"Hi! I just wanted to inform you what I just learned about a movie that is coming out December 7, during the Christmas season, which is entitled THE GOLDEN COMPASS. It stars Nicole Kidman and it is directed toward children. What is disturbing to me is that this movie is based on the first of a trilogy of books for children called HIS DARK MATERIALS written by Philip Pullman of England.

He's an atheist and his objective is to bash Christianity and promote atheism. I heard that he has made remarks that he wants to kill God in the minds of children, and that's what his books are all about. He despises C.S. Lewis and Narnia, etc. An article written about him said "this is the most dangerous author in Britain" and that Pullman would be the writer "the atheists would be praying for, if atheists prayed." Pullman said he doesn't think it is possible that there is a God and he has great difficulty understanding the words "spiritual" and "spirituality." What I thought was important to communicate is what part of the agenda is for making this picture. This movie is a watered down version of the first book, which is the least offensive of the three books. The second book of the trilogy is THE SUBTLE KNIFE and the third book is THE AMBER SPYGLASS. Each book gets worse and worse regarding Pullman's hatred of God. In the trilogy, a young girl becomes enmeshed in an epic struggle against a nefarious Church known as the Magisterium. Another character, an ex-nun, describes Christianity as
"a very powerful and convincing mistake." As I understand it, in the last book, a boy and girl are depicted representing Adam and Eve and they kill God, who at times is called YAHWEH (which is definitely not Allah). Since the movie would seem mild if you viewed it, that's been done on purpose.

They are hoping that unsuspecting parents will take their children to See the movie, that they will enjoy the movie and then the children will want the books for Christmas. That's the hook. Pullman says he wants the children to read the books and decide against God and the kingdom of heaven.

If you decide that you do not want to support something like this, I suggest that you boycott the movie and the books. I googled a synopsis of THE GOLDEN COMPASS. As I skimmed it, I couldn't believe that in a children's book part of the story is about castration and female circumcision.

VERIFIED BY SNOPES.com
http://snopes.com/politics/religion/compass.asp

The Golden Compass, a fantasy film starring Nicole Kidman that is scheduled to be released into theaters on 7 December 2007, has been drawing fire from concerned Christians. The film is based on Northern Lights (released in the U.S. as The Golden Compass), the first offering in Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy of children's books, a series that follows the adventures of a streetwise girl who travels
through multiple worlds populated by witches, armor-plated bears, and sinister ecclesiastical assassins to defeat the oppressive forces of a senile God.

Books of the trilogy have sold more than 15 million copies around the world, with Northern Lights winning the Carnegie Medal for Children's Literature in 1995 and in 2007 being awarded the 'Carnegie of Carnegies' for the best children's book of the past 70 years. The Amber Spyglass, the final book of the series, won The Whitbread Prize in 2001, making it the first children's book to do so.

The series' author, Philip Pullman, is an avowed atheist who has averred that "I don't profess any religion; I don't think it's possible that there is a God; I have the greatest difficulty in understanding what is meant by the words 'spiritual' or 'spirituality.'" Critics of Pullman's books point to the strong anti-religion and anti-God themes they incorporate, and although literary works are subject to a variety of interpretations, Pullman left little doubt about his intentions when he said in a 2003 interview with The Sydney Morning Herald that "My books are about killing God." (Conservative British columnist Peter Hitchens labeled Pullman "The Most Dangerous Author in Britain" and described him as the writer "the atheists would have been praying for, if atheists prayed.")

Bill Donohue, president of The Catholic League, has condemned The Golden Compass as a "pernicious" effort to indoctrinate children into anti-Christian beliefs and has produced a 23-page pamphlet titled The Golden Compass: Unmasked in which he maintains that Pullman "sells atheism for kids." Donohoe told interviewer John Gibson on 9 October 2007 why he believes Christians should stay away from the film:
Look, the movie is based on the least offensive of the three books. And they have dumbed down the worst elements in the movie because they don't want to make Christians angry and they want to make money. Our concern is this, unsuspecting Christian parents may want to take their kid to the movie, it opens up December 7th and say, this wasn't troubling, then we'll buy the books. So the movie is the bait for the books which are profoundly anti-Catholic and at the same time selling atheism.
Other reviewers, however, have described Pullman's works as being more generally anti-religion rather than specifically anti-Christian or anti-Catholic:

In "His Dark Materials," Pullman's criticisms of organized religion come across as anti-authoritarian and anti-ascetic rather than anti-doctrinal. (Jesus isn't mentioned in any of the books, although Pullman has hinted that He might figure in a forthcoming sequel, "The Book of Dust.") His fundamental objection is to ideological tyranny and the rejection of this world in favor of an idealized afterlife, regardless of creed. As one of the novel's pagan characters puts it, "Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling."

Last updated: 23 October 2007

Yeah, I heard about this. How the director I think is highly athiest and it shows throughout the movie. If people are so agaisnt a movie, then why not....not go to see it? Articles like that make more people want to see it, I think. Case in point, Da Vinci Code.

Armor plated bears? Killing GOD?

Sounds fun to me.

And that hot chick from the latest Bond movie is in it! And Bond.

Yeah, I heard about this. How the director I think is highly athiest and it shows throughout the movie. If people are so agaisnt a movie, then why not....not go to see it? Articles like that make more people want to see it, I think. Case in point, Da Vinci Code.

Unless you have "threads" like this, how else would people know NOT to see it.

That's my complaint, I don't take issue with Hollywood movies that are released with agenda. I do take issue with the way the studios so badly misrepresent what these movies are about in order to trick people into seeing their films. The author is quite frank about what his intentions were when writing this story, but the film studio isn't.

As a result, a parent takes there kid to see a fantasy movie and end up getting a two hour primer on atheism presented to their impressionable kid.

Film makers have a right to make anything they'd like, I just wish they'd stop hiding these messages. They deny the agenda and advertise the films as something they are not.

The best example is Million Dollar Baby- a film that was advertised like it was a n uplifting, female Rocky of sorts but ends up being a sad two hour sermon on assisted suicide.

What was a Happy Feet about? Another movie targeted at kids looked to be about a bird that liked to dance. But it reportedly ends up being a preachy liberal presentation implanting the global warming, ant-fishing, and pro-homosexual agendas according to some people.

I think the ACLU will start releasing kids movies soon.

I think people have the right to make a movie about whatever they feel like whether freedom or speech for for art's sake. I do think it's wrong that young children are conned so badly into seeing something like this, or Happy Feet but unfortunately young children are conned everyday such as commercials on Nickelodeon or Saturday morning cartoons.

Yeah, kids were conned into seeing that cartoon movie "Open Season" which was nothing but anti-gun propaganda.

Yeah, kids were conned into seeing that cartoon movie "Open Season" which was nothing but anti-gun propaganda.

That's a stretch.

That's a stretch.
That's your opinion.

I'm a little confused with the original post... the writer says the author is an Athiest, yet goes on to write that "God is killed" in his novels. Hmmm.

Lol @ 'Happy Feet' being gay-agenda... man, some people never give up.

I'm a little confused with the original post... the writer says the author is an Athiest, yet goes on to write that "God is killed" in his novels. Hmmm.

Lol @ 'Happy Feet' being gay-agenda... man, some people never give up.

Haven't you heard the phrases "light in the loafers" and "light on his feet" before?

Haven't you heard the phrases "light in the loafers" and "light on his feet" before?


Yes, that has nothing to do with the character in question though, he was a tap dancer. Granted, not the "manliest" hobby to practice, but the dude had a female interest in the film; he ended up "scoring" her because of those tap-dancing skills.

It's ok, Open Season is about a bear and deer that don't want to be killed by the bad guy, who hunts with a gun. I guess that makes it an anti-gun film.

My question is, how can an athiest "hate God", or "kill God"
To their way of thinking, if there is no god, how can the above be true?
I have a friend who is a self proclaimed athiest, and always takes God's name in vain. If there is no god, then how can "god", damn it? Whatever "IT" is...I personally will stay away from this movie, and so will my kids, but with my kids, its their choice. They read up on EVERY movie they think they want to see, before they go...some awesome guys!

My question is, how can an athiest "hate God", or "kill God"
To their way of thinking, if there is no god, how can the above be true?

It's not "god" that an atheist hates- it's his fan club that drives us crazy! :D

Athiests are usually more vocal than any Christian I have ever met. Athiests claim Christians "try to shove their religion at you", while they are shoving their religion at you.

It's not "god" that an atheist hates- it's his fan club that drives us crazy! :D

Plus 1.

Also as a director in a directors mind, he don't have to believe any of it to make a movie about it.


Do you think George Lucas believed that their was actually a war being waged in a Galaxy far, far away when he thought of Star Wars?

IMO, a atheist could make some of the best movies based on religion cause they wont give the one way train of thought some righteous religious freaks would.

Regardless, its a SCIFI movie! How can any serious human period take offense to it? I don't believe in any religion but I don't push that on people at all. I do have many religious friends with a straight train of thought that would also agree. If you have such a problem with something like this you should avoid it, other wise you are a fanatic nut case wanting to stir up trouble.

Athiests are usually more vocal than any Christian I have ever met. Athiests claim Christians "try to shove their religion at you", while they are shoving their religion at you.

I never met a Athiest that pushed anything. Just ones that could care less in general.

But is Atheism considered a religion anyway:shifty: ?

It's not "god" that an atheist hates- it's his fan club that drives us crazy! :D
Pot, meet kettle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow)

In a 2006 interview on the day that the United States House of Representatives passed the Pledge Protection Act, Newdow told WERS-FM's David Goodman, "A few hours ago, the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States of America voted 260 to 167 to completely gut the Constitution of its separation of powers and violate numerous other clauses because they thought it was important enough to keep 'under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance. I don't think people would've done that for our political heritage or anything else. They did it because they want God in their government because it stands for a religious view that they adhere to, and they want to see that religious view espoused by government, which is exactly what the establishment clause forbids".

Who's the fanatic now?

Is Atheism a religion? Effectively....

Plus 1.

Also as a director in a directors mind, he don't have to believe any of it to make a movie about it.


Do you think George Lucas believed that their was actually a war being waged in a Galaxy far, far away when he thought of Star Wars?

IMO, a atheist could make some of the best movies based on religion cause they wont give the one way train of thought some righteous religious freaks would.

Regardless, its a SCIFI movie! How can any serious human period take offense to it? I don't believe in any religion but I don't push that on people at all. I do have many religious friends with a straight train of thought that would also agree. If you have such a problem with something like this you should avoid it, other wise you are a fanatic nut case wanting to stir up trouble.



It isn't scifi, its fantasy. And you are missing the point.

atheism is not a religion. spiritualality has nothing to do with god. take a look at a buddhist. religion is set up as a controlling belief. scientology and buddhism are religions without a god. you base your life and control your actions based on beliefs. i am an atheist. i don't practice any ideals or beliefs. i just don't see any reasonable evidence that there is a god. in my life, i look to things that supply truth and answers, not some fantasy based on ideals that have long since been outdated as human understanding and knowledge grow. i don't have a fear of the unknown as so many "christian" ideals have. and evolution is a fact of reality, and creationism is a nice little fantasy that has no factual base or evidence behind it. i don't run around preaching to any body about my ideals, but if pushed i will defend them. i am just as right in my ideals as you are in yours. after all, we live in a part of the world that believes in our rights and freedoms. (or is that only as long as we believe in your god.) if thats a true statement, then we might just as well live in the middle east where you can believe in what you like as long as it''s muslim.(or christian here). atheism doesn't kill god. you can't kill what never existed. there are forces that we do and don't understand. making up an omnipotent being to explain it doesn't explain anything. it just creates pacifism not to seek truth and reality. and lastly, there are many people who believe in god without benefit of any religion. they are not christians, muslims, jews, or any flavor of religion. they just believe he exists.

It's not "god" that an atheist hates- it's his fan club that drives us crazy! :D



"His fan club"...To your beliefs, if there is no "He", how can "He" have a fan base?

Plus 1.

Also as a director in a directors mind, he don't have to believe any of it to make a movie about it.


Do you think George Lucas believed that their was actually a war being waged in a Galaxy far, far away when he thought of Star Wars?

IMO, a atheist could make some of the best movies based on religion cause they wont give the one way train of thought some righteous religious freaks would.

Regardless, its a SCIFI(no, "fantasy") movie! How can any serious human period take offense to it? I don't believe in any religion but I don't push that on people at all. I do have many religious friends with a straight train of thought that would also agree. If you have such a problem with something like this you should avoid it, other wise you are a fanatic nut case wanting to stir up trouble.



Typical...Your type always have to toss the stones dont you?

atheism is not a religion. religion is set up as a controlling belief.

You just contradicted yourself, there. Atheism is as much a religion as Christianity, at least to some. People try and brand christianity by it most extreme minority, when a much larger part (per capita) or atheists out there treat atheism and being anti-religion (mainly christianity) as a religion. They try to rewrite history to say that the Framers weren't Christian when the historical record clearly shows otherwise. I am suprised that any athiest would argue that it isn't a religion, because that would mean that it isn't in anyway entitled to 1st amendment protections under the religious establishment and free exercise clauses. Claiming that athiesm is not a religion shoots any attempt to remove religion from the public square out of the water.

a non belief a religion? hardly. you would then be setting yourself up to the same branding because of a few extremists. i'm not anti religion. believe in what you will. it's just that i don't believe in the very basis of most practicing religions. budhism would be a religion without a god. atheism has no ritual. no set standards, morals, or ideas. it is non belief, nothing more. if someone is swayed to take up a cause of anti-religion over it, then that is a right guaranteed them in our free society. i live in canada, no first amendment here. but it sounds like you're saying to me that if i don't relate to it as a religion, then i am unable to be one. i think that that is just sheer ludicrousy. after all, religion is the worship of deity, atheism it's denial.

While atheism disavows the existence of a god (or gods) or any form of supreme being it doesn't, necessarily reject religion.

Dictionary.com includes a definition for religion as "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

while this does not, according to Dictionary, necessarily command a belief in a supreme being, it is generally understood that if you are religious (in the most common sense) you believe in the power of a supreme being.


According to Reference.com, "Buddhism is often described as a religion and a collection of various philosophies, based initially on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as Gautama Buddha. To many, however, Buddhism is not a religion, nor a philosophy or a set of doctrines, but rather teachings to guide one to directly experiencing reality. Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism began around 5th century BCE with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, who was born in what is now Nepal and taught primarily in northern India, and is hereafter referred to as 'the Buddha'."

Taoism, for example, is considered (more) a "quasi-religion".

Subscribers to Bahá'í refer to their belief system as a "faith"

If we give that a religion doesn't necessarily need a supreme being to, in fact, be a religion; then any person who subscribes to these godless (read as explanatory - not derogatory) religions must, then, be agnostic - not atheistic.

With all this said, I see, personally, no conflict in an atheist writing about god. Let's face it, Rowling wrote about a wizard ... then made this fictional character, after the fact, gay. She believes in the money get gets from her work - not wizards. Then there's the Blob. I suspect nobody believes the "blob" actually exists - but there certainly was a movie about it. So?

All this says, is that parents should be vigilant about what they allow their children to see. If you believe, don't send your kids. If you don't believe - what's the diff?

It's useful, at least, to have posts like this as it brings awareness to readers but, certainly, as Fossten stated in reference to a stated opinion, "That's your opinion."

If this comment, "As one of the novel's pagan characters puts it, 'Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.'" is accurate (not having, nor intending, to see the film) it clearly discredits the author's knowledge-base anyhow.

Opinions are useful but I'm afraid that's all there is here - just opinions.

This is just my opinion ;)

a non belief a religion? hardly. you would then be setting yourself up to the same branding because of a few extremists. i'm not anti religion. believe in what you will. it's just that i don't believe in the very basis of most practicing religions. budhism would be a religion without a god. atheism has no ritual. no set standards, morals, or ideas. it is non belief, nothing more. if someone is swayed to take up a cause of anti-religion over it, then that is a right guaranteed them in our free society. i live in canada, no first amendment here. but it sounds like you're saying to me that if i don't relate to it as a religion, then i am unable to be one. i think that that is just sheer ludicrousy. after all, religion is the worship of deity, atheism it's denial.

I never said atheism is a formal religion. I said it was effectively a religion and religion to some. My definition is totally dependent on peoples actions. People who try to take "under God" out of the pledge, or remove the Ten Commandments from public building do it on the basis of the establishment clause. Michael Newdow, the man bringing the "under God" case to the supreme court even calls himself "reverend". To use the establishment clause to remove Christianity from the public square is to claim that athiesm is a religion. Otherwise it isn't protected under the Establishment or Free Exercise clauses of the 1st amendment. You seem to be missing the point on that one. Most athiests I know are just as hardcore about their faith in athiest views as are any Christians. Granted most I know are very politically active and young too. You can't say that athiesm isn't a religion and then expect the Supreme Court to recognize it as a religion (which it effectively does). It isn't just a religion when it's convenient. While many may simple hold an athiest point of view, there are also many who are athiest zelots, and even though they don't wanna admit it, athiesm is there religion. Those people have more faith in athiesm then I have ever seen in a Christian.

While atheism disavows the existence of a god (or gods) or any form of supreme being it doesn't, necessarily reject religion.

Dictionary.com includes a definition for religion as "the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions."

while this does not, according to Dictionary, necessarily command a belief in a supreme being, it is generally understood that if you are religious (in the most common sense) you believe in the power of a supreme being.


According to Reference.com, "Buddhism is often described as a religion and a collection of various philosophies, based initially on the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, known as Gautama Buddha. To many, however, Buddhism is not a religion, nor a philosophy or a set of doctrines, but rather teachings to guide one to directly experiencing reality. Buddhism is also known as Buddha Dharma or Dhamma, which means roughly the "teachings of the Awakened One" in Sanskrit and Pali, languages of ancient Buddhist texts. Buddhism began around 5th century BCE with the teachings of Siddhartha Gautama, who was born in what is now Nepal and taught primarily in northern India, and is hereafter referred to as 'the Buddha'."

Taoism, for example, is considered (more) a "quasi-religion".

Subscribers to Bahá'í refer to their belief system as a "faith"

If we give that a religion doesn't necessarily need a supreme being to, in fact, be a religion; then any person who subscribes to these godless (read as explanatory - not derogatory) religions must, then, be agnostic - not atheistic.

With all this said, I see, personally, no conflict in an atheist writing about god. Let's face it, Rowling wrote about a wizard ... then made this fictional character, after the fact, gay. She believes in the money get gets from her work - not wizards. Then there's the Blob. I suspect nobody believes the "blob" actually exists - but there certainly was a movie about it. So?

All this says, is that parents should be vigilant about what they allow their children to see. If you believe, don't send your kids. If you don't believe - what's the diff?

It's useful, at least, to have posts like this as it brings awareness to readers but, certainly, as Fossten stated in reference to a stated opinion, "That's your opinion."

If this comment, "As one of the novel's pagan characters puts it, 'Every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling.'" is accurate (not having, nor intending, to see the film) it clearly discredits the author's knowledge-base anyhow.

Opinions are useful but I'm afraid that's all there is here - just opinions.

This is just my opinion ;)



Your missing my point. Read my previous post.

a non belief a religion? hardly. you would then be setting yourself up to the same branding because of a few extremists. i'm not anti religion. believe in what you will. it's just that i don't believe in the very basis of most practicing religions. budhism would be a religion without a god. atheism has no ritual. no set standards, morals, or ideas. it is non belief, nothing more. if someone is swayed to take up a cause of anti-religion over it, then that is a right guaranteed them in our free society. i live in canada, no first amendment here. but it sounds like you're saying to me that if i don't relate to it as a religion, then i am unable to be one. i think that that is just sheer ludicrousy. after all, religion is the worship of deity, atheism it's denial.
And THERE it is. Denial. Thank you for admitting the truth.

Let me ask you something: If you are an atheist who believes in evolution, then you must believe that we as human beings are nothing but biochemical accidents, mere compositions of molecules moving randomly and aimlessly about. If you are not a created being, but are simply an accident, then you have no purpose. You need no morals, as you can excuse any behavior you choose by simply thinking that you as a mere collection of molecules without a soul cannot discern what is a rational thought and what is not.

If you were not fashioned in the image of God, you are not accountable to a Higher Being in any way, and thus you have no destiny after death. When you die, you will simply cease to exist. In the mean time, your thoughts and sayings are nothing but random acts with no meaning, because you have no meaning. In fact, your very consciousness is not grounded in reality or rationality, since everything you do and say is simply a result of random movements of the molecules and synapses of your body and brain.

On the other hand, if there is a God, which any rational (non-atheist, in other words) being can see by simply looking around at the earth and the universe, He surely does care about you and your behavior, and you will one day stand before Him and give an account of your life. If you lived a life of sin and failed to repent, you will suffer judgment along with everyone else who rejected God. That's not me talking, that's what the Bible says. Disbelieve it if you want to, but if I were you I'd google "Pascal's Wager" before I went to sleep.

"His fan club"...To your beliefs, if there is no "He", how can "He" have a fan base?

Most Christians usually refer to their god as "he" or "him"; I was also paraphrasing a popular bumper sticker.

And THERE it is. Denial. Thank you for admitting the truth.

Let me ask you something: If you are an atheist who believes in evolution, then you must believe that we as human beings are nothing but biochemical accidents, mere compositions of molecules moving randomly and aimlessly about. If you are not a created being, but are simply an accident, then you have no purpose. You need no morals, as you can excuse any behavior you choose by simply thinking that you as a mere collection of molecules without a soul cannot discern what is a rational thought and what is not.

If you were not fashioned in the image of God, you are not accountable to a Higher Being in any way, and thus you have no destiny after death. When you die, you will simply cease to exist. In the mean time, your thoughts and sayings are nothing but random acts with no meaning, because you have no meaning. In fact, your very consciousness is not grounded in reality or rationality, since everything you do and say is simply a result of random movements of the molecules and synapses of your body and brain.

On the other hand, if there is a God, which any rational (non-atheist, in other words) being can see by simply looking around at the earth and the universe, He surely does care about you and your behavior, and you will one day stand before Him and give an account of your life. If you lived a life of sin and failed to repent, you will suffer judgment along with everyone else who rejected God. That's not me talking, that's what the Bible says. Disbelieve it if you want to, but if I were you I'd google "Pascal's Wager" before I went to sleep.

now that sounds like a bible thumper lost in the indoctrination of his religion. yes, when you die thats it. if you want to believe that a person has no purpose, then that would be YOUR opinion. everyone has a role to play in the betterment of mankind and the continuation of the species. in the ideal of evolution, it is of great interest to go back and find out where the beginnings are.without the developement of science and it's ideals, you would not be where you are, sitting and writing on this forum. our knowledge of the universe would still be back at a time where the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around us. there is nothing special about man other than he was able to evolve to higher levels of intelligence and create a written language so knowledge can be better transferred and added to for future generations. as for morals, that's up to the society you live in. and any rational being looking at the whole picture of the universe and it's start could see it's not the product of some omnipotent being who has no beginning and no end. it just exists. i believe more strongly in the beginning of the universe coming from factors not completely understood at this time than some mythical being creating them from nothing. involve yourself in the higher levels of science and it becomes quite clear. i'm a person who needs a little proof and deals within the logic of possibilities and plausible explanations. i don't beleive in magical or mythical beings. if your statements of a god are true, i'd like to see concrete proof of your convictions. after all, the "knowledge" of a mono theistic god has existed for at least 6000 years. yet, human generations in some form have been traced back from fossil records for more than a million. but i know, modern man just appeared out of no where. no, man started like all life, from the simplest beginnings billions of years ago to become what he is. stars are the creators of all elements that make up the building blocks of planets and solar systems and biological life. if you hide behind the ideal of creationism, you will not strive to seek the answers of how it all comes to be. being atheist doesn't leave one without purpose. just as believing in god doesn't give one purpose. it's still what you make of life while you have it. and you should sit down and read a little bit from richard dawkins at some time before creating such strong opinions of "non believers". there are a lot of answers for a lot of things, but somebody must sit in a bias to not even ponder whether they are after the truth or being spoon fed something that isn't plausible with the knowledge of the day.

now that sounds like a bible thumper lost in the indoctrination of his religion. yes, when you die thats it. if you want to believe that a person has no purpose, then that would be YOUR opinion. everyone has a role to play in the betterment of mankind and the continuation of the species. in the ideal of evolution, it is of great interest to go back and find out where the beginnings are.without the developement of science and it's ideals, you would not be where you are, sitting and writing on this forum. our knowledge of the universe would still be back at a time where the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around us. there is nothing special about man other than he was able to evolve to higher levels of intelligence and create a written language so knowledge can be better transferred and added to for future generations. as for morals, that's up to the society you live in. and any rational being looking at the whole picture of the universe and it's start could see it's not the product of some omnipotent being who has no beginning and no end. it just exists. i believe more strongly in the beginning of the universe coming from factors not completely understood at this time than some mythical being creating them from nothing. involve yourself in the higher levels of science and it becomes quite clear. i'm a person who needs a little proof and deals within the logic of possibilities and plausible explanations. i don't beleive in magical or mythical beings. if your statements of a god are true, i'd like to see concrete proof of your convictions. after all, the "knowledge" of a mono theistic god has existed for at least 6000 years. yet, human generations in some form have been traced back from fossil records for more than a million. but i know, modern man just appeared out of no where. no, man started like all life, from the simplest beginnings billions of years ago to become what he is. stars are the creators of all elements that make up the building blocks of planets and solar systems and biological life. if you hide behind the ideal of creationism, you will not strive to seek the answers of how it all comes to be. being atheist doesn't leave one without purpose. just as believing in god doesn't give one purpose. it's still what you make of life while you have it. and you should sit down and read a little bit from richard dawkins at some time before creating such strong opinions of "non believers". there are a lot of answers for a lot of things, but somebody must sit in a bias to not even ponder whether they are after the truth or being spoon fed something that isn't plausible with the knowledge of the day.


He doesn't have to prove; its called "faith" for a reason. Just as you put your faith in science (and the scientific community and all it's personal bias). You put your "faith" in (among other things) darwinian evolution even though it has never been proven, and can't be. It will never be more then a theory, and a less believable one as time goes by. Your statement seems as much (if not more) based on "faith" as Fosstens previous post. If you "believe" in Darwinian evolution and man-made global warming, due to a "consensus" then you are doing so on faith.

"everyone has a role to play in the betterment of mankind and the continuation of the species" Why? Christianity gives an expanation, though you don't wanna accept it. So what is your justification? Who are you to determine whether I have a "role" to play. It sounds like you are subscribing to fate, specifically one guided by some sort of "plan" (hence the use of the word "betterment").

now that sounds like a bible thumper lost in the indoctrination of his religion. yes, when you die thats it. if you want to believe that a person has no purpose, then that would be YOUR opinion. everyone has a role to play in the betterment of mankind and the continuation of the species. in the ideal of evolution, it is of great interest to go back and find out where the beginnings are.without the developement of science and it's ideals, you would not be where you are, sitting and writing on this forum. our knowledge of the universe would still be back at a time where the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around us. there is nothing special about man other than he was able to evolve to higher levels of intelligence and create a written language so knowledge can be better transferred and added to for future generations. as for morals, that's up to the society you live in. and any rational being looking at the whole picture of the universe and it's start could see it's not the product of some omnipotent being who has no beginning and no end. it just exists. i believe more strongly in the beginning of the universe coming from factors not completely understood at this time than some mythical being creating them from nothing. involve yourself in the higher levels of science and it becomes quite clear. i'm a person who needs a little proof and deals within the logic of possibilities and plausible explanations. i don't beleive in magical or mythical beings. if your statements of a god are true, i'd like to see concrete proof of your convictions. after all, the "knowledge" of a mono theistic god has existed for at least 6000 years. yet, human generations in some form have been traced back from fossil records for more than a million. but i know, modern man just appeared out of no where. no, man started like all life, from the simplest beginnings billions of years ago to become what he is. stars are the creators of all elements that make up the building blocks of planets and solar systems and biological life. if you hide behind the ideal of creationism, you will not strive to seek the answers of how it all comes to be. being atheist doesn't leave one without purpose. just as believing in god doesn't give one purpose. it's still what you make of life while you have it. and you should sit down and read a little bit from richard dawkins at some time before creating such strong opinions of "non believers". there are a lot of answers for a lot of things, but somebody must sit in a bias to not even ponder whether they are after the truth or being spoon fed something that isn't plausible with the knowledge of the day.
Now, Hrmwrm, was that you that replied to my post, or was that a bunch of random acts by a collection of molecules? See, based on your own beliefs, there really IS no YOU.

By the way, I've read quite a bit of Richard Dawkins, and he's the nastiest, name-calling, non-debating atheist I've ever seen, including Christopher Hitchens. He is a disgrace to his own profession and his own belief system. He proves my point - atheism is devoid of a moral compass. And you just proved my point as well, by calling me a "bible thumper." So you resort to name-calling just like your hero Dawkins. Very telling. Especially since you ignore the FACT that I used a very logical and non-Biblical argument. Your response was knee-jerk and not at all convincing.

For example, you just admitted that you believe in the Big Bang Theory, supporting which theory is ZERO evidence or plausible explanation, yet you accept it on faith - this despite there was NO EYEWITNESS. Then you say that you don't believe in magical or mythical beings, then you say that STARS are the CREATORS? Get a clue big guy, you are very confused.

Typical...Your type always have to toss the stones dont you?

Talk about tossing stones.

Since when did you know my type?

People can believe in any religion they want to but then you have the extremists, and not everyone that believes in religion is a fanatic nut case.



Regardless, fantasy or scifi ITS NOT REAL why would it be taken seriously. I still stand with what I said about that.

Seeing your reaction to that, I think you shouldn't talk about certain types of people and their beliefs and how you feel it is typical of them to toss stones.

And THERE it is. Denial. Thank you for admitting the truth.

Let me ask you something: If you are an atheist who believes in evolution, then you must believe that we as human beings are nothing but biochemical accidents, mere compositions of molecules moving randomly and aimlessly about. If you are not a created being, but are simply an accident, then you have no purpose. You need no morals, as you can excuse any behavior you choose by simply thinking that you as a mere collection of molecules without a soul cannot discern what is a rational thought and what is not.

If you were not fashioned in the image of God, you are not accountable to a Higher Being in any way, and thus you have no destiny after death. When you die, you will simply cease to exist. In the mean time, your thoughts and sayings are nothing but random acts with no meaning, because you have no meaning. In fact, your very consciousness is not grounded in reality or rationality, since everything you do and say is simply a result of random movements of the molecules and synapses of your body and brain.

On the other hand, if there is a God, which any rational (non-atheist, in other words) being can see by simply looking around at the earth and the universe, He surely does care about you and your behavior, and you will one day stand before Him and give an account of your life. If you lived a life of sin and failed to repent, you will suffer judgment along with everyone else who rejected God. That's not me talking, that's what the Bible says. Disbelieve it if you want to, but if I were you I'd google "Pascal's Wager" before I went to sleep.

There you go again, putting God into a little box, of either "it's this way or it isn't". Why does it HAVE to be an accident, if there isn't a God; who made those ground rules? Why should people do without morals if there isn't a God? Why are peoples lives "meaningless" if there isn't a God by deafult?

Are you implying that the only reason you don't go on a raping, pillaging and killing spree is because you believe God will cast you out, once you die, if you do?

Your "Pascal's Wager" scenario is nothing more than an attempt to sway people by means of fear, aka Boogeyman tactics.

My question is, how can an athiest "hate God", or "kill God"
To their way of thinking, if there is no god, how can the above be true?
I have a friend who is a self proclaimed athiest, and always takes God's name in vain. If there is no god, then how can "god", damn it? Whatever "IT" is...I personally will stay away from this movie, and so will my kids, but with my kids, its their choice. They read up on EVERY movie they think they want to see, before they go...some awesome guys!
I suspect because atheists see the word “god” or “God” as just a word and therefore using God’s name is meaningless and is nothing but an expression rather than some quasi-belief that God exists. Atheists aren’t trying to kill God in the physical or literal sense. They are trying to sanitize God from society including government and the public square. An example of this would be Rosie O’Donnell’s hate for Christian beliefs, certainly with respect to Christian opposition to same-sex marriage. And the list goes on, which began with the Scopes evolution trial to removing prayer from public schools to the current trend, which is to remove Christianity from the public square entirely by calling expression of Christian beliefs, “hate speech.”

Pot, meet kettle. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Newdow)

Who's the fanatic now?


I pledge allegiance to my Flag,
and to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible,
With Liberty and Justice for all. (circa 1892)

You do realize that "Under God" was added to the pledge in 1954 right? So not sure your "athiest are trying to force their 'religion' down our throats" stance works.

The fanatics tend to be the people who try and force/pass their own religious views and interpretations of holy scripture as laws which everyone must adhere to.

He doesn't have to prove; its called "faith" for a reason. Just as you put your faith in science (and the scientific community and all it's personal bias). You put your "faith" in (among other things) darwinian evolution even though it has never been proven, and can't be. It will never be more then a theory, and a less believable one as time goes by. Your statement seems as much (if not more) based on "faith" as Fosstens previous post. If you "believe" in Darwinian evolution and man-made global warming, due to a "consensus" then you are doing so on faith.

"everyone has a role to play in the betterment of mankind and the continuation of the species" Why? Christianity gives an expanation, though you don't wanna accept it. So what is your justification? Who are you to determine whether I have a "role" to play. It sounds like you are subscribing to fate, specifically one guided by some sort of "plan" (hence the use of the word "betterment").

"Less believable as time goes on"? You really think that about evolution? BTW, Darwin was a pioneer in the field, he definitely didn't get it perfectly correct, as much of his work has been revised/reworked as new and improved scientific methods allow us to better understand. No one really subscribes to "Origin of the Species" as unquestionable facts, like I said, he was a pioneer; he laid the ground work; it's been a slow steady process since then. Gravity is also just a theory, yet you believe in gravity, right?

-

I love how (some) the religious ones ask for proof, when given, they deny/disregard and demand "more proof", yet hide behind their safety blanket of "I have faith" when asked for proof to substantiate their claims.

"Less believable as time goes on"? You really think that about evolution? BTW, Darwin was a pioneer in the field, he definitely didn't get it perfectly correct, as much of his work has been revised/reworked as new and improved scientific methods allow us to better understand. No one really subscribes to "Origin of the Species" as unquestionable facts, like I said, he was a pioneer; he laid the ground work; it's been a slow steady process since then. Gravity is also just a theory, yet you believe in gravity, right?

-

I love how (some) the religious ones ask for proof, when given, they deny/disregard and demand "more proof", yet hide behind their safety blanket of "I have faith" when asked for proof to substantiate their claims.
Uh...you were taught in school about the "theory of gravity (http://www.jimloy.com/physics/gravity.htm)?" LOL What school did you go to? Credibility alert!

By the way, before you spout off about Darwin being a pioneer, you should read Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box."

i'm sorry fossten. bible thumper should have read "creationist".as for proof, it is as i said. the weight of evidence stands very high. the fossil record speaks volumes of the past earth. and yes, dawkins is a bit of a zealot, but i admire him for the strength of his views in reality. and i didn't say stars are THE creator, just without them, nothing would be made. do you understand the fundamental laws of how a star works? and why do you keep refering to me as a bunch of random acts of molecules? a living thing is a compilation of wonder. i'm as awed at it as you. i just don't believe, based upon huge amounts of evidence that are contrary to your ideals, that it was all started by 1 omnipotent being. creationists are a dying breed with no evidence of their reality except for "the word". and shagdrum, i don't need actual proof, just any sort of real evidence might sway me. but alas, there is none that exists except some texts from a time when people created ideas to be able to explain how it all came to be. funny how throughout history, there are so many different kinds of ideals. just depends on where you lived at the time and when in history you were. and on a final note, pascals wager would lead me to the idea of it's logic that i should still believe in santa claus under the hopes of getting a present, or the tooth fairy so as i age and lose teeth, i might get something for them. it's very outdated logical attitude was years before high evidence against gods existence surfaced. shagdrum thinks my ideas are based on faith? no, they are based an a very real amount of evidence that creationist's just care to turn a blind eye to and stand in thier corner of ignorance of truth. the evidence is very compelling. and darwin's ideals may be a theory, but there is a lot of evidence to stand behind his theory. where is the evidence for the creationists side? but, i know as well as shagdrum and fossten, that i will not sway them in thier ideals, and neither they me, so i will desist if they will. and we may humbly co-exist on this forum as we always have before this encounter.

Uh...you were taught in school about the "theory of gravity (http://www.jimloy.com/physics/gravity.htm)?" LOL What school did you go to? Credibility alert!

By the way, before you spout off about Darwin being a pioneer, you should read Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box."

Yeah, I learned Newton's Laws in H.S.... some I.D. proponents and creationist refute gravity as a law, based on certain factors, you missed my point.

Does Behe have proof that someone else came up with Evolution before Darwin, therefore not making Darwin a pioneer in the field?

Edit... I looked up Behe, he uses the "Irreducible Complexity", which is laughable at best. Did you know that Behe testified as an "expert witness" in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, he flopped, along with the other two I.D. "experts.

95DevilleNS, I will set you and hrmwrm straight on this tomorrow. It is 4:30 in the morning here and I am too tired to respond here tonight.

Yeah, I learned Newton's Laws in H.S.... some I.D. proponents and creationist refute gravity as a law, based on certain factors, you missed my point.

Does Behe have proof that someone else came up with Evolution before Darwin, therefore not making Darwin a pioneer in the field?

Edit... I looked up Behe, he uses the "Irreducible Complexity", which is laughable at best. Did you know that Behe testified as an "expert witness" in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, he flopped, along with the other two I.D. "experts.

Spoken like someone in denial. You question whether or not evolution becomes less and less believable, yet you refuse to examine evidence that demonstrates this. Go read the book - I have. You don't even know what "irreducible complexity" is, or you wouldn't say it's laughable. He RESEARCHED irreducible complexity, something Darwin wasn't aware of when he claimed that the cell was the smallest particle, which IS laughable. What's also laughable is you calling gravity a "theory." You have no credibility on this subject, especially since you're unwilling to examine evidence that might show you to be wrong. I on the other hand have done so. I've looked at the evidence presented by evolutionists and creationists alike, and have determined on my own without somebody else telling me, that evolution is a crock. I'm confident in this. You on the other hand are not so confident - in fact, you are not very sure of yourself - that's why you continue to say things like, "Well, evolution is always improving" and "Evolution isn't a perfect science yet".

The global warming debate has proven one very important fact: Scientific consensus doesn't mean squat. Science has nothing to do with consensus. Yet the evolutionary debate is as much about consensus as GW is. They're both as full of baloney as eugenics was.

Spoken like someone in denial. You question whether or not evolution becomes less and less believable, yet you refuse to examine evidence that demonstrates this. Go read the book - I have. You don't even know what "irreducible complexity" is, or you wouldn't say it's laughable. He RESEARCHED irreducible complexity, something Darwin wasn't aware of when he claimed that the cell was the smallest particle, which IS laughable. What's also laughable is you calling gravity a "theory." You have no credibility on this subject, especially since you're unwilling to examine evidence that might show you to be wrong. I on the other hand have done so. I've looked at the evidence presented by evolutionists and creationists alike, and have determined on my own without somebody else telling me, that evolution is a crock. I'm confident in this. You on the other hand are not so confident - in fact, you are not very sure of yourself - that's why you continue to say things like, "Well, evolution is always improving" and "Evolution isn't a perfect science yet".

The global warming debate has proven one very important fact: Scientific consensus doesn't mean squat. Science has nothing to do with consensus. Yet the evolutionary debate is as much about consensus as GW is. They're both as full of baloney as eugenics was.

I've read up on Behe, his work is laughable; he conceded his own points during the trial where he testified as an "expert witness" on I.D. "Irreducible Complexity" (certain biological aspect being to complex to form from simplier forms, the 'watch in sand' argument etc.) is a crucial aspect for I.D., who's in denial now? Like I said, it's proponents of I.D. that call gravity a theory, that's the angle I was using (of course you won't listen; it's fine), Google "theory of gravity", you'll get several hits on it by I.D. pushers.

Yes, Evolution science isn't a perfected science where no further research needs to be done; that certainly doesn't make it less credible. It's a step by step process, like all other sciences. By your logic, we should just give up if the first attempt at research doesn't bear perfection. We might as well give up researching cancer, AIDS and Alzheimer treatments too.

BTW, I am curious to your response to my "Pledge" & "God" posts above...

Its typical of you personally Dun, I've read your posts.
I must apologise though, as I didnt intend to go so huge on the quote.

I've read up on Behe, his work is laughable; he conceded his own points during the trial where he testified as an "expert witness" on I.D. "Irreducible Complexity" (certain biological aspect being to complex to form from simplier forms, the 'watch in sand' argument etc.) is a crucial aspect for I.D., who's in denial now? Like I said, it's proponents of I.D. that call gravity a theory, that's the angle I was using (of course you won't listen; it's fine), Google "theory of gravity", you'll get several hits on it by I.D. pushers.

Yes, Evolution science isn't a perfected science where no further research needs to be done; that certainly doesn't make it less credible. It's a step by step process, like all other sciences. By your logic, we should just give up if the first attempt at research doesn't bear perfection. We might as well give up researching cancer, AIDS and Alzheimer treatments too.

BTW, I am curious to your response to my "Pledge" & "God" posts above...
If you're trying to equate evolution theory with AIDS and Alzheimer's research, then I agree with your comparison. After all, AIDS and Alzheimer's are diseases that need a cure. To atheists, evolution is the cure to the need to believe in a living God. Continuing the theme that this "disease" needs a cure, scientists will spend any amount of money they can get their hands on and try any experiment they can think of in order to come up with a solution, just like they do with AIDS and Alzheimer's. If an experiment or line of thinking doesn't work, they will try something else in their neverending quest to prove that God did not create the universe. Even if they have to invent new ideas and processes, the quest continues, for stamping out the belief in God is the ultimate goal. They will even convince some religious people that God USED evolution, an attempt to at least somewhat reduce the importance of God's role in creation. Yes, we all need to donate to "anti-God research," especially if we have relatives who suffer from this awful disease. It's a moral imperative that we replace this antiquated, old-fashioned, Puritan belief system with something more, er, contemporary and enlightened.

Thank you for clarifying my point.

Oh, and by the way, Behe is right and you are wrong. And laughable. I read all of Behe's testimony in that trial, and he didn't fumble squat. You haven't read all of his testimony, you've only read what TalkOrigins says about it. Why don't you go to True Origins and see Behe's response to his critics? Oh, but I know you don't want to do that. It wouldn't do to have your bubble popped, would it?

If you're trying to equate evolution theory with AIDS and Alzheimer's research, then I agree with your comparison. After all, AIDS and Alzheimer's are diseases that need a cure. To atheists, evolution is the cure to the need to believe in a living God. Continuing the theme that this "disease" needs a cure, scientists will spend any amount of money they can get their hands on and try any experiment they can think of in order to come up with a solution, just like they do with AIDS and Alzheimer's. If an experiment or line of thinking doesn't work, they will try something else in their neverending quest to prove that God did not create the universe. Even if they have to invent new ideas and processes, the quest continues, for stamping out the belief in God is the ultimate goal. They will even convince some religious people that God USED evolution, an attempt to at least somewhat reduce the importance of God's role in creation. Yes, we all need to donate to "anti-God research," especially if we have relatives who suffer from this awful disease. It's a moral imperative that we replace this antiquated, old-fashioned, Puritan belief system with something more, er, contemporary and enlightened.

Thank you for clarifying my point.

Oh, and by the way, Behe is right and you are wrong. And laughable. I read all of Behe's testimony in that trial, and he didn't fumble squat. You haven't read all of his testimony, you've only read what TalkOrigins says about it. Why don't you go to True Origins and see Behe's response to his critics? Oh, but I know you don't want to do that. It wouldn't do to have your bubble popped, would it?


There you go again, thumping your 'holier than thou' chest and spinning what people say to fit your agenda... nothing changes I guess. "Clarifying" your point, lol.

Let me ask you something, besides your faith, do you have any credible shred of proof that there is a God to begin with and/or God created Adam from dirt? The earth only 6k years old? Where's that Ark? You want to have your cake and eat it too.

If you recall, this isn't the first time we've spoken about evolution or Behe for that matter; if I recall correctly, we first spoke of Behe about a year ago, when you posted the "watch evolution in sand" (or something like that) argument, which was good for a laugh.

Behe's work at best is pseudo-science, that's a fact you need to come to terms with. No, I didn't read up on Behe at 'Talk Origins', I wasn't aware he was covered on there. Sure, I'll check out ‘True Orgins’.

There you go again, thumping your 'holier than thou' chest and spinning what people say to fit your agenda... nothing changes I guess. "Clarifying" your point, lol.

Let me ask you something, besides your faith, do you have any credible shred of proof that there is a God to begin with and/or God created Adam from dirt? The earth only 6k years old? Where's that Ark? You want to have your cake and eat it too.

If you recall, this isn't the first time we've spoken about evolution or Behe for that matter; if I recall correctly, we first spoke of Behe about a year ago, when you posted the "watch evolution in sand" (or something like that) argument, which was good for a laugh.

Behe's work at best is pseudo-science, that's a fact you need to come to terms with. No, I didn't read up on Behe at 'Talk Origins', I wasn't aware he was covered on there. Sure, I'll check out ‘True Orgins’.

Look, Deville, you are guilty of the same thing you accuse me of. I have yet to see links that back up your assertions about Behe. So don't get mad when I call you on it.

As far as my faith being my only evidence, I only have my COMMON SENSE.

I will leave you with a passage of Scripture to ponder, from Romans 1:

17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.

18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness;

19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 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:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.

24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:

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. Amen.

Its typical of you personally Dun, I've read your posts.
I must apologise though, as I didnt intend to go so huge on the quote.

I accept that apology but reading my posts has nothing to do with what I believe in and how I keep faith,.... and nothing in terms of this topic:) .

There you go again, thumping your 'holier than thou' chest and spinning what people say to fit your agenda... nothing changes I guess. "Clarifying" your point, lol.

Let me ask you something, besides your faith, do you have any credible shred of proof that there is a God to begin with and/or God created Adam from dirt? The earth only 6k years old? Where's that Ark? You want to have your cake and eat it too.

If you recall, this isn't the first time we've spoken about evolution or Behe for that matter; if I recall correctly, we first spoke of Behe about a year ago, when you posted the "watch evolution in sand" (or something like that) argument, which was good for a laugh.

Behe's work at best is pseudo-science, that's a fact you need to come to terms with. No, I didn't read up on Behe at 'Talk Origins', I wasn't aware he was covered on there. Sure, I'll check out ‘True Orgins’.
Deville, I take it that you must not believe in the supernatural?

Deville, I take it that you must not believe in the supernatural?


Like ghost, werewolves and magic? If so, I certainly do not. Why?

Like ghost, werewolves and magic? If so, I certainly do not. Why?

He means God, angels, and demons you ninny.

He means God, angels, and demons you ninny.


To me, those would fall under the mythological or spiritual genre, you dolt. You bring up a good point, why believe in demons, but not believe in vampires. zombies, ghost etc? They both have (about) equal proof of their existance.

I do believe in God (at least I'm willing to bet there's a far greater chance that a higher power exist, than not), I just don't subscribe to any the dogmatic tenets of Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism, Zorastrism etc. etc. etc.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MeSSwKffj9o

Since you posted a youtube link then I will as well. I think this is an interesting argument for Proof God is Real (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c&feature=related#).

i'm sorry. i said i was out, but this just keeps going too far. i believe my first evaluation of you right fossten, when you take a book written by MAN to prove your point. the book you refer to is but an 1700+ year old story compiled by roman ideals of the time. they put in what they wanted, and only what they wanted, and through away the rest and did eveything they could to delete any other form of christianity of the day. your quotes are from a book that is heavily biased on what 1 ideal of the time was. it's rather quite laughable. belief in god has nothing to do with religion. using quotes from religious texts for proof is quite feeble. science, if you wish to steer this from that direction, is based on the best AVAILABLE EVIDENCE at the time. as new evidence comes to light, sometimes sequences or series of events change, but the overall ideal doesn't. if you don't believe technology is capable of things, why do you drive a car, or sit writing at this forum using electricity developed from proven methods of science? you don't have faith in science, yet everyday you have nothing but interaction with it. you haven't mentioned anything about the fossil records that keeps being brought up by me. you seem to evade that topic. i really don't believe you are 1 of those that believe the earth is only 6000 years old. you seem a little too well educated for that. something a person who has a strong ideal in god has trouble with as the proof against an omnipotent being becomes stronger is the diminishing importance he has in the universe. without that belief, they feel there is no purpose in life. it becomes meaningless. that is what you stated to me earlier fossten. that my life is meaningless without belief. but guess what, it's not. i don't need a belief in a higher power to find purpose. when reality sets in, you hold your crutch of god to carry you on. the only true purpose to life, at it's most basic form, is to survive and replicate. what you do with the time between birth and death is up to you. societies have created many things,and whether you choose to participate is up to you. life is not accident. it is something that comes about when conditions are right for it. do you believe earth is the only planet with life? you think earth is unique?. if it is, why would have god cared about this microscopic little spot within the vastness of the universe. if the universe was scaled down to the size of the earth, we are not even the size of an atom. yet god can pick us out of this vastness. now that is incomprehendable. hell, if even our own galaxy is scaled down to the size of the earth, our planet is still not even a grain of sand on a beach. it is just too staggering to believe that a single entity could be in control of all this. i will believe in the reality, not mythical things created to control societies, as all religions have been created to do so since there ever first has been one. after all, believing in god answers many questions that don't as yet have an answer. why question creation if it's god's work? because it isn't god's work, it's part of a natural order. the little you tube link talks about time and infinite time, but you must remember, time doesn't exist unless it is measured.

hrmwrm,

I will not read any long rant that is not separated into paragraphs. If you want to converse and you cannot be more concise, then at least please make your lengthy rants more readable. Interpret this any way you like, but you are acting like a troll. I don't really care what you think of this response; My time is too valuable to waste trying to separate out all of your words.

I don't mind discussing this with you, please don't get me wrong. I am just asking for some courtesy.

Whether you do, or dont, there is plenty to be thankfull for in our beautiful land...and certainly we need to be thankful that we have the freedom to carry on discussions like this!

Happy Thanksgiving, everyone!

As for me, and my house, we will be thankful to God for everything He has done for us!

Since you posted a youtube link then I will as well. I think this is an interesting argument for Proof God is Real (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEXGKzH0F9c&feature=related#).


That guy is a narrow minded biased ass-clown... "We don't know, therefore, it MUST be God" (and not only God, but my view of God).

Time could be circular, like a loop, no real beginning, no real end. Just food for thought.

I do have a question though, if everything has to have a beginning, like time, space and matter, why is God exempt from these laws?

Happy Thanksgiving all!

I do have a question though, if everything has to have a beginning, like time, space and matter, why is God exempt from these laws?

Happy Thanksgiving all!
God is not bound by the laws that He created.

Rev. 22:1 - I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.

Colossians 1:16-17 - For by him were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him: And he is before all things, and by him all things consist.

Isaiah 55:8 - For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

fossten, sorry about the last one. i will try to remeber to seperate into paragraphs a bit. but this last one, the beginning and the end? that leaves you to not question anything. which leads to the conclusion of blind faith. which would lead me to believe it is the blind leading the blind. that's not any way to run anything.

you are content to just leave things as gods way. i like to question things. why, when, how, where. i look for evidence of things. and i just don't see evidence stacking up in favour of something you are not supposed to question. sounds a little like a recently fallen empire. we tell you what to do, and you do as you are told. that is gods way.

i wouldn't compare myself to the pope, but neither would i to a criminal. you say any rational person can see there is a god. well, i'm a very rational, logical person who sees that it totally unbelievable from any stand point. especially from a religious point of view. from just a point of possibility, it is more plausible. but still highly unlikely.

fossten, sorry about the last one. i will try to remeber to seperate into paragraphs a bit. but this last one, the beginning and the end? that leaves you to not question anything. which leads to the conclusion of blind faith. which would lead me to believe it is the blind leading the blind. that's not any way to run anything.

I was answering Deville, not addressing you in that post. But you adding a pejorative to my faith by calling it blind will not advance the discussion. I might as well respond in kind by quoting Psalm 14:1 - how would that be for you?

you are content to just leave things as gods way. i like to question things. why, when, how, where. i look for evidence of things. and i just don't see evidence stacking up in favour of something you are not supposed to question. sounds a little like a recently fallen empire. we tell you what to do, and you do as you are told. that is gods way.

If I really thought you were trying to find evidence of God, I would steer you in the right direction. As it stands right now, you appear to have your mind made up. So why bother, right?

i wouldn't compare myself to the pope, but neither would i to a criminal. you say any rational person can see there is a god. well, i'm a very rational, logical person who sees that it totally unbelievable from any stand point. especially from a religious point of view. from just a point of possibility, it is more plausible. but still highly unlikely.

Okay, do you believe there is no God or don't you? I'm confused now. You sound like you're waffling.

Let's put it this way: Have you ever seen a Tibetan yak? If not, would it be fair to say there are some things you do not know? Thomas Edison said, "We do not know a millionth of one percent about anything."

The statement "There is no God" is an absolute statement. To make that statement accurately, you must have absolute knowledge, correct? For example, saying "There is no gold in China" is absurd, because we all know there is gold in China, and we don't need absolute knowledge to know that.

Let's say that the circle below represents all the knowledge in the universe. The small white pixel represents all the knowledge that man has accumulated.

http://img216.imageshack.us/img216/8458/step3circle1ny6.gif

Is it possible, in the 99% of the knowledge you haven't yet come across, that there is ample evidence to prove that God exists?

If you are rational and reasonable, you must answer "Yes, it is possible, so I don't know."

Therefore you must say, "With the limited knowledge I have at present I've come to the conclusion that there is no God, but I really don't know."

If you are honest, you will say that. If you say that, then you are sincerely still seeking evidence that either proves or disproves the existence of God. If you are doing that, I have some sources that I can direct you to. If not, then we don't need to continue this peeing contest, do we?

i'm aware of who you were addressing. it is blind faith, is it not? that is speaking within the lines of me being particles and not existing. you carried it that way, not me. but i digress.

quoting things from a recently(historically speaking) book, still is not proof. yours is a re-write from an even older text. i'm not seeking god, but if you wish to steer me to true proof of existence instead of a bunch of double talk and reverse logic, i'd be happy to peruse your evidence. i have read through both old and new testaments, and they leave a rational mind quite lost in belief. i could get into it at length, but not now.

i'm not taking stabs at you, merely counter pointing you. i've also read through the 14 volumes of the gale encyclopedia of religion(version 2). i enjoy history and mankinds roots.

and once again, you leave it to undiscovered proof of gods existence, yet as knowledge grows, there is quickly becoming more evidence against. i would say more evidence against than for, but there is NONE for. i may annoy you, but no more than the annoyance given to me with your biblical quotations. perhaps i,m as narrow minded as the kid in mac 1's link, but to me you seem as narrow minded as well. maybe i might be a little agnostic, cause i'm sure if god started talking to me as he did to others 6000 or so years ago, i'd believe. (or seek psychiatric help) but until then, there is no god, no supernatural, no ghosts, only questions that have yet to be answered.

and unlike blind faith, i am free to ask these questions and seek answers. ps. i would edit my earlier post to be more ledgible, but that doesn't appear possible anymore.

i'm aware of who you were addressing. it is blind faith, is it not? that is speaking within the lines of me being particles and not existing. you carried it that way, not me. but i digress.

quoting things from a recently(historically speaking) book, still is not proof. yours is a re-write from an even older text. i'm not seeking god, but if you wish to steer me to true proof of existence instead of a bunch of double talk and reverse logic, i'd be happy to peruse your evidence. i have read through both old and new testaments, and they leave a rational mind quite lost in belief. i could get into it at length, but not now.

i'm not taking stabs at you, merely counter pointing you. i've also read through the 14 volumes of the gale encyclopedia of religion(version 2). i enjoy history and mankinds roots.

and once again, you leave it to undiscovered proof of gods existence, yet as knowledge grows, there is quickly becoming more evidence against. i would say more evidence against than for, but there is NONE for. i may annoy you, but no more than the annoyance given to me with your biblical quotations. perhaps i,m as narrow minded as the kid in mac 1's link, but to me you seem as narrow minded as well. maybe i might be a little agnostic, cause i'm sure if god started talking to me as he did to others 6000 or so years ago, i'd believe. (or seek psychiatric help) but until then, there is no god, no supernatural, no ghosts, only questions that have yet to be answered.

and unlike blind faith, i am free to ask these questions and seek answers. ps. i would edit my earlier post to be more ledgible, but that doesn't appear possible anymore.
You speak of all this evidence against the existence of God, yet you haven't furnished a shred of it in this discussion. I'm afraid your argument is empty and void. How does the saying go, put your money where your mouth is?

You won't believe the Bible, how about Einstein? Here are some of his quotes:

"The harmony of natural law reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection."

'The religious inclination lies in the dim consciousness that dwells in humans that all nature, including the Humans in it is in no way an accidental game, but a work of lawfulness that there is a fundamental cause of all existence. "

"Try and penetrate with our limited means the secrets of nature and you will find that, behind all the discernable laws and connections, there remains something subtle, intangible and inexplicable. Veneration for this force that is beyond anything that we can comprehend is my religion. To that extent I am, in fact, religious."

As a child I received instructions in both the Bible and the Talmud. I am a Jew but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

"No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

"I am not an atheist. I don't think I can call myself a pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they were written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangement of the books but doesn't know what it is. That, seems to me is the altitude of even the most intelligent human towards God. We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand those laws."

perhaps i,m as narrow minded as the kid in mac 1's link, but to me you seem as narrow minded as well.
If the "kid" in my link is so narrow-minded then I suspect you and your apparently superior and enlightened mind can debunk his arguments of proof of God's existence. It's amazing how you can say there's no proof of God or a creator while at the same time are willing to believe that everything in the known universe was assembled by mere coincidence. I say "coincidence" because that's exactly what you have to think in order to believe that no god or creator exists.

And you call the "kid" in my link "narrow minded." :rolleyes:

well, for proof, i put up in my "illedgible" post about the fossil record. all things were created at once, yet there are many forms of man, some existing in the same timeframe, and of course the dinosaurs that were here well before that. then there are a myriad of creatures that have existed before them. i know, lets go visit the creationists museum who have put a saddle on a dinosaur. darwins theory stands up just fine.

all elements created in the periodic table, are created by stars. that is a known fact. our solar system, pulled together about 4.5 billion years ago, is the remainder of a super nova star. left over gases pool together to create the sun, a much smaller star than the original. all other material pooled together to create the planets as they exist today. the evidence of this is the oort cloud left over beyond the orbit of pluto, where other large mass objects are being found.

proof of this is seen in great gas clouds left in space from past super novas. in the large magellanic cloud and the crab nebula are newly formed stars, created from left over dust and gas from a super nova. the known universe is 14 billion light years across. that is the farthest distance that light can be seen in the best telescopes of earth, both land and space based.

if all things were created at once, including space, time, and earth, how do you account for the huge discrepancy of time for the universe and our own solar system? and einstein lived at a time when we knew very little about our universe. edwin hubble was the first to discover that there aren't just stars up there, but many galaxies beyond our own. the start of the big bang theory was with his discovery that all galaxies are expanding away from each other.

when expansion is put in reverse, all things come back to one starting place. speaking of einstein, his theory also works in reverse. gather a huge enough force of energy, and you create mass. there are a lot of questions yet to be answered, but it makes a very logical and reasonable explanation to me. step out of your box and have a look fossten. the universe is amazing. and many things are not theory and conjecture. the size and age of the universe, the creation of our solar system. the exact beginnings of life are unknown because nobody was there to analyze the first simple forms, although science is close to figuring it out. the knowledge is there, if you care to seek it. but hide behind your blind faith, and you will not seek the answers to anything.

Who said all things were created at once? "when expansion is put in reverse, all things come back to one starting place." What does that prove? How did we go from darwinism to the big bang? They are two different theories? Why do you seem to wanna define the debate as between darwinism or a fundamentalist interpretation of creationism as laid out in the bible? Those are not the only two theories. Intelligent design is another one (and no it isn't just a different name for creationism). If darwin was right it doesn't do anything to disprove god, and vice versa.
In fact, there is very little evidence of the non-exsistance of God. The "evidence" cited is just cleverly spun as disproving God. You can't disprove what someone takes on faith, and most of these people claiming "proof" against the existance of God already take it on "faith" that God doesn't exist. Ultimately the existance of God evidence is all about how it is spun. You can never prove logically beyond a reasonable doubt that God does or doesn't exist. And it doesn't have anything to do with the darwinism debate. That debate hinges on weather, given the knowledge we have, darwins theory of evolution is reasonable, or if it is taken on faith. And the fact is, darwinism is taken on faith (or usually, ignorance); it doesn't hold to reason in light of what we know today. Darwinism can't explain the development of the eye, or other complex organs, let alone a change in species. The discovery of DNA disproves darwin.

shagdrum, dna does prove darwin. i don't see your train of thought there. and the explanation of the eye, there are many species that have a half developed eye, or simply even light sensors to tell darkness from light. check out a nautilus. it has a hollow eye with no cornea, that can detect shapes and shades of light. that would be a mid developement of the eye. it wouldn't be hard to go from there to a fully developed eye. that is the lamest arguement of both intelligent design and creationism.(and yes, they are the same, but take it how you like.)

putting big bang and evolution together explains the full picture of why we are here. you can't have life without somewhere to put it, now can you? and evolution is not on faith, it's based on fact's and evidence. intelligent design would be based on ignorance of fact. and your questioning of all things being created at once would put the religious text into doubt about god then, wouldn't it? so you would be a new wave raver of god who doesn't have a religious belief, just that god exists. and i'd like to know from you just what we know today that puts evolution out of reason?

do you believe there is life on other planets? i don't mean the ones in our solar system, but on the other planets now being discovered around other stars. and i'm not saying intelligent life, but any kind of life. to be truthfully honest shagdrum, you can not concretely prove god is or isn't with todays knowledge. even if we find life on other planets, that only proves earth is not unique. but i believe there is more than enough evidence to prove that a god as stated in religious text does not exist. mankind has invented gods in any civilization throughout history and geography to explain things and control the populace. a biblical god ideal has no answer to the fossil record that proves things started slow and simple on this planet, and man is but a couple of seconds on a 24 hour clock. but that would leave god as still only the creator of the universe. unless past mass extinctions were it's way of trying new life forms. but then, there are answers to that as well.

we will just have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

shagdrum, dna does prove darwin. i don't see your train of thought there. and the explanation of the eye, there are many species that have a half developed eye, or simply even light sensors to tell darkness from light. check out a nautilus. it has a hollow eye with no cornea, that can detect shapes and shades of light. that would be a mid developement of the eye. it wouldn't be hard to go from there to a fully developed eye. that is the lamest arguement of both intelligent design and creationism.(and yes, they are the same, but take it how you like.)

putting big bang and evolution together explains the full picture of why we are here. you can't have life without somewhere to put it, now can you? and evolution is not on faith, it's based on fact's and evidence. intelligent design would be based on ignorance of fact. and your questioning of all things being created at once would put the religious text into doubt about god then, wouldn't it? so you would be a new wave raver of god who doesn't have a religious belief, just that god exists. and i'd like to know from you just what we know today that puts evolution out of reason?

do you believe there is life on other planets? i don't mean the ones in our solar system, but on the other planets now being discovered around other stars. and i'm not saying intelligent life, but any kind of life. to be truthfully honest shagdrum, you can not concretely prove god is or isn't with todays knowledge. even if we find life on other planets, that only proves earth is not unique. but i believe there is more than enough evidence to prove that a god as stated in religious text does not exist. mankind has invented gods in any civilization throughout history and geography to explain things and control the populace. a biblical god ideal has no answer to the fossil record that proves things started slow and simple on this planet, and man is but a couple of seconds on a 24 hour clock. but that would leave god as still only the creator of the universe. unless past mass extinctions were it's way of trying new life forms. but then, there are answers to that as well.

we will just have to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.
The exoplanets that have been discovered have not been determined (http://answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#65) to support life, and scientists know very little about them. Furthermore, it is easier to accept a creation explanation than an evolutionary one. There is no possibility of empirical verification of their origin, so in layman's terms they don't prove anything.

You're basing your entire proof that God doesn't exist on your belief in evolution. You point out the time of the universe and our solar system as a problem for creationists. I'm not exactly sure what you mean about that, but I have some articles for you to read. This article (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/lighttravel.asp) explains how the light-travel time problem is a bigger problem for Big Bang theorists than for creationists. You also have a big problem explaining the 300 mature galaxies (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v27/i1/galaxy.asp) in the redshift desert. If these galaxies are supposed to be in earlier stages of evolution due to their distance from us, they should be younger galaxies. (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i3/galaxies.asp)

By the way, now evolutionists are beginning to abandon (http://answersingenesis.org/docs2/4325news6-14-2000.asp) the theory that the Big Bang was even the actual beginning of the universe. They say that it was just a turning point and the result of a slow burning fuse. This string theory is based on no science and is nothing more than a made-up story. So your own trust in the Big Bang may be premature, as now your tale-spinners are coming up with something else. Of course, the "inflationary theory" (http://answersingenesis.org/Docs/399.asp#65) is as close to actual Creationist theory itself, the only difference being that it leaves out an actual Creator. Sounds like denial to me.

As far as DNA proving evolution, you obviously have not done the research. DNA has always been the enemy of evolution (http://answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/genetics.asp). Think again. Evolutionists' chemical experiments attempting to synthesize life formation in the lab using DNA strands failed miserably (http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/cfol/ch1-origin.asp)and ruined their hypothesis.

...there are many species that have a half developed eye, or simply even light sensors to tell darkness from light. check out a nautilus. it has a hollow eye with no cornea, that can detect shapes and shades of light. that would be a mid developement of the eye. it wouldn't be hard to go from there to a fully developed eye.

If it isn't hard to go from a "proto-eye" to a fully developed eye, then show it. Don't just offer some half-ass story of how it could get there. And don't just assert, as you are doin'. For that matter explain the "proto-eye", and how that "evolved" into existance. The fact is the eye has never been explained through evolution, even Darwin admitted he couldn't explain it. So, if you can do better then darwin at his own theory, please do.

As to intelligent design; it isn't just another name for creationism. It is wierd that some think that if evolution is true it disproves God. It doesn't. It isn't even a daunting challenge to faith in God. It is interesting that believers in God don't need evolution to be false, but atheists need evolution to be true. One of Richard Dawkins most famous quotes was, "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled athiest." This is why those who believe in evolution treat any doubts about evolution as religious heresy.

To have any discussion on the issue; a concrete definition must be given. Evolutionists try to confuse the issue (knowingly or unknowingly) by claiming certian things are evolution, when the are not. To be clear, evolution isn't selective breeding. Evolution is not the phenomenon of an existing species changing over the course of many years. In fact, evolution is not adaptive characteristics developing within a species at all. Dawin's theory says we get new species, not a taller version of the same one. Evolution is not proved by genetic similarities among living things, the heritability of characteristics, or the age of the Earth.

The theory of evolution is a three step process:

1: Random mutation of desirable attributes

2: Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" creatures (survival of the fittests)

3: Leading to the creation of a new species

It is wierd that some think that if evolution is true it disproves God. It doesn't. It isn't even a daunting challenge to faith in God.
Agree! They are not mutually exclusive. While I'm inclined to believe God, in some form, exists, I don't think one can prove or disprove such an existence. Faith, after all, is (by definition) the belief in something in the absence of proof.


The theory of evolution is a three step process:

1: Random mutation of desirable attributes

2: Natural selection weeding out the "less fit" creatures (survival of the fittests)

3: Leading to the creation of a new species

While I won't dispute this, I would dispute that this definition is all-encompassing. For example, it was pointed out to me, by a dentist, that some humans are starting to loose their dog-teeth (upper cuspids) ... or, at least, they are changing their shape because we no longer use them (in the same way as humanity used to, at least).

I always believed (as I was taught - and as seem logical to me, at least) part of evolution was "Adaptation by a plant or animal to an evolving change in environmental condition related to that life form."

I seen previews for this movie the other day!


It looks good if you ask me. Looks like a movie that simply helps to encourage the standard imagination into having a bit of fun.

. I always believed (as I was taught - and as seem logical to me, at least) part of evolution was "Adaptation by a plant or animal to an evolving change in environmental condition related to that life form."


Then you weren't taught the specifics. Adaptation and Darwinian evolution are totally different things. Evolution, as defined by Darwin is as I described above. Evolution can have many different meanings; the most basic being "change over time". In this sense evolution, and adaptation are the same thing and no one questions this evolution. Biological evolution has additional meaning. Some biologists define biological evolution as, "a change is gene frequences over generations." My genes are different from my parents and my childrens genes will be different from mine. Again, this definition of biological evolution is uncontroversial. Charles Darwin didn't use the term biological evolution, but instead, "decent with modification." In a limited sense, this is even uncontroversial. It happens all the time within existing species; breeding race horses, breeding prize winning dogs, ect. Darwin defined evolution very specifically, and that definition is what is controversial.

The dentist example you cite would be adaptation, or "decent with modification" under Darwin. Adaptation and evolution (in the Darwinian sense) are two very distinct and different things.

Dawinists exploit the many meanings of "evolution" to distract critics. Eugenie Scott recommends: "define evolution as an issue of the history of the planet: as the way we try to understnad change through time. The present is different from the past. Evolution happened, there is no debate within science as to whether it happened, and so on...I have used this approach at the college level". Scott says that once she gets agreement on that idea, she gradually introduces them to "the Big Idea", that all species are related through descent from a common ancestor. "Darwin called this 'descent with modification' and it is still the best definition of evolution we can use." This underhanded tactic is known as "equivocation"; changing the meaning of the term in the middle of an argument.

first, fossten; i never said the planets discovered yet support life. don't put things in there that i didn't say. i merely asked if you(shagdrum actually) believe there is life elsewhere, or if earth is unique. and the rest is just double talk to what i say. you carry on about things i don't even say, and attribute them to me. i don't base my disbelief in god solely on evolution. and as for your links, they are based from religious background physicists and are your own propaganda for perpetuating the god myth. when you can get proof from science based sites and not dogma based sites, i'll peruse them. but thanks for the biology lesson. oxygen didn't exist until plants were formed.
quite frankly, i've got better things to do with my time than run around finding links on the web. good thing you found them all from 1 site.

and shagdrum; evolution does prove a god based within the religious texts doesn't exist. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html
here are a few little movies you may wish to peruse if you have time. and as i did say, if you take the religious ideal out, and believe a god started the universe, and everything falls in place after according to known facts, then there is no proof either way.

you may want to try these links as well
http://richarddawkins.net/growingupintheuniverse and from a site you will call propaganda http://www.atheists.org/evolution/index.html no i'm not a member, never been there before. but thanks for forcing me to find a few links. i now have some more places to visit for info. and heres a little article about the true wording of "theory" and what it represents in scientific circles. theory doesn't mean "probable" http://richarddawkins.net/article,1876,Why-Science-Will-Triumph-Only-When-Theory-Becomes-Law,Clive-Thompson

i could waste more time finding more links, but they would seem biased to you because they aren't from your own biased based sight trying to prove the opposite. quite frankly, i'm tired of running in circles with you. if you think something is true, you will twist the reality any way you wish to make your point. behe is shot down in the pbs links. i think in part 8. say what you will, link to what you will, i will continue to believe in reality, not what is fed to. i'm a free thinker, i don't need to find answers to come to my conclusions. the true evidence is out there, if you choose to seek it. if you look for your evidence from true unbiased science sites fossten, i wouldn't see the evidence as laughable. that sight reminds me of the books that get left by the saturday door knockers. believe in us, we have all the answers you need.

as final note about the starting of this thread, if this show is good, i'll watch and let my daghter watch it. she believes in god, as does my wife. but they have that right and freedom. ever since the courtcase about the teaching of the origin of the species, god believing people have felt soo threatened that they have launched campaigns to disprove it. i wonder why?

It's NOT science - it's just evolution v.s. creationist humour:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uIwiPsgRrOs&feature=related

well now, that was good for a chuckle.

say what you will, link to what you will, i will continue to believe in reality, not what is fed to. i'm a free thinker, i don't need to find answers to come to my conclusions.

now THAT was good for a laugh!!! "I don't need to find answers to reach my own conclusions." Truth be damned!!! HA! I've heard all the arguements (most are pretty self-serving) and, no, evolution doesn't disprove God, or for that matter a form of creationism. If evolution were true, it doesn't mean that God couldn't have started the whole ball rolling, thus proving God created all creatures, through evolution. You must understand the burden of proof for a scientific theory like evolution is different then any burden of proof for God, because the burden of proof for God is practically non-existance; Faith (belief in the absence of proof, or evidence). What you and most athiests try to do is turn the debate into one between evolution and God. This debate is only in your mind, as you can't disprove God because Faith is beyond reason. If you try to say that evolution and God should be held to the same standard, then you are remaking evolution into a matter of Faith, also. Thus proving my point that athiesm is as effectively as much a religion to some as any religion believing in God. You are fighting so hard not to see this, I really wonder why. If evolution is a matter of Faith, then it isn't sound science. And you are a fool if you truely think for a second, that the scientific community is unbias. Psychological projection is a bitch! I am not twisting anything around here, I am trying to provide some clarity on this issue, as well as interject some common sense. You are the one refusing to accept that, and wanting to twist things around, and frustrated because you aren't clever enough to do it (not to offend, at this point in the arguement, most people wouldn't be clever enough to twist the truth, I know I wouldn't). My advise to you is to stop trying to be clever in disagreement , and look at this in an open-minded, intellectually honest way.

you just re-iterated what i said. if you take out the textual based god, and just say that he started things, and that maybe evolution is his grand design, then you can't prove or disprove. no one knows the actual start of the universe. but then that would throw all religions out the door since their god is based on the ceremonies and scripture of thier beliefs. science understands down to a minute amount of time how the physics works, but they don't have all answers yet. the debate of "intelligent design" and evolution comes from creationists trying to throw a monkey wrench in the ideal of evolution. you stated about an eye can't be developed except by design, yet you now say that evolution is gods design? so the eye could very well develop as a process of evolution.

and i don't make the debate into a matter of faith. i simply make the point that if a belief in god is held to the same standard of a burden of proof, it totally falls apart. after all, you just said, faith is beyond reason. yet fossten stated earlier that any reasonable person can see there is a god. i fail to see any logic in either argument.

and as for science and bias, that's only there until a new way is set to the full burden of proof to over turn previous thinking. einstein himself still refused to believe or involve himself in quantum physics even after it was proven. wasn't his statement about it something like god doesn't roll dice? and to the end. i'm very opened minded. also very tolerant. i tell you why i don't believe. it was not to be a debate, but as soon as one starts about no god, inevitably someone comes around stating you must believe, and this is why. maybe we should just go back to the 15 century and still believe the earth is the center of the universe and any free thinking ideals will land you arrested and your ideas squashed. the idea of god as debated is to try and reverse progression of science so as to prove god exists.

as i said, science doesn't have all answers yet. but it took modern man 20,000 years to attain this point. and the greatest achievements have been in the last century or so. there is a particular order that is obeyed within our section of the universe, but it is just as easy to believe that it is from a natural law and not grand design.

If you take out the textual based god, and just say that he started things, and that maybe evolution is his grand design, then you can't prove or disprove.
Yes I was showing how, if evolution is fact, it doesn't disprove God, even on a logical basis. As I stated before; believers in God don't need evolution to be false, but atheists need evolution to be true. Athiests think that if evolution is true it disproves God, which it doesn't. I am unclear, are you agreeing with me here, or not?


the debate of "intelligent design" and evolution comes from creationists trying to throw a monkey wrench in the ideal of evolution.

That is a bunch of ignorance rolled into one statement. You really have no idea what intelligent design is, do you...
I'll try to remember to post more on this tomorrow




you stated about an eye can't be developed except by design, yet you now say that evolution is gods design? so the eye could very well develop as a process of evolution.
You seem like a smart enough person to realize you are comparing apples to oranges here. In the first case I stated that evolution can't explain the development of an eye, or even a "proto-eye".

In the other case I was making a temporary concession to prove a further logical absurdity of your argument. Let me clarify; IF evolution were true, it in no way disproves God. A higher power could just as easily of set evolution in motion.



and i don't make the debate into a matter of faith. i simply make the point that if a belief in god is held to the same standard of a burden of proof, it totally falls apart. after all, you just said, faith is beyond reason.
If you are trying to frame the debate into one of evolution(a scientific theory that is subject to rules of logic and reason) vs. God (a matter purely of faith), then yes you are trying to make the argument about faith. You are trying to discredit faith in a God by proving evolution. What is effectively going on here is that you are trying to reverse the debate to evolution (being a matter of faith, that you refuse to question) vs. God ( where you are trying to take away the benifit of faith and subject this idea to a burden of proof). You are mischaracterizing this argument in order to confuse the issue. It isn't about evolution vs. God; it should be purely about evolution; is it a rational and accurate theory given what we know today? Can you handle that debate? Take God out of it?


i fail to see any logic in either argument.
I don't buy that for a minute. You seem much smarter then that.

and as for science and bias, that's only there until a new way is set to the full burden of proof to over turn previous thinking. einstein himself still refused to believe or involve himself in quantum physics even after it was proven.
I would suggest more accurately, that it has to do wih reigning paradigms in the scientific community, and the bias promoted by them. Also the fact that the government is basically the sole source of funding for research, so many "sky is falling" crackpot theories demand funding from politicians to make them seem responsible. Scientists also wanna get paid, so even when a theory has been firmly disproven, "More research [money] is always needed.

the idea of go