.
I mean the basis for one of the biggest monotheistic religions is a guy saying he was the son of god :D Someone believed him didn't they.
If I went around now saying I was pregnant by God, I don't think I would get the same kind of following as Mary did :S

luv Sea x

ziggy marley = son of god
Ziggy Stardust =

Ziggy played guitar, jammin' good with Weird and Gilly,
The spiders from Mars, he played it left hand
But made it too far
Became the special man, then we were Ziggy's band

Ziggy really sang, screwed up eyes and screwed down hairdo
Like some cat from Japan, he could lick 'em by smiling
He could leave 'em to hang
Came on so loaded man, well hung and snow white tan

So where were the spiders while the fly tried th break our balls
Just a beer light to guide us
So we bitched about his fans and should we crush his sweet hands?

Ziggy played for time, jiving us that we was voodoo
The kids was just crass. He was the nazz
With God given ass
He took it all too far, but boy could he play guitar

Making love with his ego, Ziggy sucked up into his mind
Like a leper messiah
When the kids had killed the man I had to break up the band

Ziggy Played Guitar

God = An excuse for peoples yet without scientific knowledge to explain the occurance of scientific events.

Jesus = An excuse for the film, Life Of Brian.

he's not the messiah , he's a very naughty boy

So I hope all you agnostics and fence straddlers are taking note of the quality of argument put out by each side of this debate?

Example: The fact that Google has found more more references to science than to God really counts as proof that there is no God, does it? I'd have been laughed out of Year 10 English if I'd tried to use that kind of reasoning; or has the standard of education deteriorated badly in recent years.

And the fact that some guy (you say) you know believes in God but really hates him anyway proves that there is does it?

Back atcha!

Re:creating the world in six days. Right, from what I have read, the reasoning is quite straightforward.

First of all, what consitutes a day before the world was created? Obviously we understand a day to be a twenty four hour period of the earth revolving on it's axis but that may not have been the case before or during the 'creation' period. I'm not sure what the bible says, but there are references in the Quran that say: ''A day with your Lord is equivalent to a thousand years in the way you count''.

So, it seems it was six 'God days' rather than six twenty four hour periods and in our terms, that would have been thousands of years.

A day is just an abstract concept, used to describe the period of time the Earth takes to revolve around its axis.

A year is just an abstract concept used to describe the period of time the Earth takes to complete its orbit around the sun.

Its impossible for these terms to pre-exist Earth, because without the Earth they are meaningless. God wouldn't have used these terms to describe the time before the creation of the Earth, but men with no other concept of time would. The Bible, The Qu'ran and The Torah are all the works of men, not God.

I'm answering a point raised earlier that asked how God created the world in Six days when science suggests it would have taken much longer for the earth to develop. I am saying that it could indeed have taken x amount of years and the 'six days' term may have been misunderstood to mean six twenty four hour periods. A perfect example of science and religion working together.

I'm answering a point raised earlier that asked how God created the world in Six days when science suggests it would have taken much longer for the earth to develop. I am saying that it could indeed have taken x amount of years and the 'six days' term may have been misunderstood to mean six twenty four hour periods. A perfect example of science and religion working together.


Harry007 explained it all much better

proof however, that God does indeed exist

http://www.fan-sites.org/goran-visnjic/images/other/41.jpg

God is female it would seem...

God is female it would seem...

aww shucks, aww thanks Harry! ;)

let's face it. if we think hard enough about it (which i try not to). nothing makes any sense whatsoever.

you can see why ancient civilisations had various Gods to explain what they at the time could not explain. (the weather, the sea etc etc). Then with ever increasing scientific knowledge religion got marginalised to the one thing we cant explain - why the hell we are here.

my theory. well everything on the planet has a beginning and an end. but time is infinite. time never began and will never end. and we will never get our head round that. why are we here? no reason. just left to spend futile afternoons like this trying to figure it out!

big bang. big shmang! so what. something existed before then - it didnt appear from nowhere (if it did at all - my grasp of the science behind it is GCSE at best).

get pissed. enjoy.

And the fact that some guy (you say) you know believes in God but really hates him anyway proves that there is does it?

Back atcha!

But I didn't say it proved it did I? Merely suggesting that if man invented God to fullfil a need he'd have invented one that was not such a spoilsport when it comes to kickin up your heels with the opposite sex.

Your move, Harry.

Re the 6 days, literal or otherwise, look up James Barr - expert in the Hebrew language. NOT a bible believer. Sorry no link. The Net is still new to me so I tend to favour books.

As proof of belief clouding rational thought, I always turn to Ron Wyatt:

http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/

This is a devout Christian who wanders the Earth, with God directing him to various mythical religious artefacts. On the list are Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, The Red Sea Crossing etc etc. All "found". (uh-huh.)

As proof of belief clouding rational thought, I always turn to Ron Wyatt:

http://www.wyattarchaeology.com/

This is a devout Christian who wanders the Earth, with God directing him to various mythical religious artefacts. On the list are Noah's Ark, the Ark of the Covenant, The Red Sea Crossing etc etc. All "found". (uh-huh.)

Actually he is regarded by Christians as a crackpot who is trying to give the rest of us a bad name. As I may have mentioned a few dozen times before; I work for a counter-cult ministry. We keep files on just about everyone and Wyatt definately comes under 'Dodgy'. Obviously there are a lot of gullible people out there; otherwise John Edwards, James van Praagh(?) and their ilk wouldn't be in business. Wyatt, like the televangelists, are making a killing off people's stupidity.
I suppose anyone who is going to believe a bloke who claims to have found every Biblical artifact that has been lost; plus a few that haven't; but can't show them to the world because a bunch of heavily armed Turks prevented him from taking them (Or whatever excuse he's currently using) DESERVES to be tricked out of their money.
At least most of us Christians can recognize charletans in our midst. Pity the same cannot be said for those who follow the New Age Spirituality.

Practically every Christian I know respects science. We don't dismiss it all out of hand because of a few dodgy pseudo-scientific theories regarding origins. Neither can you judge all of Christianity by a few frauds.

I work for a counter-cult ministry.
Hmm this idea of "the cult" vs. organised religion has given me cause for thought. Beyond my fundemental issues with religion as a concept I must say I have further problems with people in more established religions dismissing more recent ones as "crackpot cults" and the like simply because they don't say have 2000 years of experience in the field. To say contemporary cults are any more oppressive or manipulative than Christianity has been at times over the course of its two millenia lifetime is ludicrous.

Merely suggesting that if man invented God to fullfil a need he'd have invented one that was not such a spoilsport when it comes to kickin up your heels with the opposite sex.
Krazy. God isn't exactly a consistent fellow though is he? I seem to remember a rather dramatic shift in stance from Old to New Testaments. Certainly less fire and brimstone of late. Maybe he's mellowed in his old age.

Example: The fact that Google has found more more references to science than to God really counts as proof that there is no God, does it.
Was a joke. Natch.

Hmm this idea of "the cult" vs. organised religion has given me cause for thought.

Actually it is an information service run by Christians for Christians. As far as we are concerned you can believe anything you want. Free country after all.
However, if it is your desire to follow Christ and you suspect that the 'church' you are attending may be leading you down the garden path, as it were, it is handy to being able to ring a ministry such as ours and discuss it. We will tell you whether it follows the fundamentals of the Christian faith and, if it doesn't, where it falls short. Of course the final decision is with the believer. If you wants to join a cult whose leader will ultimately insist on you drinking Kool Aid laced with cyanide we don't try to stop you.

Krazy. God isn't exactly a consistent fellow though is he? I seem to remember a rather dramatic shift in stance from Old to New Testaments. Certainly less fire and brimstone of late. Maybe he's mellowed in his old age.

Really funny. I think you might find that all the fire and brimstone is in the NEW Testament. People just died and were 'buried with their fathers' in the OLD. It was Jesus who spoke of Hell; and the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth. He also offered a 'Get out of Hell free' card if you'd been paying attention. (Rewrites of Gospel - to make it more appealling and therefore attract more people who will put more money in the collection plate - do not count as Biblical Christianity.)


Was a joke. Natch.
Figured as much. Although having read some of the other threads one never knows how the minds of randomly evolved pond scum will work.

Ok, Mariska. I haven't seen one thing happen in my lifetime that suggests that a God, any God exists. Can you suggest one 20th century event that some God was personally involved with?

I think you might find that all the fire and brimstone is in the NEW Testament.
Hmm that just isn't true. I think by far the major difference is a shift to a passive devine figure from an active one. In the Old Testament we see the flooding of the world, the demanding of sacrifice (note Abraham), the destruction of cities and the turning of one poor woman into salt. And that's just scraping the surface. Needless to say there are far more signs and demonstrations of power.

Natually come New Testament and the shift is towards Christ. And yeah in all fairness he too is performing miracles and such.

But there is a difference here, surely?

Ok, Mariska. I haven't seen one thing happen in my lifetime that suggests that a God, any God exists. Can you suggest one 20th century event that some God was personally involved with?
DO NOT TEST GOD!

Hmm that just isn't true. I think by far the major difference is a shift to a passive devine figure from an active one. In the Old Testament we see the flooding of the world, the demanding of sacrifice (note Abraham), the destruction of cities and the turning of one poor woman into salt. And that's just scraping the surface. Needless to say there are far more signs and demonstrations of power.


Yeah to all of the above, but weren't we discussing fire and brimstone just now? That is definately NEW Testament. Hell, as such, did not get a mention prior to Jesus. And don't forget the Revelation of St. John, Stokes me ol' china. Nothing too passive about that one.

-10d.
My objections to the Theory of Evolution - based on Mendel's law regarding genetics and inheritance; entropy and dodgy geological dating methodology have already been well documented on this thread. It leaves us with either God or the space aliens.
Now that's a point. We have organisations like S.E.T.I. spending $$$$$$$$$$$ and more $$$$$$$$$$$ trying to find signs of extra-terrestrial life. As long as it isn't God?

What about dinosaurs? Dinosaurs aren't in the Bible. Has anybody used this one yet? Dinosaur's vs. God!

There are many examples of cultures that pre-exist Judaism (and thus Christianity and Islam), that are polyeistic in nature, some of them are still around (like Hindus, although they're not polyeistic in the classic sense). There are billions of people in the world who don't believe in any God at all (Budhists, Aetheists, Agnostics). God is hardly being consistant there is he?

And as for genetics, Mendel discredited? Mendel's theories have never been discredited, only his published statistics (The Mendel paradox (http://www.nih.gov/about/director/ebiomed/mendel.htm)). What about people like Thomas Hunt Morgan, James Watson and Francis Crick? Are they discredited too?

It never ceases to amaze me that theologians will readily accept and explain away massive discrepencies in their beliefs, but will jump all over a mistake by one scientist as proof that an entire scientific theory is false.

My word, what a fantasticly worded succinct post.

None of you can provide a shred of evidence about the existence of any 'God', can you?

"Smite me oh mighty Smiter
Jim Carry, Bruce Almighty

None of you can provide a shred of evidence about the existence of any 'God', can you?
DO NOT TEST GOD!!!

DO NOT TEST GOD!!!

So what can a non-existant being do to me, then? Seeming you can't provide one single event that God himself partook in in the past 100 years, during war, famine and racial tensions, I doubt he'd break cover for an atheist like me!

Do not test God? God, who the f%ck is God?

Harry, you misunderstood me. I am all for Mendel, which is why I disagree with evolution. Mendel showed that the daughter population cannot inherit anything that was not in the parent population, therefore Darwin had it backwards. (I don't know how you could have assumed I meant otherwise to be honest. I think I put it clearly enough, in my last and other posts.)
Dinosaurs. I've been waiting for this one. Stoke, you seem to know your Bible so lets turn to the Book of Job. I refer to Behemoth. Sure the footnotes in some translations will say something like 'probably an elephant or a hippo' but take a look at the description of this big bastard. He has a tail like a cedar. Does that sound like any elephant or hippo you've ever seen? Sure the word 'dinosaur' doesn't appear in the Bible but since the word was only coined within the last couple of hundred years it's hardly surprising is it!
Dinosaur bones have been found still containing DNA. DNA (according to science) cannot last beyond 10,00 years. Go figure!

Dinosaur bones have been found still containing DNA. DNA (according to science) cannot last beyond 10,00 years. Go figure!http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/dinosaurs/bones.jsp

I fear viable dinosaur DNA extraction exists only in the realms of science fiction.

I go back to my previous point about there being many atheists who are totally intolerant of people's religious beliefs, yet they expect people to be tolerant of their views. Although this doesn't excuse intolerance from other religions.

"Dinosaur bones have been found still containing DNA. DNA (according to science) cannot last beyond 10,00 years. Go figure!"

Er... I'm no paleaontologist.. but in the somewhat successful film "Jurassic Park" I thought Sam Neill and that one that looks a bit like Helen Hunt but isn't asked the same question.. to be told the only way to get dino DNA was from mossies in amber...not from bones.

I go back to my previous point about there being many atheists who are totally intolerant of people's religious beliefs, yet they expect people to be tolerant of their views. Although this doesn't excuse intolerance from other religions.

I'm certainly not intolerant of other people's beliefs. If they want to believe in something then they are perfectly entitled to. What I do object to is those same people trying to persuade others that they are wrong for not believing.

I ask myself; How can I expect to believe in something that has never ever provided me any tangible proof of its existence? I might as well go to church and pray to Santa or the Tooth Fairy, both of which have no less proven existence in my opinion.

I'm an agnostic, I'm not intolerant of others beliefs as long as they don't interfere with scientific investigation. The theory of evolution, or genetics, or the big bang in no way preempt the existance of God, but they do bring certain biblical accounts into question, which is why creationists are so set against them.

Stifling investigation because all the answers are in a book is just plain wrong. A book (or set of books if you prefer, I'm including all biblical works including Torah and Qu'ran) I may add that is very narrow in it's scope. It completley ignores other cultures which are thousands of years older than it, paints a picture of the universe which is patently false (earth flat, and at the centre), and fails to mention species which died out millions of years ago (I'm not talking just about dinosaurs, but I'd love to see Noah fit even them on his fucking ark).

Creationists, if they get their way, are going to kick us straight back into the dark ages.

Harry, some questions for you.

1. Can you please highlight where in the Bible or Quran it says the earth is flat?
2. Please give me the name of any book that mentions every species from the beginning of the universe to the present day.
3. Which biblical accounts do scientific investigations bring into question?

3. Which biblical accounts do scientific investigations bring into question?

According to the Bible there are less than 200 generations from Adam to Jesus.

Hmmm!!! I think not!

And the Earth - we have stretched it out like a carpet; and how smoothly have we spread it forth!" (Sura 51:48).
Well, its obviously a spherical carpet. I have lots of carpets like that.


...And a route he followed, until when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it to set in a miry fount; and hard by he found a people...Then followed he a route until when he reached the rising of the sun he found it to rise on a people to whom we had given no shelter from it. (Sura 18:83-89).

It seems Mohammad has travelled to the ends of the earth and found the place where the sun sets and where it rises. Well done that man.


Isaiah 11:12
12 And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth
A sphere with corners, what a remarkable discovery. I smell a patent!


Daniel 4:11
11 The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the ends of all the earth
If you can see the tree from the ends of the earth then it must be flat right? Because you can't really stand on the edge of a sphere.

Are you trying to paint these guys into a corner, Harry?

2. Please give me the name of any book that mentions every species from the beginning of the universe to the present day.

Species? So you'd agree that the flora and fauna of this world are split into distinctive groups distinguished by their genetic characteristics?

Shit, Harry. Why do you keep confusing creationists with the Flat Earth Society?
First of all Darwin and Mendel cannot both be right because they clearly contradict one another - something I wouldn't know about if I was against scientific investigation. Think about it! It is because of my interest in biology (a science last I heard - not a superstitious religious belief) that I came round to the creationist point of view in the first place.
Since genetics is a proven law of science while evolution is an unproved theory I have a lot more faith in genetics.

Where in the Bible is a flat earth mentioned? Neither does it teach the geocentric point of view. What some early Christians mistakenly believed is not the fault of the Bible, anymore than that the Catholic church seemed to believe that sex was the original sin.

Audission - I know you don't seriously expect me to believe you get your scientific information from the movies. Droll man. I like your humour. :))

Now none of you sceptics really expect to see anything casting doubts on evolution on the front pages of the newspapers do you? It's only the pro-evolution discoveries that make the headlines. Then, after they have inevitably been found to be a load of crap, the retraction is usually printed in a small box on Page 37 or thereabouts.

With the possible of exception of the pastor of the church my husband attends no Christian or creationist I know (or know of) would want to see a return to the dark ages. My husband's pastor would like to see a return to the 50s but he is one of those nutcases my place of work warns you about!
As you might have noticed - I have a computer. It is night-time here so the light is on; electricity. It's bloody freezing, being winter over here, so I also have a gas heater. My husband is watching TV, technology. My son is taking a shower, running hot and cold water. No dark ages in this house-hold, Harry. There are a couple cars parked in our drive-way too.

-10d, we're only arguing about God on here because it's an 'arguing about God' thread. We all play nicely together on the other forums (well most of the time.) :)

Harry, with all due respect the quotes you brought are very weak if they are to be used as evidence that either the Bible or the Quran preach the earth is flat, because the verses are open to interpretation. They do not indicate the shape of the earth.

Re: Species. Yes, I would agree with you there.

The last two quotes are from the bible, I don't discriminate :D

Oh and they used technology in the dark ages. They just tortured the scientists who questioned the accepted (biblical) view of the world.

Creationists? Flat earth society? You either accept the bible as the word of god or you don't, because of its very nature you can't pick and mix passages to suit.

Open to interpretation?

What does 'stretched out like a carpet' suggest to you?

-10d, we're only arguing about God on here because it's an 'arguing about God' thread. We all play nicely together on the other forums (well most of the time.) :)

Goes without saying, of course. Two people can have differing views on a subject and not try and kill each other, right? (Well, just don't mention religion!).

Harry, I have just visited at at least three websites with the translation (one of the sites had three translations from different people) of that verse and none of them mention carpets.

''And we have spread out the (spacious) earth....'' - 51:48

Don't you ever sleep, 90p? It's nearly midnight over here so I'm off. Night Harry, night zed.

Don't you ever sleep, 90p? It's nearly midnight over here so I'm off. Night Harry, night zed.

Me sleep? NEVER!! (well, not during your daytime much).

One question- if religion didn't exist, would humans have found other excuses to fight wars, and if so, what would they be?

One question- if religion didn't exist, would humans have found other excuses to fight wars, and if so, what would they be?

In case nobody told you, we already have: WMD, Communism, Rogue Regimes, Football, Oil etc etc etc. Did you really have to ask?

Weapons of mass destruction and footballs have never caused wars, neither has football.

Communists and rogue regimes are simply involved in wars.

Oil I perhaps concede..

What I really meant though, was if the wars that have taken place due to religion would have taken place anyway, but in a different name.

I typed that in rather a hurry!!

Although maybe footballs and football are important enough to name twice...

''And we have spread out the (spacious) earth....'' - 51:48
Okay, I'll admit my translation was a bit fucked (I can't read the Qu'ran directly so...)

But kindly explain to me how exactly you spread a sphere. Spreading surely implies flatness.

Forgive me, but your original question was what EXCUSES would there have been for wars, rather than what actually CAUSED wars.

Ah HArry, got in there before me. The honest answer is that I don't know and If I was to try and find out, I would have to read that chapter. Spreading could indeed mean 'flatness' (as in spreading butter) but as far as I understand, it is not limited to flatness e.g. spreading wealth, ideas, disease, etc.

Okay, but in the context of a the earth, how do you spread a planet?

And the whole travelling to the where the sun sets thing, surely that can't be right. The sun never really sets does it (I can see how a man, with no other references could think it could, but not God. Surely he/she/it'd know!)

I've just read an article on that verse. It does not give an exact location of where Dhul Qarnayn (not Mohammed) went to, but the author of the article interprets it as simply meaning east and west - which makes sense.

Harry, Harry, how you disappoint me! I really expected so much better from you. Have you not heard of metaphors? They've been in use for a very long time. So long in fact that the Bible, like most other written documents is full of them.
I am surprised you haven't yet dragged out all the anthropomorphisms (sp?). You could have had a field day with some of those. My dear boy, you have to learn that there is a difference between a 'literal' translation and a literalistic one. Since you obviously spend too much time on the computer (as I do) that you've lost touch with the rest of the modern world, allow me to point out that the expression 'the four corners of the earth' is in common everyday usage. Looks like a lot of people must think the world is one big giant box, eh!
I could give you a great long list of scientist of note who were Bible believers (were=dead; not changed their minds), but someone has nicked the book and since it wouldn't convince you anyway, I won't bother.
____________________________
By the way the dinosaur DNA was discredited. (My apologies. Must have missed page 37 that day.) Seems the sample was contaminated. Familar story - bit like the old Mars rock. Only goes to show that scientists are still screwing up.

footballs have never caused wars, neither has football.

I humbly refer you to El Salvador Vs Honduras 1970 World Cup Qualifiers (http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Football_War)

I loved the summary:

Football results
June 06, 1969 - El Salvador - Honduras 0-1 (0-0 at halftime)
June 15, 1969 - El Salvador - Honduras 3-0 (3-0)
A playoff match on June 26 or 28, 1969 - El Salvador - Honduras 3-2 (1-2 at halftime, 2-2 at fulltime), played in Mexico.

War results
Apparently both sides lost, with a total of about 2000 dead.

Nothing new there then ...

Only goes to show that scientists are still screwing up.

Yeah, but they tend not to screw quoirboys.

Fucking hell Dazzla, are you really that shallow?

Just what his choir master said.

I humbly refer you to El Salvador Vs Honduras 1970 World Cup Qualifiers (http://www.phatnav.com/wiki/wiki.phtml?title=Football_War)

I would humbly say that there was 'existing tension' between the countries already and that the violence at the football match was simply an excuse for that violence to escalate. Hence I still believe that football was not the cause for the way- it was the existing tension. So there.

Mariska, from reading your posts, I reckon you're a Baptist. What do you think of the Anabaptists?

I would humbly say that there was 'existing tension' between the countries already and that the violence at the football match was simply an excuse for that violence to escalate.

Surely that is the same for religion though? Religious wars have really been because of land and borders rather than some holy cause.

Mariska, from reading your posts, I reckon you're a Baptist. What do you think of the Anabaptists?

No, Churches of Christ - the regular one, not the variety that shuns musical instruments or any of the cults that use 'Church of Christ' in their name. (Thinking here of the Mormons aka Church of Jesus Christ of the Latter Day Saints; or The Boston Movement aka Boston Church of Christ.)
I haven't really given the Anabaptists a lot of thought. What are you asking me exactly? Are you just referring to rebaptism? If so, another chapter from my person life might explain. My parents were Church of England originally. Mum tells me that C of E and Catholic were about all they had where we lived. I was Christened as a baby as it was the done thing. When we moved to Australia (I was about 7 or 8 ) they became Jehovah's Witnesses. That put me off all religion until 14 years ago when I first found God (and I wasn't even looking for him!) I got baptised because I honestly didn't feel that my having been Christened as a baby meant anything. It had not been my choice and I had gone all through my teen and adult life rejecting God. The Bible teaches 'believe and be baptised' and it was something that I really felt I wanted to do. I hope this answers your question, Dazzla.

i believe in God. seems so many wouldn't have bothered writing nor so many other people reading the bible if there wasn't something to be gained by it. nor would there be such a vast Christian population or Jesus Christ be recognized as the single most influential icon in history.
besides that, it gives me a nice set of values and morals to live by, which i probably would have anyway (were i not of any religious faith), except you get a nice big payoff coming with the ones particular to Christianity called Heaven, which is supposed to be a rather lovely place.
if i turn out to be wrong and i get to the afterlife (the Christian one or otherwise) and find out i was a gullible little shit, well, i wouldn't regret a moment of my living by what i believe in.

your jesus bloke has no influence on me what so ever.
he never existed.

the bible should start of > "once upon a time"
how anyone can believe such mumbo jumbo is beyond me.

you dont need a bible or religion to live a decent life.......
infact i think all religion has done for humanity is bring hatred and war and
killing and slaughter.

i really believe that the world would be a far better and more loving place
if there was no religions at all.

As I don't beleive in evolution,and cannot find any proof to release me from the view.
There remains two options.
1. God
2. We were placed here from outer space,adaptation apart ,in our current form.

I think that of the two ,it seems more likely the 2nd.But I've read many a theory that both are inter-related ,and that our ancesters mistook god for an object from outer space.Which seems fairly feasable .
It does to me , anyway.

Cappy, the problem with the space aliens theory is that it doesn't really solve the problem of origins. It only relocates it. So where did they come from? Did they evolve; were they created or were they, like God, an uncaused first cause?

Marleyb, you seem to fit into the same catagory of atheist as Madalyn Murray O'Hare. She formed American Atheists but she was a fraud. It wasn't that she did not believe in God. She was 'shaking her fist' at him because she had been involved with a married Catholic chap during her army service who then, literally, left her holding the baby. Because he wouldn't leave his wife and marry her she blamed God. She had nothing 'scientific' to contribute. (People thought Jesus was a virgin birth because they didn't know that sex caused babies in those days? Come on, Madalyn, onanism is mentioned in the first book of the OLD Testament.) She was just a sad case who believed that God owed her something and didn't cough up. In the end she was murdered by members of her own organisation for her money.
People who genuinely don't believe in God - as opposed to those who have a personal grudge - don't obsess over it. They state their case and move on. I must admit you have aroused my curiosity.

whats so complicated mariska ?

i just dont believe in god and i think religion has done nothing but bring hate and war and slaughter to the planet.

even in that stupid bible book wasnt god opening up the sea and letting people get through before he closed it and drowned thousands ?
that would make him a mass murderer . thats without the floods . famines , plagues ect he was suppose to have sent..

(not that he did as the bible is bullshit)

even in that stupid bible book wasnt god opening up the sea and letting people get through before he closed it and drowned thousands ?
that would make him a mass murderer . thats without the floods . famines , plagues ect he was suppose to have sent..

(not that he did as the bible is bullshit)

If you take the 'text' out of context you are just left with a 'con'.
Am I to presume then that you were in favour of the Egyptians enslaving an entire nation, subjecting them to cruel task masters, killing their new born sons, refusing to let them worship their own God?
Yeah! Why not? Someone had to build the pharoah's treasure cities didn't they?
It's like the Seppos enslaving the negroes. Well who else is going to work the plantations and pick the cotton? Blame it on the sod who invented the cotton gin if you want to find fault. Nothing wrong with forced labour as long as it's a different race or colour from yourself. How dare God intervene? (taking into consideration that you don't believe it ever happened in the first place; which begs the question: why are you so down on God for drowning the Egyptian army if he didn't even do it?)
Just for the record; especially if Hugo a Gogo is around; I am trying to be sarcastic here.

as i said . >> not that he did ( any of those things )
as the bible is all bullshit

i was just pointing out in the stupid book people make out god as being good
yet in the same stupid book they have him commiting mass murder over and over again..

Mariska:re the space aliens theory....true, the space invader must have come from somewhere and not just appeared from out of a corn-flake box,agreed.But the timescales don't really add up when we take the genesis story literaly (unless we don't take it literaly,and then its open to any tom dick and harry interpretation).....I don't suppose the alien invasion theory solves much , but it seems to solve more than the standard version seems too.

..And Marley B.If it is all bullshit why do humans act so strangely and different from other forms of plankton?

Cappy: we only need billions of years if we accept the theory of evolution. It has been proven that things which were previously believed to need long ages to form - diamonds, opels, oil, stalagtites etc can actually be formed in much shorter periods. Eg. we have stalagtites formed underneath an Australian war memorial that is less than 100 years old.
There is also a waterwheel here that has fossilised and a hat, all in considerably less time than was believed possible. I suggest you check out Answers in Genesis. www.AnswersInGenesis.org (Hope this works. Haven't tried posting a link before.)

a waterwheel and a hat that have fossilised? are you sure they haven't just been coated in rock crystals? that isn't quite the same thing
(I'm sure Opels don't take to long to make either, at their factory in Russelsheim :) )

"I have no proof of evolution, therefore I believe everything was made by an old man living in the clouds"
Occam needs a new gillette, I think
perhaps you should consider some other creation myths from around the world too

Hugo, stop sprouting crap. As a lover of Scots living in Germany (or Germans living in Scotland) I really expected better from you at least.
People were quite happy to believe that a superior being created everything (not quite the same as an old man living in the clouds) until Mr Darwin came out with his half baked theory. So what is wrong with those of us who have the brains to see the flaws in Darwinian evolution going back to the previously accepted explanation for life?
I really do feel sorry for evolutionists. They are so terrified of the idea of God that they cling pathetically to a theory that just CANNOT work. Study Gregor Mendel, known as the Father Of Genetics. Mendel's findings are accepted as 'Laws' while Darwin's are still just 'Theory'. There is no way both can be right.

I really do feel sorry for creationists. They are so terrified of the idea of Evolution that they cling pathetically to a theory that just CANNOT work.

I don't believe this strict Judeo/Christian bible creationist theory was universally accepted either

I don't see why evolution neccesarily is in opposition to god, just militant 'bible-ism'

Study Prince Siddhartha Gautama, known as the Buddha. Buddha's teachings are accepted as Buddhism while Jesus' are still just "Christianity". There is no way both can be right.
Go figure.

Either we evolved or we didn't.Black and white.


if we did evolve wheres the fossils of us having the inbetween bits when wings turned into arms etc.ALL fossils either have wings OR arms,not a hybrid.



i

i think people who have to have this "god" in there lifes do so because there lifes are lacking in anything worth while. thats why they cling to there
stoneage beliefs and mumbo jumbo bullshit what was invented by ignorant
men in the days when they thought the world was flat / erupting volcanoes
happened becaue some "god" was mad at them ect.

imagine if your wife came home and told you she was pregnant and it wasnt
yours !
she hadnt been sleeping around , honest ! a ghost had made her pregnant .(lol)

there is not one shred of evidence that god made man and that this hippy
jesus guy ever existed.

there is evidence that the world did not flood as claimed in the bible
in the noahs ark fairy tale.

this ark was suppose to be 300 foot + long and 3 stories high, built by one man (lol) 2 of every animal on the planet when there was an estimated 30
million species of animals at the time...60 million animals on an ark ?
lol what bullshit..

if your stupid god made the earth and man in 6 days as claimed in the bible book of lies how come the dinasaurs where here long before man was ?

all religion is stupid storys passed down over the years...made up storys to scare people into doing as they where told...

do as we say or god will get you or the devil will get you (lol)

your born... you live ...then you die
simple as that and if that scares you then you believe in your gods and your eternal life and your heaven...

Of course there is a God. I'm living proof that HE exists. I'm a walking talking sex machin ... oops I meant walking talking miracle.

Go figure.

I wouldn't have a problem with 'Jesusism', ie following the (alleged) teachings of Jesus without all that Old testament crap

Marley, surely a salty old sea dog like you can agree with the things attributed to your fellow fishing bloke, the idea that we should all "be nice to each other"
maybe this heaven idea is meant to be here on earth, eternal life for society as a whole

You are dead right, Stokes. I have read quite a lot about Buddha btw, as well as the founders of all other major, and minor, religions. (It's my job, remember?) Since they all contradict one another there is no way they can all be right.
And yet you get these people sprouting But all paths eventually lead to God, but when we Christians quote our founder, Jesus Christ.I am the way, the truth and the life. No-one comes to the Father except by me(John 14:6) we get shouted down and accused of being exclusivist bigots.
Glad you are paying attention. Too many people totally miss the obvious in their desire to be 'all embracing'.

i can just imagine the scene.

some hippy bloke comes down onto the harbour and says to one of the local
fishermen.

hello, if you follow me i will make you a fisher of men. (lol)

mr jesus bloke would end up thrown in the harbour for being a fruit.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
religion was just invented by the man living in the big house, who had all the wealth.

if your rich you wont go to heaven..( poor people didnt rise up as they would only go to heaven if they where poor )

thow shall not kill ( dont come up to my big house and kill me cause if you do the devil will get you)

of course if there was a war then the man in the big house sent the poor men off to fight the war as it was a just war done in gods name.

do as your told or you will burn in eternal hell....poor ignorant men do as they are told...man in big house keeps control of everyone.

of course the church had all the wealth and all the riches and all the power
and the god believers had f-*k all.

muslims use there thick religion to terrify there woman and the girls into doing exactly as they are told....

of course the jews are gods people or so they say as they shoot another innocent kid in palastine or steal more land from the arab devil.

as iv said before....protistants and catholics slaughtering each other /
christians slaughtering muslims / muslims slaughtering christians /

religion is all about slaughtering people / mass murder / mind control /
making people obey / and even in that made up bible theres loads of slaughtering by your so called "nice man god"

get it right. religion is all about hate and murder and killing.
its bloody evil.

oo this nice god man who sat back and let 6 million jews be gassed and he did f-*k all to stop it .
i saw a tv interview with a jew who had been in a death camp and he said
he stopped believing in his stupid god when he saw all the evil stuff happening to thousands of jews and "god" did fuck all to stop it.

of course we have to suffer on earth to get to heaven
( another invention by the man in the big house living in luxury while the masses had to suffer in there hovels with fuck all)

have people actually gone to war over which devil is the true devil ? ( no )
but they have over which god is the real god and killed thousands.

maybe mr devil is really the good guy and mr god is an evil twat.

but of course neither of them exist.

i saw that the church of england have shares in arms companys.
so much for thow shall not kill.

church has billions of pounds yet it begs of the old woman who has fuck all if the church roof has a leak.

catholic priests tell people with hiv in africa that using a condom is a big bad sin and god will get them....its far better that they spread aids and stay in poverty because poverty = power to the church/religion
if you have fuck all > all you can have is your outing to the church.

religion ? gods ? devils ? what utter total crap..
man walking on water ? feeding 5000 with a couple of loafs and a few fish ?
(lol) virgins having a baby to a ghost ?
how come mary as a married woman was a virgin still ?
was joseph a homo ? its all total rubbish
people had an excuse to believe the bullshit thousands of years ago when man was still ignorant. people thought earthquakes and volcanos where caused by "god" being mad. (lol)

strange that at the head of all religions and cult religions the people at the top live in big houses and have untold wealth. yet most followers have nothing.
how would the pope get to heaven anyway seen as he is fucking rich and rich men wont get into heaven...

(not that there is a heaven)

end of posting....end of my boring opinion

believe all you want ok.

whats more important then this god stuff is england thrashing croatia.
come on england.

Ironically, Bob Marley believed in God and smoked da 'erb.

People were quite happy to believe that a superior being created everything (not quite the same as an old man living in the clouds) until Mr Darwin came out with his half baked theory. So what is wrong with those of us who have the brains to see the flaws in Darwinian evolution going back to the previously accepted explanation for life?

People were quite happy to think that the earth was flat and was the centre of the universe until it was proved otherwise by Copernicus and Galileo who were, in the long tradition of persecution of scientists and seekers of truth by religious authorities, placed under arrest by the church.

Evidently, there are those who still believe, against the laws of physics, that this is true.

If you want to believe in Creationism, fine. Do you follow everything else in the Bible too then? Do you believe in the following passage:

I Corinthians 14:34-35
Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

There are other instances of women being treated as second class citizens. Or do you pick and choose which bits to practise and which bits to ignore? This is aimed at any female Christian on here.

Personally I wouldn't say I was religious but there are clearly rules to live by. Parts of Leviticus are also rather odd and I certainly wouldn't follow it.

I like the Ned Flanders quote about "I've done everything the Bible says - even the stuff that contradicts the other stuff"

Jesus loves you - but I'm his favourite :haha:

Dazzla, the Bible has never taught a flat earth. If certain twats in the past chose to misinterpret it that way, well what do you expect from twats!
Rammstein you asked intelligent questions, more than can be said for others I could name.
As I said it marleyb, it is a matter of context; and also has to be understood within the culture of its time. In Old Testament times women did not have access to the Scriptures. Christinity actually changed all that and included women in the church meetings - elevating their status, not lowering it. But remember, St Paul was writing to the first century church and the scenario was that the men already knew the Torah while the women didn't. Now if he had to stop and explain to the women who were constantly interrupting to ask questions that could easily have been answered at home by the husbands the meetings would have gone on forever and not a lot would have been achieved.
Today, this issue no longer exists as women have long had access to the Bible. In fact there are so many cases I know where the wife is Christian and the husband isn't that it would be pretty senseless for her to have to go home and ask him anything.
Granted there are still some misogynistic Christian males who try to intimidate women with that one. I should know. I'm married to such as bastard who thinks that all women should be allowed to do in church is make the tea and arrange the flowers. Needless to say, we now attend separate churches.
The bit in Corinthians about the women keeping their heads covered was also cultural. If that had been written today it would have more likely have said 'Don't wear red leather micro- mini skirts that barely cover your arse, stiletto heels and fish net tights.'
Rammstein, I personaly do not find Christianity oppressive to women but I'm happy to exchange opinions with you on the topic. PM me if you want.

the bible says thou shalt not kill
===========================

Exodus 20:13 "Thou shalt not kill."
Leviticus 24:17 "And he that killeth any man shall surely be put to death."
================================================== =======
then the bible says >>>

Exodus 32:27 "Thus sayeth the Lord God of Israel, Put every man his sword by his side, . . . and slay every man his brother, . . . companion, . . . neighbor."

I Samuel 6:19 " . . . and the people lamented because the Lord had smitten many of the people with a great slaughter."

I Samuel 15:2,3,7,8 "Thus saith the Lord . . . Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. . . . And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword."

Numbers 15:36 "And all the congregation brought him without the camp, and stoned him with stones, and he died; as the Lord commanded Moses."

Hosea 13:16 "they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with children shall be ripped up."

so much for thou shall not kill !!
=======================

Shit marley, I'm impressed that you went to all that trouble, but as I keep telling you, it's the context that matters. Try studying a bit of ancient history and perhaps you will understand why certain nations were smitten.
Likewise, in the case of the prophets - foretelling that something nasty was about to happen is not necessarily an endorsement of it.

Surely you should be able to differentiate between murder, capital punishment and war. The Hebrew word for 'kill' in the Exodus and Leviticus quotations refers only to willful murder.

Oh so smitten is OK, but killing, murdering, burning, destroying are not?

If the suicide bombers of the middle east simply point out that they are 'smiting' the people around them, it makes it OK does it?

Ancient history shows us that the early christians were more bloody thirsty than many others, particularly when it came to ensuring their cult continued to rule. Often war is simply a justification of mass murder, killing thousands of innocents in the process.

And Saul smote the Amalekites . . . and utterly destroyed all the people with the edge of the sword.
Does that sound like genocide or ethnic cleansing to anybody?

A rose by any other name...

I see that Christianity is still doing what it does best - justifying power struggles in the most semantically lofty terms.

It's ok to smite thine enemies or apply the death penalty, but it's not OK to kill the fuckers before they kill you.

Well, it wasn't until the Southern Baptists got into the White House.

OK I was actually trying to point out that the supposed 'Contradiction' that marleyb pointed out wasn't actually a contradiction. Much of the Old Testament does seem a bit harsh but since I don't know all the circumstances (and neither do any of you, I might add) I am not prepared to pass judgement. Wars happen for a variety of reasons.
Hate to break it to you Gentreau but Saul was an Israelite, not a Christian. Although one was an offshoot of the other, they are two quite distinct religions. Don't know if you've noticed but standard practice, when a Jew converts, is for his family to hold a symbolic funeral. That person becomes 'dead' to his parents and other relatives. I don't think too many Jews would appreciate you lumping us together.

But you're right. How scummy was it for God to allow Israelites to go wipe out nations just for inconsequential things like burning their first born sons as a sacrifice to their idols and flaying their enemies alive?
In regards to your other comments: Here we go, lets drag out the Inquisition - just to be original - Bo-o-oring! How long ago did that happen again? Hey let's go and bash the Germans. That was only yesterday by comparison.
Sure there were, and still are a lot of really shit Christians around - could point you to at least 2 churches in Perth just full of them - just like there are a lot of really shit other people around.
But just where in the Bible did Jesus tell his followers to go out and kill anyone? You guys are all pretty good at quoting Scripture. But first, let me re-iterate - Old Testament=Judaeism, New Testament=Christianity.

so, the Creation, adam and eve, the earth being 6000 years old, the ten commandments is Judaeism?
and you don't believe in all that?

I had always thought that Christianity encompassed both testaments and that the point of departure between Judaism and Christianity was that Jews don't believe in the resurrection?

Islam also acknowledges both books, but only the 'original' ones, and not the current copies.

Almost right, Dazzla. They don't believe that Jesus was the Messiah so it would follow, of course, that they don't believe in the resurrection either. The Old Testament deals with the Old Covenent; the Law of Moses. The New Testament teaches the New Covenent, which is Salvation by Grace - which replaced the Old Testament ritual and animal sacrifice system.

For the benefit of Hugo, who is just being silly, you don't jettison Creation, Adam and Eve, the Exodus and all that went before because of a split that occured 2000 years ago. It would be a bit like Australia becoming a Republic and suddenly deciding we no longer believed in English history.
Anyway, I'm off to watch The Bill. Busy all day tomorrow. See you Thursday. ;)

I believe the good book should be taken literally,but we should remember that it was written in a time when science and technology weren't so advanced. So when it says ,that they followed a star to find where jesus was born ,the chances are they followed a aeroplane(but ,as aeroplanes wern't inventet then,maybe it was a UFO they followed.
I mean stars suddenly stopping in their orbit millions of light years away ,and destroying all their circling planets just to guide a few old codgers with their gold,treasen and myrr,hardley seems feasable.
Even today UFO's are mistaken for stars in the bright skies ,and we have telecopes,radars and George Bush to try to point us in the right direction.
They had none of those.
Big up the UFO theory

followed the star? Followed the bottle more like.....

But first, let me re-iterate - Old Testament=Judaeism, New Testament=Christianity.
Let me give my version of that:
Old Testament=Mythology
New Testament=Cult worship

Mariska dear, you've tried to patronise me twice so far, but we'll let that go

I am using extreme 'silly' examples to show the extreme silliness of your argument

so Christianity does follow the old testament? or just the bits you want?
why did you suggest that it doesn't?

You should know by now that religion is just an ill founded load of cobblers clung onto by those insecure enough to think they actually need it.

What a con.

Religion is not just about believing in God and certain events. It contains moral codes for guidance, which even 'non-religious' people usually conform to. E.g. your political views will be influenced by what you believe to be right/wrong and this is in essence what religion is. To guide one through everyday life and help make the right decisions. I don't understand where the 'con' is. Nobody benefits from you believeing.

So who do you go and pray to?

Well, God, obviously.

:stupid:

Religion is not just about believing in God

Oh ok, then.

Hugo, sweetie, there was absolutely nothing wrong with my argument and if you failed to understand it perhaps it says more about your reasoning faculties. Sorry if you find that patronising, but even the dullest schoolboy should be able to appreciate that believing that something happened historically and being obligated to follow it are two quite separate things.
The Old Testament, which is basically a history of the Jewish nation, points to a coming 'Messiah' (or 'Christ' in the Greek). Those Jews who believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the one became Christians and followed his teachings (see New Testament). The ones who didn't stuck with Judaism. What could be clearer!

I don't understand where the 'con' is. Nobody benefits from you believeing.
Couldn't agree more, zed. The only person who benefits from getting 'saved' is that person himself. Since I already believe myself to be saved what could I possibly get out of it if any of you suddenly converted? More saved perhaps? Now that would be silly.
The only reason a Christian wants others to believe the Gospel is out of a desire to share with them what he has found. There isn't a 'Brownie Points in Heaven' system.

the discussion was about creationism, you were using the old testament as the basis of your theory, then you claimed that the old testament was nothing to do with christians anymore
whether you believe this, or are obligated to say it, is irrelevant for our purposes here

'the con' is perhaps in the way that people are kept under subjection, "be happy with your lot here on earth, you'll get your reward in heaven"

Its not the believers of modern day cristianiaty who are dissing the old book of testements,but Jesus himself.And thats where the difference lies.He came down to earth(from whence he came) ,and tried to create a new order ,because certain political figures and rabbi's , wern't getting the plot.Jesus didn't turn around the old testament but said "Hey,get a fucking grip on this god thing" . Cappy 1,chapter 3.

The Old Testament, which is basically a history of the Jewish nation, points to a coming 'Messiah' (or 'Christ' in the Greek). Those Jews who believed that Jesus of Nazareth was the one became Christians and followed his teachings (see New Testament). The ones who didn't stuck with Judaism. What could be clearer!



except, it's not as simple as that. The new testament wasn't produced until at least 200 years after Jesus died and it was Roman Emperor Constantine's mother Helena who, after converting, decided it was her role in life to go to Bethlehem and Nazareth and all the places Jesus was supposed to have been and SHE was the one who decided where he was born etc etc. While Jesus was alive there were few people who chose to follow him as this would have been blasphemy.

The Messiah is not a person. No one is coming to save the world. WE the people are the Messiah, we're the only ones who can save the world and ourselves

Something that occurred to me while corssing the A4 on the way to work this morning - isn't treating The Bible as a serious theory on the evolution of the universe a bit like treating Red Riding Hood like a study of the mating patterns and predatory rituals of the wolf?

In other words, aren't bilbilcal fundamentalists completely missing the point? You laugh at people who believed that the eruption of volcanoes was a sign of god's wrath and that the setting sun was being chased by the moon goddess over the sky while clinging to your own, ultimately groundless superstitions.

And anyone who argues that evolution is unprovable is obviously not aware that nothing is provable in empirical science - it is possible to disprove but never possible to provwe conclusively. In this way, doubt and humilty are built into the philosophy of science, where only generalisation masquerading as absolute truth exist in monotheistic religion.

except, it's not as simple as that. The new testament wasn't produced until at least 200 years after Jesus died and it was Roman Emperor Constantine's mother Helena who, after converting, decided it was her role in life to go to Bethlehem and Nazareth and all the places Jesus was supposed to have been and SHE was the one who decided where he was born etc etc. While Jesus was alive there were few people who chose to follow him as this would have been blasphemy.

The Messiah is not a person. No one is coming to save the world. WE the people are the Messiah, we're the only ones who can save the world and ourselves

So what happens when its all gone to dust.Thats it? Dead buried and gone?.No,we will take off in our god given UFO's and go and mess up another planet.
But don't wory according to the evangelists there will be a United States of Europe first ,and then China will kill us all.Which gives us plenty of time to prepare.
They have the facts right,but their methods seem a bit dodgy.

And anyone who argues that evolution is unprovable is obviously not aware that nothing is provable in empirical science - it is possible to disprove but never possible to prove conclusively. In this way, doubt and humilty are built into the philosophy of science, where only generalisation masquerading as absolute truth exist in monotheistic religion.
What a fantastic post!

In this way, doubt and humilty are built into the philosophy of science, where only generalisation masquerading as absolute truth exist in monotheistic religion.

Dazzla, would you mind explaining what you mean by this, maybe giving an example?

"The only way to God is through Jesus Christ"
"I am the one true God"
Original sin
Papal infallibility

All unprovable, groundless assertions of dominance.

Christinaity, Judaism, Islam...all of these religions demand humilty from their followers yet display little themselves.

Sorry, but I'm still a little confused. How can 'religion' itself display humility?

So what happens when its all gone to dust.Thats it? Dead buried and gone?



yep. We have control to save it or destroy it. There ain't no one coming to save us from ourselves, that's lazy human thought.

"The only way to God is through Jesus Christ"
"I am the one true God"
Original sin
Papal infallibility

All unprovable, groundless assertions of dominance.

Christinaity, Judaism, Islam...all of these religions demand humilty from their followers yet display little themselves.


Judaism is the only true monotheistic religion (despite what Islam preaches). If God exists and is truely omnipotent, then he doesn't need any one to 'save' the world or humanity. Humans are tied to the Earth by their five senses and by time. Judaism does not believe in a heaven or a hell. The satan is an invention by man to excuse him from evil acts (the devil made me do it). if there is a satan, the satan is in all of us.

What about hinduism, thats monotheistic, and it predates judaism.

Judaism does not believe in a heaven or a hell.

Eh? I thought they did?

in hinduism there are many many forms of god

They are all aspects of one infinate god.

while typing a post about god and religion been total bullshit
a few days ago > BANG. a big blue spark shot out the side of my pc case
(side was off )

pc went off , monitor went blank..

infact something had shorted out or something like that.

motherboard / radion 9800 pro graphics card / power supply / ddr ram / 3 gig cpu all fried...

fuck ....

3 days later just finished rebuilding my pc..........

bloody god must have smitten my pc for slagging him off :-)

(the bastard)

And he reversed your reverse jinx magic, to throw England out of Euro 2004. I'd watch it if I were you ;)

yes . its my fault england lost,

i even left the pub when it was penaltys so i wouldnt jinx them
but it never worked..

:-(

god doesnt support england.

Hi guys.
Sorry Hugo. I hadn't realised we were still discussing ceationism. I thought we had moved onto aren't the Christians bastards because God allowed the Israelites to invade Canaan. But either way I don't recall ever renouncing the Old Testament accounts of creation.
Dazzla, I just loved the Red Riding Hood and wolves analogy, but when did I ever use the Old Testament to try to prove creation, disprove evolution? I argue from biology, remember. Mendel's Law and all that. I agree that you cannot prove anythinhg with empirical science, only disprove. That doesn't seem to stop evolutionists from claiming though that creation is wrong because evolution has been proven.
It is also my understanding, zed that Jews believe in Heaven and hell. The Sadduces, in the time of Christ, didn't but the main stream Jews did.
It's incredible the crap the German 'Higher Criticism' has sprouted over the years about the Bible. Actually most of the New Testament, especially the Gospels, were written prior to 64AD. Luke, who wrote The Acts Of The Apostles makes no mention of the death of either Peter or Paul; both of whom were put to death during the reign Gaius Claudius Nero. One would assume he'd have mentioned it in passing had he written it later than the event. Since he says that Acts is his second book, making The Gospel According To Luke his first, there goes your 200 years theory.
Cappy, very OT here, do you have an opinion on Nick Menza ex-Megadeth? He was right into the UFO scene as well.

No.No opinion on Nick Menza because a)Don't know anything about him b)Megadeth don't rock my spaceship

From the Catholic thread in Everything


Originally Posted by Kormiic
Basically, they fuck up your life on the promise that a shitty life guarantees you admittance to heaven.
And when you die and there's no heaven to reward you for your shitty life you're all like "Holy crap!"


Actually that's not the deal at all. Living a shitty life won't get you into Heaven anymore than having fun will get you into Hell.

For some reason there are those who seem to have picked up that idea - probably from ignorant parents like mine who used God as a kind of bogeyman to keep the kids in line (same as they used Father Christmas) - but it couldn't be further from the teachings of the New Testament.

There are lots of parents who take the lazy way to child rearing by saying that if they misbehave they will go to Hell. I think thats more reflection on them, than the religion they practise.

Lizzie too true. But i did say to my missus while,she was giving me loads of greif,yesterday.. "if you keep swearing like that ,you won't go to heaven".She then procceeded to call me a patronising cunt,so some never learned the lessen.(I will try harder next time)

Rammers,too true,I meant. Lizzie ,why did I think of her!!

I`d like to know how come God helped out those Israelites by parting the Red Sea all those years ago but when it came to the Nazi death camps he was nowhere to be seen?And what about all those poor Ethiopians?He couldve made it rain a bit more often surely?In fact I could think of thousands of instances where God could have intervened to prevent thousands of innocent people being Slaughtered and killed uneccessarily yet he did nothing,either God is dead and noone has realised,hes sleeping on the job,or hes a complete cunt.

And what was all that business about putting a talking snake that blabs in the garden of eden,he was asking for trouble.

God made a pact with us ,if we took the apple from the talking snake,then he'd let us run our own business.Which we did.
So don't blame god,for the fact that we've made a mess of it all.

God made a pact with us ,if we took the apple from the talking snake,then he'd let us run our own business.Which we did.
So don't blame god,for the fact that we've made a mess of it all.

Except when it came to the Israelites and the Red Sea.

And if thats the case why do we bother praying?