Pro-God Christmas Ads Take On Atheist Bus Campaign

mburkel »

Wed Jan 07, 2009 12:17 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

This article brings to mind a line from a U2 song:
"Well the God I believe in isn't short of cash, mister."

What are you afraid of?

lemonbeam »

Tue Jan 06, 2009 11:49 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

hello, does any know how long these bus ads are going to be run for? What is the duration?

tdickensheets »

Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:32 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Rom 2:23
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and four-footed beasts, and creeping things.

Rom 2:25
Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Anen.

tdickensheets »

Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:26 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Rom 2:18-20
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness. Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse.

tdickensheets »

Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:17 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 1

Ps 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

Ps 53:1
The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that do good.

jbob »

Wed Dec 17, 2008 3:41 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 5

Yes we are talking about the same thing. Most evolution believing scientists believe the first life form was a single cell, asexual organism.

You said, "We're still trying to figure out what chemical reactions led to increasing complexity, as it's something that our knowledge of is admittedly in it's infancy"

It is correct that we are gaining knowledge, but it is helping the creationist argument, not the evolutionist.

For many years scientists have said life started as a VERY SIMPLE single cell organism. For the average lay person that sounded plausible and so many people believed it. BUT it is the very science that you rely on that has made this unbelievable.

The more science explores and learns, the more absurd it is to believe a SIMPLE single cell organism could come to life accidentally. It is the gaining of scientific knowledge that has proven there is NOTHING simple about a single cell organism capable of asexual reproduction!

It is the EXTREME complexity of these "simple" single cell organisms that make the evolution argument look silly. And again, we haven't even talked about how TOTALLY IMPROBABLE it is that there would even be any basic building blocks of chemicals in the first primordial soup.

You said, "We've found clues to how they formed on their own through experiments simulating lightning hitting organic liquids, which produced amino acids - the basic building block of all life"

I assume you are talking about the Miller-Urey experiments since that is by far the most widely used studies. I could go on for hours about why this experiment does more to help prove abiogenesis is NOT possible, than to show it is possible. Miller-Urey produced more problems than answers, but suffice to say it did NOTHING to PROVE abiogenesis.

But let's say Miller-Urey is true, you STILL have insurmountable problems to overcome, any ONE of which would stop life in its tracks, and EVERY problem INFINITELY IMPOSSIBLE.

For life to form spontaneously, would take a series of BILLIONS of individual "miracles" to happen, each one INFINITELY IMPOSSIBLE, and each "miracle" in the correct order, or any life that could have formed would have died.

You just left improbable and hit IMPOSSIBLE.

Of course as a Christian, I by-pass all of these problems because I don't believe life started as a "simple" single cell. I believe an intelligent designer created the first fully functional human, and all the other animals. ANYTIME we see complex design, there is ALWAYS a designer. And evolutionists believe this too, except for ONE area, the beginning of life. And I believe the intelligent designer was God, as spoke about in the Bible.

As for how would a Christian react to life on another planet? From what I can study in the Bible I believe there isn't, but it would not change anything if there were. God designed it and if He made life on other planets, it's His choice. I don't have a problem with it.

matucon312 »

Wed Dec 17, 2008 11:18 am Agree: 3   Disagree: 0

jbob, not sure if we're defining "life forms" as the same thing, but the first one's were single celled organisms that reproduces asexually. We've found clues to how they formed on their own through experiments simulating lightning hitting organic liquids, which produced amino acids - the basic building block of all life. We're still trying to figure out what chemical reactions led to increasing complexity, as it's something that our knowledge of is admittedly in it's infancy. But even with the mind bogglingly low chances of life forming on it's own, the universe is also mind bogglingly large; a conservative estimate of the number of planets in the universe (and the number's growing all the time), given a 1:1,000,000,000 chance of life developing, would still leave you with life on 1,000,000,000 planets. On a related note, what (if any) implications would there be on a Christians perspective if we find some form of life on Europa or Enceladus, which is a very real possibility once we get some probes there? Or, with the abundance of extrasolar planets being discovered, and the technology to find them allowing for smaller and smaller planets, what if we find another "earth" with complex (let alone, intelligent) life? Before these ideas get dismissed as far-fetched, consider them next to some of the various religious beliefs and ask if they're really any less plausible. Just wondering really what the Christian reaction would be to such discoveries.

jbob »

Wed Dec 17, 2008 12:12 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 3

You are probably correct there is no point in discussing this, but let me leave you with something to think about. You said,

"I feel the organic and natural development of life makes more sense and is better supported by the data than a creator "poof"-ing everything into existence"

Better supported by the data, really? We believe an intelligent being (God) "poofed" the FIRST life form into existence, then it was self-replicating.

You also believe the FIRST life form was "poofed" into existence and then was self-replicating, BUT your "poof" happened all by itself...just an accident, no intelligence, it just happened. What data supports that?

Most scientists agree no matter how simple that first life form was, it was EXTREMELY COMPLEX. So your first "poof" ACCIDENTALLY, with NO intelligence made something extremely complex?

In ANY other area of science if you were to explain something with "MILLIONS of EXTREMELY complex mechanisms came together all by themselves to make an infinity complex self-replicating product" you would be laughed out of the room.

Most scientists will say it is BEYOND CALCULATING the chances AGAINST that first life happening accidentally, with all the MILLIONS of COMPLEX things that would have to have all come together and work perfectly, the FIRST time. But then those same scientists say, "even though the chances are INFINITELY AGAINST it, we are here, so that is PROOF it happened!"

I am sure you would agree the chances are INFINITELY against the very FIRST life forming by itself. But let's say it did. What are the chances that FIRST life would be able to eat, survive, and reproduce? Another INFINITE chance AGAINST? And if this very FIRST life didn't get it right THE VERY FIRST TIME, it's over...NO SECOND CHANCE.

But some will say, "it will evolve and get it right next time"

What are the chances of ANOTHER life form ACCIDENTALLY forming from primordial soup...AGAIN? 0%?

And even if it happened, it will be starting off from ground zero again with all the same problems of needing to eat, survive, and reproduce before succumbing to the EXTREMELY harsh, life-UNFRIENDLY conditions of a new world.

Even IF it survived and reproduced and had food, with no intelligence and NO GOAL, how could it evolve? Will it ACCIDENTALLY evolve the right way and get better, or the wrong way and die? If it dies we are back to the start again.

The idea of a FIRST life form ACCIDENTALLY forming, EATING (no small task in a new world with NOTHING!), SURVIVING AND REPRODUCING, is so crazy, so over the top bizarre, it is beyond belief.

AND there is NO science to back up the claim that it could happen. NO scientific experiment has EVER even REMOTELY come close to reproducing life even WITH mans intelligence helping, let alone it happening by itself in a primordial soup of raw chemicals. And there are just as many problems with how those raw chemicals got there!

matucon312 »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:53 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jbob, hahaha.....yeah, I get what you mean about not having enough time; I already have two tabs permanently open for forums on this site..lol. Anyway, I think we already agree to disagree, as I feel the organic and natural development of life makes more sense and is better supported by the data than a creator "poof"-ing everything into existence. The idea of a creator also begs the question of who/what created him/it? Astronomy is another great interest of mine and the Big Bang as THE beginning doesn't add up for me either. I have my own adjusted theories on the Big Bang, cause of gravity and "dark energy", but need to get with the right people to explore them..lol.

As far as the single best argument for evolution, there isn't one, and that's it's greatest strength and weakness. It's numerous sciences coming together and contributing to the overall theory. Our knowledge is not yet complete on the topic, but what we do know supports it and it's been immune to be falsification thus far. And just to clarify my perspective on God, I won't rule out the possibility of A god, but find the Abrahamic god highly unlikely.

jbob »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 12:42 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

"without being able to watch time-elapsed footage of millions of years of biology, the kind of "proof" you request is impossible"

GREAT!!! We are making progress!!! The statement above is a LONG, LONG, LONG way from your previous statement... "Evolution is observable and testable."

I have had MANY discussions with evolutionist and every time I do they will say things like... "look at the similar DNA, that is PROOF of evolution" NO IT IS NOT!!! It is SPECULATION based on evidence.

BUT it is just as probable, and the evidence is just as strong, or STRONGER, that similar DNA is PROOF of common designer. Similar DNA is no more proof of one than the other... NONE. Yet evolutionists will use the argument as if if were FACT.

Many evolutionists have told me this ludicrous statement.. "in science, theory really means fact." .... (unless a scientist comes to the conclusion that someone designed it, then his theory is stupid and he is a quack scientist!!!... evolution theories are fact, creationist theories are fantasy!!! )

Here is my point... we BOTH have THEORIES. Which one is more probable... we all started as a singular "nothing", that exploded and formed all the stars and planets, and hydrogen gas changed into all the elements known today, which magically produced compounds that magically arranged themselves into living, self replicating, life.... Or an intelligent being designed it. Using ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE I have seen, I'm betting on the latter.

I welcome this discussion but I swore I would never get into another one... I just don't have time LOL!!! So, how about this. Any time this discussion comes up, it can QUICKLY get bogged down in thousands of different topics, everyone talking about a million different subjects at the same time. How about we limit it to one topic at a time?? You go first, give me your SINGLE best evidence for evolution and we will discuss it. When we have agreed on the outcome of that, (or agreed to dis-agree), then I will introduce a new topic. We can take it slow, one thing at a time. What do you think??

matucon312 »

Tue Dec 16, 2008 11:31 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jbob, without being able to watch time-elapsed footage of millions of years of biology, the kind of "proof" you request is impossible. But we can come to reasonable conclusions based on what's observable and testable, and there's far more evidence to support evolution than creation. I ask you, what "proof" do you have that there's a god at all, let alone a "creator" of everything? The evidence supports a natural explanation, not a supernatural one. Unanswered questions about evolution are not answers for creationism, or put another way, just because we don't fully understand something, doesn't mean it's acceptable to fill that gap in knowledge with God. New discoveries are being made all the time, answering questions that were previously mysteries. It's all a long and tough process, but there was a time when even the wheel hadn't yet been invented. We've come along way, and will continue to progress further by questioning how things work and using the scientific method to test out new hypothesis, not by attributing any mysteries to God and calling it a day. Looking forward to the discussion with you though! Have a good day! :)

jbob »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 9:23 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 1

"www.talkorigins.org is a very good place to start"....

Been there, read that. LOTS of SPECULATION and THEORIES all based on available evidence, BUT no SCIENTIFIC PROOF. So how about giving empirical PROOF for the questions I raised in my last post.

empirical...
a. Relying on or derived from observation or experiment: empirical results that supported the hypothesis.
b. Verifiable or provable by means of observation or experiment: empirical laws.
2.Guided by practical experience and not theory, especially in medicine.

Evolution was NOT observed and has NEVER been reproduced therefore, by definition, it is NOT science. It IS a theory, and not even a good one.

zeno »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 6:14 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

www.talkorigins.org is a very good place to start for those who know nothing about evolution and the vast amount of evidence to support it (and to demolish the creationist 'arguments' against it). Recommended reading.

If you also need an introduction to the scientific method, try Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method, essential knowledge if you're going to argue against science and its hypotheses, theories and experiments.

jbob »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 3:30 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

"we've all been keeping thing respectful and abstaining from this kind of vitriole. Please don't spoil it."

You are absolutely correct and I apologize.

But that does not change the fact that what you said has no basis in reality. You said... "Evolution is observable and testable." Let's see ONE scientific test that has observed and PROVEN evolution.

Let's see PROOF that mutations can produce evolution. Give me PROOF that ANY mutation is anything more that the garbling of EXISTING information. EVERY evidence I have seen shows harmful mutations or at the very least neutral... neither harmful nor beneficial.... NONE producing any NEW information, just a scrambling of existing information.

Let's see PROOF that similar DNA means common ancestor and not common designer.

Let's see PROOF that ANY fossils came from a different animal, or turned into a different animal, or had kids that were different than they were. You can say Archeopteryx used to be a dinosaur, but that is NOT scientific PROOF.

Let's see PROOF that the VERY FIRST living organism was able to eat (no small task in a new world with NOTHING) AND reproduce more of itself, BEFORE dying from the EXTREMELY harsh conditions of the "new" world, or dying of starvation.

Let's see PROOF that base chemicals, left alone for millions or billions of years, will produce life.... point me to the scientific experiment that has PROVEN this.

Remember, science is something you and STUDY, TEST, REPRODUCE, and PROVE. You can NOT test and reproduce evolution so therefore by definition it is NOT science... it is your religion.

It is something you believe based on evidence but you can NOT PROVE it. BUT guess what, we BOTH look at the SAME evidence and come to very different conclusions.

I will admit though, you have MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more faith than I do. It would be very hard to believe that we all started as a singular "nothing", that exploded and formed all the stars and planets, and hydrogen gas changed into all the elements known today, which magically produced compounds that magically arranged themselves into living, self replicating, life.... THAT IS FAITH!!!

matucon312 »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:31 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jbob, I've neither the character allotment in this forum, nor the time to explain in further detail the details of evolution you're obviously ignorant of. Read up on it, learn something about it from somewhere other than a religious site trying to undermine it, and then with an informed mind come back and comment. You're statements make your lack of knowledge on the topic glaringly obvious and I actually feel kind of embarrassed for some of the believers on here I've come to respect that you're lumped in with them.

matucon312 »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 1:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

jbob said:

"That may well be the single stupidest thing I have ever read. LOL!!! "

Yeah, the collective research of numerous fields of science, plus the overwhelming majority of all of the most brilliant scientific minds in the world today is absolutely stupid, whereas believing in 8,000 year old flat earths, around which everything in the universe revolves and everything on it "poofed into existence, at which time the singular man on earth named millions of species, who were later put on a giant ark by a 900 hundred year old man 2 or 7 at a time during a flood that covered the entire earth (even though it was a localized event) - believing in these things makes you absolutely brilliant. We'd been having an intelligent and mutually respectful discussion, so keep your gloves on. You're not the only one that can mock and ridicule, only you mock and ridicule things with observable evidence. It's much easier to mock unicorns, tooth fairies, bigfoot and yes, your Bible and God. But we've all been keeping thing respectful and abstaining from this kind of vitriole. Please don't spoil it.

jbob »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:31 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"but the mutations in DNA are where the different species branch off from common ancestors."

Again... PROOF please. Show me ONE beneficial mutation... of ANYTHING. It is just as probable that species being near identical is proof of a common designer, not a common ancestor.

jbob »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:18 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"No intelligence is required to encode DNA. Instead, the information in DNA is the result of natural selection acting upon random mutations, rather than the actions of a "being" like God."

Natural selection is most certainly true and does happen. BUT is does ONE thing and ONE thing only.... it selects. It does NOT create, mutate, or form life. It can NOT. It ONLY selects from EXISTING information.

jbob »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:11 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"Laboratory experimentation with fruit flies demonstrates the power of genetic mutation."

Yes it did, WITH man's intervention, NOT on it's own. And EVERY mutation was harmful not beneficial. And EVERY mutation used existing information... NO new information was created. It was still a fruit fly with all the parts of a fruit fly, just REALLY screwed up!! It didn't mutate into anything different, and certainly did not prove something could mutate into anything different.

jbob »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:06 am Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

"Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of organisms as they adapt and change over time"

Give me PROOF that Archeopteryx was the ancestor, or parent of anything other than another Archeopteryx.

jbob »

Mon Dec 15, 2008 11:00 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

matucon312 said...
"Evolution is observable and testable."

That may well be the single stupidest thing I have ever read. LOL!!!

jester in the Kings court »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 8:43 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

i used to be a member of the not-so-Brights, but i found them to be rather dim witted.

zeno »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:49 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

We're members of the Brights as well - I'm sure you'll feel quite at home on TH!

matucon312 »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I'll check it out zeno. I'm also a member of The Brights (google it if you're unfamiliar). Great organization!

zeno »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 5:03 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

matucon312: Would you be interested in joining us on our discussion forum at Think Humanism (Google it)? Please come and have a look!

matucon312 »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 2:06 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Evolution is observable and testable. The misconception here is that science is limited to controlled experiments that are conducted in laboratories by people in white lab coats. Actually, much of science is accomplished by gathering evidence from the real world and inferring how things work. Astronomers cannot hold stars in their hands and geologists cannot go back in time, but in both cases scientists can learn a great deal by using multiple lines of evidence to make valid and useful inferences about their objects of study. The same is true of the study of the evolutionary history of life on Earth, and as a matter of fact, many mechanisms of evolution are studied through direct experimentation as in more familiar sciences. Fossils such as Archaeopteryx give us snapshots of organisms as they adapt and change over time. Studying modern organisms such as elephant seals can reveal specific examples of evolutionary history and bolster concepts of evolution. Artificial selection among guppies can demonstrate microevolution in the laboratory. Laboratory experimentation with fruit flies demonstrates the power of genetic mutation. All of these things - genetics, geology, astronomy, chemistry, biology - contribute to the whole theory of evolution, and because each of these sciences supports each other regarding evolution is why the overwhelming majority of scientists agree on it's validity.

matucon312 »

Sun Dec 14, 2008 3:19 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

DNA actually further's the case for evolution, not a Creator. The creator is evolution, not God. No intelligence is required to encode DNA. Instead, the information in DNA is the result of natural selection acting upon random mutations, rather than the actions of a "being" like God. This is where we see primate species (including humans) being near identical, but the mutations in DNA are where the different species branch off from common ancestors. It's not a quick process, but it is a natural one.

The fact is that there are millions of scientists who have assembled entire libraries full of information showing that evolution is where all the species on earth came from. Thousands of clergy members have even signed a letter stating their belief in all of this scientific evidence. The church, while still maintaining a "guiding hand", has even acknowledged evolution as the accepted theory; they just believe God guided it along rather than it occurring naturally. I'm no expert on the subject, but when I was trying to figure out the "God question" for myself, I did a good amount of reading on evolution and intelligent design/creation, and it's not even close. No offense, but I really wonder how much (and if so, how evenly) people weigh both sides of this debate before coming to a conclusion.

Daniel Paul »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:26 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

I found this through a side search at snopes. It had an interesting point:

1) DNA is not merely a molecule with a pattern; it is a code, a language, and an information storage mechanism.
2) All codes are created by a conscious mind; there is no natural process known to science that creates coded information.
3) Therefore DNA was designed by a mind.

What say you?

Daniel Paul »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:19 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"And Daniel, with all respect, this is a prime example of how not to take something at face value, no matter how yummy and self-affirming it seems."

Well, thanks. Since you are somewhat new here you will find that I do the research once I've found some leads and post what I find. One of the points of the Christian faith is to constantly check what you believe to be true. Jesus never suggested blind faith but rather to examine what you believe. Truth stands on it's own no matter what is believed or what is not.

Thanks again prophet for the key search word NASA.

Daniel Paul »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp "

I went to that site and was disappointed. It missed presenting clear facts which I found at the NASA site. Thanks, Prophet. I didn't know it was NASA who was attached with this. They have a link on it.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_astro/answers/970325g.html

"We, too, have heard an "urban legend" about scientists at NASA GSFC finding the "missing day" in computer calculations of the motions of the planets. The legend has been around for longer than NASA itself, but turned into a NASA "event" sometime in the 60's. The story goes that some scientists were doing orbital mechanics calculations to determine the positions of the planets in the future, for use in determining the trajectories of future satellite missions. They realized they were off by a day. A biblical scholar in the lot remembered the passage from Joshua and all was set right. But these events, in fact, never occurred. It is easy to understand why:

The "GSFC finds missing day" urban legend doesn't make sense for the following reason. If we want to know where the planets will be in the future, we use accurate knowledge of their initial positions and orbital speeds (which would be where they are located now), and solve for their positions for some time in the future. We solve a very well determined set of equations that describe their motions. The major dynamical component of any planet's orbital motion is determined by solving an equation (force is equal to the mass times the acceleration) which is the perhaps the most fundamental in classical physics. The validity and predictive power of this equation are well documented and can be seen every day: a recent example is the lunar eclipse that was visible to much of the world last Sunday. This calculation would not cover any time before the present, so some missing day many centuries ago, if it had occurred, could not be uncovered with this method."

One other thing they said which I found quite interesting was:

"In general, trying to prove events that are said to have occurred in the Bible, using scientific principles, doesn't work. Most scientists draw a clear distinction between things that are taken on faith, and those that are testable and therefore falsifiable. Science deals with the latter, and religion with the former."

So, how is evolution testable?

Also, there is a site called Apologetics Press which also has the same story:

"The story sounds great, and is quite impressive in the telling. Unfortunately, it is false—from beginning to end.

In the May 1991 issue of Reason & Revelation, I wrote an article documenting the incorrect nature of this account, and urging our readers not to use it. Years later, however, the story still is being circulated—most likely due to the fact that it has been published on the Internet."

http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2010

matucon312 »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:47 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

zeno, thanks for finding that! I just read it, and encourage everyone else to do the same. And Daniel, with all respect, this is a prime example of how not to take something at face value, no matter how yummy and self-affirming it seems. This is less compelling evidence than Newton attributing the nature of planetary orbits to God once he got stumped (until someone else figured it out, of course).

zeno »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:28 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Ah! It is an urban myth (in case anyone was in doubt!) that's been well debunked at snopes.com.

http://www.snopes.com/religion/lostday.asp

Prophet »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:30 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

I remember that study. It was done during the mission to the moon era. Unfortunately, I heard it was just and urban legend.

matucon312 »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 11:39 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

zeno, I too would love to see this research. I actually spent some time online trying to find anything relating to this and found nothing. Still waiting!

zeno »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:25 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel said: "It was a study in astronomy. I'll try to find the link. In short, everything in our universe moves. The earth rotates around the sun...our solar system moves through space...and so on. What they found in the study is that the earth isn't facing the right way. It's like a gear that jumped a few teeth. It's like one day was longer than the rest. How they figured this out I don't know. I do know the study wasn't done by Christians. They also managed to prove the days were steady throughout recorded history back through the Romans and the Greeks ruling out a gradual shift and indicating the 'bump' happened before that time.

Again, I'll see if I can find it on the web. Anyone else remember this study?"

I look forward to reading it...

zeno »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 10:23 am Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

JonnyBlad said: "Do Atheists really exist?

http://polemos.net/Do%20Atheists%20Exist.html"

Ha ha ha! Nice spoof site! :-)

JonnyBlad »

Sat Dec 13, 2008 12:01 am Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Do Atheists really exist?

http://polemos.net/Do%20Atheists%20Exist.html

Daniel Paul »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:26 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"that is among the weakest and most ridiculous arguments one could make. "

Why thanks! It must rank right up there with the dude who crawled in his big wood fired stove one cold night so he could keep warm. By morning he determined "I think...therefore I am". No joke....

Daniel Paul »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:24 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"That's why doubt and questions are so frowned upon and why atheist bus ads are so threatening; once one stops feeling guilty or afraid of questioning these things, it's a very slippery slope away from superstition."

I don't find them threatening at all. I've had teenagers. :-)

As I have posted in the past. The Athiest posters asked a question did they not? A question begs an answer does it not? Were the athiests posters rhetorical? The athiests said they wanted to get people thinking. They did and they answered. What's the problem with that?

Daniel Paul »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:21 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"Please explain how this proves gods work through nature rather than the bibles ridiculously low level of reliability. Thanks! "

When Davinci designed flying machines everyone thought he was mad! I guess that low level of reliability rests in the present low level of understanding.

Daniel Paul »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 8:19 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

"A study of chronology several thousand years ago? What was that all about?"

It was a study in astronomy. I'll try to find the link. In short, everything in our universe moves. The earth rotates around the sun...our solar system moves through space...and so on. What they found in the study is that the earth isn't facing the right way. It's like a gear that jumped a few teeth. It's like one day was longer than the rest. How they figured this out I don't know. I do know the study wasn't done by Christians. They also managed to prove the days were steady throughout recorded history back through the Romans and the Greeks ruling out a gradual shift and indicating the 'bump' happened before that time.

Again, I'll see if I can find it on the web. Anyone else remember this study?

matucon312 »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:34 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

Also, regarding the flood, not only was this story plagiarized from earlier stories as Zeno pointed out, but are you saying you believe that the flood actually covered the whole world? That a 900 year old man put two of every bird, mite and tick onto a wooden boat? Please explain how this proves gods work through nature rather than the bibles ridiculously low level of reliability. Thanks! : )

matucon312 »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:30 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Something else; wasn't polygamy "traditional marriage" in the Bible?

matucon312 »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 6:27 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 1

Daniel, with all respect that is among the weakest and most ridiculous arguments one could make. So there's just as much evidence for your non-existence as existence? It's just as plausible for unicorns to exist as horses? No; we come to rational conclusions based on observations and our critical analysis thereof. I can speak, you can see and hear me. I can affect and interact with my environment. The logical conclusion would be that I exist. Of doesn't rule out the possibility of my non-existence if one wants to argue the point, but the explanations fabricated to explain the observed evidence would be far more convoluted and raise more questions than they answer. So, if there is a natural explanation for something, invoking a supernatural explanation is redundant and stems not from critical interpretation of available evidence, but from a desire to undermine the rational conclusion based on pre-existing bias's. Lay all of the evidence for and against a supernatural explanation versus a naturalistic one, and while it's not 100% either way, the rational, naturalistic explanation wins out in a landslide. That's why doubt and questions are so frowned upon and why atheist bus ads are so threatening; once one stops feeling guilty or afraid of questioning these things, it's a very slippery slope away from superstition.

zeno »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 5:52 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel

Flood myths abound in ancient cultures and the biblical one probably comes from the one in the Gilgamesh Epic.

You said: "There was a 'secular' study of chronology back several thousand years. It found a 'bump' in time."

A study of chronology several thousand years ago? What was that all about? What 'bump' in time? What did ancient civilisations know of the physics of time? What's the evidence for an 'extra long day'?

Daniel Paul »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:36 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"How about you prove the Bible is true? THAT'S what needs to happen, otherwise it's up for critique."

Prove anything is true. Prove that I exist! Prove that I'm an individual and not believers alter ego. Truth is so hard to pin down. It takes faith to believe almost everything. Prove that this isn't a dream on my part! (I always liked that one. :D)

cindy444 »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:22 pm Agree: 1   Disagree: 0

"Why Believe? Because I created you and I love you, for goodness' sake - GOD."

Neat!

Daniel Paul »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 4:20 pm Agree: 2   Disagree: 0

"Any examples, please? "

None that you haven't written off already.

The flood for one. The bringing of the birds for the people of Isreal, Jesus telling one of the disciples to go down and catch a fish to find the temple tax in it's mouth and the darkness which came in mid-day when Christ died on the cross.

There is one more. There was a 'secular' study of chronology back several thousand years. It found a 'bump' in time. It seems, based on the physics involved there seems to be one day that was way longer than all the rest. They can't explain it because they do not accept the Bible as truth. Guess where the Bible puts the extra long day? The same place in time the research did. Keep your hands up.

matucon312 »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 1:12 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Just because a tv weatherman can't come up with an explanation for the tornado's behavior makes it a miracle? I'm sure he's not the world's foremost expert on all things meteorological. Weather is unpredictable anyway; apparently every time the forecast calls for rain and we get none, god intervened to give us a sunny day? It's unlikely for there to be life in the universe, but not only are we here, if you were to give 1,000,000,000:1 odds of a planet having just the right traits and life developing on it, with a current conservative estimate of the number of planets in the universe, you'd still end up with life on a BILLION planets. Highly unlikely doesn't equal impossible.

And again, it's up to the believer to proof the justification for a belief in God, not the skeptic. We don't assume unicorns exist or that snakeoil cures cancer; someone has to prove these things or they're assumed bunk. Sure, one can say "you have to believe in unicorns to see them" or "you must not have taken the fishoil right", but these are excuses and cop-outs. It's not the believers fault for mistaking who the burden of proof falls upon, as believing is ingrained in our culture. But the fact remains that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and that reflects the shortcomings of Josh McDowell's work; you can't prove the bible is false anymore than the floating teapot or the spaghetti monster. How about you prove the Bible is true? THAT'S what needs to happen, otherwise it's up for critique.

Again, I just wanted to say that while this is obviously a passionate discussion and we (myself as much as anyone) can be blunt at times, I'm thoroughly enjoying the discussion and mean no disrespect. Take care!

zeno »

Fri Dec 12, 2008 12:41 pm Agree: 0   Disagree: 0

Daniel said: "God has been known to use the natural"

Any examples, please?