NationStates Jolt Archive

I think people need to read this (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST060502.html)

More and more people here talk about the Crusades as if Christians were the most evil people on the planet as a result of them. Lets not forget that was over 800 years ago. What this is talking about is also happening now

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10242

Bump

Pure trash, IMO.

Pure trash, IMO.

Explain why

I think people need to read this (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST060502.html)

More and more people here talk about the Crusades as if Christians were the most evil people on the planet as a result of them. Lets not forget that was over 800 years ago. What this is talking about is also happening now

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10242


Most religions end up killing people of other religions because every religion has this tendancy to consider pople of other religions to be lower than themselves.

The articles are very biased to say the least. Remember that christians have killed more christians than anyone else.

Thats the problem, Western Christianity is dead. Its because it died in Europe a long time ago, and its slowly dying in America.

Christianity made a mistake in the past, and the world will throw it back in its face until its last church or shrine crummbles. Its how the world works. Humans are illogical creatures which think of themselves before the group. It doesn't matter any scientist, philsopher, or humanist says. Its the truth. It espically doesn't matter what college kids, whom think they are enlightened, they're about as enlightened as the guy working at Blockbuster.

I'm a Christian in America, probably the last "West" stronghold for Christianity. My best advice is to not look at America or Europe as Christian nations and to look to God or Africa or Asia for salvation and assistance. You will more than likely only get a cold shoulder from the West.

Most religions end up killing people of other religions because every religion has this tendancy to consider pople of other religions to be lower than themselves.

I agree with you to an extent. That is a problem, but what I am trying to make clear here is the fact that people disproportinately focus on the Crusades as a Christian flaw, when Islam's flaw is happening now.


The articles are very biased to say the least. Remember that christians have killed more christians than anyone else.

I'd like to see you elaborate on this

I'd like to see you elaborate on this

He's more than likely going to say the "Inquisition" in which Catholics massacured Prodestants. That or the continued Catholic-Protestant war in Ireland.

The article is so inaccurate, it's not even funny. I'm no expert on Islam but I know this much...

Dar Al-Harb: A territory on Earth that is not an Islamic state. That's as simple as it is. The article says that Muslims regard Dar Al-Harb as a warzone. Sure, some radicals might think that but that's not what it truly means.

Jihad: The article keeps saying Jihad means war to Muslims. Jihad is never used in the war context in the Koran at all.

The article says that in Islamic nations, discrimination comes in forms where non-Muslims can't have any jobs that grant authority over Muslims. Well DUH! It's an Islamic state!

The author claims Muhammad spread Islam with the sword. Um, the expansion of Islam didn't come until after he died. Of course I'm not sure how Islam expanded, by I doubt Muslims destroyed and conquered to expand.

He/She is mixing political Islam and the faith of Islam way too much.



As for persecution of Christians, I can't guarantee that Medievel Muslims didn't but the article is incredibly biased and heavily exaggerates. All religions have done cruel things but you can't say the Crusades were an honorable act.

Jihad: The article keeps saying Jihad means war to Muslims. Jihad is never used in the war context in the Koran at all..

The Qu'ran is not the only location for Islamic docrine to be found.


The article says that in Islamic nations, discrimination comes in forms where non-Muslims can't have any jobs that grant authority over Muslims. Well DUH! It's an Islamic state!

Doesnt make it right


The author claims Muhammad spread Islam with the sword. Um, the expansion of Islam didn't come until after he died. Of course I'm not sure how Islam expanded, by I doubt Muslims destroyed and conquered to expand.

They did. And more to the point, Muhammad spread Islam as a result of the Battle of Badra. Now you may say he was being defensvie, but look at him compared to Jesus. Jesus when his life was threatened didnt get his deciples together and form a malitia. He went to his death without resistance. Muhammad killed everyone in his way at the battle of Badra.


As for persecution of Christians, I can't guarantee that Medievel Muslims didn't but the article is incredibly biased and heavily exaggerates. All religions have done cruel things but you can't say the Crusades were an honorable act.

It is arugable that the Crusades were defensive conflicts on the part of the European nations. My point is however that people focus far to much on the Crusades, when Islamic persecution of Christians is happening NOW (see the second article)

The article is so inaccurate, it's not even funny. I'm no expert on Islam but I know this much...

Dar Al-Harb: A territory on Earth that is not an Islamic state. That's as simple as it is. The article says that Muslims regard Dar Al-Harb as a warzone. Sure, some radicals might think that but that's not what it truly means.

Jihad: The article keeps saying Jihad means war to Muslims. Jihad is never used in the war context in the Koran at all.

The article says that in Islamic nations, discrimination comes in forms where non-Muslims can't have any jobs that grant authority over Muslims. Well DUH! It's an Islamic state!

The author claims Muhammad spread Islam with the sword. Um, the expansion of Islam didn't come until after he died. Of course I'm not sure how Islam expanded, by I doubt Muslims destroyed and conquered to expand.

He/She is mixing political Islam and the faith of Islam way too much.



As for persecution of Christians, I can't guarantee that Medievel Muslims didn't but the article is incredibly biased and heavily exaggerates. All religions have done cruel things but you can't say the Crusades were an honorable act.


Your right on most things, but there are a few errors:

1. The article says that in Islamic nations, discrimination comes in forms where non-Muslims can't have any jobs that grant authority over Muslims. Well DUH! It's an Islamic state!

That's technically wrong except for in radically Islamic states(such as Saudi Arabia and Iran). In the worlds first Islamic Republic, Pakistan, it has had many non-muslim leaders(including many Hindus. Not leaders of the entire COUNTRY, mind you, but things like Minister of Education or something like that).

2. The author claims Muhammad spread Islam with the sword. Um, the expansion of Islam didn't come until after he died. Of course I'm not sure how Islam expanded, by I doubt Muslims destroyed and conquered to expand.

Muhammed DID have to use the sword on certain occasions, but thats because massive armies had set out to massacre each and every one of his followers. He used the sword in his defence, not to conquer.

But basically, you're right.

It is arugable that the Crusades were defensive conflicts on the part of the European nations. My point is however that people focus far to much on the Crusades, when Islamic persecution of Christians is happening NOW (see the second article)

Christian presecution of Muslims is happening NOW!(Example: Patriot Act).

As for persecution of Christians, I can't guarantee that Medievel Muslims didn't but the article is incredibly biased and heavily exaggerates. All religions have done cruel things but you can't say the Crusades were an honorable act.

There have been several Crusades. Not just the ones that are spoken about publically. There have been Crusades in Mongolia, the Far East. The term "Holy War" doesn't mean picking up an AK-47 or Sword and going to massacure those whom believe different then you. Sometimes it means a spiritual war where missionaires (and no not the ones that came to the New World with Spain and converted the Native Americans by the sword) go into regions of the world, or take long trips to spread the Word of God.

Those kinds of Crusades are honorable. And the purpose behind the Crusades in the Middle Ages was honorable, to reclaim at a city.

Though, you cannot honestly cry "Remeber the Crusades" during every topic about Christianity. How is it any different then the sieges performed or wars wages in the rest of Europe for the "Glory of the State". How is it any different than the English sieging a French city and massacuring the people inside threw starvation and eventual occupation.

It isn't different. Save the Crusaders did their acts believeing that God was for them. Ask yourself, how is it any different then the United States invading Japan and Germany in World War Two in the name of "Freedom and Democracy"? Hmmm? There is no different. Both wars were fought for ideaology. Plain and simple.

Christian presecution of Muslims is happening NOW!(Example: Patriot Act).

Oh yes of coarse. Blame Christianity for the government actions. Real smart.

Christian presecution of Muslims is happening NOW!(Example: Patriot Act).

No, thats a piece of anti-terror legislation which is used against everyone. There is nothing in its doctrine which specifies it to be used against Muslims. However in many muslim nations there ARE active pieces of legislation that enforce peresecution against Christians directly.

The Qu'ran is not the only location for Islamic docrine to be found.
But Qur'an is supposedly the ultimate word in Islam, now isn't it? Muhammad himself said not to base actions of the Hadith the majority of time.

They did. And more to the point, Muhammad spread Islam as a result of the Battle of Badra. Now you may say he was being defensvie, but look at him compared to Jesus. Jesus when his life was threatened didnt get his deciples together and form a malitia. He went to his death without resistance. Muhammad killed everyone in his way at the battle of Badra.
But of course, Jesus and Muhammad were two different people. He didn't "kill everyone in his way". He took prisoners (who he released - all of them) and many more who begged for mercy were spared (and many didn't convert to Islam mind you - so they weren't forced into the situation)

Oh yes of coarse. Blame Christianity for the government actions. Real smart.
Well, the same could be said for countries like Saudi Arabia. I come back to my point about the dangers of mixing political Islam and the faith itself.

Well, the same could be said for countries like Saudi Arabia. I come back to my point about the dangers of mixing political Islam and the faith itself.

Unlike the Saudi Arabian government, you have yet to prove how the patriot act is somehow Chrsitian orientated

Unlike the Saudi Arabian government, you have yet to prove how the patriot act is somehow Chrsitian orientated
I didn't make the statement :p I wouldn't have made that statement anyway.

I think people need to read this (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST060502.html)

More and more people here talk about the Crusades as if Christians were the most evil people on the planet as a result of them. Lets not forget that was over 800 years ago. What this is talking about is also happening now

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10242

The Crusades were fought because Muslims were revoking Christians' rights of travel throughout the Middle East/Holy Land. But it's popular in this PC world to blame everything on Christians, and the Crusades are part of that package.

He's more than likely going to say the "Inquisition" in which Catholics massacured Prodestants. That or the continued Catholic-Protestant war in Ireland.

Not at all, those are small-fry compared to:-

World War 1
World War 2
100 year war
Napolionic wars
More civil wars than you can shake a stick at - including what was the biggest war ever until the start of the 20th century, the American civil war.
Wars between European states since the end of Roman rule
Wars for independance and wars for occupation.

And that is without considering the murder of one christian by another in various little trible disputes like Northern Ireland.

Not at all, those are small-fry compared to:-

World War 1
World War 2
100 year war
Napolionic wars
More civil wars than you can shake a stick at - including what was the biggest war ever until the start of the 20th century, the American civil war.
Wars between European states since the end of Roman rule
Wars for independance and wars for occupation.

And that is without considering the murder of one christian by another in various little trible disputes like Northern Ireland.

ROFL

nyeah, Christianity was responsible for those wars. hilarious.

i can refute one right off the top of my head:

American Civil War - nowhere in the new testament (you know, the part that sets Christianity apart from JUDAISM) is slavery condoned. So blame that one on Judaism, if you think that the Bible condones slavery, or that the Bible should be blamed for slavery in the South.

ROFL

nyeah, Christianity was responsible for those wars. hilarious.

i can refute one right off the top of my head:

American Civil War - nowhere in the new testament (you know, the part that sets Christianity apart from JUDAISM) is slavery condoned. So blame that one on Judaism, if you think that the Bible condones slavery, or that the Bible should be blamed for slavery in the South.

Um, I'm not suggesting Christians are responsible for those wars in any way shape or form, but I have to refute what you said about nothing in the New Testament condoning slavery.

Ephesians 6
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

It mirrors the part about children obeying their parents that comes right before this.

ROFL

nyeah, Christianity was responsible for those wars. hilarious.

i can refute one right off the top of my head:

American Civil War - nowhere in the new testament (you know, the part that sets Christianity apart from JUDAISM) is slavery condoned. So blame that one on Judaism, if you think that the Bible condones slavery, or that the Bible should be blamed for slavery in the South.
The Torah allows the practice of indentured servants, but slavery is prohibited.

ROFL

nyeah, Christianity was responsible for those wars. hilarious.

Please learn to read, it may help you avoid looking stupid as you now do.

Clue: All those wars/fights involved Christians killing Christians - that was the point of the list.

i can refute one right off the top of my head:

No you can't. Read the previous posts.

American Civil War - nowhere in the new testament (you know, the part that sets Christianity apart from JUDAISM) is slavery condoned. So blame that one on Judaism, if you think that the Bible condones slavery, or that the Bible should be blamed for slavery in the South.

Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:-

>"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

>"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

>"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
bullet "The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

>"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

Not once does the New Testiment condem slavery. If fact Paul, the earliest Christian evangelist and a contemporary of Jesus, expresses his unqualified support of the institution of human slavery by instructing slaves to obey their masters in several passages, Ephesians 6:5, I Timothy 6:1 and again in Titus 2:9-10. Peter, Jesus' favorite disciple, directs slaves to obey and fear their master without question, even though he may be cruel and unjust (1 Peter 2:18).

I'm an athiest, but I do know a lot about the bible and I do know how to use a search engine :)

and how many people died during the burning times at the church's hand
I hate to say this (not really) but the bastards deserved it

our tongues they could not silence
with their malicious lies,their
unforgotten violence,remember those who died,
and as my flesh is put to fire
I hear their voices still,their
unjust accusations demanding
that I am killed

"we shall show no mercy to heathen
such as thee,who stand accused and
have refused the church's clemency
your wicked acts are endless though
the crimes we cannot name,innocent or guilty proved
we'll burn you just the same"

burning,into the fire
burning,a funeral pyre
burning,into the fire
burning,a funeral pyre

this self-righteous inquisition is a plague
upon our land,as false as the confessions
they force from shattered hands

"we shall show no mercy to heathen
such as thee,who stand accused and
have refused the church's clemency
your wicked acts are endless though
the crimes we cannot name,innocent
or guilty proved we'll burn you just the same"

burning,into the fire
burning,a funeral pyre
burning,into the fire
burning,a funeral pyre

abused my broken body is cleansed by
righteous flame,their god a 'god of mercy'
yet in whose name I'm slain,my innocence
the victim of their superstitious fears,religious
percecution for the past 300 years,preaching
peace and mercy 'neath the shadow of the knife
a papal reign of terror,slaughter in the name of christ

and as my flesh is put to fire I hear their voices still,
their unjust accusation demanding I am killed

"we shall show no mercy to heathen such as thee
who stand accused and have refused the church's
clemency,your wicked acts are endless though the
crimes we cannot name,innocent or guilty proved
we'll burn you just the same"

burning,into the fire
burning,a funeral pyre
burning,into the fire
burning,a funeral pyre

The Torah allows the practice of indentured servants, but slavery is prohibited.

There seems to be little difference.

Actually, that site is full of shit.

Just reading a few paragraphs and you can see it sucks

a) There are no assignable muslim communities in East timor, yet the guy seems to emply that Christians have been massacrated there.

b) The standoff at the Church of nativity.. well, if it was so bad for the Priests there, why did they issued a report prohibiting the Israelis from storming the place? If the guy that wrote that piece had done any research, he would see the more than once, the Franciscan friars told the authorities that they were giving shelter to the palestinians, and were not hostages.

... I'd go on, but i got bored :p

No, thats a piece of anti-terror legislation which is used against everyone. There is nothing in its doctrine which specifies it to be used against Muslims. However in many muslim nations there ARE active pieces of legislation that enforce peresecution against Christians directly.

And I assume by "everyone" you mean "Arab muslims with beards"? I mean come ON! Who is being hurt by the Patriot Act? The Muslim community. Muslims are fearful of their own nation, because the public is too ignorant to realise that just because the people are Muslims doesn't mean they are terrorists.

And by "many muslim nations", I believe you are referring to Saudi Arabia, no? They are not real muslims. Islam is a peaceful religion, that preaches tolerance and peace. The "Muslims" in Saudi Arabia solve everything with executions and violence. Iran also may have legislation against Christians(I'm not sure exactly what), but it isn't as extreme as the legislation in Saudi, I can tell you that.

Also, I can name one country that has legislation that persecutes other religions: Vatican City. To be a citizen, you've got to be Roman Catholic. Sure, there's no execution involved or anything, but that still counts as "persecution", no?

Um, I'm not suggesting Christians are responsible for those wars in any way shape or form, but I have to refute what you said about nothing in the New Testament condoning slavery.

Ephesians 6
5Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. 6Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart. 7Serve wholeheartedly, as if you were serving the Lord, not men, 8because you know that the Lord will reward everyone for whatever good he does, whether he is slave or free.
9And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

It mirrors the part about children obeying their parents that comes right before this.

Thats more along the lines of employee, employer relations. There just were not many non-slave relations like that at that time

And I assume by "everyone" you mean "Arab muslims with beards"? I mean come ON! Who is being hurt by the Patriot Act? The Muslim community. Muslims are fearful of their own nation, because the public is too ignorant to realise that just because the people are Muslims doesn't mean they are terrorists.

The majority of terrorists arested under the patriot act so far may be Muslims but the patriot act is designed to defend a nation from anyone who would seek to attack it using terrorism. Not just Muslims. There is an important distinction between practise and intention.


And by "many muslim nations", I believe you are referring to Saudi Arabia, no? They are not real muslims. Islam is a peaceful religion, that preaches tolerance and peace. The "Muslims" in Saudi Arabia solve everything with executions and violence. Iran also may have legislation against Christians(I'm not sure exactly what), but it isn't as extreme as the legislation in Saudi, I can tell you that.

Ok so your willing now to reverse your idea of practise and intention. You say that before that the intention of the patriot act to defend America from terrorism is undermined by the practise of its use agaisnt Muslims where as now you are saying that the practise of the Saudi Arabian Muslim government is upheld in its practise by the fact that intends to be Muslim


Also, I can name one country that has legislation that persecutes other religions: Vatican City. To be a citizen, you've got to be Roman Catholic. Sure, there's no execution involved or anything, but that still counts as "persecution", no?

No, because nothing is bared from you. You are entitled to move freely through it and enjoy its hospitiality. The only thing you cant do is become one of the religious autority figures, but that is sensable, after all it is logical to be Catholic if you want to be Pope

Actually, that site is full of shit.

Just reading a few paragraphs and you can see it sucks

a) There are no assignable muslim communities in East timor, yet the guy seems to emply that Christians have been massacrated there.

Its not just Muslims who persecute Christians


b) The standoff at the Church of nativity.. well, if it was so bad for the Priests there, why did they issued a report prohibiting the Israelis from storming the place? If the guy that wrote that piece had done any research, he would see the more than once, the Franciscan friars told the authorities that they were giving shelter to the palestinians, and were not hostages.


I agree the stand off at the nativity is not that important in the grand scheme of Christianity but the point still stands that Christian persecution has largely gone ignored throught the world

Please learn to read, it may help you avoid looking stupid as you now do.

Clue: All those wars/fights involved Christians killing Christians - that was the point of the list.

No you can't. Read the previous posts.

Quotations by learned men from the 19th century:-

>"[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God...it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation...it has existed in all ages, has been found among the people of the highest civilization, and in nations of the highest proficiency in the arts." Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederate States of America.

>"There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral." Rev. Alexander Campbell

>"The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example." Rev. R. Furman, D.D., Baptist, of South Carolina
bullet "The hope of civilization itself hangs on the defeat of Negro suffrage." A statement by a prominent 19th-century southern Presbyterian pastor, cited by Rev. Jack Rogers, moderator of the Presbyterian Church (USA).

>"The doom of Ham has been branded on the form and features of his African descendants. The hand of fate has united his color and destiny. Man cannot separate what God hath joined." United States Senator James Henry Hammond.

Not once does the New Testiment condem slavery. If fact Paul, the earliest Christian evangelist and a contemporary of Jesus, expresses his unqualified support of the institution of human slavery by instructing slaves to obey their masters in several passages, Ephesians 6:5, I Timothy 6:1 and again in Titus 2:9-10. Peter, Jesus' favorite disciple, directs slaves to obey and fear their master without question, even though he may be cruel and unjust (1 Peter 2:18).

I'm an athiest, but I do know a lot about the bible and I do know how to use a search engine :)

(and yet Jesus taught equality)

Peter and Paul meant that we should obey those in positions of authority. They did not comment on whether or not slavery as an institution is just.

so you're asserting that christians killing christians is the fault of Christianity?

christian vs. christian does not mean that CHRISTIANITY made them fight each other. It is possible for people who claim to be of the same faith to have differences that are not at all related to that faith.

World War 2 was not fought over religion... it was fought over one sick bastard deciding to take over Europe (notwithstanding Hirohito in the Pacific and Mussolini, Hitler's lap dog).

that'd be like saying that racism is the reason a white person killed another white person. it is possible that a christian would kill a christian over religious differences, but probably not terribly likely.

lmao

btw

i know how to read. it's almost a prerequisite for a BA and certainly one for an MBA, both of which I have attained (though a rather high percentage of CEOs are functionally illiterate. lol). If I misread your point, either:

a)I was in a hurry (hehe -- quite possible) and did not take the requisite care

or

b)Your point was not made as intended

and lastly

you apparently hate Christianity... blaming (wrongly) some wars on the religion. I counter that all of the people who have been saved and are now in heaven, and those who now live happy lives with the grace of God in their hearts... are rather huge credits to Christianity. Jesus gave us a way to escape the death-grip of sin.

The majority of terrorists arested under the patriot act so far may be Muslims but the patriot act is designed to defend a nation from anyone who would seek to attack it using terrorism. Not just Muslims. There is an important distinction between practise and intention.

But in the end it doesn't matter, since racial profiling is being used, and the rights of Muslims are being taken away because of their beliefs.



Ok so your willing now to reverse your idea of practise and intention. You say that before that the intention of the patriot act to defend America from terrorism is undermined by the practise of its use agaisnt Muslims where as now you are saying that the practise of the Saudi Arabian Muslim government is upheld in its practise by the fact that intends to be Muslim

Wha...huh...whassa? That made little Grammatical sense, so I'm going to try and interpret it.

What I'm getting is that you think I think that what the Saudi Arabian government is good. I think the opposite of that. I believe that TRUE Muslims states do not descriminate against anyone, seeing how the Qu'ran preaches religious tolerance.

(On my grammar comment: I don't mean to be offensive or anything, I really dont, but it's hard to respond when one cannot fully understand what you are saying.)

No, because nothing is bared from you. You are entitled to move freely through it and enjoy its hospitiality. The only thing you cant do is become one of the religious autority figures, but that is sensable, after all it is logical to be Catholic if you want to be Pope

Ahhh, but you are still not allowed to be a citizen of that nation. If you deem persecution to be the fact that you cannot be a citizen because of your religion than that is persecution. In all Muslim countries(even, to an extent, Saudi Arabia *shudder*) Christians can still move freely through it and enjoy it's hospitality(except for the example of Makka, which is an EXTREMELY Holy City and it is stated in their religious scriptures that only Muslims can enter). I would hardly count not being able to enter a city to be persecution(since there's NOTHING of interest there unless you are a Muslim).

Just to remind you, I am not defending the Islamofacist dictatorships of nations such as Saudi Arabia. However, saying that only christians are being persecuted is so sad it's almost funny(key word: almost). Muslims, by far, are being persecuted much more so than Christians. Yes, Christians are being persecuted, but not to the extent of Muslims.

you did stump me on slavery, sort of, because i figured there'd be something in the new testament that rails against slavery or at least paints it in a negative light... i think i have:

1 Timothy 1:8-11 (Paul speaking)
8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
---------

notice how he lumps slave traders in with others he deems to be bad people? in that sentence paul tells us what he thinks of slavery, or at least its movers and shakers.

(dang, you made me work hard. thanks a lot! hehe)

(and yet Jesus taught equality)

Peter and Paul meant that we should obey those in positions of authority. They did not comment on whether or not slavery as an institution is just.

so you're asserting that christians killing christians is the fault of Christianity?

christian vs. christian does not mean that CHRISTIANITY made them fight each other. It is possible for people who claim to be of the same faith to have differences that are not at all related to that faith.

World War 2 was not fought over religion... it was fought over one sick bastard deciding to take over Europe (notwithstanding Hirohito in the Pacific and Mussolini, Hitler's lap dog).

that'd be like saying that racism is the reason a white person killed another white person. it is possible that a christian would kill a christian over religious differences, but probably not terribly likely.

lmao

btw

i know how to read. it's almost a prerequisite for a BA and certainly one for an MBA, both of which I have attained (though a rather high percentage of CEOs are functionally illiterate. lol). If I misread your point, either:

a)I was in a hurry (hehe -- quite possible) and did not take the requisite care

or

b)Your point was not made as intended

and lastly

you apparently hate Christianity... blaming (wrongly) some wars on the religion. I counter that all of the people who have been saved and are now in heaven, and those who now live happy lives with the grace of God in their hearts... are rather huge credits to Christianity. Jesus gave us a way to escape the death-grip of sin.


His point wasn't that those wars were caused by Christianity, but in the end almost everyone who died was a christian who was killed by ANOTHER christian.

The Crusades were fought because Muslims were revoking Christians' rights of travel throughout the Middle East/Holy Land.
And that somehow gives Pope Urban the right to command Christians to go drive all Muslims from the Holy Land, and said knights to go about ransacking even communities that don't fight against them?

No group's hands were spotless in the matter of the Crusades. Then again, seeing how long ago they were, anybody blaming modern Christians or Muslims for the Crusades is taking a silly position.
[/offtopicness]

you did stump me on slavery, sort of, because i figured there'd be something in the new testament that rails against slavery or at least paints it in a negative light... i think i have:

1 Timothy 1:8-11 (Paul speaking)
8We know that the law is good if one uses it properly. 9We also know that law[a] is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious; for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10for adulterers and perverts, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11that conforms to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.
---------

notice how he lumps slave traders in with others he deems to be bad people? in that sentence paul tells us what he thinks of slavery, or at least its movers and shakers.

(dang, you made me work hard. thanks a lot! hehe)

But that hardly negates the level of condonement show in the letter to the Ephesians. I knew about the slave traders, that it condemns people who collect slaves and sells them, but as is common with Paul he follows Leviticus and andorses what can be found there, like slavery.

And that somehow gives Pope Urban the right to command Christians to go drive all Muslims from the Holy Land, and said knights to go about ransacking even communities that don't fight against them?

No group's hands were spotless in the matter of the Crusades. Then again, seeing how long ago they were, anybody blaming modern Christians or Muslims for the Crusades is taking a silly position.
[/offtopicness]

Exactly to all points you made!

All sides made very bad decisions, each side had its heroes, each side had it's villains, each side had mercy, each side had cruelty, each side had greed, each side had selflessness, etc. And as you said, don't drag events that happened 900 years ago into debates about the modern day.

you apparently hate Christianity... blaming (wrongly) some wars on the religion. I counter that all of the people who have been saved and are now in heaven, and those who now live happy lives with the grace of God in their hearts... are rather huge credits to Christianity. Jesus gave us a way to escape the death-grip of sin.

Again you fail basic reading. This really is getting to be a habit.

I think ALL religions are detrimental to mankind. However, in its 2000 years Christianity (in its many forms) has done more than any other religion to hold back human development. It has also done more than any other religion to invade, subjugate, tyrannize and dispossess the people of this world.

As for christian/christian wars, well it just happens that christians have dominated a large part of the world through some of its bloodiest times. The American Civil war was (pro rata to its population at the time) the bloodiest war there has ever been. That was a war fought by people sharing a common language, common heritage and a common bible - and yet still the chaplins on each side blessed their troops and sen t them into battle "with god on their side".

Religion is for the simple minded. If you want to carry on believing in fairy stories then that is up to you - just don't expect your claims for this mythical god to go unchallanged.

(and yet Jesus taught equality)

Peter and Paul meant that we should obey those in positions of authority. They did not comment on whether or not slavery as an institution is just.

Imagine instead of master it said rapist. Wouldn't that be condoning rape? And how if it directed rapists to be respectful to those they rape? It's very similar. He gave directions to the slaveowner and one of them if he were not condoning slavery might be, hey, buddy, don't treat your slave with respect, free them.

I think people need to read this (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST060502.html)

More and more people here talk about the Crusades as if Christians were the most evil people on the planet as a result of them. Lets not forget that was over 800 years ago. What this is talking about is also happening now

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10242
There is truth in what those articles have to say, but keep in mind that a multitude of "sins" have been comitted in the name of "religion" ... almost every religion.

EDIT: I suspect the primary difference between Islam and Christianity on this subject is that Islam encourages jihad in the Quran, while Christianity encourages non-violence in the Bible.

EDIT: I suspect the primary difference between Islam and Christianity on this subject is that Islam encourages jihad in the Quran, while Christianity encourages non-violence in the Bible.

WRONGZ0RZ!

Jihad is never used in the Qu'ran. "Jihad" just means "struggle". I could, for example, be waging a "Jihad" against me biting my nails.

And Islam is a tolerant and peaceful religion(at least that's what the Qu'ran says). However, over years, certain elements grew rather violent(and for good reason: Those Pagans and Christians kept attacking them. If they didn't militarize, Islam would have been wiped out in 10 years.)

WRONGZ0RZ!

Jihad is never used in the Qu'ran. "Jihad" just means "struggle". I could, for example, be waging a "Jihad" against me biting my nails.

And Islam is a tolerant and peaceful religion(at least that's what the Qu'ran says). However, over years, certain elements grew rather violent(and for good reason: Those Pagans and Christians kept attacking them. If they didn't militarize, Islam would have been wiped out in 10 years.)
Your knowledge of history, and of the Quoran is seriously deficient. :rolleyes:

Your knowledge of history, and of the Quoran is seriously deficient. :rolleyes:
Fine. Support your side.

Incidentally, recognize the following quote?

"I came not to bring peace, but a sword."

Your knowledge of history, and of the Quoran is seriously deficient. :rolleyes:

And I guess YOU are an expert on Islam and The Qu'ran?

Tell me, what does the Qur'an say of Jews and Christians? When did the first Caliphate come into being? In what year did Mohammed die? What was the worlds first modern Islamic Republic and when was it founded? How many crusades were there between the Muslims and Christians and who won each one?

I'll answer those questions for you:

1. The Qu'ran says ALL people of the Book(which includes Jews, Christians, and Muslims) are followers of God, and will all go to heaven(or "paradise" as it is called by Muslims) if they are good and loyal.

2. The first calipahte was The Rashidun, which was established in 632 by Abu Bakr.

3. Mohammed died on June 8, 632

4. The worlds first modern Islamic Republic is Pakistan, founded in 1947(on August 14th, to be precise).

5. There were nine crusades, with the Christians winning only the first.

If that does not prove to you my knowledge of History and of the Qur'an, I can answer many more questions. Would you fancy hearing about the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth? Or the history of the Partition of India?

5.

Whoooooooooo cares!

Whoooooooooo cares!

Who cares what?

I think people need to read this (http://www.chroniclesmagazine.org/News/Trifkovic/NewsST060502.html)

More and more people here talk about the Crusades as if Christians were the most evil people on the planet as a result of them. Lets not forget that was over 800 years ago. What this is talking about is also happening now

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=10242

Since technically the USSR banned religion before Stalin's purges and was officially atheist, all those people he killed weren't christian. And while I do feel sorry for Christians in the Holy Land, the religion as a whole is not in trouble. Virtually the entire New World is christian.

As for the second link, I'm not even going to read it. Frontpagemagazine has Zero credibility. It really upsets me that someone would cite it as a source.

Thats more along the lines of employee, employer relations. There just were not many non-slave relations like that at that time
Then why does it say "Slaves, obey your earthly masters" instead of "Employees, obey your earthly employers"?

LOL you're full of it. You really want us to believe the Roman Empire was 100% slave-based, with no merchants, tradesmen, or skilled craftsmen. If so then what did they use money for?

Thats more along the lines of employee, employer relations. There just were not many non-slave relations like that at that time

HAHAHAHA!!! That's great. I love how far people will go to defend Paul. I suppose they didn't have a word for employer and employees? He couldn't have used apprenticeships as the example or things like that? It was just impossible to come up with an example that wasn't condoning slavery. It's not his fault. :rolleyes:

Christians are being persecuted, but not to the extent of Muslims.

Please show examples of extrme Muslim perescution. The patirot act does not count, seing as it is not a religious perscution

Then why does it say "Slaves, obey your earthly masters" instead of "Employees, obey your earthly employers"?

LOL you're full of it. You really want us to believe the Roman Empire was 100% slave-based, with no merchants, tradesmen, or skilled craftsmen. If so then what did they use money for?
That's nearly true. The Romans cared very little for technical improvements that let you do the same things faster or easier, because the hard or boring work was done by slaves.

There is truth in what those articles have to say, but keep in mind that a multitude of "sins" have been comitted in the name of "religion" ... almost every religion.

EDIT: I suspect the primary difference between Islam and Christianity on this subject is that Islam encourages jihad in the Quran, while Christianity encourages non-violence in the Bible.
I think you don't understand what Jihad means.

Please show examples of extrme Muslim perescution. The patirot act does not count, seing as it is not a religious perscution
The Lebanese Civil War saw plenty of Muslim massacres.

The thing I found interesting while looking stuff up is - the majority of incidents where Muslims were persecuted were by Muslims. Extreme Islamists are the biggest discriminators and persecutors of liberal and secular Muslims.

I think you don't understand what Jihad means.

Jihad means holy war as well as the individual strugles of day to day life for Muslims.

I think people need to come to terms with the biggest diffrence between Jesus and Mohammad in this regard. Jesus when his life was threatened accepted it without resistance where as Mohammad went into battle killing all those who would threaten him. It is clear which one, when threatend, held true to his beliefs and which one did not.

The Lebanese Civil War saw plenty of Muslim massacres.

The thing I found interesting while looking stuff up is - the majority of incidents where Muslims were persecuted were by Muslims. Extreme Islamists are the biggest discriminators and persecutors of liberal and secular Muslims.

Muslims being pesecuted by non Muslims because of their faith is what I am talking about. There are very few examples of that in history. Certianly far less than there are of Christians being persecuted by Muslims.

"I came not to bring peace, but a sword."

Its Jesus. Here he is talking about the fact that (through no fault of his own) people will get angry about what he has to say. So angry in fact that wars will be fought aginst those who are Christians and do agree with Jesus and what he says. He did not want this to happen, but it does nevertheless because of the nature of what he said

Whoooooooooo cares!



As said in the one commercial


"NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO-BOODY!!

lol

jk

Jihad means holy war as well as the individual strugles of day to day life for Muslims.

I think people need to come to terms with the biggest diffrence between Jesus and Mohammad in this regard. Jesus when his life was threatened accepted it without resistance where as Mohammad went into battle killing all those who would threaten him. It is clear which one, when threatend, held true to his beliefs and which one did not.
Well the literal meaning of Jihad is "struggle".

Mohammad was trying to spread a religion. If he backed down, I'm sure Islam would not exist today. Take the Battle of Badr for example. The Arab Pagans wanted to kill every single Muslim. Jesus did not face the same situation. Without defending themselves, the Muslims would watch as Islam suffered a premature death.

Muslims being pesecuted by non Muslims because of their faith is what I am talking about. There are very few examples of that in history. Certianly far less than there are of Christians being persecuted by Muslims.

That's bull.

Ever hear of the Balkans? Tens of thousands of Muslims were mercilessly slaughtered. And Christians being persecuted is nothing compared to Christians persecuting Pagans, Buddhists, Jews, and once again Christians persecuting OTHER christians.

Western Christianity is dead.
not as long as IM alive

There really is persecution of Christians going on to this day. In many Islamic countries, attempting to convert a muslim to another religion is punishable by death. Islamic countries arent the only places where Christians are martyred either. There is a newsletter called Voice of the Martyrs, it is absolutely free to anyone who wants to sign up for it. There is now also a web site you can go to for more information. Everything is absolutely free. If you are one of those who is under the delusion that Christians arent being persecuted and martyred right now, this will open your eyes to what is really going on. Sign up for free, get the newsletter and look through the site:

http://www.persecution.com

Nice link LazyHippies, Ive never seen that one before.

I've attended a few churches over the years that have donated money to buy Bibles (and other supplies or support Christian radio stations etc.,) smuggled into countries that they aren't officially allowed, and we've been doing it since before the Soviet Union fell (they were a prime target for us back then, especially the far east sections).

Now we donate money mostly for the Christian Churches in Arab and Islamic dominated countries that they suffer from various persecutions pretty frequently...

Nice link...

Islam allows a small, well regulated, non-Moslem Christian or Jewish minority to exist so long as they are subservient. More thorough infidels like Hindus are not supposed to be left alone until they are all dead. Islam is doctrinally obligated to work towards a world where all nations have this character. There is some disagreement about a few finer points of Islam, but the basic premise is there for anyone who can actually read the Koran.

It is also required that any Non-Moslem holy places be turned in to Mosques and any infidel who steps within a shadows touch is executed.

Mohammed declared war many times, often aggressively, committed mass murder and married the wives of several of the men he murdered. After his death, others spread Islam the same way with varying degrees of efficiency.

Christians get a bad rap, because the very vocal left wing is defined with respect to its own side, in the sense that what makes them left is the hatred they feel for their own side. The right is the side that is in power, the left is not. When the left takes power, they become the new right. Europe was predominantly Christians, so the left of Europe spends most of its time vilifying Christians. Sympathizing with the Turks who conquered Serbia and so forth. Remember though, that Islam conquered its way to Spain before Christian Europe defended itself and the Turks built monuments from Christian Skulls in Serbia. As far as the more recent conflicts of the Balkans are concerned, the Serbs said they were fighting terrorists, they probably were. There is a lot of evidence of terrorism, the UN is working triple time trying to prove that the total of sixteen executions they have proof for, were not terrorists. Clinton and the French Lied to us, Again.

Islam allows a small, well regulated, non-Moslem Christian or Jewish minority to exist so long as they are subservient. More thorough infidels like Hindus are not supposed to be left alone until they are all dead. Islam is doctrinally obligated to work towards a world where all nations have this character. There is some disagreement about a few finer points of Islam, but the basic premise is there for anyone who can actually read the Koran.

It is also required that any Non-Moslem holy places be turned in to Mosques and any infidel who steps within a shadows touch is executed.

Mohammed declared war many times, often aggressively, committed mass murder and married the wives of several of the men he murdered. After his death, others spread Islam the same way with varying degrees of efficiency.


Why would Muslims work to kill those that the Qur'an say are equal(or almost exaclty as equal) to them? It makes no sense. Also, if Hindu's "are not supposed to be left alone until dead", then how come for centuries Muslims controlled India and didn't wipe them all out, hmmm?

It is NOT required that any non-Muslim holy place be turned into a mosque. In Lebanon, while bouts of inter-religious conflict spring up, Christian Churches are side-by-side with Muslim Mosques. I have stepped inside many a Mosque, and I have not once been told to leave, except for at times of prayer.

Mohammed did not declare war, war was declared on HIM. And he fought back. If you call soundly defeating the Pagans who wished to kill all the men, rape all the females, and then kill everyone else, "mass murder", then I think you need to take another look at what mass murder is.

For most citizens of Iraq, the invasion meant the end of tyranny. For one group, however, it meant a new start: the country’s historic Christian community. When the war stopped, persecution by Islamists, held in check by Saddam, started.

At a church in Basra I visited a month after the war ended, the women complained of attacks against them for not wearing the Islamic veil. I saw many Christian-owned shops that had been firebombed, with many of the owners killed for exercising their legal right to sell alcohol. Two years and many church attacks later, Iraq may still be occupied by Christian foreign powers, but the Islamist plan to ethnically cleanse Iraq of its nearly 2,000-year-old Assyrian and Armenian Christian communities is reaching fruition.

There is nothing unusual about the persecution of Iraqi Christians, or the unwillingness of other Christians to help them. Rising nationalism and fundamentalism around the world have meant that Christianity is going back to its roots as the religion of the persecuted. There are now more than 300 million Christians who are either threatened with violence or legally discriminated against simply because of their faith — more than any other religion. Christians are no longer, as far as I am aware, thrown to the lions. But from China, North Korea and Malaysia, through India, Pakistan and Sri Lanka to Egypt, Saudi Arabia and Turkey, they are subjected to legalised discrimination, violence, imprisonment, relocation and forced conversion. Even in supposedly Christian Europe, Christianity has become the most mocked religion, its followers treated with public suspicion and derision and sometimes — such as the would-be EU commissioner Rocco Buttiglione — hounded out of political office.

I am no Christian, but rather a godless atheist whose soul doesn’t want to be saved, thank you. I may not believe in the man with the white beard, but I do believe that all persecution is wrong. The trouble is that the trendies who normally champion human rights seem to think persecution is fine, so long as it’s only against Christians. While Muslims openly help other Muslims, Christians helping Christians has become as taboo as jingoistic nationalism.

On the face of it, the idea of Christians facing serious persecution seems as far-fetched as a carpenter saving humanity. Christianity is the world’s most followed religion, with two billion believers, and by far its most powerful. It is the most popular faith in six of the seven continents, and in both of the world’s two biggest economies, the US and Europe. Seven of the G8 richest industrial nations are majority Christian, as are four out of five permanent members of the UN Security Council. The cheek-turners control the vast majority of the world’s weapons of mass destruction.

When I bumped into George Bush in the breakfast room of the US embassy in Brussels last month, standing right behind me were two men in uniform carrying the little black ‘nuclear football’, containing the codes to enable the world’s most powerful Christian to unleash the world’s most powerful nuclear arsenal. Christians claiming persecution seem as credible as Bill Gates pleading poverty. But just as Christian-majority armies control Iraq as it ethnically cleanses itself of its Christian community, so the power of Christian countries is of little help to the Christian persecuted where most Christians now live: the Third World.

Across the Islamic world, Christians are systematically discriminated against and persecuted. Saudi Arabia — the global fountain of religious bigotry — bans churches, public Christian worship, the Bible and the sale of Christmas cards, and stops non-Muslims from entering Mecca. Christians are regularly imprisoned and tortured on trumped-up charges of drinking, blaspheming or Bible-bashing, as some British citizens have found. Just last month, furthermore, Saudi Arabia announced that only Muslims can become citizens.

The Copts of Egypt make up half the Christians in the Middle East, the cradle of Christianity. They inhabited the land before the Islamic conquest, and still make up a fifth of the population. By law they are banned from being president of the Islamic Republic of Egypt or attending Al Azhar University, and severely restricted from joining the police and army. By practice they are banned from holding any high political or commercial position. Under the 19th-century Hamayouni decrees, Copts must get permission from the president to build or repair churches — but he usually refuses. Mosques face no such controls.

Government-controlled TV broadcasts anti-Copt propaganda, while giving no airtime to Copts. It is illegal for Muslims to convert to Christianity, but legal for Christians to convert to Islam. Christian girls — and even the wives of Christian priests — are abducted and forcibly converted to Islam, recently prompting mass demonstrations. A report by Freedom House in Washington concludes: ‘The cumulative effect of these threats creates an atmosphere of persecution and raises fears that during the 21st century the Copts may have a vastly diminished presence in their homelands.’

Fr Drew Christiansen, an adviser to the US Conference of Bishops, recently conducted a study which stated that ‘all over the Middle East, Christians are under pressure. “The cradle of Christianity” is under enormous pressure from demographic decline, the growth of Islamic militancy, official and unofficial discrimination, the Iraq war, the Palestinian Intifada, failed peace policies and political manipulation.’

In the world’s most economically successful Muslim nation, Malaysia, the world’s only deliberate affirmative action programme for a majority population ensures that Muslims are given better access to jobs, housing and education. In the world’s most populous Muslim nation, Indonesia, some 10,000 Christians have been killed in the last few years by Muslims trying to Islamify the Moluccas.

In the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, most of the five million Christians live as an underclass, doing work such as toilet-cleaning. Under the Hudood ordinances, a Muslim can testify against a non-Muslim in court, but a non-Muslim cannot testify against a Muslim. Blasphemy laws are abused to persecute Christians. In the last few years, dozens of Christians have been killed in bomb and gun attacks on churches and Christian schools.

In Nigeria, 12 states have introduced Sharia law, which affects Christians as much as Muslims. Christian girls are forced to wear the Islamic veil at school, and Christians are banned from drinking alcohol. Thousands of Christians have been killed in the last few years in the ensuing violence.

Although persecution of Christians is greatest in Muslim countries, it happens in countries of all religions and none. In Buddhist-majority Sri Lanka, religious tension led to 44 churches being attacked in the first four months of 2004, with 140 churches being forced to close because of intimidation. In India, the rise of Hindu nationalism has lead to persecution not just of Muslims but of Christians. There have been hundreds of attacks against the Christian community, which has been in India since ad 100. The government’s affirmative action programme for untouchables guarantees jobs and loans for poor Hindus and Buddhists, but not for Christians.

Last year in China, which has about 70 million Christians, more than 100 ‘house churches’ were closed down, and dozens of priests imprisoned. If you join the Communist party, you get special privileges, but you can only join if you are atheist. In North Korea, Christians are persecuted as anti-communist elements, and dissidents claim they are not just imprisoned but used in chemical warfare experiments.

Dr Patrick Sookhdeo, director of the Barnabas Trust, which helps persecuted Christians, blames rising global religious tension. ‘More and more Christians are seen as the odd ones out — they are seen as transplants from the West, and not really trusted. It is getting very much worse.’

Even in what was, before multiculturalism, known as Christendom, Christians are persecuted. I have spoken to dozens of former Muslims who have converted to Christianity in Britain, and who are shunned by their community, subjected to mob violence, forced out of town, threatened with death and even kidnapped. The Barnabas Trust knows of 3,000 such Christians facing persecution in this country, but the police and government do nothing.

You get the gist. Dr Paul Marshall, senior fellow at the Centre for Religious Freedom in Washington, estimates that there are 200 million Christians who face violence because of their faith, and 350 million who face legally sanctioned discrimination in terms of access to jobs and housing. The World Evangelical Alliance wrote in a report to the UN Human Rights Commission last year that Christians are ‘the largest single group in the world which is being denied human rights on the basis of their faith’.

Part of the problem is old-style racism against non-whites; part of it is new-style guilt. If all this were happening to the world’s Sikhs or Muslims simply because of their faith, you can be sure it would lead the 10 O’Clock News and the front page of the Guardian on a regular basis. But the BBC, despite being mainly funded by Christians, is an organisation that promotes ridicule of the Bible, while banning criticism of the Koran. Dr Marshall said: ‘Christians are seen as Europeans and Americans, which means you get a lack of sympathy which you would not get if they were Tibetan Buddhists.’

Christians themselves are partly to blame for all this. Some get a masochistic kick out of being persecuted, believing it brings them closer to Jesus, crucified for His beliefs. Christianity uniquely defines itself by its persecution, and its forgiveness of its persecutors: the Christian symbol is the method of execution of its founder. Christianity was a persecuted religion for its first three centuries, until Emperor Constantine decided that worshipping Jesus was better for winning battles than worshipping the sun. In contrast, Mohammed was a soldier and ruler who led his people into victorious battle against their enemies. In the hundred years after the death of Mohammed, Islam conquered and converted most of North Africa and the Middle East in the most remarkable religious expansion in history.

To this day, while Muslims stick up for their co-religionists, Christians — beyond a few charities — have given up such forms of discrimination. Dr Sookhdeo said: ‘The Muslims have an Ummah [the worldwide Muslim community] whereas Christians do not have Christendom. There is no Christian country that says, “We are Christian and we will help Christians.”’

As a liberal democrat atheist, I believe all persecuted people should be helped equally, irrespective of their religion. But the guilt-ridden West is ignoring people because of their religion. If non-Christians like me can sense the nonsense, how does it make Christians feel? And how are they going to react? The Christophobes worried about rising Christian fundamentalism in Britain should understand that it is a reaction to our double standards. And as long as our double standards exist, Christian fundamentalism will grow.

An article from the spectator on the subject of Christian persecution (I would have linked it but you need a subscription to get to the link)

Well the literal meaning of Jihad is "struggle".

Mohammad was trying to spread a religion. If he backed down, I'm sure Islam would not exist today. Take the Battle of Badr for example. The Arab Pagans wanted to kill every single Muslim. Jesus did not face the same situation. Without defending themselves, the Muslims would watch as Islam suffered a premature death.

And? That doesnt make it right. Jesus DID face the same situation, seing as there were no Christians then. Not to mention the fact that his followers later on were all hunted down by the Romans. None of them rose up armies to try and kill the Romans. The Arab Pagens wanted to kill every single Muslim, so the Muslims went and killed all the Pagans in the army that attacked them. Thats betraying your principles in order to defend them. Jesus did not do that. When his life was threatened, he just took it and went to the cross. You do not spread a religion by force. If Islam would not have existed without force then it should never have existed in the first place. Before you say "Christianity only exists because of Roman force" I would disagree. Christianity exists because of Christ's actions in the same way Islam exists because of Mohammad's actions. When compared, its quite clear which one is the better man

And? That doesnt make it right. Jesus DID face the same situation, seing as there were no Christians then. Not to mention the fact that his followers later on were all hunted down by the Romans. None of them rose up armies to try and kill the Romans. The Arab Pagens wanted to kill every single Muslim, so the Muslims went and killed all the Pagans in the army that attacked them. Thats betraying your principles in order to defend them. Jesus did not do that. When his life was threatened, he just took it and went to the cross. You do not spread a religion by force. If Islam would not have existed without force then it should never have existed in the first place. Before you say "Christianity only exists because of Roman force" I would disagree. Christianity exists because of Christ's actions in the same way Islam exists because of Mohammad's actions. When compared, its quite clear which one is the better man

Hmmmm... nothing like learning the lessons of humility taught by Christ.

They did. And more to the point, Muhammad spread Islam as a result of the Battle of Badra. Now you may say he was being defensvie, but look at him compared to Jesus. Jesus when his life was threatened didnt get his deciples together and form a malitia. He went to his death without resistance. Muhammad killed everyone in his way at the battle of Badra.


good for him jesus was a prat......

Hmmmm... nothing like learning the lessons of humility taught by Christ.

Ad Homin, not an arguement. You cant attack my point so you call me arrogent.

good for him jesus was a prat......

Care to actually back up your insults

Care to actually back up your insults
lol..

And? That doesnt make it right. Jesus DID face the same situation, seing as there were no Christians then. Not to mention the fact that his followers later on were all hunted down by the Romans. None of them rose up armies to try and kill the Romans. The Arab Pagens wanted to kill every single Muslim, so the Muslims went and killed all the Pagans in the army that attacked them. Thats betraying your principles in order to defend them. Jesus did not do that. When his life was threatened, he just took it and went to the cross. You do not spread a religion by force. If Islam would not have existed without force then it should never have existed in the first place. Before you say "Christianity only exists because of Roman force" I would disagree. Christianity exists because of Christ's actions in the same way Islam exists because of Mohammad's actions. When compared, its quite clear which one is the better man

While one can disagree that christianity exists because of a paralell between what Christ and Mohammad did you certainly can connect the extent to which christianity was spread to the methods used by its missonaries. There was quite a bit of force used by these missonaries and they pretty much spread christianity wheter the people there liked it or not.

While one can disagree that christianity exists because of a paralell between what Christ and Mohammad did you certainly can connect the extent to which christianity was spread to the methods used by its missonaries. There was quite a bit of force used by these missonaries and they pretty much spread christianity wheter the people there liked it or not.

Later on perhaps, but not by Christ himself. This is my point. On a purely Athiestic level (because as a Christian Christ is far more than the founder of Christianity) Jesus can be identified as the founder of the Christian faith, in a simmilar fashion to how Mohammad can be identified as the creator of the Islamic faith. My point is that Islam's creator was a man who betrayed the very faith he created by going into battle against those who would oppose him. When Christ met with those who would oppose him, he just calmly accepted his fate. Mohammad attacked and killed those who opposed him at the battle of Badra

Later on perhaps, but not by Christ himself. This is my point. On a purely Athiestic level (because as a Christian Christ is far more than the founder of Christianity) Jesus can be identified as the founder of the Christian faith, in a simmilar fashion to how Mohammad can be identified as the creator of the Islamic faith. My point is that Islam's creator was a man who betrayed the very faith he created by going into battle against those who would oppose him. When Christ met with those who would oppose him, he just calmly accepted his fate. Mohammad attacked and killed those who opposed him at the battle of Badra

That is not entirely true. Christ openly questioned and rebutted the people who opposed him. Also remember the scene in the temple where Jesus goes about tearing down the stands. He just went to his death peacefully though not without questioning it.

Ad Homin, not an arguement. You cant attack my point so you call me arrogent.

Actually, I have no interest in attacking your point. More importantly I have no interest in attacking the basis for another religion nor would Jesus. Your statements are insensitive and arrogant, and I wouldn't have any problem with them if you didn't do them under the name Christian.

And the term is AD HOMINEM and it has to do with me dismissing your arguments on the basis of some quality you have or that I've ascribed to you. In this case, I'm not touching that argument. I think it's a silly argument about two people who cannot be compared, as the circumstances surrounding them were completely different. I wasn't commenting on your argument, I was commenting on what it says about the person making it. Thus, it wasn't an ad hominem. Perhaps before you use terms you should look them up so you use and spell them correctly.

Later on perhaps, but not by Christ himself. This is my point. On a purely Athiestic level (because as a Christian Christ is far more than the founder of Christianity) Jesus can be identified as the founder of the Christian faith, in a simmilar fashion to how Mohammad can be identified as the creator of the Islamic faith. My point is that Islam's creator was a man who betrayed the very faith he created by going into battle against those who would oppose him. When Christ met with those who would oppose him, he just calmly accepted his fate. Mohammad attacked and killed those who opposed him at the battle of Badra

The situations were very different. In the case of Jesus, he was the only one they were looking to kill, leaving his disciples and apostles to spread the faith. Second, one could easily argue that Jesus was simply wise enough to recognize that going to war with the Romans at that time would destroy all remnants of Christianity. The followers of Christ would have been trounced by the Roman army were they to do battle. There is actually evidence that Jesus believed that they would lose. Matthew 26:52 - 52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.


Read that carefully, it basically says that everyone who fights against the Romans will be slaughtered. He recognized that Christianity could only survive through peace and appearing to be non-threatening to the Romans. Muhammed couldn't afford to be non-threatening because they were going to kill him and his followers regardless. He recognized that Islam could only survive through war. Comparing them is like comparing a man defending his family from the government in Rwanda and a man defending his family from the government in the US. They simply aren't similar in any fashion.

Either way, I have no interest in bad-mouthing the religion of another. Though my reasons have nothing to do with the writings of Paul, if you believe in the writings of Paul your actions are very hard to defend.

Actually, I have no interest in attacking your point. More importantly I have no interest in attacking the basis for another religion nor would Jesus. Your statements are insensitive and arrogant, and I wouldn't have any problem with them if you didn't do them under the name Christian.

I do not do this out of a duty to Christianity as such. I do it to make a point, now you may think its not Christian, I think it is neutral. Ultimately however God is my judge and not you. I dont believe that my viewpoint on the comparison between Mohammad and Jesus is a dogmatic concern for Christians. I do believe it is something that is valid when you are comparing both of them

I do not do this out of a duty to Christianity as such. I do it to make a point, now you may think its not Christian, I think it is neutral. Ultimately however God is my judge and not you. I dont believe that my viewpoint on the comparison between Mohammad and Jesus is a dogmatic concern for Christians. I do believe it is something that is valid when you are comparing both of them

I'm not judging sin. I'm judging how insensitive and arrogant it is to attack the basis of another religion. I think someone important to both of us said do unto others and since I don't think it's right for people to constantly berate Jesus especially based on uneducated and inaccurate assessments of who he was, I don't do it either. When Jesus introduced the concept of do unto others it wasn't because it was sinful to do otherwise, it was because following that tenet would make the world a better place. That is something that should be your goal as a Christian and the fact that you are doing otherwise says a lot more about you than it does about your argument. Your argument, on the other hand, can be dismissed based on its sheer inaccuracy.

The situations were very different. In the case of Jesus, he was the only one they were looking to kill, leaving his disciples and apostles to spread the faith. Second, one could easily argue that Jesus was simply wise enough to recognize that going to war with the Romans at that time would destroy all remnants of Christianity. The followers of Christ would have been trounced by the Roman army were they to do battle. There is actually evidence that Jesus believed that they would lose. Matthew 26:52 - 52"Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.


Read that carefully, it basically says that everyone who fights against the Romans will be slaughtered. He recognized that Christianity could only survive through peace and appearing to be non-threatening to the Romans.

The more logical idea is that he actually didnt want any fighting of any kind. And let us not forget that the Romans DID hunt down the disciples later on. Jesus was God, incarnate. Had he wanted to destroy the Romans he could have done

"Do you think that I cannot call on my Father and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels" Luke 26:53

Jesus never advocated fighting against anyone. If he had wanted the Romans destroyed he would have

Muhammed couldn't afford to be non-threatening because they were going to kill him and his followers regardless. He recognized that Islam could only survive through war.

That doesnt excuse the fact that he betrayed the principles upon which he stood. A religions suvival is not a justifiable reason for what he did. If he was a religious leader then he should have had his faith in God that God would protect them. He should not break his own faith's tennants to protect himself.

I'm not judging sin. I'm judging how insensitive and arrogant it is to attack the basis of another religion..

Funny, I've seen you do it to Christianity all the time.


I think someone important to both of us said do unto others and since I don't think it's right for people to constantly berate Jesus especially based on uneducated and inaccurate assessments of who he was, I don't do it either. When Jesus introduced the concept of do unto others it wasn't because it was sinful to do otherwise, it was because following that tenet would make the world a better place. That is something that should be your goal as a Christian and the fact that you are doing otherwise says a lot more about you than it does about your argument.

I am doing unto others as I would have done unto me. I am using history to support a point of view I hold. History can to a certian extent be debated. However you can only debate facts to a point. Its not being arrogent to point out what the facts are, nor should I aquesse by simply letting others have there way. There is nothing arrogent about debate as long as it is fashioned within historical logic.

The more logical idea is that he actually didnt want any fighting of any kind. And let us not forget that the Romans DID hunt down the disciples later on. Jesus was God, incarnate. Had he wanted to destroy the Romans he could have done

I thought you were comparing them on the athestic basis. If your argument is based on Jesus being God then He certainly had no reason to fear the death of Christianity. If we make the same assumption in the arguments that Muhamm

"Do you think that I cannot call on my Father and he will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels" Luke 26:53

Jesus never advocated fighting against anyone. If he had wanted the Romans destroyed he would have

I thought you were comparing them on the athestic basis. If your argument is based on Jesus being God then He certainly had no reason to fear the death of Christianity. Again, the situations are then not comparable. You were right to say you have to make this argument on the basis that Jesus was simply the founder of a religion. The problem is if you do so, the situations were simply not even remotely comparable.

By the way, it's Matthew 26:53.

That doesnt excuse the fact that he betrayed the principles upon which he stood. A religions suvival is not a justifiable reason for what he did. If he was a religious leader then he should have had his faith in God that God would protect them. He should not break his own faith's tennants to protect himself.

That's easier said than done. Many of the Christian religious leaders did not do so. In Jesus' case, he didn't have to have faith because his followers were in no danger. Again, you have no basis for your argument because they simply were not comparable situations.

Funny, I've seen you do it to Christianity all the time.

I have? That is a blatant lie. Show me a single post where I attacked Jesus Christ or the teachings of Jesus Christ or retract that statement. You can't because it never happened. Condemning the actions one does in the name of Christ is not the same as attacking the core of the faith. What possible benefit could there be to doing so? I believe Jesus was the Son of God and my Savior.

I am doing unto others as I would have done unto me. I am using history to support a point of view I hold. History can to a certian extent be debated. However you can only debate facts to a point. Its not being arrogent to point out what the facts are, nor should I aquesse by simply letting others have there way. There is nothing arrogent about debate as long as it is fashioned within historical logic.

Really? "When compared, its quite clear which one is the better man" has a historical basis? I left your points alone until you made that obviously arrogant and insensitive point based on historically inaccurate arguments. Debate your points, but do so without make value judgements on either person. It's simply arrogant to do otherwise.

And if you think you are not doing anything against your religion then read Romans 14. If you believe in Paul as a part of your religion, he specifically says to not put stumbling blocks in the way of another's faith, to respect the faith of another even if it is not your faith.

The only time you will see me attack the faith of another is if it is used as an excuse to do harm to others. In this case people are suggesting it doesn't excuse harm to others, why are you trying to convince them otherwise?

interesting

Thats the problem, Western Christianity is dead. Its because it died in Europe a long time ago, and its slowly dying in America.

Christianity made a mistake in the past, and the world will throw it back in its face until its last church or shrine crummbles. Its how the world works. Humans are illogical creatures which think of themselves before the group. It doesn't matter any scientist, philsopher, or humanist says. Its the truth. It espically doesn't matter what college kids, whom think they are enlightened, they're about as enlightened as the guy working at Blockbuster.

I'm a Christian in America, probably the last "West" stronghold for Christianity. My best advice is to not look at America or Europe as Christian nations and to look to God or Africa or Asia for salvation and assistance. You will more than likely only get a cold shoulder from the West.

What is it about SOME American Christians... that makes them consider going to college a bad thing? This is far from the first time I've seen it... I think SOME Christians dislike the fact that SOME colleges teach things that imply there is a bigger world out there....

The Qu'ran is not the only location for Islamic docrine to be found.


And the Bible is just one option for Christianity?

The Qu'ran is as central and essential to the faith of Islam, as the Bible is to Christianity.

And, you are right to an extent... BOTH groups have followers who follow non-scriptural material. That doesn't make it right.

The SCARY thing is, most followers who do that, don't even know they ARE doing it.... so they just merrily wander on their way, with a strange idea that there were... two of each animal on the Ark, for example.

Your knowledge of history, and of the Quoran is seriously deficient. :rolleyes:

Explain?

What was wrong with the description of 'jihad'? What was wrong with saying that Islam is a religion of peace?

Was there substance behind the rhetoric? Or do you just enjoy leaping in with flames?

And the Bible is just one option for Christianity?

The Qu'ran is as central and essential to the faith of Islam, as the Bible is to Christianity.

Just a small point. The correct western spelling is KORAN, though Quran and Qur'an are also acceptable. It comes from the Arabic of course: qur'an 'recitation', which in turn comes from qara'a 'read, recite'.

Hope this helps.

Firstly, something to note is the fact that not all the knights in the crusade (or soldiers in that matter) were Christians. Such as the fact that none of the knights REALLY followed the Knights Code of Honor.

Secondly, for the longest period of time it was Roman Catholics.

Thirdly, not all religions see other religions as lower than them. As a matter of fact, most religions don't say much about how you should treat all the other religions. No religion that I have heard of says "kill people of this religion". Not even Atheists have that sort of belief.

Fourthly, martydoms happened, happen and will probably continue to happen.

The SCARY thing is, most followers who do that, don't even know they ARE doing it.... so they just merrily wander on their way, with a strange idea that there were... two of each animal on the Ark, for example.

Hello again my dear friend.

Firstly, you cannot say that there weren't two of each animal on the Ark. You can't prove it :)

Secondly, the Bible has evidence to support that it's accurate. Also, it hasn't been disproven.

And by the by, hows it going? Haven't seen a reply by you for a while.

HAHAHAHA!!! That's great. I love how far people will go to defend Paul. I suppose they didn't have a word for employer and employees? He couldn't have used apprenticeships as the example or things like that? It was just impossible to come up with an example that wasn't condoning slavery. It's not his fault. :rolleyes:

And, of course, the problem with THAT kind of answer is that Paul DID seem to just come up with words where none were available (like his famous artifact 'arsenokoites').

The point being, I guess... that if Paul (of all people) could not think of another term than 'slave'... he'd have made one up.

Thus - if Paul SAID 'slave'... it's pretty sure he MEANS 'slave'.

Hello again my dear friend.

Firstly, you cannot say that there weren't two of each animal on the Ark. You can't prove it :)

Secondly, the Bible has evidence to support that it's accurate. Also, it hasn't been disproven.

And by the by, hows it going? Haven't seen a reply by you for a while.

Care to explain how two of every species on the planet fit into an ark about 100 meters long and 25 meters wide?

Care to explain how two of every species on the planet fit into an ark about 100 meters long and 25 meters wide?

Your dimentions are slightly off. It was about the size of an ocean cruiser.

Also, input into the fact that if God had really wanted to he could have brought on all the young animals, hence saving alot of room.

Also, most species are quite similar (no not micro evolution), I'm talking about addaptation to an extent or even cross breeding by people.

Your dimentions are slightly off. It was about the size of an ocean cruiser.

Also, input into the fact that if God had really wanted to he could have brought on all the young animals, hence saving alot of room.

Also, most species are quite similar (no not micro evolution), I'm talking about addaptation to an extent or even cross breeding by people.

I am wrong on the dimensions, but there were still millions of speciese of animals alive, even at that time.

Also: what about the fish? How did he get them on the boat?

Hello again my dear friend.

Firstly, you cannot say that there weren't two of each animal on the Ark. You can't prove it :)

Secondly, the Bible has evidence to support that it's accurate. Also, it hasn't been disproven.

And by the by, hows it going? Haven't seen a reply by you for a while.

Long time, no see, my friend... all is much as it was, with the recent addition of a newborn. :)

The point I was making about the Ark, is that everyone KNOWS that there were two of every animal on the Ark, do they not?

And, yet... the Bible explicitly says that there were two of SOME, and seven of others. Indeed, it is a little arbitrary, it can be read as two male and two female of each, and seven the male and seven female of others.

What is clear, however, is that what is commonly 'known' about that simple event (which takes place in the first few chapters), is also often wrong.

The OTHER point I would draw here, is that there were obviously many animals that were NOT on board the Ark... one must assume that ALL of the fish and sea mammals, for example, stayed in the water.

Also - Hebrew stories tell of a great beast called Re'em, of which there are only ever two. They meet, occassionally, they breed... the female kills the male, and then dies giving birth to two new Re'em. The simple scale attributed to Re'em makes them far to big to have been on an Ark sized vessel, certainly for an extended period.... even if they did not eat throughout the whole journey.

Similarly, Leviathan and Behemoth (if the stories are not pure myth) could not be easily contained within an Ark-scaled vessel. And, there is no evidence of any mated pairs of those creatures... so there could not have been 'two' Behemoth(s) or 'two' Leviathan(s)... even if they COULD have been squeezed within.

I am wrong on the dimensions, but there were still millions of speciese of animals alive, even at that time.

Also: what about the fish? How did he get them on the boat?

Firstly, how do you know there where millions of species? Also, forget about the birds, they'd live up in the rafts if needed.

Secondly, the fish live in the water. No need to bring em on.

Thirdly, most species are closely related. Breeding, etc. might have caused most of the vartiety.

Also, think of the variety of humans there are.... :) also think of how much DNA our body actually uses (approx %10, or so I've been told) so who knows what is in all that other DNA? perhaps the DNA for blondes and brunettes and red heads too.

Long time, no see, my friend... all is much as it was, with the recent addition of a newborn. :)

The point I was making about the Ark, is that everyone KNOWS that there were two of every animal on the Ark, do they not?

And, yet... the Bible explicitly says that there were two of SOME, and seven of others. Indeed, it is a little arbitrary, it can be read as two male and two female of each, and seven the male and seven female of others.

What is clear, however, is that what is commonly 'known' about that simple event (which takes place in the first few chapters), is also often wrong.

The OTHER point I would draw here, is that there were obviously many animals that were NOT on board the Ark... one must assume that ALL of the fish and sea mammals, for example, stayed in the water.

Also - Hebrew stories tell of a great beast called Re'em, of which there are only ever two. They meet, occassionally, they breed... the female kills the male, and then dies giving birth to two new Re'em. The simple scale attributed to Re'em makes them far to big to have been on an Ark sized vessel, certainly for an extended period.... even if they did not eat throughout the whole journey.

Similarly, Leviathan and Behemoth (if the stories are not pure myth) could not be easily contained within an Ark-scaled vessel. And, there is no evidence of any mated pairs of those creatures... so there could not have been 'two' Behemoth(s) or 'two' Leviathan(s)... even if they COULD have been squeezed within.

Alright, i'd forgotten about the 7 of some, gathered.

but still, what if the larger animals were simply younger ones.

Firstly, how do you know there where millions of species? Also, forget about the birds, they'd live up in the rafts if needed.

Secondly, the fish live in the water. No need to bring em on.

Thirdly, most species are closely related. Breeding, etc. might have caused most of the vartiety.

Also, think of the variety of humans there are.... :) also think of how much DNA our body actually uses (approx %10, or so I've been told) so who knows what is in all that other DNA? perhaps the DNA for blondes and brunettes and red heads too.

There are millions of species now, and evolution within 6,000 years could not have simply accounted for that.

There are millions of species now, and evolution within 6,000 years could not have simply accounted for that.

Firstly, don't give me any of that evolution, it's all BS to me.

Secondly, many species are very similar as before (like humans). What if all the DNA needed for these different types is still there but simply unused?

Unfortunately, I gotta get off so I'll continue this latter.

Otherwise, send my nation a tele and I'll answer asap.

Firstly, don't give me any of that evolution, it's all BS to me.

Secondly, many species are very similar as before (like humans). What if all the DNA needed for these different types is still there but simply unused?

Without evolution, how do you account for the fish that cannot live in seawater and the fish that cannot live in fresh water? Certainly, the water could not have been both?

As far as your dna hypothesis, it quite simply impossible. We know far too much about the function of most of the areas of dna strands for there to be some magical portion of the DNA that changes one species into another.

For the record, I don't think this disproves the ark story. I just disagree with your arguments. Personally, I've never seen an explanation of the ark story that makes any sense, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It simply means one of three things, there are things we don't know about that make it possible as most people describe it, most people are misunderstanding the story, or it didn't happen. Also, if it didn't happen, this still doesn't make the Bible false, as it could have been intended as allegory (which is my personal belief).

Just a small point. The correct western spelling is KORAN, though Quran and Qur'an are also acceptable. It comes from the Arabic of course: qur'an 'recitation', which in turn comes from qara'a 'read, recite'.

Hope this helps.

Very helpful... although not entirely true... since 'koran' is only a transliteration of the phonetic Arabic, no?

Similarly, accenting is dependent on pronunciation... you might pronounce Qu'ran or you might pronounce Qur'an.

Neither is TRULY accurate to the Arabic...

Which is all but irrelevent to me, since I just tend to reply in kind. For example... if you look at the post I replied to, I just duplicated the spelling the previous poster used.

For my own PERSONAL use, I tend to write 'koran'... but that is a personal thing, and based entirely on the fact that my Islamic friends (back in Leicester) wrote 'Koran'. (But, then... maybe they were doing that for MY benefit? Who knows....?)

Alright, i'd forgotten about the 7 of some, gathered.

but still, what if the larger animals were simply younger ones.

Again... one looks to the other Hebrew myth. Quite simply, there cannot have been two Re'em on the Ark, because they would have EITHER been a breeding pair - in which case they would have been TOO LARGE, would have fought and bred, and one would have died, followed by the other) OR there would have been two young... in which case they would have fought and died.

Anyway- the point is, a lot of what we know, from scripture... just isn't IN scripture... it is assumption, or from OTHER sources.

Very helpful... although not entirely true... since 'koran' is only a transliteration of the phonetic Arabic, no?

Correct. However, Koran is still the prefered western spelling - I can't help that :)

Why would Muslims work to kill those that the Qur'an say are equal(or almost exaclty as equal) to them? It makes no sense. Also, if Hindu's "are not supposed to be left alone until dead", then how come for centuries Muslims controlled India and didn't wipe them all out, hmmm?

It is NOT required that any non-Muslim holy place be turned into a mosque. In Lebanon, while bouts of inter-religious conflict spring up, Christian Churches are side-by-side with Muslim Mosques. I have stepped inside many a Mosque, and I have not once been told to leave, except for at times of prayer.

Mohammed did not declare war, war was declared on HIM. And he fought back. If you call soundly defeating the Pagans who wished to kill all the men, rape all the females, and then kill everyone else, "mass murder", then I think you need to take another look at what mass murder is.


I do not take the Koran’s excuses as Gospel, unless you are Moslem, neither should you. Mohammed declared war some twenty odd times, massacred merchant caravans and called these great victories, claiming on his pedophiliac honor that they were planning to attack him. Why should anyone believe him about this?

The Koran does not say you are their equal, it says to smite you above your neck and on all of your fingertips until you accept that they are your superiors and you must pay them for not killing you.

As for their rule of the Hindu Kush, they never ruled all of it, ever. The parts they did rule, they destroyed Hindu Temples, like the Temple of Ram, murdering hundreds of thousands of Hindus to do it. No Hindu was allowed near it, until the British forced the Moslems to allow a small nearby shrine.

Lebanon, Lebanon used to be a Christian country, until Syria painted the streets with their blood. Being a Christian in Lebanon is a thing for masochists these days, but if you kiss Moslem sandals a lot maybe they will be kind and allow you to guard one of their harems. Read the fine print first.

And, of course, the problem with THAT kind of answer is that Paul DID seem to just come up with words where none were available (like his famous artifact 'arsenokoites').

The point being, I guess... that if Paul (of all people) could not think of another term than 'slave'... he'd have made one up.

Thus - if Paul SAID 'slave'... it's pretty sure he MEANS 'slave'.


Yes, I agree. Paul said and meant a lot of things. People try to make excuses about it, but really, the point of Christianity is not our condition on earth, but an eye-sight for the hereafter.

(No obfuscation this time… This post I believe.)

In my mind, the danger now is that people want to dismiss Pauls writings now for secular reasons (they don't like what he said :p )

The most prominent characteristic of the theology and principles of Paul is his emphasis on Christianity as a universal religion. Whereas the teachings of Jesus was interpreted by his earlier followers as a narrowly conceived sect for the Jewish religion alone, Paul, in the debate that occurred between the Hellenistic and the Hebrew Christians that began shortly after the resurrection and occurred more and more with the spread of the Good News, Paul diligently and articulately recast Christianity as a religion for all peoples and not just the ‘originally chosen.’

Paul, a one time strict Pharisee, would explain that the Gentile church would be a separate body and not obligated to follow and obey Jewish laws, such as circumcision and dietary laws, which were allowable and justified by the spirit of Christianity. The conflict of ideology would end with the formation of the Gentile church autonomous of Jewish law, a church largely composed of Greeks and Hellenistic Romans. It was this group, this church, not the Hebrew followers who would became the source of Christianity as the world religion we know today.

Over the last century much has been made of Paul as the inventor of Christianity, the man who took the unfocused, anti-intellectual messianism of the bubble-headed followers of Jesus and constructed it into an effective theological weapon, which Christians would eventually use to beat not only the Jews but the whole of the ancient world. This is only partly true. Paul did not invent the faith of the early Church in the continuing reality and presence of Jesus. If Paul became in his own lifetime the most articulate spokesman for this faith, he was never much more than an articulator who knew how to zero in on the most essential elements of his argument and could thread his discourse with the welcome colors of his own very personal experience. If Paul had never left the Pharisaical school, the Jesus Movement that became Christianity would have survived and probably even prospered (if with a more limited scope), but it would have been a Christianity that lacked (at least for some time) Paul's intellectual edge as well as his emotional edginess.

For beyond his education, by which he intertwined antiquity's most rigorous intellectual traditions, we cannot neglect to consider the man's natural temper: neither flatterer nor diplomat, neither charmer nor salesman, Paul was not the sort of man you would immediately associate with the effort to pitch a new idea, let alone a whole new worldview and way of life. Devoid of small talk, anecdotes, and the sort of chatter that puts people at their ease, Paul was an either/or kind of guy, an absolutist for whom the matter under discussion would always be All or Nothing. An intellectual overachiever, pushed repeatedly to success by a keenly competitive father, Paul had no time for ordinary social niceties and neither gave nor expected to receive normal social comforts. One can imagine him sitting uncomfortably in some conventional parlor, staring penetratingly at his hostess while trying to find some Meaning in her inquiry as to whether he took one lump or two.

But the combination of intellectual and emotional relentlessness that constituted Paul's personality made this unlikely man the perfect vehicle for this moment in the development of the Jesus Movement. Had he appeared a little earlier--say, soon after the "raising" of Jesus and the descent of the Spirit--his intellectual ardor would probably have been too much for the inchoate community of simply educated disciples who were just beginning to get their minds around these inexplicable events. Once they had got their bearings again, come to understand what had happened as a coherent story, and begun to give voice to their unique experiences, they were--whether they knew it or now--ready to hear from someone more intellectually incisive than they, someone who could give a more precise formulation to these experiences, someone who was part of them but also part of the larger world of which they had only limited knowledge. Had Paul arrived on the scene much later than he did (when the movement, settling down as an elaborated organization with defined structures, had become the Church it would become), his emotional edginess--his intolerance for muddleheadedness, his knowing when he was right and you were wrong, his essential abstraction from the details of ordinary life--would have made him a poor candidate to be an organization man; and he would soon have been isolated and eventually cast aside.
Thomas Cahill

To argue that we should dismiss Paul now, because we don’t like the implications of what he had to say in regards to several secular movements of today, seems asinine to me. Would you rather we returned to the strict orthodox laws of the Hebrews? Would you rather we limited the scope of Christianity to only the select few and not preach salvation and evangelize the gospel for one and all?

Christ is salvation, Paul points us towards Christ. The oldest preserved archeological accounts of Christianity and it’s message comes from the pen of Paul. We should not disregard the teacher the Apostles themselves approved of for the gentile peoples.

2 Peter 3 14-18
So then, dear friends, since you are looking forward to this, make every effort to be found spotless, blameless and at peace with him. Bear in mind that our Lord's patience means salvation, just as our dear brother Paul also wrote you with the wisdom that God gave him. He writes the same way in all his letters, speaking in them of these matters. His letters contain some things that are hard to understand, which ignorant and unstable people distort, as they do the other Scriptures, to their own destruction.

Therefore, dear friends, since you already know this, be on your guard so that you may not be carried away by the error of lawless men and fall from your secure position. But grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and forever! Amen.

Also keep in mind, we are not to be consumed by the temptations of the flesh, we are free but we are not to ‘crucify’ Jesus for our sins by choosing to continue in them…

1 Peter, 4:1-4
Therefore, since Christ suffered in his body, arm yourselves also with the same attitude, because he who has suffered in his body is done with sin. As a result, he does not live the rest of his earthly life for evil human desires, but rather for the will of God. For you have spent enough time in the past doing what pagans choose to do—living in debauchery, lust, drunkenness, orgies, carousing and detestable idolatry. They think it strange that you do not plunge with them into the same flood of dissipation, and they heap abuse on you.

Beware of false teachers, teaching that it’s ‘okay’ to do what you know is wrong, you are forgiven so go ahead and sin, you cannot be condemned etc.,…

2 Peter 2:17-22
These men are springs without water and mists driven by a storm. Blackest darkness is reserved for them. For they mouth empty, boastful words and, by appealing to the lustful desires of sinful human nature, they entice people who are just escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for a man is a slave to whatever has mastered him. If they have escaped the corruption of the world by knowing our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ and are again entangled in it and overcome, they are worse off at the end than they were at the beginning. It would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than to have known it and then to turn their backs on the sacred command that was passed on to them. Of them the proverbs are true: "A dog returns to its vomit," and, "A sow that is washed goes back to her wallowing in the mud."




(p.s., I think the Qur'an should be spelled this way, that's what it says on the burgandy leather book I have anyway :D )

I do not take the Koran’s excuses as Gospel, unless you are Moslem, neither should you. Mohammed declared war some twenty odd times, massacred merchant caravans and called these great victories, claiming on his pedophiliac honor that they were planning to attack him. Why should anyone believe him about this?

The Koran does not say you are their equal, it says to smite you above your neck and on all of your fingertips until you accept that they are your superiors and you must pay them for not killing you.

As for their rule of the Hindu Kush, they never ruled all of it, ever. The parts they did rule, they destroyed Hindu Temples, like the Temple of Ram, murdering hundreds of thousands of Hindus to do it. No Hindu was allowed near it, until the British forced the Moslems to allow a small nearby shrine.

Lebanon, Lebanon used to be a Christian country, until Syria painted the streets with their blood. Being a Christian in Lebanon is a thing for masochists these days, but if you kiss Moslem sandals a lot maybe they will be kind and allow you to guard one of their harems. Read the fine print first.

/signed (with reservations)

Why would Muslims work to kill those that the Qur'an say are equal(or almost exaclty as equal) to them? It makes no sense. Also, if Hindu's "are not supposed to be left alone until dead", then how come for centuries Muslims controlled India and didn't wipe them all out, hmmm?

Not for lack of trying though.

Try looking up the reason behind why the mountain range "Hindu Kush" is called such.

India is a big country and the population was huge even in those days and hence India was not completely overran. Muslim sultanates were never in complete control over all of India for any decent stretch of time.

Peninsular India was always free of muslim rule save for the Bamini sultans but the Vijayanagar empire was a bulwark against their southern expansion. Then the Marathas and Sikhs and Rajputs always had their areas of influence which were not under direct rule.

But where there was an extended period of muslim rule (especially Uttar Pradesh), you can see the degeneration and decay. Even now the state is amongst the most backward in India.

Oh, btw, Hindus are not ahl-e-kitab and do not have the "equal or almost exactly as equal or whatever you intended to convey with that" status accorded to Jews and Christians. We are fair game, according to Qur'an. ;)

I do not take the Koran’s excuses as Gospel, unless you are Moslem, neither should you. Mohammed declared war some twenty odd times, massacred merchant caravans and called these great victories, claiming on his pedophiliac honor that they were planning to attack him. Why should anyone believe him about this?

The Koran does not say you are their equal, it says to smite you above your neck and on all of your fingertips until you accept that they are your superiors and you must pay them for not killing you.

As for their rule of the Hindu Kush, they never ruled all of it, ever. The parts they did rule, they destroyed Hindu Temples, like the Temple of Ram, murdering hundreds of thousands of Hindus to do it. No Hindu was allowed near it, until the British forced the Moslems to allow a small nearby shrine.

Lebanon, Lebanon used to be a Christian country, until Syria painted the streets with their blood. Being a Christian in Lebanon is a thing for masochists these days, but if you kiss Moslem sandals a lot maybe they will be kind and allow you to guard one of their harems. Read the fine print first.


You certainly do have alot of hate for Muslims, dont ya?

Just for the record, I have lived amongst muslims for at least half my life, and I have found they are like everyone else. They have some shitty people, they have some absolutly grand people. I lived in Pakistan and Bangladesh, BTW, and while the former is usually portrayed as some backwards mountain country full of mullahs that want to wipe out Christianity, that is certainly not true.

Anyhoo, back to your happy points.

1. Muhammed did not wage war 20 times. He was a warrior for the last 10 years of his life, and then it was in defence. So what if he attacked a heavily-armed merchant caravan? The Meccans set out to torch Medina to the ground. Muhammed waged war to defend his followers, and instead of stopping so that the pagans who wished his followers dead could re-gain strength, he went forward and solidified Muslim control of Saudi Arabia in a wider war of defence. Even then, he was the first great leader that set rules for the humane treatment of prisoners, as shown here:

Hadith:

Muhammad is reputed to have said:

* "You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive." (Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362)

* "Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud)

* "Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship". (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal)

Sunnis believe that one of the most general and encompassing rules of warfare in Islam was given by Abu Bakr to an Islamic army set out for Syria. Abu Bakr was Muhammad's first successor and is considered by Sunnis to have been his closest friend.

Abu Bakr is reputed to have said:

* "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone."


Also, unlike in Christianity, Islam does not state that Mohammed was some divine being. He was an average shmoe, to which God had shown his message. Unlike Jesus, Mohammed was not a miracle-maker. He was a man with a vision. He could not come back from the dead, and he did not control the world. He realised that he couldn't throw his life away, so he didn't, and although he preached the word of God, he couldn't allow himself to get executed. So he fought back against his attackers.

2. Oh really? That's not what the Qur'an says...

62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (The Cow)

Oh yes. I can see the part about enslaving them in plain view.

3. As a person has extensively studied Indian History, I can say you sir are very much wrong. The Mughal Empire controlled nearly all of the Indian Subcontinent, save the southern tip. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Mughal_empire_large.png) Also, in the Mughal Empire, although Muslims were generally in higher positions than Hindus (as was the same all over Europe at the time; I doubt you'd find a Muslim as Chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, or as a noble in Spain), they were treated very humanly. In fact, at the Babri Mosque (that was torn down by angry Hindu mobs that incited inter-religious conflict that killed hundreds), Muslims and Hindus used to pray together towards their seperate deities in peace. Both religions considered the place a haven of peace. Then the radicals came, and we got to the not-so-wonderful situation we have today.

4. As a descendant of Lebanese and Syrian Christians, I have to say you are wrong. Sure, fighting breaks out between the two groups every once and a while, but Christians and Muslims live in peace. Radicals on both sides try to incite violence, but in the end the peace is returned.

Not for lack of trying though.

Try looking up the reason behind why the mountain range "Hindu Kush" is called such.

India is a big country and the population was huge even in those days and hence India was not completely overran. Muslim sultanates were never in complete control over all of India for any decent stretch of time.

Peninsular India was always free of muslim rule save for the Bamini sultans but the Vijayanagar empire was a bulwark against their southern expansion. Then the Marathas and Sikhs and Rajputs always had their areas of influence which were not under direct rule.

But where there was an extended period of muslim rule (especially Uttar Pradesh), you can see the degeneration and decay. Even now the state is amongst the most backward in India.

Oh, btw, Hindus are not ahl-e-kitab and do not have the "equal or almost exactly as equal or whatever you intended to convey with that" status accorded to Jews and Christians. We are fair game, according to Qur'an. ;)

Ahhh! More Muslim bashing!

Listen, just because you aren't considered "people of the book" doesn't mean you aren't to be treated well. If anything, Christianity(if you follow the Bible to the letter) is more hostile than most other religions. But when it comes down to it, Christians are very decent people.

Also, you claim that Muslims bring "degeneration and decay". I think the Taj Mahal begs to differ, as does the Red Fort, and many other beautiful buildings created by Muslims. Also, while Muslim communities are "backwards" in India and, once again, are in "degeneration in decay", that is certainly not the truth of all Muslim communities. Examples: Dubai, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Karachi, and Islamabad. The economy of Pakistan is booming, and it is listed by the World Bank as the economy that is doing the most reform of any country in the Indian Subcontinent, and is amongst the top 10. The Karachi Stock Exchange is, according to the magazine Business Week "one of the Best Performing Markets", and according to USA Today "one of the best performing bourses in the world." While I am not claiming that Muslims are better than everyone else, they certainly do not create "degeneration and decay".

Which raises another point: Unlike many of you here, I am not here to talk about how one religion is "inferior" or "superior". I am here to give everyone the opinion of a pretty "neutral" viewpoint (that of an Agnostic). If you wanted, I could certainly list how Islam does have drawbacks. As does Christianity. As does Hinduism. As does Buddhism. As does Judaism. And so on and so forth. If everyone would just settle down and realise screaming "MY RELIGION IS BETTER THAN YOURS AND YOURS IS EVIL!" and then when someone tries to tell you that you are being extreme you stick your fingers in your ears, close your eyes, and scream "LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU LA LA!", isn't the way to solve inter-religious conflict. First you must learn everyones viewpoints. Then you can actually achieve something.

Ahhh! More Muslim bashing

oh please.

Are you saying that the erstwhile barbaric invaders like Mahmud Ghazni, Mahmud Ghori, Timur Lane were muslims?

Am I supposed to sing poems about the destruction they brought to my country just because they are muslims and somehow speaking about the atrocities done by erstwhile invaders makes me a muslim basher?

Excuse me while I puke...


Listen, just because you aren't considered "people of the book" doesn't mean you aren't to be treated well.

No, you listen.

Heathens and pagans (that's what Hindus are as per Islam) have even dismal rights in an islamic state. They are to be dhimmis. Idolatry is the greatest shirk in Islam and there is a reason why India was subjected to so many invasions by muslim kings. They all were really in a missionary zeal to destroy us polytheistic pagans.

Also, while Muslim communities are "backwards" in India and, once again, are in "degeneration in decay", that is certainly not the truth of all Muslim communities. Examples: Dubai, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi, Karachi, and Islamabad. The economy of Pakistan is booming, and it is listed by the World Bank as the economy that is doing the most reform of any country in the Indian Subcontinent, and is amongst the top 10.

lol.

Dubai, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi have oil resources.

Karachi was just listed in the ten worst cities to live in.

The economy of Pakistan is on the up, primarily because it was on rock bottom and there was no way to go but up.

Plus much of it has to do with the cash infusion by American aid and the expats removing funds from elsewhere (following tighter regulations after 9/11) and investing in Pakistan.

There is no real boom. Karachi stocke exchange went bust some months ago.

You should read more and keep current than swallowing Shaukat Aziz'z nice statements.

Without evolution, how do you account for the fish that cannot live in seawater and the fish that cannot live in fresh water? Certainly, the water could not have been both?

As far as your dna hypothesis, it quite simply impossible. We know far too much about the function of most of the areas of dna strands for there to be some magical portion of the DNA that changes one species into another.

For the record, I don't think this disproves the ark story. I just disagree with your arguments. Personally, I've never seen an explanation of the ark story that makes any sense, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. It simply means one of three things, there are things we don't know about that make it possible as most people describe it, most people are misunderstanding the story, or it didn't happen. Also, if it didn't happen, this still doesn't make the Bible false, as it could have been intended as allegory (which is my personal belief).

Firstly, what if the water was in such equilibrium that both species could survive? Still this is all hypothesis, like evolution.

Secondly, we don't know anything about the DNA strand. We have only just begun to understand it and even then only minorly. Also, I'm not talking about strands changing, simply about different strands being used or even addaptation. Besides, better to believe it was already there than believe it came from nowhere as evolution seems to indicate.

Thirdly, if the story didn't happen then what else isn't true? How about Abraham then, oh oh or how about the original sin.

Speaking of original sin, evolution contradicts the original sin (that is if evolution was before it) and anyways it has no logical basis other than that it could have (emphasis on could have) happened.

Again... one looks to the other Hebrew myth. Quite simply, there cannot have been two Re'em on the Ark, because they would have EITHER been a breeding pair - in which case they would have been TOO LARGE, would have fought and bred, and one would have died, followed by the other) OR there would have been two young... in which case they would have fought and died.

Anyway- the point is, a lot of what we know, from scripture... just isn't IN scripture... it is assumption, or from OTHER sources.

Firstly, animals (other than humans) only started killing each other after the Flood and after the Ark had landed and the animals left.

No, if it's "from scripture" then it's "in scripture". But I see part of what your saying. That sometimes, we make assumptions that are based of of scripture. But if most of the time though, the meanings are there and can be drawn out of things.

Firstly, what if the water was in such equilibrium that both species could survive? Still this is all hypothesis, like evolution.

It's not possible. It's quite easy to test. Science can't prove things but it can falsify things. I'll get you a thousand salt water fish and a thousand fresh water fish and you can put them in tanks of varying salinity. You will reach a point where there is too much salt for the fresh water fish to survive and a point where there is not enough salt for the salt water fish to survive. If those two points don't cross, then it is not possible to find an equilibrium point that works for both. And they don't cross. Any pet shop owner could tell you that. Fish are very sensitive to salinity. If the polar ice caps melted the effect on the fish population of the ocean would be catastrophic.

Evolution itself is observable. What we evolved from or what evolved from what is not. We have actually observed animals evolving in a controlled environment and in nature. We know the mechanisms of how that occurs and why. That is hardly comparable to a story that can only be confirmed by the Bible and that is, let's use the term difficult, difficult to find a logical way it could have happened that adheres to what we know of science and physics without making up theories that we have absolutely no evidence for, and in some cases evidence against (like having all fresh water and all salt water fish living in the same water).

Secondly, we don't know anything about the DNA strand. We have only just begun to understand it and even then only minorly. Also, I'm not talking about strands changing, simply about different strands being used or even adaptation. Besides, better to believe it was already there than believe it came from nowhere as evolution seems to indicate.

Patently false. We know plenty about the dna strand to know that different species cannot change into each other without mutation.

Because you don't know anything of the DNA strand or of what you speak is not reason enough to suggest 'we' don't.

Thirdly, if the story didn't happen then what else isn't true? How about Abraham then, oh oh or how about the original sin.

I didn't say it 'isn't true'. I don't want you to imply I was suggesting it was a trick or a lie. I said it was intended to teach us, not to tell us of history. And yes, many of the stories of the Bibles could in fact be intended to teach us lessons not to tell of history. In fact, in many cases the lessons they are intended to teach are obvious. They don't need to be historically factual to have the same value.

Speaking of original sin, evolution contradicts the original sin (that is if evolution was before it) and anyways it has no logical basis other than that it could have (emphasis on could have) happened.

Evolution does not speak of where we come from only the fact that species evolve. You are speaking of biogenesis.

oh please.

Are you saying that the erstwhile barbaric invaders like Mahmud Ghazni, Mahmud Ghori, Timur Lane were muslims?

Am I supposed to sing poems about the destruction they brought to my country just because they are muslims and somehow speaking about the atrocities done by erstwhile invaders makes me a muslim basher?

Excuse me while I puke...

No. But every single time I read one of your posts, I see "Muslims are the cause of all evil!" and "Hinduism will bring utopian perfection!"



No, you listen.

Heathens and pagans (that's what Hindus are as per Islam) have even dismal rights in an islamic state. They are to be dhimmis. Idolatry is the greatest shirk in Islam and there is a reason why India was subjected to so many invasions by muslim kings. They all were really in a missionary zeal to destroy us polytheistic pagans.

Oh yes. I see building great cities that all religions could live in and granting Brahmans high positions in the Mughal Empire as destroying you "polytheistic pagans".



lol.

Dubai, Kuwait, Abu Dhabi have oil resources.

Karachi was just listed in the ten worst cities to live in.

The economy of Pakistan is on the up, primarily because it was on rock bottom and there was no way to go but up.

Plus much of it has to do with the cash infusion by American aid and the expats removing funds from elsewhere (following tighter regulations after 9/11) and investing in Pakistan.

There is no real boom. Karachi stocke exchange went bust some months ago.

You should read more and keep current than swallowing Shaukat Aziz'z nice statements.

Kuwait has oil riches, yes. Abu Dhabi, not so much. Dubai, if you count 10% as "oil riches", then you are sadly mistaken. Dubai gets 10% of its revenue from oil. 10% And it is a city. I can count plenty of other cities that get MUCH more than 10% of their revenue from oil.

And where was it rated one of the worst cities to live in? "Let's Kill Pakistani's Monthly"?

The economy of Pakistan was not at rock bottom. Bangladesh is at rock-bottom. Alot of countries in Africa is at rock-bottom. Pakistan was not at rock-bottom. It was recovering from the recession of the 50's.

Also, the Karachi Stock Exchange hasn't gone bust. After checking their website, I can see they are doing quite nicely. Also, if I remember correctly, a while back India had its own stock exchange problems...

You should really read more and keep current than swallowing anti-Pakistan propaganda.

It's not possible. It's quite easy to test. Science can't prove things but it can falsify things. I'll get you a thousand salt water fish and a thousand fresh water fish and you can put them in tanks of varying salinity. You will reach a point where there is too much salt for the fresh water fish to survive and a point where there is not enough salt for the salt water fish to survive. If those two points don't cross, then it is not possible to find an equilibrium point that works for both. And they don't cross. Any pet shop owner could tell you that. Fish are very sensitive to salinity. If the polar ice caps melted the effect on the fish population of the ocean would be catastrophic.

Evolution itself is observable. What we evolved from or what evolved from what is not. We have actually observed animals evolving in a controlled environment and in nature. We know the mechanisms of how that occurs and why. That is hardly comparable to a story that can only be confirmed by the Bible and that is, let's use the term difficult, difficult to find a logical way it could have happened that adheres to what we know of science and physics without making up theories that we have absolutely no evidence for, and in some cases evidence against (like having all fresh water and all salt water fish living in the same water).



Patently false. We know plenty about the dna strand to know that different species cannot change into each other without mutation.

Because you don't know anything of the DNA strand or of what you speak is not reason enough to suggest 'we' don't.



I didn't say it 'isn't true'. I don't want you to imply I was suggesting it was a trick or a lie. I said it was intended to teach us, not to tell us of history. And yes, many of the stories of the Bibles could in fact be intended to teach us lessons not to tell of history. In fact, in many cases the lessons they are intended to teach are obvious. They don't need to be historically factual to have the same value.



Evolution does not speak of where we come from only the fact that species evolve. You are speaking of biogenesis.

Firstly, fine, but what if then fresh water fish and salt water fish are simply "mutations" (not evolution) of fish which could surivive in both. Also, salmon, they can live in salt water and yet they breed in fresh water. Interesting no?

Secondly, evolution isn't at all observable, nor has it ever been observed.
Evolution isn't observable because DNA just doesn't gain chromatin. Evolution requires an increase, not a decrease in genetic information.
Also, the Bible as I've said before, is provable and hasn't been proven wrong so it can be accepted as proof until it is disproven.

Thirdly, we don't understand DNA fully. Sure we know a decent amount about how it works but we still don't fully understand what everything of it does.

And I'll finish this thought latter.

Sry bout the inconvinience.

Firstly, fine, but what if then fresh water fish and salt water fish are simply "mutations" (not evolution) of fish which could surivive in both. Also, salmon, they can live in salt water and yet they breed in fresh water. Interesting no?

So they evolved into new species, but it's not evolution because you don't want to call it that? Okey-dokey.

Secondly, evolution isn't at all observable, nor has it ever been observed.
Evolution isn't observable because DNA just doesn't gain chromatin. Evolution requires an increase, not a decrease in genetic information.

Wrong on both counts. Show me where an increase in DNA is a required part of evolution. You are again talking about biogenesis and related theories. Evolution only states that creatures evolved into other creatures. They don't have to evolve into higher or lower lifeforms. They just have to evolve into a new species for evolution to be correct.

Also, the Bible as I've said before, is provable and hasn't been proven wrong so it can be accepted as proof until it is disproven.

Nothing is every proven. Certain translations have been shown to be highly unlikely and no theory has ever been proposed to explain those translations that reside completely within the realm of science. Thus science can never disprove it. You can say that the ark was magic so creatures didn't have to eat, but that can't be falsified so it's not an actual scientific theory and science won't touch it.

Thirdly, we don't understand DNA fully. Sure we know a decent amount about how it works but we still don't fully understand what everything of it does.

We don't have to. We certainly understand it well enough for what you say to not possibly explain what you are trying to make it explain.

And I'll finish this thought latter.

Sry bout the inconvinience.[/QUOTE]

LATER. That's the second time or I wouldn't correct the spelling.

So they evolved into new species, but it's not evolution because you don't want to call it that? Okey-dokey.



Wrong on both counts. Show me where an increase in DNA is a required part of evolution. You are again talking about biogenesis and related theories. Evolution only states that creatures evolved into other creatures. They don't have to evolve into higher or lower lifeforms. They just have to evolve into a new species for evolution to be correct.



Nothing is every proven. Certain translations have been shown to be highly unlikely and no theory has ever been proposed to explain those translations that reside completely within the realm of science. Thus science can never disprove it. You can say that the ark was magic so creatures didn't have to eat, but that can't be falsified so it's not an actual scientific theory and science won't touch it.



We don't have to. We certainly understand it well enough for what you say to not possibly explain what you are trying to make it explain.

And I'll finish this thought latter.

Sry bout the inconvinience.

Firstly, evolution is almost always seen the INCREASE of DNA, but if you don't want to see it that way then qoute "okey odkey".

Secondly, I use KJV which has proven to be reliable and uses majority texts and so is most likely accurate, not to mention the fact that during the time period it was translated it was something very important and not to be taken lightly.

Thirdly, Babalon, Ninevah, old Jericho, archeological proof that the Bible is accurate in that. The Earth being held up by invisible forces as predicted in the book of Job. The fact that the blood is describe in Genesis as being the"life" which it virtually is, without it, large scale creatures like us couldn't function. The list probably goes on much more than what I have currently summarized.

Fourthly, if there isn't a God :) then how can we exist if there can't be matter.... rule of 0 can't equal 1. So unless there is a supernatural being, then we cannot exist and tihs arguement isn't even taking place.

Fifthly, evolution is an increase of matter because it talks about something going from small to big, from simple to complex. Mutation goes from comlex to simple. Mutation is loss of genetic info. Survival of the lucky, not the most "evolved".

Sixthly, biogenesis is essentially just another name for evolution that supposedly happened millions (ya....right) of years ago is it not? (rhetorical question)

Seventh, fish are fish are they not? Mutation doesn't create new species, simply new substructures of a species, same animal type, just different. Take the Galapagos finches compared to other finches, same species, just different in ways of survival.

Eighth, there ins't any proof for evolution. Even carbon-14 dating doesn't help it, it only makes the pile of lies ascosiated with it bigger. Carbon-14 dating is flawed in how it is used. If you wish for me to explain then I will.

Nineth, the Bible is a historical reference, it has historical proofs, such as which kingdoms where ruling when, what happened to certain kingdoms, et cetera.

Tenth, when it boils down to it, evolution is simply another part of atheism. An attempt to explain how the world was created without a God (which is immposible because of the fact that 0 can't = 1, never will, simply put)

Eleventh, evolution is essentially like spontaneous life, the ideology that life can somehow appear from non-living things which is logically and in a real world situation, immposible.

Twelveth, the Bible may seem like a bunch of hocus pocus, but it's got proofs that prove that it could be true. Also, most scientists that started up what we know to be "true science" (ie: the explanation of why/how things work) not what might happen or what might have happened as evolution or biogenesis (both involve evolution or atheism) were Christians.

Also, evolution requires much more hocus pocus since it's simply an idea, no proof, no evidence, no nothing except for an idea.

So, in conclusion without a supernatural being that has power over natural laws of the world, we can't exist. So, if you want to believe you don't exist, go ahead.

Oh ya, P.S. i don't care much about the spelling of words. Not that big on it, especially when u know what i mean.

Wrong on both counts. Show me where an increase in DNA is a required part of evolution. You are again talking about biogenesis and related theories. Evolution only states that creatures evolved into other creatures. They don't have to evolve into higher or lower lifeforms. They just have to evolve into a new species for evolution to be correct.


Evolving from a single celled life form to a multi celled one requires more genetic infomation to be introduced to the geneome. Something that has consistantly NOT happened, nor has ever been proven to happen. What we have seen is gentic infomation changing within species, but not a species developing new genetic infomation. Except of course in the instance of the rat with the human ear, but that was created by an intellegence

Firstly, fine, but what if then fresh water fish and salt water fish are simply "mutations" (not evolution) of fish which could surivive in both. Also, salmon, they can live in salt water and yet they breed in fresh water. Interesting no?

Without getting into the details of why certain fish are anadromous, salmon are highly adapted to their ecological niche, and have organ systems that are astounding (for a fish) to deal with the saline imbalance that they have. However, such systems are generally not evolutionary advantageous (for fish) and would require quite a bit of ecological pressure to force a system like that to evolve (again).

Secondly, evolution isn't at all observable, nor has it ever been observed.
Evolution isn't observable because DNA just doesn't gain chromatin. Evolution requires an increase, not a decrease in genetic information.

Wrong. It's been observed many times. And an increase in DNA. You have no idea what you're talking about if you say that DNA doesn't just gain "chromatin" (what the hell that protein has to do with DNA is beyond me).

Evolving from a single celled life form to a multi celled one requires more genetic infomation to be introduced to the geneome. Something that has consistantly NOT happened, nor has ever been proven to happen. What we have seen is gentic infomation changing within species, but not a species developing new genetic infomation. Except of course in the instance of the rat with the human ear, but that was created by an intellegence
You know what nondisjunction is?

Evolving from a single celled life form to a multi celled one requires more genetic infomation to be introduced to the geneome. Something that has consistantly NOT happened, nor has ever been proven to happen. What we have seen is gentic infomation changing within species, but not a species developing new genetic infomation. Except of course in the instance of the rat with the human ear, but that was created by an intellegence

Thank you, for noting that.

Without getting into the details of why certain fish are anadromous, salmon are highly adapted to their ecological niche, and have organ systems that are astounding (for a fish) to deal with the saline imbalance that they have. However, such systems are generally not evolutionary advantageous (for fish) and would require quite a bit of ecological pressure to force a system like that to evolve (again).

Wrong. It's been observed many times. And an increase in DNA. You have no idea what you're talking about if you say that DNA doesn't just gain "chromatin" (what the hell that protein has to do with DNA is beyond me).

Stop, think, listen.

Youre saying I'm talking about fish evolving, I'm not. I'm talking about mutation that happens to help them survive. Loss of DNA. And oh ya, "can't stand the heat, get outa the oven" :).

Secondly, give me an example of DNA increasing naturally. It just doesn't.

Thank you, for noting that.
1 It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
2 A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
* RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
* Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3 According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4 The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

1 It is hard to understand how anyone could make this claim, since anything mutations can do, mutations can undo. Some mutations add information to a genome; some subtract it. Creationists get by with this claim only by leaving the term "information" undefined, impossibly vague, or constantly shifting. By any reasonable definition, increases in information have been observed to evolve. We have observed the evolution of

* increased genetic variety in a population (Lenski 1995; Lenski et al. 1991)
* increased genetic material (Alves et al. 2001; Brown et al. 1998; Hughes and Friedman 2003; Lynch and Conery 2000; Ohta 2003)
* novel genetic material (Knox et al. 1996; Park et al. 1996)
* novel genetically-regulated abilities (Prijambada et al. 1995)


If these do not qualify as information, then nothing about information is relevant to evolution in the first place.
2 A mechanism that is likely to be particularly common for adding information is gene duplication, in which a long stretch of DNA is copied, followed by point mutations that change one or both of the copies. Genetic sequencing has revealed several instances in which this is likely the origin of some proteins. For example:

* Two enzymes in the histidine biosynthesis pathway that are barrel-shaped, structural and sequence evidence suggests, were formed via gene duplication and fusion of two half-barrel ancestors (Lang et al. 2000).
* RNASE1, a gene for a pancreatic enzyme, was duplicated, and in langur monkeys one of the copies mutated into RNASE1B, which works better in the more acidic small intestine of the langur. (Zhang et al. 2002)
* Yeast was put in a medium with very little sugar. After 450 generations, hexose transport genes had duplicated several times, and some of the duplicated versions had mutated further. (Brown et al. 1998)

The biological literature is full of additional examples. A PubMed search (at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi) on "gene duplication" gives more than 3000 references.

3 According to Shannon-Weaver information theory, random noise maximizes information. This is not just playing word games. The random variation that mutations add to populations is the variation on which selection acts. Mutation alone will not cause adaptive evolution, but by eliminating nonadaptive variation, natural selection communicates information about the environment to the organism so that the organism becomes better adapted to it. Natural selection is the process by which information about the environment is transferred to an organism's genome and thus to the organism (Adami et al. 2000).

4 The process of mutation and selection is observed to increase information and complexity in simulations (Adami et al. 2000; Schneider 2000).

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html

1.) BS, never happened, gene pool only shrinks. Never bigger.
And oh ya, explain where the DNA comes from?

2) mutations can't undo mutations. where would the DNA come from? can't.

3) natural selection is the passing on of the genes that survive. antibiotics stop working b/c of the fact that some virus has a mutation that somehow makes the anitbiotic useless. loss of genetic info.

Stop, think, listen.

Youre saying I'm talking about fish evolving, I'm not. I'm talking about mutation that happens to help them survive. Loss of DNA.

Secondly, give me an example of DNA increasing naturally. It just doesn't.
Wrong.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf

"Further analysis of the evolve strain reveals the existance of multiple tandem duplications involving two highly similar, high-affinity hexose transport loci...selection appears to have favored changes that result in the formation of more then three chimeric genes derived from the upstream promoter of the HXT7 gene and the coding sequence of HXT6."

Wrong.
http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/reprint/15/8/931.pdf

"Further analysis of the evolve strain reveals the existance of multiple tandem duplications involving two highly similar, high-affinity hexose transport loci...selection appears to have favored changes that result in the formation of more then three chimeric genes derived from the upstream promoter of the HXT7 gene and the coding sequence of HXT6."

Big words, nothing there. It goes against logic. It's like saying that a piece of ham will someday become a pig again.

Also, how long have we actually known about the genome or been able to study it..... no where near long enough to support this.


Also, one more thing, those examples of "mutation" listed in your long paragraph can easily be explained by loss of genetic information.

1.) BS, never happened, gene pool only shrinks. Never bigger.
And oh ya, explain where the DNA comes from?

Oh come on. Have you even taken any biology? That's a pathetic strawman.


1 Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.

2 Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:

* the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
* adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
* the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
* evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
* modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
* evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);


There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:

* Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).


Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)


Where did DNA come from? Most likely a knock off of RNA.

2) mutations can't undo mutations. where would the DNA come from? can't.

Pardon?

3) natural selection is the passing on of the genes that survive. antibiotics stop working b/c of the fact that some virus has a mutation that somehow makes the anitbiotic useless. loss of genetic info.
No, actually, that's a gain of genetic information. Bacteria (antibiotics do not work against viruses, which shows me how pathetic your background in biology is) run rings around antibiotics mostly through the changing of the communication proteins on the surface of the cell (mostly). Not a loss.

Big words, nothing there. It goes against logic. It's like saying that a piece of ham will someday become a pig again.

Also, how long have we actually known about the genome or been able to study it..... no where near long enough to support this.


Also, one more thing, those examples of "mutation" listed in your long paragraph can easily be explained by loss of genetic information.
Look. You obviously haven't given this a whit of study. Let me give you a suggestion. Go down to your local university, and ask to speak to an evolutionary biologist. Argue this with them. I'm sure they'd be glad to show you the piles of proof that they have. However.

The mutation in question involves a duplication/combination of two other genes to fit a new goal. Not a loss of information at all. Two genes were duplicated (a gain) and recombined to form a new gene. A gain in information.

Oh come on. Have you even taken any biology? That's a pathetic strawman.


1 Variation of traits is production of novelty, especially where there was no variation before. The accumulation of slight modifications is a basis of evolution.

2 Documentation of mutations producing new features includes the following:

* the ability of a bacterium to digest nylon (Negoro et al. 1994; Thomas n.d.; Thwaites 1985);
* adaptation in yeast to a low-phosphate environment (Francis and Hansche 1972; 1973; Hansche 1975);
* the ability of E. coli to hydrolyze galactosylarabinose (Hall 1981; Hall and Zuzel 1980);
* evolution of multicellularity in a unicellular green alga (Boraas 1983; Boraas et al. 1998);
* modification of E. coli's fucose pathway to metabolize propanediol (Lin and Wu 1984);
* evolution in Klebsiella bacteria of a new metabolic pathway for metabolizing 5-carbon sugars (Hartley 1984);


There is evidence for mutations producing other novel proteins:

* Proteins in the histidine biosynthesis pathway consist of beta/alpha barrels with a twofold repeat pattern. These apparently evolved from the duplication and fusion of genes from a half-barrel ancestor (Lang et al. 2000).


Laboratory experiments with directed evolution indicate that the evolution of a new function often begins with mutations that have little effect on a gene's original function but a large effect on a second function. Gene duplication and divergence can then allow the new function to be refined. (Aharoni et al. 2004)


Where did DNA come from? Most likely a knock off of RNA.

Pardon?

No, actually, that's a gain of genetic information. Bacteria (antibiotics do not work against viruses, which shows me how pathetic your background in biology is) run rings around antibiotics mostly through the changing of the communication proteins on the surface of the cell (mostly). Not a loss.

Firstly, never gains, no way for it to gain.

Secondly, your documented changes in bacteria etc, knock knock, easily explained by loss or mutation.

Thirdly, of so now bcteria have brains with your last part. Really ingenious :) But the DNA tells how the protiens on the surface are affected. DNA controls what the body does. Also, to get DNA from RNA natural doesn't happen. Show me a time when it does.

Fourthly, directed evolution....hmm.... why say that the scientists forced them to become that way since they might as well have. :)

Well, unfortunately, I have to get off so c ya all latter. till tommorow. :)

Note, last spellings are on purpose.

Look. You obviously haven't given this a whit of study. Let me give you a suggestion. Go down to your local university, and ask to speak to an evolutionary biologist. Argue this with them. I'm sure they'd be glad to show you the piles of proof that they have. However.

The mutation in question involves a duplication/combination of two other genes to fit a new goal. Not a loss of information at all. Two genes were duplicated (a gain) and recombined to form a new gene. A gain in information.

Tell me one thing though, how do you know that this is actually true?

Secondly, genes duplicate only when going to divide, otherwise the simply form RNA for other functions.

Also, tell me, isn't there still evidence montained against it since it's only a guess? nothing more nothing less.

Good bye for now all, good night. Dont let the atheists bite :)

Firstly, never gains, no way for it to gain.
Pardon? How can mutations not lead to a gain? It's called an insertion. Happens all the time. Gives doctors fits.

Secondly, your documented changes in bacteria etc, knock knock, easily explained by loss or mutation.

Please, do so. I'm sure that your brilliance in biology will lead to a revolution in the field of medicine and biology that will shake the world of biology to its core. Publish your findings, or at least put them down instead of blithely dismissing my evidence which has held up to years of peer review.

Thirdly, of so now bcteria have brains with your last part. Really ingenious :)

Pardon?

But the DNA tells how the proteins on the surface are affected. DNA controls what the body does. Also, to get DNA from RNA natural doesn't happen. Show me a time when it does.

That's called a hypothesis. A theory, in layman's terms. It's rather obvious looking at the shared conversions/structure (RNA is DNA with an extra oxygen and a different base), but we don't know for sure. So it's our best guess. Again, if you want to get this in depth, talk to someone who has a PhD in the subject.

Fourthly, directed evolution....hmm.... why say that the scientists forced them to become that way since they might as well have. :)

Directed evolution=artificial selection. Natural election takes ages to work, so all you do is place a great impetus (such as plopping down e-coli in a place they don't like) for them to evolve, and it happens faster. Nothing worse then what happens over millions of years, and nothing that disproves evolution. It's a proof of concept thing.

Tell me one thing though, how do you know that this is actually true?

Because I've done experiments in a lab showing novel generation of antibiotic resistance?

Secondly, genes duplicate only when going to divide, otherwise the simply form RNA for other functions.

No really? That doesn't really matter, no one is claiming mutations show up every day.

Also, tell me, isn't there still evidence montained against it since it's only a guess? nothing more nothing less.
What evidence is this? You've yet to show any.

Evolving from a single celled life form to a multi celled one requires more genetic infomation to be introduced to the geneome. Something that has consistantly NOT happened, nor has ever been proven to happen. What we have seen is gentic infomation changing within species, but not a species developing new genetic infomation. Except of course in the instance of the rat with the human ear, but that was created by an intellegence

Evolution does not require that we were ever a single-celled organism. In fact it is not confirmed exactly what we evolved from and certainly wasn't at the time the theory of evolution was introduced. You are mixing two seperate theories. Theories are rarely that complicated. Evolution only has to do with the evolution of one species to another. Exactly what path evolution took is a seperate theory altogether and is not entirely certain. I love when people mix theories together to try and dispute them. Nice strawman. How about you actually learn the theory and then argue about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Here you go. Read up and then let's talk.

1.) BS, never happened, gene pool only shrinks. Never bigger.
And oh ya, explain where the DNA comes from?

2) mutations can't undo mutations. where would the DNA come from? can't.

3) natural selection is the passing on of the genes that survive. antibiotics stop working b/c of the fact that some virus has a mutation that somehow makes the anitbiotic useless. loss of genetic info.

I love this. Faced with a mountain of peer-reviewed observed scientific information the best reply of an intelligent human being engaging their very important reason is 'nuh-uh'. How about you just admit that what you're saying requires you to ignore the evidence of reality that God left on Earth for us to find. Despite what you might have been told by your preacher, evolution does not directly contradict Genesis. So attacking evolution without knowing what your talking about doesn't defend your faith or the Bible it only makes you look like you don't know what you're talking about.

Now if you want to argue about the origin of the species that's a whole different subject and though there is much more evidence for the evolution of our species than for your version of Creation at least it would make sense. However, to pretend like there is any scientific evidence for what you're espousing is to pretend like preachers are scientists and you are Albert Einstein. Since we know that's in fact not true, let's face the fact that science supports evolution.

Firstly, never gains, no way for it to gain.

Secondly, your documented changes in bacteria etc, knock knock, easily explained by loss or mutation.

Thirdly, of so now bcteria have brains with your last part. Really ingenious :) But the DNA tells how the protiens on the surface are affected. DNA controls what the body does. Also, to get DNA from RNA natural doesn't happen. Show me a time when it does.

Fourthly, directed evolution....hmm.... why say that the scientists forced them to become that way since they might as well have. :)

Well, unfortunately, I have to get off so c ya all latter. till tommorow. :)

Note, last spellings are on purpose.

I love this. Something completely new comes from a documented process that is perfectly explained and observable by science as gain in information. Creationist says, nuh-uh, it's a loss because the information was always there. Scientist says, can you explain where it was? Creationist says, it's in the DNA. Scientist says, um, that doesn't make any sense, can you please show us through experimentation? Creationist says, um, no, but that doesn't mean we didn't just pull it out of our butts.

Firstly, evolution is almost always seen the INCREASE of DNA, but if you don't want to see it that way then qoute "okey odkey".

Secondly, I use KJV which has proven to be reliable and uses majority texts and so is most likely accurate, not to mention the fact that during the time period it was translated it was something very important and not to be taken lightly.

Thirdly, Babalon, Ninevah, old Jericho, archeological proof that the Bible is accurate in that. The Earth being held up by invisible forces as predicted in the book of Job. The fact that the blood is describe in Genesis as being the"life" which it virtually is, without it, large scale creatures like us couldn't function. The list probably goes on much more than what I have currently summarized.

Fourthly, if there isn't a God :) then how can we exist if there can't be matter.... rule of 0 can't equal 1. So unless there is a supernatural being, then we cannot exist and tihs arguement isn't even taking place.

Fifthly, evolution is an increase of matter because it talks about something going from small to big, from simple to complex. Mutation goes from comlex to simple. Mutation is loss of genetic info. Survival of the lucky, not the most "evolved".

Sixthly, biogenesis is essentially just another name for evolution that supposedly happened millions (ya....right) of years ago is it not? (rhetorical question)

Seventh, fish are fish are they not? Mutation doesn't create new species, simply new substructures of a species, same animal type, just different. Take the Galapagos finches compared to other finches, same species, just different in ways of survival.

Eighth, there ins't any proof for evolution. Even carbon-14 dating doesn't help it, it only makes the pile of lies ascosiated with it bigger. Carbon-14 dating is flawed in how it is used. If you wish for me to explain then I will.

Nineth, the Bible is a historical reference, it has historical proofs, such as which kingdoms where ruling when, what happened to certain kingdoms, et cetera.

Tenth, when it boils down to it, evolution is simply another part of atheism. An attempt to explain how the world was created without a God (which is immposible because of the fact that 0 can't = 1, never will, simply put)

Eleventh, evolution is essentially like spontaneous life, the ideology that life can somehow appear from non-living things which is logically and in a real world situation, immposible.

Twelveth, the Bible may seem like a bunch of hocus pocus, but it's got proofs that prove that it could be true. Also, most scientists that started up what we know to be "true science" (ie: the explanation of why/how things work) not what might happen or what might have happened as evolution or biogenesis (both involve evolution or atheism) were Christians.

Also, evolution requires much more hocus pocus since it's simply an idea, no proof, no evidence, no nothing except for an idea.

So, in conclusion without a supernatural being that has power over natural laws of the world, we can't exist. So, if you want to believe you don't exist, go ahead.

Oh ya, P.S. i don't care much about the spelling of words. Not that big on it, especially when u know what i mean.

First, ok, let's try a little reading comprehension. I'm a Christian, I didn't say prove the Bible. We are talking about the flood myth. Prove your version of it. Prove it's not an allegory. Show any supportable proof that it's true. Don't assume because I actually use the reason God gave me that I'm an atheist. I'm just aware that God isn't trying to trick us with science and reason.

So try addressing my actual words and not who you assume me to be.

Second, if you don't understand the difference between biogenesis and evolution then please attend a class. You're about six grades behind what we're discussing here.

Third, no version of the Bible has EVER been PROVEN. That's why faith is required in matters of the spirit. If God wanted to prove himself to you or me or anyone He could absolutely do so, but then it wouldn't be faith. It's important that you accept this fact. One of the important lessons in life is to accept things on faith and not just accept them on faith but be willing to admit that you've accepted them on faith. Not pretend that it's proven by ignoring evidence. If mountains of scientific evidence disagree with your translation of the Bible, the Bible is not wrong, you are. Adjust. The evidence is given to you by God.

Evolution does not require that we were ever a single-celled organism. In fact it is not confirmed exactly what we evolved from and certainly wasn't at the time the theory of evolution was introduced. You are mixing two seperate theories. Theories are rarely that complicated. Evolution only has to do with the evolution of one species to another. Exactly what path evolution took is a seperate theory altogether and is not entirely certain. I love when people mix theories together to try and dispute them. Nice strawman. How about you actually learn the theory and then argue about it?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

Here you go. Read up and then let's talk.

Look at my point again. Evolution from a single celled organism TO a multi celled one REQUIRES increased genetic material. In other words a changing of spieces. Nice strawman though. Misinteprit what I say and then attack a misintepretation. How about you read what I said and then come back. I didnt say we had to be a single celled organisim at any point. What I said was that evolution from a single to a multi cellular life form requires increased genetic material which is not what we have

Look at my point again. Evolution from a single celled organism TO a multi celled one REQUIRES increased genetic material. In other words a changing of spieces. Nice strawman though. Misinteprit what I say and then attack a misintepretation. How about you read what I said and then come back. I didnt say we had to be a single celled organisim at any point. What I said was that evolution from a single to a multi cellular life form requires increased genetic material which is not what we have

The point that you don't understand is that evolution from a single-celled organism is not a part of the theory of evolution. The world could have been created a hundred years ago with humans in the form they hold today and there would still be a mountain of evidence for the theory of evolution and none to refute it. Evolution happens and it's been witnessed in nature and in the laboratory. Just because you don't understand the theory of evolution and I'm arguing the ACTUAL theory of evolution rather than what you believe it is does not mean I'm attacking a strawman. It actually means you are, only you're doing it out of ignorance rather than intent.

What does evolution have to do with this thread's inane topic?

The point that you don't understand is that evolution from a single-celled organism is not a part of the theory of evolution. The world could have been created a hundred years ago with humans in the form they hold today and there would still be a mountain of evidence for the theory of evolution and none to refute it. Evolution happens and it's been witnessed in nature and in the laboratory. Just because you don't understand the theory of evolution and I'm arguing the ACTUAL theory of evolution rather than what you believe it is does not mean I'm attacking a strawman. It actually means you are, only you're doing it out of ignorance rather than intent.

You are not listening

I dont care about whether or not a single celled organism moved up to a multi celled one. My point is this. To make the kind of leaps between species that scientists later describe needs an increase in genetic material. That has not been shown to happen. What we have seen happen is genetic material within species changing (anti-biotic resistant bactira for example) but we have seen that the genetic material is already there (eg isolated bactira cultures found that are already resistant to anti-biotics). What we are seeing is changes within species happening, what we arnt seeing is specises creating entirely new species

You are not listening

I dont care about whether or not a single celled organism moved up to a multi celled one. My point is this. To make the kind of leaps between species that scientists later describe needs an increase in genetic material. That has not been shown to happen. What we have seen happen is genetic material within species changing (anti-biotic resistant bactira for example) but we have seen that the genetic material is already there (eg isolated bactira cultures found that are already resistant to anti-biotics). What we are seeing is changes within species happening, what we arnt seeing is specises creating entirely new species

And this is true, if you ignore the scientific evidence presented earlier in this thread. The mountain of scientific evidence that says you are wrong.

However, either way you are still not talking about the theory of evolution. The theory says nothing about "the kind of leaps between species". It only talks about species evolve, not specifically which 'direction' they evolve or what species evolved from what. So in fact if the only 'direction' anything evolved from was from more cells to less cells to eventually evolve to a single-celled organism it would still be evolution. You fail to understand this but argue that a basic part of the theory is a move toward the more complex.

And again, it would still be evolution if a creature evolves into another creature that can mate with itself but not with the original creature. This is a new species not changes in a species. And yes there is evidence of this happening in nature and the evidence is absolutely compelling unless you simply choose to ignore any evidence that doesn't adhere to the theory you started with. Now, who do we see doing that? Hmmm... I'll give you a hint *points at Avalon II*

And you still don't understand the theory of evolution or even what an increase in genetic material is. There have mutations that are shown to be entirely novel. Unless you can show where they came from then your 'theory' is disproven. You can't, because they are, in fact, novel and thus your theory has been falsified. This is how science works.

Now would you like to actually address any of the things presented by CSW or are you just going to admit they are in over their head?

You are not listening

I dont care about whether or not a single celled organism moved up to a multi celled one. My point is this. To make the kind of leaps between species that scientists later describe needs an increase in genetic material. That has not been shown to happen. What we have seen happen is genetic material within species changing (anti-biotic resistant bactira for example) but we have seen that the genetic material is already there (eg isolated bactira cultures found that are already resistant to anti-biotics). What we are seeing is changes within species happening, what we arnt seeing is specises creating entirely new species
5.1.1.1 Evening Primrose (Oenothera gigas)

While studying the genetics of the evening primrose, Oenothera lamarckiana, de Vries (1905) found an unusual variant among his plants. O. lamarckiana has a chromosome number of 2N = 14. The variant had a chromosome number of 2N = 28. He found that he was unable to breed this variant with O. lamarckiana. He named this new species O. gigas.
5.1.1.2 Kew Primrose (Primula kewensis)

Digby (1912) crossed the primrose species Primula verticillata and P. floribunda to produce a sterile hybrid. Polyploidization occurred in a few of these plants to produce fertile offspring. The new species was named P. kewensis. Newton and Pellew (1929) note that spontaneous hybrids of P. verticillata and P. floribunda set tetraploid seed on at least three occasions. These happened in 1905, 1923 and 1926.
5.1.1.3 Tragopogon

Owenby (1950) demonstrated that two species in this genus were produced by polyploidization from hybrids. He showed that Tragopogon miscellus found in a colony in Moscow, Idaho was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. pratensis. He also showed that T. mirus found in a colony near Pullman, Washington was produced by hybridization of T. dubius and T. porrifolius. Evidence from chloroplast DNA suggests that T. mirus has originated independently by hybridization in eastern Washington and western Idaho at least three times (Soltis and Soltis 1989). The same study also shows multiple origins for T. micellus.
5.1.1.4 Raphanobrassica

The Russian cytologist Karpchenko (1927, 1928) crossed the radish, Raphanus sativus, with the cabbage, Brassica oleracea. Despite the fact that the plants were in different genera, he got a sterile hybrid. Some unreduced gametes were formed in the hybrids. This allowed for the production of seed. Plants grown from the seeds were interfertile with each other. They were not interfertile with either parental species. Unfortunately the new plant (genus Raphanobrassica) had the foliage of a radish and the root of a cabbage.
5.1.1.5 Hemp Nettle (Galeopsis tetrahit)

A species of hemp nettle, Galeopsis tetrahit, was hypothesized to be the result of a natural hybridization of two other species, G. pubescens and G. speciosa (Muntzing 1932). The two species were crossed. The hybrids matched G. tetrahit in both visible features and chromosome morphology.
5.1.1.6 Madia citrigracilis

Along similar lines, Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora As evidence they noted that the species have gametic chromosome numbers of n = 24, 16 and 8 respectively. Crossing M. gracilis and M. citriodora resulted in a highly sterile triploid with n = 24. The chromosomes formed almost no bivalents during meiosis. Artificially doubling the chromosome number using colchecine produced a hexaploid hybrid which closely resembled M. citrigracilis and was fertile.
5.1.1.7 Brassica

Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.). His experiments showed that B. carinata (n = 17) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra (n = 8) and B. oleracea, B. juncea (n = 18) may be recreated by hybridizing B. nigra and B. campestris (n = 10), and B. napus (n = 19) may be recreated by hybridizing B. oleracea and B. campestris.
5.1.1.8 Maidenhair Fern (Adiantum pedatum)

Rabe and Haufler (1992) found a naturally occurring diploid sporophyte of maidenhair fern which produced unreduced (2N) spores. These spores resulted from a failure of the paired chromosomes to dissociate during the first division of meiosis. The spores germinated normally and grew into diploid gametophytes. These did not appear to produce antheridia. Nonetheless, a subsequent generation of tetraploid sporophytes was produced. When grown in the lab, the tetraploid sporophytes appear to be less vigorous than the normal diploid sporophytes. The 4N individuals were found near Baldwin City, Kansas.
5.1.1.9 Woodsia Fern (Woodsia abbeae)

Woodsia abbeae was described as a hybrid of W. cathcariana and W. ilvensis (Butters 1941). Plants of this hybrid normally produce abortive sporangia containing inviable spores. In 1944 Butters found a W. abbeae plant near Grand Portage, Minn. that had one fertile frond (Butters and Tryon 1948). The apical portion of this frond had fertile sporangia. Spores from this frond germinated and grew into prothallia. About six months after germination sporophytes were produced. They survived for about one year. Based on cytological evidence, Butters and Tryon concluded that the frond that produced the viable spores had gone tetraploid. They made no statement as to whether the sporophytes grown produced viable spores.
5.1.2 Animals

Speciation through hybridization and/or polyploidy has long been considered much less important in animals than in plants [[[refs.]]]. A number of reviews suggest that this view may be mistaken. (Lokki and Saura 1980; Bullini and Nascetti 1990; Vrijenhoek 1994). Bullini and Nasceti (1990) review chromosomal and genetic evidence that suggest that speciation through hybridization may occur in a number of insect species, including walking sticks, grasshoppers, blackflies and cucurlionid beetles. Lokki and Saura (1980) discuss the role of polyploidy in insect evolution. Vrijenhoek (1994) reviews the literature on parthenogenesis and hybridogenesis in fish. I will tackle this topic in greater depth in the next version of this document.
5.2 Speciations in Plant Species not Involving Hybridization or Polyploidy

5.2.1 Stephanomeira malheurensis

Gottlieb (1973) documented the speciation of Stephanomeira malheurensis. He found a single small population (< 250 plants) among a much larger population (> 25,000 plants) of S. exigua in Harney Co., Oregon. Both species are diploid and have the same number of chromosomes (N = 8). S. exigua is an obligate outcrosser exhibiting sporophytic self-incompatibility. S. malheurensis exhibits no self-incompatibility and self-pollinates. Though the two species look very similar, Gottlieb was able to document morphological differences in five characters plus chromosomal differences. F1 hybrids between the species produces only 50% of the seeds and 24% of the pollen that conspecific crosses produced. F2 hybrids showed various developmental abnormalities.
5.2.2 Maize (Zea mays)

Pasterniani (1969) produced almost complete reproductive isolation between two varieties of maize. The varieties were distinguishable by seed color, white versus yellow. Other genetic markers allowed him to identify hybrids. The two varieties were planted in a common field. Any plant's nearest neighbors were always plants of the other strain. Selection was applied against hybridization by using only those ears of corn that showed a low degree of hybridization as the source of the next years seed. Only parental type kernels from these ears were planted. The strength of selection was increased each year. In the first year, only ears with less than 30% intercrossed seed were used. In the fifth year, only ears with less than 1% intercrossed seed were used. After five years the average percentage of intercrossed matings dropped from 35.8% to 4.9% in the white strain and from 46.7% to 3.4% in the yellow strain.
5.2.3 Speciation as a Result of Selection for Tolerance to a Toxin: Yellow Monkey Flower (Mimulus guttatus)

At reasonably low concentrations, copper is toxic to many plant species. Several plants have been seen to develop a tolerance to this metal (Macnair 1981). Macnair and Christie (1983) used this to examine the genetic basis of a postmating isolating mechanism in yellow monkey flower. When they crossed plants from the copper tolerant "Copperopolis" population with plants from the nontolerant "Cerig" population, they found that many of the hybrids were inviable. During early growth, just after the four leaf stage, the leaves of many of the hybrids turned yellow and became necrotic. Death followed this. This was seen only in hybrids between the two populations. Through mapping studies, the authors were able to show that the copper tolerance gene and the gene responsible for hybrid inviability were either the same gene or were very tightly linked. These results suggest that reproductive isolation may require changes in only a small number of genes.
5.3 The Fruit Fly Literature

5.3.1 Drosophila paulistorum

Dobzhansky and Pavlovsky (1971) reported a speciation event that occurred in a laboratory culture of Drosophila paulistorum sometime between 1958 and 1963. The culture was descended from a single inseminated female that was captured in the Llanos of Colombia. In 1958 this strain produced fertile hybrids when crossed with conspecifics of different strains from Orinocan. From 1963 onward crosses with Orinocan strains produced only sterile males. Initially no assortative mating or behavioral isolation was seen between the Llanos strain and the Orinocan strains. Later on Dobzhansky produced assortative mating (Dobzhansky 1972).
5.3.2 Disruptive Selection on Drosophila melanogaster

Thoday and Gibson (1962) established a population of Drosophila melanogaster from four gravid females. They applied selection on this population for flies with the highest and lowest numbers of sternoplural chaetae (hairs). In each generation, eight flies with high numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed and eight flies with low numbers of chaetae were allowed to interbreed. Periodically they performed mate choice experiments on the two lines. They found that they had produced a high degree of positive assortative mating between the two groups. In the decade or so following this, eighteen labs attempted unsuccessfully to reproduce these results. References are given in Thoday and Gibson 1970.
5.3.3 Selection on Courtship Behavior in Drosophila melanogaster

Crossley (1974) was able to produce changes in mating behavior in two mutant strains of D. melanogaster. Four treatments were used. In each treatment, 55 virgin males and 55 virgin females of both ebony body mutant flies and vestigial wing mutant flies (220 flies total) were put into a jar and allowed to mate for 20 hours. The females were collected and each was put into a separate vial. The phenotypes of the offspring were recorded. Wild type offspring were hybrids between the mutants. In two of the four treatments, mating was carried out in the light. In one of these treatments all hybrid offspring were destroyed. This was repeated for 40 generations. Mating was carried out in the dark in the other two treatments. Again, in one of these all hybrids were destroyed. This was repeated for 49 generations. Crossley ran mate choice tests and observed mating behavior. Positive assortative mating was found in the treatment which had mated in the light and had been subject to strong selection against hybridization. The basis of this was changes in the courtship behaviors of both sexes. Similar experiments, without observation of mating behavior, were performed by Knight, et al. (1956).
5.3.4 Sexual Isolation as a Byproduct of Adaptation to Environmental Conditions in Drosophila melanogaster

Kilias, et al. (1980) exposed D. melanogaster populations to different temperature and humidity regimes for several years. They performed mating tests to check for reproductive isolation. They found some sterility in crosses among populations raised under different conditions. They also showed some positive assortative mating. These things were not observed in populations which were separated but raised under the same conditions. They concluded that sexual isolation was produced as a byproduct of selection.
5.3.5 Sympatric Speciation in Drosophila melanogaster

In a series of papers (Rice 1985, Rice and Salt 1988 and Rice and Salt 1990) Rice and Salt presented experimental evidence for the possibility of sympatric speciation. They started from the premise that whenever organisms sort themselves into the environment first and then mate locally, individuals with the same habitat preferences will necessarily mate assortatively. They established a stock population of D. melanogaster with flies collected in an orchard near Davis, California. Pupae from the culture were placed into a habitat maze. Newly emerged flies had to negotiate the maze to find food. The maze simulated several environmental gradients simultaneously. The flies had to make three choices of which way to go. The first was between light and dark (phototaxis). The second was between up and down (geotaxis). The last was between the scent of acetaldehyde and the scent of ethanol (chemotaxis). This divided the flies among eight habitats. The flies were further divided by the time of day of emergence. In total the flies were divided among 24 spatio-temporal habitats.

They next cultured two strains of flies that had chosen opposite habitats. One strain emerged early, flew upward and was attracted to dark and acetaldehyde. The other emerged late, flew downward and was attracted to light and ethanol. Pupae from these two strains were placed together in the maze. They were allowed to mate at the food site and were collected. Eye color differences between the strains allowed Rice and Salt to distinguish between the two strains. A selective penalty was imposed on flies that switched habitats. Females that switched habitats were destroyed. None of their gametes passed into the next generation. Males that switched habitats received no penalty. After 25 generations of this mating tests showed reproductive isolation between the two strains. Habitat specialization was also produced.

They next repeated the experiment without the penalty against habitat switching. The result was the same -- reproductive isolation was produced. They argued that a switching penalty is not necessary to produce reproductive isolation. Their results, they stated, show the possibility of sympatric speciation.
5.3.6 Isolation Produced as an Incidental Effect of Selection on several Drosophila species

In a series of experiments, del Solar (1966) derived positively and negatively geotactic and phototactic strains of D. pseudoobscura from the same population by running the flies through mazes. Flies from different strains were then introduced into mating chambers (10 males and 10 females from each strain). Matings were recorded. Statistically significant positive assortative mating was found.

In a separate series of experiments Dodd (1989) raised eight populations derived from a single population of D. Pseudoobscura on stressful media. Four populations were raised on a starch based medium, the other four were raised on a maltose based medium. The fly populations in both treatments took several months to get established, implying that they were under strong selection. Dodd found some evidence of genetic divergence between flies in the two treatments. He performed mate choice tests among experimental populations. He found statistically significant assortative mating between populations raised on different media, but no assortative mating among populations raised within the same medium regime. He argued that since there was no direct selection for reproductive isolation, the behavioral isolation results from a pleiotropic by-product to adaptation to the two media. Schluter and Nagel (1995) have argued that these results provide experimental support for the hypothesis of parallel speciation.

Less dramatic results were obtained by growing D. willistoni on media of different pH levels (de Oliveira and Cordeiro 1980). Mate choice tests after 26, 32, 52 and 69 generations of growth showed statistically significant assortative mating between some populations grown in different pH treatments. This ethological isolation did not always persist over time. They also found that some crosses made after 106 and 122 generations showed significant hybrid inferiority, but only when grown in acid medium.
5.3.7 Selection for Reinforcement in Drosophila melanogaster

Some proposed models of speciation rely on a process called reinforcement to complete the speciation process. Reinforcement occurs when to partially isolated allopatric populations come into contact. Lower relative fitness of hybrids between the two populations results in increased selection for isolating mechanisms. I should note that a recent review (Rice and Hostert 1993) argues that there is little experimental evidence to support reinforcement models. Two experiments in which the authors argue that their results provide support are discussed below.

Ehrman (1971) established strains of wild-type and mutant (black body) D. melanogaster. These flies were derived from compound autosome strains such that heterotypic matings would produce no progeny. The two strains were reared together in common fly cages. After two years, the isolation index generated from mate choice experiments had increased from 0.04 to 0.43, indicating the appearance of considerable assortative mating. After four years this index had risen to 0.64 (Ehrman 1973).

Along the same lines, Koopman (1950) was able to increase the degree of reproductive isolation between two partially isolated species, D. pseudoobscura and D. persimilis.
5.3.8 Tests of the Founder-flush Speciation Hypothesis Using Drosophila

The founder-flush (a.k.a. flush-crash) hypothesis posits that genetic drift and founder effects play a major role in speciation (Powell 1978). During a founder-flush cycle a new habitat is colonized by a small number of individuals (e.g. one inseminated female). The population rapidly expands (the flush phase). This is followed by the population crashing. During this crash period the population experiences strong genetic drift. The population undergoes another rapid expansion followed by another crash. This cycle repeats several times. Reproductive isolation is produced as a byproduct of genetic drift.

Dodd and Powell (1985) tested this hypothesis using D. pseudoobscura. A large, heterogeneous population was allowed to grow rapidly in a very large population cage. Twelve experimental populations were derived from this population from single pair matings. These populations were allowed to flush. Fourteen months later, mating tests were performed among the twelve populations. No postmating isolation was seen. One cross showed strong behavioral isolation. The populations underwent three more flush-crash cycles. Forty-four months after the start of the experiment (and fifteen months after the last flush) the populations were again tested. Once again, no postmating isolation was seen. Three populations showed behavioral isolation in the form of positive assortative mating. Later tests between 1980 and 1984 showed that the isolation persisted, though it was weaker in some cases.

Galina, et al. (1993) performed similar experiments with D. pseudoobscura. Mating tests between populations that underwent flush-crash cycles and their ancestral populations showed 8 cases of positive assortative mating out of 118 crosses. They also showed 5 cases of negative assortative mating (i.e. the flies preferred to mate with flies of the other strain). Tests among the founder-flush populations showed 36 cases of positive assortative mating out of 370 crosses. These tests also found 4 cases of negative assortative mating. Most of these mating preferences did not persist over time. Galina, et al. concluded that the founder-flush protocol yields reproductive isolation only as a rare and erratic event.

Ahearn (1980) applied the founder-flush protocol to D. silvestris. Flies from a line of this species underwent several flush-crash cycles. They were tested in mate choice experiments against flies from a continuously large population. Female flies from both strains preferred to mate with males from the large population. Females from the large population would not mate with males from the founder flush population. An asymmetric reproductive isolation was produced.

In a three year experiment, Ringo, et al. (1985) compared the effects of a founder-flush protocol to the effects of selection on various traits. A large population of D. simulans was created from flies from 69 wild caught stocks from several locations. Founder-flush lines and selection lines were derived from this population. The founder-flush lines went through six flush-crash cycles. The selection lines experienced equal intensities of selection for various traits. Mating test were performed between strains within a treatment and between treatment strains and the source population. Crosses were also checked for postmating isolation. In the selection lines, 10 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (2 crosses showed negative assortative mating). They also found that 25 out of 216 crosses showed postmating isolation. Of these, 9 cases involved crosses with the source population. In the founder-flush lines 12 out of 216 crosses showed positive assortative mating (3 crosses showed negative assortative mating). Postmating isolation was found in 15 out of 216 crosses, 11 involving the source population. They concluded that only weak isolation was found and that there was little difference between the effects of natural selection and the effects of genetic drift.

A final test of the founder-flush hypothesis will be described with the housefly cases below.
5.4 Housefly Speciation Experiments

5.4.1 A Test of the Founder-flush Hypothesis Using Houseflies

Meffert and Bryant (1991) used houseflies to test whether bottlenecks in populations can cause permanent alterations in courtship behavior that lead to premating isolation. They collected over 100 flies of each sex from a landfill near Alvin, Texas. These were used to initiate an ancestral population. From this ancestral population they established six lines. Two of these lines were started with one pair of flies, two lines were started with four pairs of flies and two lines were started with sixteen pairs of flies. These populations were flushed to about 2,000 flies each. They then went through five bottlenecks followed by flushes. This took 35 generations. Mate choice tests were performed. One case of positive assortative mating was found. One case of negative assortative mating was also found.
5.4.2 Selection for Geotaxis with and without Gene Flow

Soans, et al. (1974) used houseflies to test Pimentel's model of speciation. This model posits that speciation requires two steps. The first is the formation of races in subpopulations. This is followed by the establishment of reproductive isolation. Houseflies were subjected to intense divergent selection on the basis of positive and negative geotaxis. In some treatments no gene flow was allowed, while in others there was 30% gene flow. Selection was imposed by placing 1000 flies into the center of a 108 cm vertical tube. The first 50 flies that reached the top and the first 50 flies that reached the bottom were used to found positively and negatively geotactic populations. Four populations were established:
Population A + geotaxis, no gene flow
Population B - geotaxis, no gene flow
Population C + geotaxis, 30% gene flow
Population D - geotaxis, 30% gene flow

Selection was repeated within these populations each generations. After 38 generations the time to collect 50 flies had dropped from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop A, from 4 hours to 4 minutes in Pop B, from 6 hours to 2 hours in Pop C and from 4 hours to 45 minutes in Pop D. Mate choice tests were performed. Positive assortative mating was found in all crosses. They concluded that reproductive isolation occurred under both allopatric and sympatric conditions when very strong selection was present.

Hurd and Eisenberg (1975) performed a similar experiment on houseflies using 50% gene flow and got the same results.
5.5 Speciation Through Host Race Differentiation

Recently there has been a lot of interest in whether the differentiation of an herbivorous or parasitic species into races living on different hosts can lead to sympatric speciation. It has been argued that in animals that mate on (or in) their preferred hosts, positive assortative mating is an inevitable byproduct of habitat selection (Rice 1985; Barton, et al. 1988). This would suggest that differentiated host races may represent incipient species.
5.5.1 Apple Maggot Fly (Rhagoletis pomonella)

Rhagoletis pomonella is a fly that is native to North America. Its normal host is the hawthorn tree. Sometime during the nineteenth century it began to infest apple trees. Since then it has begun to infest cherries, roses, pears and possibly other members of the rosaceae. Quite a bit of work has been done on the differences between flies infesting hawthorn and flies infesting apple. There appear to be differences in host preferences among populations. Offspring of females collected from on of these two hosts are more likely to select that host for oviposition (Prokopy et al. 1988). Genetic differences between flies on these two hosts have been found at 6 out of 13 allozyme loci (Feder et al. 1988, see also McPheron et al. 1988). Laboratory studies have shown an asynchrony in emergence time of adults between these two host races (Smith 1988). Flies from apple trees take about 40 days to mature, whereas flies from hawthorn trees take 54-60 days to mature. This makes sense when we consider that hawthorn fruit tends to mature later in the season that apples. Hybridization studies show that host preferences are inherited, but give no evidence of barriers to mating. This is a very exciting case. It may represent the early stages of a sympatric speciation event (considering the dispersal of R. pomonella to other plants it may even represent the beginning of an adaptive radiation). It is important to note that some of the leading researchers on this question are urging caution in interpreting it. Feder and Bush (1989) stated:

"Hawthorn and apple "host races" of R. pomonella may therefore represent incipient species. However, it remains to be seen whether host-associated traits can evolve into effective enough barriers to gene flow to result eventually in the complete reproductive isolation of R. pomonella populations."

5.5.2 Gall Former Fly (Eurosta solidaginis)

Eurosta solidaginis is a gall forming fly that is associated with goldenrod plants. It has two hosts: over most of its range it lays its eggs in Solidago altissima, but in some areas it uses S. gigantea as its host. Recent electrophoretic work has shown that the genetic distances among flies from different sympatric hosts species are greater than the distances among flies on the same host in different geographic areas (Waring et al. 1990). This same study also found reduced variability in flies on S. gigantea. This suggests that some E. solidaginis have recently shifted hosts to this species. A recent study has compared reproductive behavior of the flies associated with the two hosts (Craig et al. 1993). They found that flies associated with S. gigantea emerge earlier in the season than flies associated with S. altissima. In host choice experiments, each fly strain ovipunctured its own host much more frequently than the other host. Craig et al. (1993) also performed several mating experiments. When no host was present and females mated with males from either strain, if males from only one strain were present. When males of both strains were present, statistically significant positive assortative mating was seen. In the presence of a host, assortative mating was also seen. When both hosts and flies from both populations were present, females waited on the buds of the host that they are normally associated with. The males fly to the host to mate. Like the Rhagoletis case above, this may represent the beginning of a sympatric speciation.
5.6 Flour Beetles (Tribolium castaneum)

Halliburton and Gall (1981) established a population of flour beetles collected in Davis, California. In each generation they selected the 8 lightest and the 8 heaviest pupae of each sex. When these 32 beetles had emerged, they were placed together and allowed to mate for 24 hours. Eggs were collected for 48 hours. The pupae that developed from these eggs were weighed at 19 days. This was repeated for 15 generations. The results of mate choice tests between heavy and light beetles was compared to tests among control lines derived from randomly chosen pupae. Positive assortative mating on the basis of size was found in 2 out of 4 experimental lines.
5.7 Speciation in a Lab Rat Worm, Nereis acuminata

In 1964 five or six individuals of the polychaete worm, Nereis acuminata, were collected in Long Beach Harbor, California. These were allowed to grow into a population of thousands of individuals. Four pairs from this population were transferred to the Woods Hole Oceanographic Institute. For over 20 years these worms were used as test organisms in environmental toxicology. From 1986 to 1991 the Long Beach area was searched for populations of the worm. Two populations, P1 and P2, were found. Weinberg, et al. (1992) performed tests on these two populations and the Woods Hole population (WH) for both postmating and premating isolation. To test for postmating isolation, they looked at whether broods from crosses were successfully reared. The results below give the percentage of successful rearings for each group of crosses.
WH × WH - 75%
P1 × P1 - 95%
P2 × P2 - 80%
P1 × P2 - 77%
WH × P1 - 0%
WH × P2 - 0%

They also found statistically significant premating isolation between the WH population and the field populations. Finally, the Woods Hole population showed slightly different karyotypes from the field populations.
5.8 Speciation Through Cytoplasmic Incompatability Resulting from the Presence of a Parasite or Symbiont

In some species the presence of intracellular bacterial parasites (or symbionts) is associated with postmating isolation. This results from a cytoplasmic incompatability between gametes from strains that have the parasite (or symbiont) and stains that don't. An example of this is seen in the mosquito Culex pipiens (Yen and Barr 1971). Compared to within strain matings, matings between strains from different geographic regions may may have any of three results: These matings may produce a normal number of offspring, they may produce a reduced number of offspring or they may produce no offspring. Reciprocal crosses may give the same or different results. In an incompatible cross, the egg and sperm nuclei fail to unite during fertilization. The egg dies during embryogenesis. In some of these strains, Yen and Barr (1971) found substantial numbers of Rickettsia-like microbes in adults, eggs and embryos. Compatibility of mosquito strains seems to be correlated with the strain of the microbe present. Mosquitoes that carry different strains of the microbe exhibit cytoplasmic incompatibility; those that carry the same strain of microbe are interfertile.

Similar phenomena have been seen in a number of other insects. Microoganisms are seen in the eggs of both Nasonia vitripennis and N. giraulti. These two species do not normally hybridize. Following treatment with antibiotics, hybrids occur between them (Breeuwer and Werren 1990). In this case, the symbiont is associated with improper condensation of host chromosomes.

For more examples and a critical review of this topic, see Thompson 1987.
-----------

Enough new species for you?

Article Title

THE UNTOLD MIDDLE EASTERN CRISIS

From article
Socci provides evidence that in the past 2,000 years some 70 million Christians have been killed primarily or exclusively for the reason of their faith, two-thirds in the past 100 years alone, with Joseph Stalin as the chief culprit


WTF … I thought this was about persecution in the MIDDLE EAST
The article goes on to try and blame it on Muslims

THEN he admits that 2/3 of his supposed “figures” that he is using to malign Muslims are the work of STALEN … both not in the middle east and NOT Muslim

Fucking illogical author

More genetic material does not necessarily mean a more complex organism.

Examination of genomes of various organisms shows that we are indeed evolved from one creature to another - there is no other way to explain the large presence of largely unexpressed but commonly carried gene fragments.

There is more genetic difference between a male human and a female human than there is between a male human and a male chimpanzee, number of chromosomes aside. The variation is tremendous.

What counts are what genes are expressed. Gene expression can occur at any time in the organism's lifetime - there are some plants who will express certain genes under stress.

For years it was stated that men had forty-eight chromosomes in their cells; there were pictures to prove it, and any number of careful studies. In 1953, a group of American researchers announced to the world that the human chromosome number was forty-six. Once more, there were pictures to prove it, and studies to confirm it. But these researchers also went back to reexamine the old pictures, and the old studies--and found only forty-six chromosomes not forty-eight.

"Usually the number of chromosomes is constant in a given species, although it may vary between different species even of the same genus. In man the chromosome number is forty-eight...." [Human Genetics and its Social Import, by S. J. Holmes (1936), pp. 8. The illustration above appears on p. 9.]

"... the number of chromosomes is in general constant for any given species. Thus in each cell of a human being there are 48 chromosomes (24 pairs)...." [Principles of Heredity, 3rd. ed., by Laurence R. Snyder (1946), p. 26.]

BUT THEN

"If you learned your biology a long time ago, you learned that men have forty-eight [chromosomes]--but the number has now been revised downward to forty-six (twenty-three pairs)." [The Language of Life: An Introduction to the Science of Genetics, by George and Muriel Beadle (1966), p. 89.]

That's a decrease...

Here's a first hand account from biologist, Maj Hultén, who was then an undergraduate student in Stockholm:

I was walking in the culvert linking the Institute to the Animal House, carrying my mouse cages. It was late at night the day before Christmas Eve, on December 23, 1955, when I suddenly heard the clapping (and echoing) sound of clogs behind me, and a heavy hand landed on my left shoulder. I got mighty afraid, but recognizing it to be the diminutive Chinese visiting scientist, Joe-Hin Tjio, I wondered what on earth this was all about. "I can see that you are equally kind to everybody around here. Would you like to come to my room? I have got something interesting to show you", he stuttered. "Yes, please", I found myself answering.

Peering down the microscope, situated on the bench to the right in Tjio's office cum lab, I was amazed to see the human chromosomes well spread out and separated from each other, and when Tjio demanded: "Count", I did so. My first comment was "You have lost two", but then in metaphase after metaphase there could be no doubt, the chromosome number was 46. It was a cliché to say that I can remember it as if it was yesterday, the stinging smell of the acetic orcein (making Tjio's broad thumbs bright red also when squashing the cells) blending together with that of Turkish coffee made by Tjio.

from "Numbers, bands and recombination of human chromosomes: Historical anecdotes from a Swedish student," by M. A. Hultén, in Cytogenetic and Genome Research 96: 14-19 (2002), pp. 15-16.

I don't have much time right now and I probably won't be back on for a bit so I'll say a couple of last things.

Firstly, Jocabia, evidence for the Bible includes archeaology, astronomy (read about the earth being described as a ring in Job, much more to it than what I've just said), biology (importance of blood in animals) and probably much more.

Also, evolution contradicts (or biogenesis both probably are the same or similar) the first chapter of Genesis plus much more.

Secondly, CSW and any other Christians looking at evolution and mutation, read a book called Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan (can't remember last name, starts with an S) and it discuss about resistance by mutation and how it works.

Thirdly, Jocabia, if you don't believe the Bible has proof then it might as well be totally bull, because it can't be proven. Unfortuantely for you though, there is evidence to suggest that it contains truth. So that's proof.

Also, CSW, about your comment of me writing a book and changing what the world thinks, not such a bad idea. Although, I think i like the idea of creating an archive that has evidence against evolution, etc.

Jocabia, I go to my classes. Although, there is one important thing though that I feel the need to question about you, if your a Christian, then why are you going against the Bible? Jesus was for the Bible, and seeing as that Christian quite litterally means "one of Christ" or "follower of Christ" then why are you going against it? Also, another thing, how do you classify "science", because I don't classify atheism or anything that suggests atheism (belief that there is no God) as science. Science to me is how/why things work and from as unreligious of a veiw as possible, ie: electrons and electricity, gravity, astronomy, and even how the human body works.

One more thing, evolution can't be docmented :) haven't had long enough to actually see effects b/c of the fact that evolution takes "millions of years". Also, for the record, the number of different possible changes in even some of the simplest DNA was more than the number of atoms estimated (approx 10^80 atoms according to theory). If your wondering where i got this info from, read Refuting Evolution 2.

Also, I use the KJV. Also, if the flood "myth"(as you call it) is "wrong" then the Bible is wrong, b/c every t-r-a-n-s-l-a-t-i-o-n has the flood.

There one thing though I must admit about Atheists, they got a Hell of a lot more faith than most, believing in something that goes against even common sense (ie: 0 cant = 1 natural), and they make Christians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and probably many more think about what they actually believe.

Still, if any1 really feels the need to respond to me, send my nation a telegram and I'll respond asap. Otherwise, don't comment behind my back.

No. But every single time I read one of your posts, I see "Muslims are the cause of all evil!" and "Hinduism will bring utopian perfection!"

You read something and you understand something else. That's your problem. Not mine.

You should try improving comprehension skills.


Oh yes. I see building great cities that all religions could live in and granting Brahmans high positions in the Mughal Empire as destroying you "polytheistic pagans".

lol. Yeah man, the barbaric invaders built great cities..in your dream perhaps.

I think I understand where you are getting this illusion from. You are looking at the name of the cities and you are thinking they were built by muslims.

Allahabad in India, a famous city, one would think that by looking at its name it is a "great city built by muslim invaders that all religions could live in" but one would be wrong, because the actual name of the city is Prayog and it has been a city for millenia before muslims came.

Same with Lahore - which is a corruption of Luvpur - the city of Luv (Luv - the son of Ram of the Ramayana).

Try some sophisticated apologism, you are being too silly.


And where was it rated one of the worst cities to live in? "Let's Kill Pakistani's Monthly"?

No. here. By this survey

The Economist Intelligence Unit's LIVEABILITY RANKING, part of the Worldwide Cost of Living Survey, assesses living conditions in 127 cities around the world by looking at nearly 40 individual indicators grouped into five categories: stability; healthcare; culture and environment; education; and infrastructure. The survey gives a rating of 0%-100% and judges a city with a lower score to be the more attractive destination. A rating of 20% is where real problems are seen to begin - anything over 50% places severe restrictions on lifestyle.

http://www.finfacts.com/irelandbusinessnews/publish/article_10003512.shtml
. Less developed cities, especially those where unrest or terrorism is an issue, fare much worse - with Phnom Penh (55%), Karachi (60%) and Dhaka (61%) all falling into the worst liveability category.

Like I said, stop being silly and try some sophisticated apologism.

Do you know what ruined this article for me (Apart from the fact i disagree with it on most points)?

The advert for , 'Conservative T-shirts' and a picture of a woman wearing a t-shirt with a cross through ché guevera's face.

Umm...Just no.

I don't have much time right now and I probably won't be back on for a bit so I'll say a couple of last things.

Firstly, Jocabia, evidence for the Bible includes archeaology, astronomy (read about the earth being described as a ring in Job, much more to it than what I've just said), biology (importance of blood in animals) and probably much more.

Huckleberry Finn can be verified by the existence of slaves and the path of the Mississippi River. The existence of Cairo, Illinois, and even some real people. Or we could prove that there are real elements in Forrest Gump. That's doesn't prove it to be a true story. The important parts of the Bible and the existence of God require faith. It's the entire point or did you miss that somewhere?

Also, evolution contradicts (or biogenesis both probably are the same or similar) the first chapter of Genesis plus much more.

Evolution does not. Biogenesis contradicts your interpretation of the text. I accept the story of Genesis as an attempt by people who didn't have words for many of the processes to describe the visions they were given. Much as the descriptions of wars have fire-breathing locusts rather than helicoptors and planes (since those words or inventions did not exist at the time of writing), descriptions of the evolution of man looked like molding him out of clay. Some chapters are meant as descriptions of visions and some chapters are meant to teach us about certain things, like how knowledge of good and evil seperates us from the animals.

Secondly, CSW and any other Christians looking at evolution and mutation, read a book called Refuting Evolution 2 by Jonathan (can't remember last name, starts with an S) and it discuss about resistance by mutation and how it works.

Ha. So in other words, you've finally admitted your in over your head by a long sight. Good. This shows reason and good judgment.

Thirdly, Jocabia, if you don't believe the Bible has proof then it might as well be totally bull, because it can't be proven. Unfortuantely for you though, there is evidence to suggest that it contains truth. So that's proof.

Not true. It teaches me what I need to know about Salvation and God. The fact that it contains things that are literally fact does not mean everything in it is literally fact. The fact that it contains story that are meant to teach rather than describe actual events doesn't make it false. You do grasp that, yes?

Plus, I don't need it to be proven. I have faith. Perhaps that's not enough for you, but for me faith is exactly enough.

Also, CSW, about your comment of me writing a book and changing what the world thinks, not such a bad idea. Although, I think i like the idea of creating an archive that has evidence against evolution, etc.

While ignoring evidence for. See, in science we don't ignore evidence because we don't like what it means. We're only allowed to that in religion, apparently.

Jocabia, I go to my classes. Although, there is one important thing though that I feel the need to question about you, if your a Christian, then why are you going against the Bible? Jesus was for the Bible, and seeing as that Christian quite litterally means "one of Christ" or "follower of Christ" then why are you going against it? Also, another thing, how do you classify "science", because I don't classify atheism or anything that suggests atheism (belief that there is no God) as science. Science to me is how/why things work and from as unreligious of a veiw as possible, ie: electrons and electricity, gravity, astronomy, and even how the human body works.

I'm not going against the Bible. I'm going against your interpretation of it. Are you suggesting you are infallible? You make the same arguments that were made against Christ. Admittedly the difference is that I have not the knowledge that Jesus had. The point though is that Jesus was trying to tell them what the religion, what the torah really teaches and they were arguing what they thought it said. This is all you're doing. You can't see the difference between the objective intention of the text and what you think it says. While I can also be wrong, certainly I'm not disagreeing with the Bible simply by disagreeing with you.

I follow Christ and Christ often lamented when his followers couldn't see basic reason. I employ reason as it was a gift from God that no other animals have. Atheism has nothing to do with science. God or the lack of existence of God are not a part of any scientific theory and never will be. That's not atheism, that's agnosticism and it is the job of science to be agnostic. God does not fall into the realm of science directly. God created science but that doesn't mean that God has to be included in theories. God created water but I don't God in the formula for h2o nor is anyone arguing that I should. Science is about how things work in an observable world. If it cannot not be tested and/or falsified it has no place in science. This leaves God's existence outside of the realm of science. It's not possible for science to be atheist.

Now, if you regard anything that goes against your predetermined view of what you think the Bible is supposed to say well, then I could see how you might not like science. I tend to employ all of the gifts that God has given me including the power of observation and I have yet to find one single scientific theory or aspect of the Bible that I couldn't make sense of and that couldn't logically coexist once I expanded my thinking and found out how I'd been misreading the text. To close one eye to the world or to close one eye to the Spirit leaves one equally blind. Only one who opens his eyes to both the world and the Spirit see the world as it truly is.

One more thing, evolution can't be docmented :) haven't had long enough to actually see effects b/c of the fact that evolution takes "millions of years". Also, for the record, the number of different possible changes in even some of the simplest DNA was more than the number of atoms estimated (approx 10^80 atoms according to theory). If your wondering where i got this info from, read Refuting Evolution 2.

Again, you are not talking about the theory of evolution. Keep studying friend. You're not talking about what you think you're talking about. Ha. And your atoms argument is more evidence that you don't actually understand DNA and how much we really know about it.

Also, I use the KJV. Also, if the flood "myth"(as you call it) is "wrong" then the Bible is wrong, b/c every t-r-a-n-s-l-a-t-i-o-n has the flood.

Myth doesn't mean false. It just means it has religious origins. Greek mythology and Norse mythology were prevelant religions at one time.

Um, you fail to understand the use of allegories, I see. Because you don't understand the purpose of a story doesn't make the Bible wrong, it makes you wrong. You are improperly interpreting it. Learn the difference between interpretation and translation.

There one thing though I must admit about Atheists, they got a Hell of a lot more faith than most, believing in something that goes against even common sense (ie: 0 cant = 1 natural), and they make Christians, Catholics, Jews, Muslims, and probably many more think about what they actually believe.

You amuse me. You make tons of assumptions. Base your opinions on a blind eye to the facts and suggest that Christianity does not require faith. I have to say if you're looking to be President you're traveling the right path.

Still, if any1 really feels the need to respond to me, send my nation a telegram and I'll respond asap. Otherwise, don't comment behind my back.

Read the thread. It's hardly behind your back. However, I'm not going to let people think I ignored such ridiculous points. You really should learn A LOT more about what you're talking about before attempting to engage in this level of debate. Some day you will learn that there are almost as many colors of Christians as there are in your monitor and simply because one disagrees with your interpretation of your faith does not make one an atheist. You're welcome to continue thinking that science is some tool of the devil (I also don't believe in the idea that there is an Anti-God, since I'm a monotheist). I will continue to think the universe and everything in it was created by God and that God did not place anything in this existence designed to lead us astray. No one is tricking us. We are expected to examine all evidence not just the evidence we wish to see.

Firstly, animals (other than humans) only started killing each other after the Flood and after the Ark had landed and the animals left.

No, if it's "from scripture" then it's "in scripture". But I see part of what your saying. That sometimes, we make assumptions that are based of of scripture. But if most of the time though, the meanings are there and can be drawn out of things.

I disagree with both points, I'm afraid.

First - the killing of the mate, and then death of the mother, is an essential part of the breeding cycle of the Re'em, in Hebrew myth.

Second - the point I was trying to make is that MOST people know things that they THINK are 'in scripture'... but that are NOT in scripture. Like the 'two of each animal' thing... or the popular idea that Jesus was a white man, or some meek-looking individual... or that he was born in the 'winter'.

Firstly, never gains, no way for it to gain.


Wrong, I'm afraid.

It IS possible to 'accidentally' duplicate information... and it IS possible for information to become corrupted... even 'duplicated' information.

Simple mechanism: Duplication + mutation = 'addition' of NEW material.

Article Title



From article



WTF … I thought this was about persecution in the MIDDLE EAST
The article goes on to try and blame it on Muslims

THEN he admits that 2/3 of his supposed “figures” that he is using to malign Muslims are the work of STALEN … both not in the middle east and NOT Muslim

Fucking illogical author

Wise words from UpwardThrust.

..... the popular idea that Jesus was a white man, or some meek-looking individual... or that he was born in the 'winter'.

Jesus was english, and he was born on christmas. I learned that in school. Are you saying my elementary school teacher lied?

Wise words from UpwardThrust.

Grave, you have to come see this thread. ph33r cracks me up.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9790048&posted=1#post9790048

Apparently porneuo and related words mean anything [some] Fundamentalist Christians want to condemn related to sex even if the acts aren't even related.

Jesus was english, and he was born on christmas. I learned that in school. Are you saying my elementary school teacher lied?

Little blonde skinny guy, yeah? Funny... you'd have thought they'd have mentioned something so unusual in the text...

Grave, you have to come see this thread. ph33r cracks me up.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=9790048&posted=1#post9790048

Apparently porneuo and related words mean anything [some] Fundamentalist Christians want to condemn related to sex even if the acts aren't even related.

Yeah.. finally got a chance to check in... but then, reading the scripture how you WANT to... is hardly new in certain Christian circles.

Lets not for get the crusades was a counter attack. Back in the day when you are attack you don't stand there and do nothing to wait for the next time. YOU STRIKE BACK!

I would like to post the very loving and educated telegram I got from Teckor since I think it gives incite to the discussion.

If your not going to believe in the Bible as true, then why believe in God.

Firstly, there is evidence for a massive flood of some sort.

Secondly, it is natural for nature to wear things down, not build up. Erosion, tornadoes, etc. Nothing that builds up.

Thirdly, stop talking trash about creation scientists b/c I could just as easily talk trash about evolutionists.

Fourthly, creation scientists are no idiots. I know I sure am in some aspects but there are reasons why they believe what they believe, and it isn't always just faith.

Fifthly, poke your head out of the damn education system for once and stop being such a follower.

Love always,

Teckor

Okay, I made up the love always part, but the rest is the actual telegram.

Apparently, if I interpret the Bible differently than Teckor I might as well not worship God. Hmmm... telling people not to believe in God. That's a twist. Don't see how that helps, but an interesting tactic.

Also, Teckor is apparently not aware of forests, sand dunes, mountains, islands, volcanoes, etc. All of which build up without human intervention.

And apparently, thinking for yourself and educating yourself is being a follower. "Do it my way and way of all my friends or you're a follower!" Teckor, are you in High School? I seem to remember people thinking like that in high school.

I would like to post the very loving and educated telegram I got from Teckor since I think it gives incite to the discussion.



Okay, I made up the love always part, but the rest is the actual telegram.

Apparently, if I interpret the Bible differently than Teckor I might as well not worship God. Hmmm... telling people not to believe in God. That's a twist. Don't see how that helps, but an interesting tactic.

Also, Teckor is apparently not aware of forests, sand dunes, mountains, islands, volcanoes, etc. All of which build up without human intervention.

And apparently, thinking for yourself and educating yourself is being a follower. "Do it my way and way of all my friends or you're a follower!" Teckor, are you in High School? I seem to remember people thinking like that in high school.

Allow me to take time to go and explain a couple of things that I said that obviously some people neglect to think about.

Firstly, Jocabia, you do know what "talking behind people's back is" no? You should, you just did. Although, unluckily for you, I'm not dumb enough to trust people I have no respect for (ie: you).

Secondly, sure the Bible requires faith. But there is evidence that it at least contains true historical events and as before hasn't been preoven WRONG so it can be CONSIDERED accurate.

Thirdly, mountains, sand dunes, etc. are not all that complex and are simply piles, nothing more.

Fourthly, I'm talking about not my way but someway other than what the education system crams down and into peoples heads (ie: you).

Fifthly, I'm not talknig about interpreting the Bible. I'm talknig about things that it clearly says that doesn't need interpretation (ie: Genessi account of creation, Flood, and probably much more such as Jesus's crucifixition). Those things are written not as a poem or as a prophesy (which sometimes uses symbolism) but rather it says it in such a way that indicates that it happened.

Sixthly, to Grave_and_Idle, sure the duplication "somehow" happens but it is utterally useless (even with mutation in it) b/c of the fact that in order to active certain parts of the DNA would be immpossible b/c the "switches" weren't compied as well.

Seventh, many things changed after the Flood (ie: animals eating meat). Also, how do you think Ra'am would have been classified? As unclean or clean? Probably, unclean. Either that or their method of mating changed.

Eighth, Jocabia, read the book I mentioned and it gives you the statistic that the number of different possiblilities for a DNA with 1000 base pairs has 10 to the power of 602 different possibilities. And as I mentioned the estimate of matter is only 10^80. That's over 6 times the number of atoms.

Ninethly, about Genesis being simply people trying to explain it, then it forces me to ask this, why is it in the Bible then? The Bible is refered to as "the Word of God" so if that part of it ins't "the Word of God" or right from the horse's mouth then how much of the rest of the Bible is justy interpretation? How about all of it! (note: this type of arguement i just pulled on you is called the "flood gate" arguement, as you probably know :) )

Tenthly, sure I'm over my head, but then don't act as though you aren't.

Eleventh, science is meant not to pass over evidence but unfortuantely, it does happen (especially by scientist's, etc).

Twelveth, first you say that evolution doesn't contradict Genesis, then you practically say that Genesis isn't even God's word, what next? That God has four heads?

One last thing seeing as that debating with you is particularly usesless in that all that you do is make "assumptions" (just like me, Grave_and_Idle, the old man down the street, scientist's, etc) and you obviously don't know much yourself about what you are saying.

And so this concludes all I'm going to say seeing as that I don't have "faith" that I'm going to be able to change your point of view Jocabia which seems quite contradictory, un-Christian and even unsubstantial in my opinion. And so I will not respond to any replies for here forward about what I have said in this forum. (to those of you whom I've had some pleasure in discussing such a topic with) Good-bye. (to those i haven't: I haven't anything good to say in regards :) )


Note: Yes. I'm in high school. And I'm alot more separate from what the school system wants than what you are Jocabia. One more thing, you do whatever you want, but I'm saying I whole heartedly dissagree. Also, if you want to know the truth, I'm not asking you to follow what I'm saying, Im asking you to not follow what atheism says.

Allow me to take time to go and explain a couple of things that I said that obviously some people neglect to think about.

Firstly, Jocabia, you do know what "talking behind people's back is" no? You should, you just did. Although, unluckily for you, I'm not dumb enough to trust people I have no respect for (ie: you).

I know what talking behind people's back is. I also know what it's not. It's not posting on a public forum you subscribe to in a thread you also subscribe to, to let people see what you 'secretly' wrote to me in a TG about THIS THREAD. Are you seriously suggesting I didn't know you would see that post. In fact, I'll bet a dollar to the whole in a donut that you read this post even though you claim to have left again. I believe the term you want is 'exposed'. I exposed your dark telegram to the light of day. I suspected you would find it upsetting, but as it pertains to the thread and enlightens people as to your actual knowledge of the subject it bore posting.

Secondly, sure the Bible requires faith. But there is evidence that it at least contains true historical events and as before hasn't been preoven WRONG so it can be CONSIDERED accurate.

Some parts are historical events and have been verified so those parts can be considered accurate. That's how these things work. Everything else requires interpretation and faith.

Thirdly, mountains, sand dunes, etc. are not all that complex and are simply piles, nothing more.

Forests are complex. Ecosystems are complex. There are tons of examples of complex systems coming from simple ones. You're trying to argue that the Earth must decrease in entropy but it doesn't because the sun is part of the system and constantly adding energy. In other words, the Earth can increase in entropy, i.e. become more complex and this fits completely in with understood scientific theory, theory you're clearly unaware of.

Fourthly, I'm talking about not my way but someway other than what the education system crams down and into peoples heads (ie: you).

I think there are many in the education system that would disagree with my faith in God and in Jesus Christ as my Savior. However, I don't know any of them because when I was involved in the education system they kept their beliefs about God and Jesus Christ and Religion in the church where it belongs.

Fifthly, I'm not talknig about interpreting the Bible. I'm talknig about things that it clearly says that doesn't need interpretation (ie: Genessi account of creation, Flood, and probably much more such as Jesus's crucifixition). Those things are written not as a poem or as a prophesy (which sometimes uses symbolism) but rather it says it in such a way that indicates that it happened.

Have you ever heard the term 'literal interpretation' or the term 'figurative interpretation'? You take a literal INTERPRETATION and I take a figurative one. Yours does not have enough evidence (read: NO EVIDENCE) to put you in a position to tell me mine is wrong. In fact, some of your interpretations have out and out been proven wrong. Like the fact the world was created in six days literally. However, that doesn't prove the Bible wrong, it proves your literal interpretation of that story wrong.

Sixthly, to Grave_and_Idle, sure the duplication "somehow" happens but it is utterally useless (even with mutation in it) b/c of the fact that in order to active certain parts of the DNA would be immpossible b/c the "switches" weren't compied as well.

Wow, someone is struggling with DNA theory. I'll just judge this to be a lost cause. It's been explained to you several times.

Seventh, many things changed after the Flood (ie: animals eating meat). Also, how do you think Ra'am would have been classified? As unclean or clean? Probably, unclean. Either that or their method of mating changed.

When in doubt, make something up, Teckor always says.

Eighth, Jocabia, read the book I mentioned and it gives you the statistic that the number of different possiblilities for a DNA with 1000 base pairs has 10 to the power of 602 different possibilities. And as I mentioned the estimate of matter is only 10^80. That's over 6 times the number of atoms.

The number of atoms? In what? A liter of air? A liter of earth? A DNA strand? A can of coke? A slice of cheese? The entire universe? The number of possibilities has nothing to do with the number of possible outcomes from a single DNA strand that behaves normally.

Ninethly, about Genesis being simply people trying to explain it, then it forces me to ask this, why is it in the Bible then? The Bible is refered to as "the Word of God" so if that part of it ins't "the Word of God" or right from the horse's mouth then how much of the rest of the Bible is justy interpretation? How about all of it! (note: this type of arguement i just pulled on you is called the "flood gate" arguement, as you probably know :) )

Do you believe there are stories of the end of times in the Bible? Why doesn't it talk about tanks and helicoptors and guns? Certainly God knew the words right? It wasn't from the horse's mouth. God told these stories to men who wrote them down. God told the stories in visions and the men wrote those visions down. When the visions were focused on things that had modern day applications for the writers it was very easy because the appropriate language existed. When it had no modern-day application for the writers they came up with ways of describing the image with language available to them. Show me the word gun in the Bible and I will accept that you're not talking out of your butt.

As for the rest of the Bible, if a part is proven to be historically accurate I accept that it is the only reasonable interpretation. If it violates the laws of the universe (laws CREATED by God, I might add) then I accept that literal is not a reasonable interpretation. If it is neither of these I use the interpretation that makes the most sense when incorporated into what I know and have observed of the world. To suggest otherwise is to spit in the face of the reasoning ability given you by God and thus God himself (see what I employed there is called the 'if God created reason and you intentionally avoid employing reason then you're an qualified to be in the discussion' argument.

Yes, the 'flood gate' argument also called the 'slippery slope' argument is a logical fallacy employed by people who are more concerned with winning an argument than actually employing reason. The 'flood gate' argument is nearly never an appropriate argument and thus EASILY dismissed as I showed above.

Tenthly, sure I'm over my head, but then don't act as though you aren't.

When you limit your responses to the things you are knowledgeable about then you have a reason to be a part of the discussion. You respond to things you don't understand with a hearty 'nuh-uh'.

Eleventh, science is meant not to pass over evidence but unfortuantely, it does happen (especially by CREATION scientist's, etc).

I edited the above part of your post to make it correct.

Twelveth, first you say that evolution doesn't contradict Genesis, then you practically say that Genesis isn't even God's word, what next? That God has four heads?

Um, no, I said Genesis is a description of a vision given by God. What I said was that you are not God and thus what you say it means is not necessarily correct. Keep pretending that if I don't agree with you I reject God. I know the truth and I know that you'll have to answer for that lack of humility.

One last thing seeing as that debating with you is particularly usesless in that all that you do is make "assumptions" (just like me, Grave_and_Idle, the old man down the street, scientist's, etc) and you obviously don't know much yourself about what you are saying.

Ha, this is the best thing you've said yet. I describe accepted scientific theory that has been verified by tests so numerous I couldn't fit all the paperwork in the building I'm sitting in and you call it assumption. Hehe. Yes, you're correct that none of us know the ABSOLUTE TRUTH and we have some level of 'guessing' going on. However, some guesses are logical and some are not. Again, you can walk off the roof of a building and expect not to fall. In that case, your guess would not be as good as mine since accepting your theory will kill you if the building is high enough. Meanwhile, your literal interpretation of some of the stories of the Bible will never fit within the world of science because it rejects basic scientific principles and many of the laws of physics, chemistry and biology.

And so this concludes all I'm going to say seeing as that I don't have "faith" that I'm going to be able to change your point of view Jocabia which seems quite contradictory, un-Christian and even unsubstantial in my opinion. And so I will not respond to any replies for here forward about what I have said in this forum. (to those of you whom I've had some pleasure in discussing such a topic with) Good-bye. (to those i haven't: I haven't anything good to say in regards :) )

I see. I don't agree with you so I'm not a Christian. Here I thought I was supposed to worship the Son of God and our Lord, but I guess it really should be called Teckorianity. Some day you will realize the folly of putting yourself above God. Disagreeing with me doesn't make you un-Christian, it just makes you unreasonable and uneducated. Disagreeing with you doesn't make me un-Christian, it just makes me able to understand logic, reason and science.

Note: Yes. I'm in high school.

You're kidding. I never would have guessed. I'm sure no one saw that one coming.

And I'm alot more separate from what the school system wants than what you are Jocabia. One more thing, you do whatever you want, but I'm saying I whole heartedly dissagree. Also, if you want to know the truth, I'm not asking you to follow what I'm saying, Im asking you to not follow what atheism says.

Ha. I love that. "if they don't agree with me their atheists". None of what is presented here disputes the existence of God or the Truth of Christ. In fact, employing reason and logic in one's faith, lifts it up.

What does hurt the faith is to suggest that you are all-knowing and anyone who disagrees is un-Christian, yet I encounter many Christians who feel this way. Here I thought Christianity was about Christ. I'm silly like that.

Hopefully you will finish high school and attend college and learn more about the world our Lord created. It's not a trick. God gave us a science and education to better understand his creation. Remember that education is the reason you can read [the Bible], talk on the internet to people across the world and get access to every version of the Bible nearly since it was written. It's not the dirty tool of the devil you want it to be. And if it is, stop using all of its benefits. Most people don't brag about intending to remain uneducated.

That or the continued Catholic-Protestant war in Ireland.
There is no Catholic-Protestant war in Ireland. Hasn't been for at least 250 years.

I think I'm going to start a list of people who suggest I have to agree with them or I'm not a Christian. They're not upset with me being rude or vicious, just logical and kind to people they wish to condemn. I sure hope they're wrong or else we're all doomed because a lot of times they don't even agree with each other.

Hey, guys, just to keep all of the discussion above board here is his new telegram.

Tell me then, where am I wrong? you were saying I'm wrong about the flood "myth" (also why you even calling it a myth if your a "Christian"?).

Also, there is no evidence that I feel i can trust from evolutionists b/c they have lied before or given us a clearly flawed opinion. ie: Neanderthal man bones, they have only ever found small insignificant pieces which have even sometimes turned out to be animal bones. Also, carbon-14 dating, they claim that they can use it accurately but an important thing which they forget to meantion is the fact that they dont have 2 important factors, how long the bones been there and how much carbon-14 was in it to begin with. With these factors missing, they are capable of making up vertually any number they want.

Another thing, I am looking at the world, I am looking at what God has created, and I'm looking at the Bible too, b/c that's the unltimate answer to just about any question (with the rare exception of course).

I didn't save my reply, but he can post it here if he likes, but it was centered around employing the gifts of logic and reason that only man has, gifts from God, and understanding the meaning of the word myth. I also pointed out that it was precisely the people who were offended by any evidence that went against their faith who tortured Jesus and nailed him to a cross to torture him again until he died. People who fear and reject any evidence that doesn't fit into their view of the world are dangerous to anyone who doesn't think like them and this is my specific reason for combatting such ignorance. Since Christ was crucified for a paradigm shift of the prevailing religion of His time, I have a hard time finding it un-Christian. Only in this case I'm simply educating people about the first time it happened not presenting a new method for Salvation. In fact, my methods are two thousand years old.

You think very lowly of your own religion. Spending half your life under Islamic Rule might have something to do with that.

I am happy that you enjoy dhimmitude. Keep kissing their hands and maybe you will also enjoy your “Just reward” in “The last days”. I shall not be joining you as I shall never submit and shall never take their account of events in India, Serbia, Russia or Africa as my Gospel.


You certainly do have alot of hate for Muslims, dont ya?

Just for the record, I have lived amongst muslims for at least half my life, and I have found they are like everyone else. They have some shitty people, they have some absolutly grand people. I lived in Pakistan and Bangladesh, BTW, and while the former is usually portrayed as some backwards mountain country full of mullahs that want to wipe out Christianity, that is certainly not true.

Anyhoo, back to your happy points.

1. Muhammed did not wage war 20 times. He was a warrior for the last 10 years of his life, and then it was in defence. So what if he attacked a heavily-armed merchant caravan? The Meccans set out to torch Medina to the ground. Muhammed waged war to defend his followers, and instead of stopping so that the pagans who wished his followers dead could re-gain strength, he went forward and solidified Muslim control of Saudi Arabia in a wider war of defence. Even then, he was the first great leader that set rules for the humane treatment of prisoners, as shown here:

Hadith:

Muhammad is reputed to have said:

* "You are neither hard-hearted nor of fierce character, nor one who shouts in the markets. You do not return evil for evil, but excuse and forgive." (Bukhari, Volume 6, Book 60, Number 362)

* "Do not kill any old person, any child or any woman" (Abu Dawud)

* "Do not kill the monks in monasteries" or "Do not kill the people who are sitting in places of worship". (Musnad of Ibn Hanbal)

Sunnis believe that one of the most general and encompassing rules of warfare in Islam was given by Abu Bakr to an Islamic army set out for Syria. Abu Bakr was Muhammad's first successor and is considered by Sunnis to have been his closest friend.

Abu Bakr is reputed to have said:

* "Stop, O people, that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battlefield. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the right path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy's flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic services; leave them alone."


Also, unlike in Christianity, Islam does not state that Mohammed was some divine being. He was an average shmoe, to which God had shown his message. Unlike Jesus, Mohammed was not a miracle-maker. He was a man with a vision. He could not come back from the dead, and he did not control the world. He realised that he couldn't throw his life away, so he didn't, and although he preached the word of God, he couldn't allow himself to get executed. So he fought back against his attackers.

2. Oh really? That's not what the Qur'an says...

62. Those who believe (in the Qur'an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in Allah and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve. (The Cow)

Oh yes. I can see the part about enslaving them in plain view.

3. As a person has extensively studied Indian History, I can say you sir are very much wrong. The Mughal Empire controlled nearly all of the Indian Subcontinent, save the southern tip. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/34/Mughal_empire_large.png) Also, in the Mughal Empire, although Muslims were generally in higher positions than Hindus (as was the same all over Europe at the time; I doubt you'd find a Muslim as Chancellor of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, or as a noble in Spain), they were treated very humanly. In fact, at the Babri Mosque (that was torn down by angry Hindu mobs that incited inter-religious conflict that killed hundreds), Muslims and Hindus used to pray together towards their seperate deities in peace. Both religions considered the place a haven of peace. Then the radicals came, and we got to the not-so-wonderful situation we have today.

4. As a descendant of Lebanese and Syrian Christians, I have to say you are wrong. Sure, fighting breaks out between the two groups every once and a while, but Christians and Muslims live in peace. Radicals on both sides try to incite violence, but in the end the peace is returned.

You think very lowly of your own religion. Spending half your life under Islamic Rule might have something to do with that.

I am happy that you enjoy dhimmitude. Keep kissing their hands and maybe you will also enjoy your “Just reward” in “The last days”. I shall not be joining you as I shall never submit and shall never take their account of events in India, Serbia, Russia or Africa as my Gospel.

I do not thinking lowly of my own religion(I'm actually an Agnostic, by the way). I believe all religions are equal.

If your hatred and ignorance consumes you, then I pity you, for in your clouded view of the world you shall never see reality.

If you are an agnostic they will still kill you. Renouncing and hating the Christians from which you came will not grant you a reprieve. Ask Ibn Warraq about that. Of course, that former Moslem, now for the most part agnostic, is in hiding from all of the “Peaceful and Benevolent Moderate Moslems” that want to kill him.

If you are an agnostic they will still kill you. Renouncing and hating the Christians from which you came will not grant you a reprieve. Ask Ibn Warraq about that. Of course, that former Moslem, now for the most part agnostic, is in hiding from all of the “Peaceful and Benevolent Moderate Moslems” that want to kill him.

There are Muslims in my office who don't want to kill him. They actually don't know who he is, but they said they could never want to kill anyone. When one speaks in absolutes all that it takes is one exception to prove them wrong. Consider your theory falsified. You may continue to believe it, but then it passes into bigotry.

New one -

To one of many opponents,

The point i'm going to try to get across is simple. I'm not talking about the Bible being untrue b/c it's "myth" or "legend", but it makes you look weak and unstable.

To use an analogy, I see what you think as a tree, large trunked, but rotting and having a very shallow (if any roots system). The trunk, represents the amount of faith you have, quite considerable from my point of view. But your choice to not back it up with any proof or logic or even reason makes you weak. Also, your dying b/c of the fact that your compromising the Bible to what the world thinks. This i think makes you weak against attacks at the base (the root of your faith) and makes it too easy for you to be knocked over. I don't know what sort of tree I am, I am not that good at judging myself, but I do know that I have my own problems.

Also, yes Jesus used logic, but he also used the Bible. He used it against Satan in the wilderness (remember?). Another thing though, is the fact that I take Genesis literally, and I have my reasons. I have my reasons for not conforming to what the world always says. Especially when it contradicts the Bible. Although, I can't prove anything to you, b/c you have to accept the evidence. You've already chosen what you want to believe.

There is one thing though I think you should do, reread through Genesis, and compare it to the book of Ezekial, Danial, the book of Judges, Matthew, and many others and compare and contrast them. The book of Genesis, it first discusses the orignial sin, which is major part of the Christian faith.

But still, you do and believe what you want to. That's what you believe so be it. I'll try to use faith, proof, logic and reson together b/c otherwise I think it'll be too unbalanced and that the belief dies. Still, you do what you want, and I'll go my way of logic, proof, reason and faith. (also, religious fervor isn't always bad, kinda like differences)

One of your opponents,

Teckor

Here is my reply:

You have it backwards. My faith is strong enough that it can withstand subjecting it to reason and logic. It is not weakened by science but nourished by it. Science merely deals with the nature that was created by God. It's a study of all of God's creations. Don't be confused simply because they don't mention God in the study of his creations. Science subjects the world and the creations of God to logic and observation that we may better understand them. This should strengthen your faith, not weaken it. The infinite complexity of the creations of God are a testament and the fact they weren't created in an instant simply supplies us with the awe-inspiring peek at the long-sighted vision of our Lord. He didn't make a momentary decision that created humans. It was a long, arduous and thoughtful process over millions of years. The patience of this act is overwhelming.

My faith isn't blind and you suggest this makes it weak, but you'll not find a person that can hack at my faith with reason or logic. It in fact stands strong against all attacks. That's because I didn't come to it by birth or indoctrination but I came to it by studying the world and the many faiths that it contains. I opened my heart and waited for God to help me see the truth. Reread the attacks you made on me. It shows that your faith does not bend with the wind so it will break under the first storm. Mine is based on all of the evidence offered by God. What if evidence was found tomorrow that was from the author of the flood story that proved conclusively that the flood story was an alegory. Your faith would be shaken to its foundation while mine would stand strong. A faith that does not stand up to logic is blind.

<snip>you have to accept the evidence.
<snip>
Mine <faith> is based on all of the evidence offered by God.


Critical question that always goes unanswered in this sort of thread is "where is this evidence?"

It would be nice, just once in a while, to actually have someone post some evidence for these myths and fairy tales.

Critical question that always goes unanswered in this sort of thread is "where is this evidence?"

It would be nice, just once in a while, to actually have someone post some evidence for these myths and fairy tales.

It's not emperical evidence. That's the point. If it were emperical evidence it wouldn't be faith. However, the point of the conversation we've been having is that it is not negated by emperical evidence either. If there is emperical evidence against one's faith then, quite simply, you are suggesting that God is trying to fool you by the evidence offered within the world He created. It's a contradiction.

The point of the Christian I was talking to's message is that he ignores anything that contradicts his faith. I accept faith and what I feel in my heart AS WELL AS all the other evidence of the events of the world that God has provided us. If you choose only to accept emperical evidence then you will have only see one half of a complex answer regarding reality. If you choose to ignore emperical evidence and only except faith then you will have only the other half of a complex answer. The full answer can only be reached by looking at both sides.

It's a funny thing about Atheists AND fundamentalists. One side says, "HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLIND?!? LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE!" And the other side says, "WHAT EVIDENCE? YOU'RE JUST MAKING THAT UP!" And each side could be saying the first statement and each side could be replying with the second. It doesn't matter which eye is closed. Closing one eye or the other has the exact same effect on depth perception. And to one who has only ever seen with one eye, it is impossible to explain the difference of seeing with both.

If you'd read the thread instead of just the last post, you'd realize how nonsensical your post is.

It's not emperical evidence. That's the point. If it were emperical evidence it wouldn't be faith. However, the point of the conversation we've been having is that it is not negated by emperical evidence either. If there is emperical evidence against one's faith then, quite simply, you are suggesting that God is trying to fool you by the evidence offered within the world He created. It's a contradiction.

The point of the Christian I was talking to's message is that he ignores anything that contradicts his faith. I accept faith and what I feel in my heart AS WELL AS all the other evidence of the events of the world that God has provided us. If you choose only to accept emperical evidence then you will have only see one half of a complex answer regarding reality. If you choose to ignore emperical evidence and only except faith then you will have only the other half of a complex answer. The full answer can only be reached by looking at both sides.

It's a funny thing about Atheists AND fundamentalists. One side says, "HOW CAN YOU BE SO BLIND?!? LOOK AT ALL THE EVIDENCE!" And the other side says, "WHAT EVIDENCE? YOU'RE JUST MAKING THAT UP!" And each side could be saying the first statement and each side could be replying with the second. It doesn't matter which eye is closed. Closing one eye or the other has the exact same effect on depth perception. And to one who has only ever seen with one eye, it is impossible to explain the difference of seeing with both.

If you'd read the thread instead of just the last post, you'd realize how nonsensical your post is.


I was born and raised in the Church of England. My maternal grandfather was caretake at the local parish church after her retired from the railway. I went to church twice on Sunday, went to Sunday school and studied for confirmation.

It was during confirmation classes, some taken with a Bishop not just the local Vicar, that I first noticed there were no answers to some of my questions. Often the response would boil down to "you have to have faith".

Well tosh. To have faith in something for which there is no evidence isn't just daft - its plain stupid.

Now to me there are two forms of evidence, emperical and deducible. Given some emperical evidence it is possible to deduce other evidence.

However, without a single peice of emperical evidence then all you can be left with is blind faith and when you get down to that then there is no difference between the christian bible, greek mythology, father christmas or the tooth fairy.

It has to be considered a sign of some mental problems to believe in something that doesn't exist.

I was born and raised in the Church of England. My maternal grandfather was caretake at the local parish church after her retired from the railway. I went to church twice on Sunday, went to Sunday school and studied for confirmation.

It was during confirmation classes, some taken with a Bishop not just the local Vicar, that I first noticed there were no answers to some of my questions. Often the response would boil down to "you have to have faith".

Well tosh. To have faith in something for which there is no evidence isn't just daft - its plain stupid.

Now to me there are two forms of evidence, emperical and deducible. Given some emperical evidence it is possible to deduce other evidence.

However, without a single peice of emperical evidence then all you can be left with is blind faith and when you get down to that then there is no difference between the christian bible, greek mythology, father christmas or the tooth fairy.

It has to be considered a sign of some mental problems to believe in something that doesn't exist.

I suspect you're afraid that I'm right. Does my faith offend you in some way. Did I aggressively attack you? So if I can't possibly offer any evidence to you of my faith, as you've clearly stated, then why did you come in the thread. According to you my faith is blind, and you have your eyes wide open. Strange that only one of us is bitter. If you aren't afraid that I'm right and I'm not trying to convert you then why is my faith so upsetting? I find most anger is backed by fear.

I suspect you're afraid that I'm right.

Hehehehehe! Such a common and very low-grade comeback.

Does my faith offend you in some way.

The fact that there are still people who need faith in a non-existant omnipotant being to provide them with a crutch to get through life does is very sad. We help those who are adicted to drugs, it is about time we put more into helping those adicted to faith.

Did I aggressively attack you?

You know that you can't.

So if I can't possibly offer any evidence to you of my faith, as you've clearly stated, then why did you come in the thread.

Originally, and you will note that I have been in the thread from the start, I came to balance what I considered a racist attack.

According to you my faith is blind,

If you have no evidence for the existance of your god then of course it is blind - it cannot be anything else.

and you have your eyes wide open. Strange that only one of us is bitter.

I cannot help it if you are bitter. I think you may find it is your faith that makes you so.

If you aren't afraid that I'm right and I'm not trying to convert you then why is my faith so upsetting? I find most anger is backed by fear.

You faith is upsetting in the same way that poverty is upsetting, that the drug situation is upsetting - all are things that the world would be better without.

The fact that there are still people who need faith in a non-existant omnipotant being to provide them with a crutch to get through life does is very sad. We help those who are adicted to drugs, it is about time we put more into helping those adicted to faith.

Drugs are detremental. Faith isnt. While you can say "Look at 11/9 etc" (and yes that is the right way round) and other supposed faith based conflicts, the fact of the matter is that you can deal with the actions of these people, not the fact of their faith. Also, what evidence do you have that its just a cruch?


Originally, and you will note that I have been in the thread from the start, I came to balance what I considered a racist attack.

A historical portrayal of some of the things Muslims have done can hardly be racist. Also, it wasnt intended as a specific attack, but more as a point to those who keep hitting Christians on the head with the crusades, espically when there is still debate over whether or not they were defensive conflicts on the part of the Europeans in nature, and that they were caused by territorial greed and not religion.


If you have no evidence for the existance of your god then of course it is blind - it cannot be anything else.

Firstly we do have evidence. It is primarly bound up in the evidence of Jesus's life. Now think its rubish all you like, but there is more documental evidence that Jesus existed than there is documental evidence that Alexander the Great existed.

Secondly, do you have any proof that God does not exist. Then your faith is also blind. And dont come at me with that "bruden of proof" nonsense. The fact is Christians have proof. Your or anyone elses refusal to accept it does not make it less valid.


I cannot help it if you are bitter. I think you may find it is your faith that makes you so.

I think the same can be said of you and your Athiesm


You faith is upsetting in the same way that poverty is upsetting, that the drug situation is upsetting - all are things that the world would be better without.

Asside from religious vilonce (which is just one portion of a great ammount of other types of vilonce on the planet) there is nothing intrinsicly bad about faith. Its very good in my opinion, seing as what it encourges people to be/do

Athiests/Agnostics:

Why are you bothering to debate with the Christians? You'll never... ever... EVER be satisfied with the answers they give you! Your heart is stone. Nothing ever gets through unless it beats you over the head! And you know what? Answers that you want from Christians are often not that damn obvious. So stop expecting God to come down from heaven and show his damn driver's license!!!!!!!!

Christians/Other religious nutjobs

Why are you allowing yourselves to get roped into these debates? You guys are only proving that you're spoiling for a religious fight. You're not in it to save their souls. You just want to prove that you're morally superior! If you want to do that, then let actions speak for themselves. Go out and do good deeds, based on your religious beliefs. Show that you're bigger than anyone else and stop arguing with these twits. So stop getting into these stupid flamewars and let the faithless stew in their own self superiority while you bathe in yours! THERE!


NOW EVERYONE CEASE AND DESIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

(geez, am I the only one that gets it here?)

Athiests/Agnostics:

Why are you bothering to debate with the Christians? You'll never... ever... EVER be satisfied with the answers they give you! Your heart is stone. Nothing ever gets through unless it beats you over the head! And you know what? Answers that you want from Christians are often not that damn obvious. So stop expecting God to come down from heaven and show his damn driver's license!!!!!!!!

I'm not looking for spiritual answers. I'm looking for those on my own, not by looking for them on some internet board full of geeks :p

I'm just here to make them stop acting like Muslims are the cause of all evil.

Drugs are detremental. Faith isnt.

Anything that you use to hide from reality is detremental.

While you can say "Look at 11/9 etc" (and yes that is the right way round) and other supposed faith based conflicts, the fact of the matter is that you can deal with the actions of these people, not the fact of their faith. Also, what evidence do you have that its just a cruch?
Who the hell mentioned 11/9 (and yes, I do know the correct way to write a date - I've done so since about the age of 5.)

A historical portrayal of some of the things Muslims have done can hardly be racist.

The article you referred to do have a racist slant. It may be acceptable to say "Oh christian are not the only bad ones, take a look at what xyz faith has done in the same period" but christains kill christian far more than any outsiders do.

Also, it wasnt intended as a specific attack, but more as a point to those who keep hitting Christians on the head with the crusades, espically when there is still debate over whether or not they were defensive conflicts on the part of the Europeans in nature, and that they were caused by territorial greed and not religion.

The crusades were long ago. Even if they started with some defensive reason they ended up as a stain on record of the church. Nothing can change that. Japan and Germany still have to carry the stain of their wartime acts - but I would not dream of blaming their current population for the actions of their fathers. However, in religion we have something different. When conflict results from religion the hatred always seems to last because it becomes rapped up in the religion itself. The crusades are not forgiven because it was a religious war and religion doen't forget. One more good reason to bury religion where it belongs - in the past.

Firstly we do have evidence. It is primarly bound up in the evidence of Jesus's life. Now think its rubish all you like, but there is more documental evidence that Jesus existed than there is documental evidence that Alexander the Great existed.

So, you big evidence for the existance of a god is bound up in the life of a man that may not even have existed? You do know that there were lots of other self styled Messiahs and Prophets around at the time of Jesus?

Almost all the evidence for JC comes from long after his death and though some is first hand much is just heresay. A comparison can be made to someone like Robin Hood.

Secondly, do you have any proof that God does not exist.

Yes, or to be more precise I have clear evidence that the claims made for him in the bible are false. You see his followers used the bible to prop-up his existance. The bible defines their god. As each of their claims is exposed as a falsehood the existance has looked less and less likely. We now know how our universe works, science has now answered enough of our questions that we can foresee the day when all the questions will be answered. Science has found no god, nor even the need for one.

Then your faith is also blind. And dont come at me with that "bruden of proof" nonsense. The fact is Christians have proof. Your or anyone elses refusal to accept it does not make it less valid.

That constant refusal of yours to actually provide any evidence is very telling.

Asside from religious vilonce (which is just one portion of a great ammount of other types of vilonce on the planet) there is nothing intrinsicly bad about faith. Its very good in my opinion, seing as what it encourges people to be/do

What it does not do is encourage people to face reality.

Anything that you use to hide from reality is detremental.

Firstly, you are incapable of proving that religion is used to hide us from reality so stop acting like you can


Who the hell mentioned 11/9.

Its the staple example for those who say faith is bad.


The article you referred to do have a racist slant. It may be acceptable to say "Oh christian are not the only bad ones, take a look at what xyz faith has done in the same period" but christains kill christian far more than any outsiders do.

I'd like to see you prove that. And before you go into WW1 and WW2 lets remember what the idea of a religous war is. Neither of these were religious wars. And before you go into N.Ireland, thats primarly politcal not religious. It has a religious element but not primaly so any more


The crusades were long ago. Even if they started with some defensive reason they ended up as a stain on record of the church. Nothing can change that. Japan and Germany still have to carry the stain of their wartime acts - but I would not dream of blaming their current population for the actions of their fathers. However, in religion we have something different. When conflict results from religion the hatred always seems to last because it becomes rapped up in the religion itself. The crusades are not forgiven because it was a religious war and religion doen't forget. One more good reason to bury religion where it belongs - in the past.

I dont understand why you say this "does not forget" idea. Hatered is not present on a wide scale in most countries where Christians and Muslims live. Lebannon is a good example I believe, as are some other North African nations (not all)


So, you big evidence for the existance of a god is bound up in the life of a man that may not even have existed? You do know that there were lots of other self styled Messiahs and Prophets around at the time of Jesus?

None of whom died and rose from the dead, or turned water into wine, or walked on water, or woke the dead, healed the blind, the lame, the lepers etc


Almost all the evidence for JC comes from long after his death and though some is first hand much is just heresay. A comparison can be made to someone like Robin Hood.

Actually no. In John's Gospel for example it describes a pool that Jesus went to where he healed a lame man. Now in AD 70 that pool and the buildings around it were'nt there any more because the Romans came along again and leveled the place. Yet in Johns Gospel it says

' Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda ' John 5 verse 2

Note IS not was. Given Jesus died in aproximately AD30 we know that Johns Gospel was written between AD30 and AD70. Also considering the early church began reletively quickly after Jesus's death, and we know they had Johns gospel in some of these churchs since they refer to it, we can resonably assume that Johns gospel was written fairly early on


Yes, or to be more precise I have clear evidence that the claims made for him in the bible are false. You see his followers used the bible to prop-up his existance. The bible defines their god. As each of their claims is exposed as a falsehood the existance has looked less and less likely. We now know how our universe works, science has now answered enough of our questions that we can foresee the day when all the questions will be answered. Science has found no god, nor even the need for one.

You assume that the primary puropse of the Christian God is to explain away the enviroment. But seeing as how only two chapters are dedicated to the creation of the world that hardly seems important. Also how are they're claims exposed as falsehood. Can you elaborate


That constant refusal of yours to actually provide any evidence is very telling.

I've given evidence, its found in the Bible. You havent given any yet. So how exactly do you disprove God. Also note that trying to disprove the Bible is not the same as trying to disprove God.


What it does not do is encourage people to face reality.

As I have said, you have provided no evidence for why the Christian reality is not reality

Firstly, you are incapable of proving that religion is used to hide us from reality so stop acting like you can

Oh that one is easy - look at those who are trying to corrupt American education by getting ID into science classes. Better still, look at yourself - hiding behind a book of fairy tales.

Its the staple example for those who say faith is bad.

Please provide links to evidence of that claim. I've never seen it. In addition, I've been saying faith is bad for over 35 years.

I'd like to see you prove that. And before you go into WW1 and WW2 lets remember what the idea of a religous war is. Neither of these were religious wars. And before you go into N.Ireland, thats primarly politcal not religious. It has a religious element but not primaly so any more

I've listed before a large number of wars where christians have killed christians, you will find it in this thread.

I dont understand why you say this "does not forget" idea. Hatered is not present on a wide scale in most countries where Christians and Muslims live. Lebannon is a good example I believe, as are some other North African nations (not all)

You do seem to have this thing about muslims. Just look at the hatred between christian faiths.

None of whom died and rose from the dead, or turned water into wine, or walked on water, or woke the dead, healed the blind, the lame, the lepers etc

And none of which you can prove JC did either. He was a man. nothing else. He may have been a good man, he may (like Lhamo Dhondrub) have been very spiritual, but he did not rise from the dead. Nor for that matter could he have performed most of the wonders attributed to him because they are scientifically impossible.

Actually no. In John's Gospel for example it describes a pool that Jesus went to where he healed a lame man. Now in AD 70 that pool and the buildings around it were'nt there any more because the Romans came along again and leveled the place. Yet in Johns Gospel it says

' Now there is in Jerusalem near the Sheep Gate a pool, which in Aramaic is called Bethesda ' John 5 verse 2

Note IS not was. Given Jesus died in aproximately AD30 we know that Johns Gospel was written between AD30 and AD70. Also considering the early church began reletively quickly after Jesus's death, and we know they had Johns gospel in some of these churchs since they refer to it, we can resonably assume that Johns gospel was written fairly early on

No, we can't. We do know that it was written pre 135AD, because we have a quote from in in the John Rylands papyrus found in Egypt. The best guess, given the available evidence, is the John was written sometime around 80-90AD and certainly no later that 110AD.

Try reading: http://www.geocities.com/questioningpage/When.html

You assume that the primary puropse of the Christian God is to explain away the enviroment. But seeing as how only two chapters are dedicated to the creation of the world that hardly seems important. Also how are they're claims exposed as falsehood. Can you elaborate

The primary purpose of any god is to explain the mysteries of life, the universe and everything. That is why man invented gods in his simpler times.

I've given evidence, its found in the Bible. You havent given any yet. So how exactly do you disprove God. Also note that trying to disprove the Bible is not the same as trying to disprove God.

"its found in the bible!" Is it? I can't find any. Some good stories, sure, though there are a lot of crummy ones as well. But evidence? Not seen any yet.

As I have said, you have provided no evidence for why the Christian reality is not reality

Because it relies on a belief in the supernatural not the natural.

Oh that one is easy - look at those who are trying to corrupt American education by getting ID into science classes. Better still, look at yourself - hiding behind a book of fairy tales.

Can you prove the Bible is a book of fairy tales? Can you actually disprove any of the events in Jesus's life beyond claiming they are too fantatic to happe


And none of which you can prove JC did either. He was a man. nothing else. He may have been a good man, he may (like Lhamo Dhondrub) have been very spiritual, but he did not rise from the dead. Nor for that matter could he have performed most of the wonders attributed to him because they are scientifically impossible.

The Gospels are historical evidence, wheter you like it or not. Historical evidence is only refuted if other, better (IE closer to the time etc) historical evidence contridicts it useually. There is no historical evidence which disproves the Gospels.


No, we can't. We do know that it was written pre 135AD, because we have a quote from in in the John Rylands papyrus found in Egypt. The best guess, given the available evidence, is the John was written sometime around 80-90AD and certainly no later that 110AD.

Are you going to acutally deal with my point or just ignore it. Just because we found one quote from it in a later papyrus does not mean it wasnt written earlier. You havent dealt with my point about John 5:2


The primary purpose of any god is to explain the mysteries of life, the universe and everything. That is why man invented gods in his simpler times.


Please show how Jesus did these things. Christiaities purpose is none of these. Christianity comes as a response to Christ.


"its found in the bible!" Is it? I can't find any. Some good stories, sure, though there are a lot of crummy ones as well. But evidence? Not seen any yet.

The Bible is a historical piece of evidence, like it or not


Because it relies on a belief in the supernatural not the natural.

Jesus lived in this world and was human (natural) yet he did the things of the supernatural, in this world and people wrote it down (natural). Its faith in the supernatural as displayed through the natural.

There are Muslims in my office who don't want to kill him. They actually don't know who he is, but they said they could never want to kill anyone. When one speaks in absolutes all that it takes is one exception to prove them wrong. Consider your theory falsified. You may continue to believe it, but then it passes into bigotry.


The Koran gives very specific instructions to Moslems, to work towards making the World Islam. If they can do that best by Cajoling, invading, out populating and voting in Islamic Regimes, then that is what they will do. If they can do it best by “Smiting them above the necks and on all of their fingertips”, which the Koran also instructs them to do, then this is how they will do it. Of course if these Moslems are lazy and do not know their own Koran, I am all for that as well.

I shall do as my own Holy Book says and work to rebuild Israel and the Temple and if they do not like that, then I will find whether or not “Allah” will protect them from my Missiles and all you Christians, Hindus, Animists and unappreciative atheists will just have to sit there and benefit from those of us wise enough to protect you.

I shall do as my own Holy Book says and work to rebuild Israel and the Temple and if they do not like that, then I will find whether or not “Allah” will protect them from my Missiles and all you Christians, Hindus, Animists and unappreciative atheists will just have to sit there and benefit from those of us wise enough to protect you.

Who will protect us from you?

Lebanon was a bloodbath. A wonderful country about a half century ago, wonderful hotels, the jewel of the Middle East, a Christian country, next to a Jewish Country, surrounded by horrible desert wastelands ruled by Moslems. Then Syria invaded, Israel tried to protect the South Lebanese Army as it retreated but the world condemned Israel for defending them and politics forced Israel to restrain itself and withdraw. Christian blood flowed through the streets of Lebanon and Syrians poured in. Maybe of those Christians fled for America, others stayed in Israel and became a big part of Israel’s Christian minority. Eventually, after Syria had seized enough control over Lebanon, they promised not to murder Christians who came back. Some did and they are there now, regularly being murdered and bombed by Terrorists and underrepresented in their own government which makes almost no effort to protect them. Arabs live in many of the houses they fled or died in, there are still bullet holes in the walls that have not been patched and gas appliances have been converted in to wood burning stoves by Arab squatters who do not have electricity. Most are Syrian but many claim to be displaced “Palestinians”. Many Syrians became Palestinians during that war.

It is easy to explain this sort of thing from the Koran. The Koran advocates this quite clearly. In fact, some of the only racially specific instructions that the Koran includes, were given to Arabs. “Go forth in boldness” it tells them, it tells them specifically. They are the guerillas, they are the reconnaissance, they are the spies, they are the front lines in Islam’s Global War.

North Africa is the same today, the Ivory coast, I am boycotting French and Belgian Chocolate until the French stop helping the invaders. A small, African, Christian Country, that just happens to grow much of the world’s Chocolate, especially European Chocolate. The Country imported a lot of Cheap Moslem Labor from its North and East. They came and when they had adequate numbers, they tried to take over and turn Ivory Coast in to an Islamic State. Now they have rebels in their North East and French Soldiers to protect those rebels as “Peace Keepers”. When the government tries to protect itself from Terrorists, the French stop them, destroyed the entire Ivorian Air Force on the Ground because some Peacekeepers were standing too close to the Terrorists. As long as the French are Strangling the Ivorian Military, the Ivory coast is doomed and its non-Moslem population is doomed with it. Everyone knows what the French are doing, they think it would be cheaper to buy Chocolate from Arabs than Christians. They betrayed Africa, just like in Sudan.

Moslems do not live in peace, not with Hindus, not with Christians, not with Jews, not with Atheists. Moslems can not live in peace with anyone. If they do, they are not following their religion. Christians have religious instructions to turn the other cheek. My people are instructed to operate within very well defined borders of Israel. Hindus can not be intolerant of any religion, because they are polytheists who think everyone is right. Moslems are different, they are instructed to make the entire world their religion, to eradicate polytheists and atheists and enslave all others. They will come in to your country and do cheap jobs, they will take advantage of your education system and you will teach them what they need to know to replace you and they will replace you. Eurabia is on its way, they press in to Africa, India and Russia and these places barely defend themselves, though much blood is being spilled due to Islamic Aggression.

Now they work on an Islamic Bomb, Clinton screwed up on Korea by trading nuclear technology for false promises, that mistake spread to Pakistan where we can barely keep a Communist from being replaced by mad clerics. Now Iran is trying, if they get the bomb, Holy War, will become Nuclear War and the use of Nuclear Weapons will be inevitable.

Who will protect us from you?


You will be fine as long as you do not try to destroy my people in their own country. If you are a Moslem you are obligated to do this. If you are not, I suggest you stop helping them before they reward the back of your neck with a Saif.

Can you prove the Bible is a book of fairy tales? Can you actually disprove any of the events in Jesus's life beyond claiming they are too fantatic to happe


Many of the stories of the old testiment are based on earlier stories from the same area, many were rewritten when the two halves of the Jewish faith merged their written works about 350BC (IIRC).

Remember the universe is around fifteen billion years old while the Earth is only 4.5 billion years old.. The universe therefore must have existed ten billion years before the earth, but according to the biblical description of creation the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created at the same time. In point of fact, according to the Bible, the earth itself existed from the beginning, whereas the stars, sun, and moon were created on the fourth day.

You see the sort of problems you have with your bible?

The Gospels are historical evidence, wheter you like it or not. Historical evidence is only refuted if other, better (IE closer to the time etc) historical evidence contridicts it useually. There is no historical evidence which disproves the Gospels.

They are historical evidence only if they are put forward to historical critique. The problem is that most christians forget is that the books that make up the NT are not the only source of information, in fact they are not even the only religious source.

When that is done they don't hold up very well. FFS they can't even give a date for JC's birth or death and they are very inconsistant over his story.

Are you going to acutally deal with my point or just ignore it. Just because we found one quote from it in a later papyrus does not mean it wasnt written earlier. You havent dealt with my point about John 5:2

I dealt with it very well. John was NOT written until later than you claim, sometime around 80-90AD but maybe later.

What problem do you have with that? Oh yes, this pool of Bethesda thing. Don't see any problem there. The pool existed. It existed long after the time of JC and even John. Though by the time John was writting it may have been turned in a shrine to a Roman god.

http://www.restorationfoundation.org/volume_2/22_31.htm

http://www.christiananswers.net/dictionary/bethesda.html


Please show how Jesus did these things. Christiaities purpose is none of these. Christianity comes as a response to Christ.

Are you attempting to divorce the "word of god" from the "word of god"?

The Bible is a historical piece of evidence, like it or not

That is for historians to say - not christians.

Jesus lived in this world and was human (natural) yet he did the things of the supernatural, in this world and people wrote it down (natural). Its faith in the supernatural as displayed through the natural.

You have to prove he lived and prove he did the supernatural.

The is a little independent evidence for the former, the only evidence for the latter comes from those trying to start a rebel religion.

Hehehehehe! Such a common and very low-grade comeback.

Yes, I wish I could come up with something as good as "I'm not bitter, you are. Bwahahaha!" Would you care to show the evidence on which you base your ASSUMPTION that God cannot exist?

The fact that there are still people who need faith in a non-existant omnipotant being to provide them with a crutch to get through life does is very sad. We help those who are adicted to drugs, it is about time we put more into helping those adicted to faith.

Prove he doesn't exist. What? You can't? Shocker. You work on faith just like myself and many others. The difference is your faith inspires you to attack people.

You know that you can't.

I know that I don't wish to. I am quite capable of being as insulting as you are.

Originally, and you will note that I have been in the thread from the start, I came to balance what I considered a racist attack.

Ok. Not sure what your point is. What was your purpose for attacking me. I made no racist statements. You came in the thread to fight bigotry and then attacked me based on... bigotry. And your statement was so ignorant of my previous posts that it is obvious that you skipped just a 'few' pages. That's all I said. I didn't suggest you can't have read some of the pages. I don't base my beliefs even about you, on absolutely no evidence.

If you have no evidence for the existance of your god then of course it is blind - it cannot be anything else.

I have no evidence that can be shown to someone who refuses to see it. This is why it is not emperical evidence. Your faith is truly blind. Because you do not and cannot possibly have evidence of any kind that He does not exist.

I cannot help it if you are bitter. I think you may find it is your faith that makes you so.

"I know you are but what am I." I continue not to attack you. Are you suggesting your attacks actually stem from having a happy and fulfilled life? I suppose it's hard to get there from here.

You faith is upsetting in the same way that poverty is upsetting, that the drug situation is upsetting - all are things that the world would be better without.

I have never seen anger that wasn't born of fear. Don't worry, you have nothing to fear of me, son. I've simply seen more than you.

My faith does no damage to anyone and helps many. If taking acid made people give to charity and donate their time and homeless shelters, I suspect acid would be legal and encouraged. Your comparison is not apt. To be upset by my faith, you must fear it, just like you fear the drug situation and poverty. You can't find the same results from MY faith as you can from those things I suspect your fear is born of something else. And don't give me that crap about killing gays and blowing up abortion clinics because no one who worships the God and Savior I worship could do such a thing. They may give it the same name, but it is not the same faith. So again, what do you have to fear of my faith?

Oh that one is easy - look at those who are trying to corrupt American education by getting ID into science classes. Better still, look at yourself - hiding behind a book of fairy tales.

Oh, look more bigotry. I fight against putting ID in schools and, in fact, don't believe in it (in the format they are trying to give it). Name one reality I'm hiding behind. Not a small subset of people of faith, me. Saying that all Christians are fighting to put God in the government or in schools is as ridiculous as saying all Muslims are terrorists. So would you like to make an argument not born of bigotry? What exactly is there for which there is any evidence that I don't believe? You won't find a single theory of science that is accepted by the bulk of the scientific community that I don't accept as the best explanation science can offer. So I'll patiently wait here while you try to come up with a reason for your attacks on me that does not require one to take a bunch of individuals and group them together based on the actions of a few individuals.

The Koran gives very specific instructions to Moslems, to work towards making the World Islam. If they can do that best by Cajoling, invading, out populating and voting in Islamic Regimes, then that is what they will do. If they can do it best by “Smiting them above the necks and on all of their fingertips”, which the Koran also instructs them to do, then this is how they will do it. Of course if these Moslems are lazy and do not know their own Koran, I am all for that as well.

I shall do as my own Holy Book says and work to rebuild Israel and the Temple and if they do not like that, then I will find whether or not “Allah” will protect them from my Missiles and all you Christians, Hindus, Animists and unappreciative atheists will just have to sit there and benefit from those of us wise enough to protect you.

Would you quote it please? I would like to see where it says that. It appears to me that you base your assumptions on the actions of SOME muslims. If I based my beliefs of Jews on you, I would suspect they are neither happy within their religion nor capable of seeing the difference between a religion and some of the individuals who practice it. However, I'll do no such thing. I fervently believe these things are unique to you and people like you.

I've met many muslims and I have never either in person or on the internet heard on espouse eradication of an entire faith or faiths. In fact, the only people I've heard espouse such a thing is you and a select few atheists and both base that on either uninformed ideas of the faith itself or by grouping all of the members of that faith under the same homogenous umbrella. I find your inability to see how dangerous and unbalanced your words are disconcerting. May you find a way to see the world as it is, rather than through a set of glasses that lets you only operate in a world of generalizations.

Oh, look more bigotry. I fight against putting ID in schools and, in fact, don't believe in it (in the format they are trying to give it). Name one reality I'm hiding behind. Not a small subset of people of faith, me. Saying that all Christians are fighting to put God in the government or in schools is as ridiculous as saying all Muslims are terrorists. So would you like to make an argument not born of bigotry? What exactly is there for which there is any evidence that I don't believe? You won't find a single theory of science that is accepted by the bulk of the scientific community that I don't accept as the best explanation science can offer. So I'll patiently wait here while you try to come up with a reason for your attacks on me that does not require one to take a bunch of individuals and group them together based on the actions of a few individuals.

If, as you claim, you accept the answers science gives us, then where is your god? There is no place left for him, nowhere for him to hide and no reason to believe in him.

Unless of course you have something to hide from.

Yes, I wish I could come up with something as good as "I'm not bitter, you are. Bwahahaha!" Would you care to show the evidence on which you base your ASSUMPTION that God cannot exist?

You are the one wanting me to accept fairy stories. The requirement of proof lies with you.

Prove he doesn't exist. What? You can't? Shocker. You work on faith just like myself and many others. The difference is your faith inspires you to attack people.

Again. You are the one believing in something you cannot prove, you cannot see and for which you have zero evidence. It is up to you to find that evidence of accept you are wrong.

I know that I don't wish to. I am quite capable of being as insulting as you are.

Good attempt at twisting out there - just not good enough.

To return you to the track, you know you cannot attack me because I have the benefit of all the evidence of science on my side while you just have fairy stories and superstition.

Ok. Not sure what your point is. What was your purpose for attacking me. I made no racist statements. You came in the thread to fight bigotry and then attacked me based on... bigotry.

What attack?

And your statement was so ignorant of my previous posts that it is obvious that you skipped just a 'few' pages. That's all I said. I didn't suggest you can't have read some of the pages. I don't base my beliefs even about you, on absolutely no evidence.

Oh I've read all the posts, though I must admit this type of forum system is not as easy to follow as, say, usenet. Nevertheless, I replied to one post, I am not in the habit of re-reading all the posts to follow one person's history. I replied to the content of that one post - no others.

I have no evidence that can be shown to someone who refuses to see it.

Are you really so weak that you have to use an answer like that?

This is why it is not emperical evidence.

Don't be silly. The reason there is no emperical evidence, even after 15 billion years, is that there is no god to leave any evidence - he simply doesn't exist.

Your faith is truly blind. Because you do not and cannot possibly have evidence of any kind that He does not exist.

Once again the harpic idea that you can get away without providing evidence. Please feel free to come back when you have some.

"I know you are but what am I." I continue not to attack you. Are you suggesting your attacks actually stem from having a happy and fulfilled life? I suppose it's hard to get there from here.

What you continue to do is avoid facing the fact that you need to provide evidence for this mythical god of yours.

I have never seen anger that wasn't born of fear. Don't worry, you have nothing to fear of me, son. I've simply seen more than you.

Your fear is showing sonny. Maybe when you grow up and learn to face reality you will understand the danger that depending on fantasy brings to you.

My faith does no damage to anyone and helps many. If taking acid made people give to charity and donate their time and homeless shelters, I suspect acid would be legal and encouraged. Your comparison is not apt. To be upset by my faith, you must fear it, just like you fear the drug situation and poverty.

Yes, because I see the damage all three do to people.

You can't find the same results from MY faith as you can from those things I suspect your fear is born of something else. And don't give me that crap about killing gays and blowing up abortion clinics because no one who worships the God and Savior I worship could do such a thing. They may give it the same name, but it is not the same faith. So again, what do you have to fear of my faith?

The damage that religion does to our society.

You are the one wanting me to accept fairy stories. The requirement of proof lies with you.

When did I say I wanted you to accept anything?

Again. You are the one believing in something you cannot prove, you cannot see and for which you have zero evidence. It is up to you to find that evidence of accept you are wrong.

I do have evidence. You don't and won't accept that evidence and I'm fine with that. So long as you don't FORCE to people to adhere to your FAITH or get government support of the same, then what you do is on you. I feel the same way about ID'ers, Christian Fundamentalists, etc.

Good attempt at twisting out there - just not good enough.

To return you to the track, you know you cannot attack me because I have the benefit of all the evidence of science on my side while you just have fairy stories and superstition.

Not good enough for what. You have nothing to justify your attacks on me. You never will. Are you suggest I've haven't adequately shown your attacks to be unprovoked and unnecessary? Interesting view of the world you have there.

Really? What evidence do you have against my faith? You'd be the first person ever to present it? Unless science is suddenly claiming to have falsified God.

What attack?

Calling my beliefs fairy tales and comparing it to being addicting to drugs is not an attack. I wonder what qualifies as an attack to you. Oh, wait, you've already admitted you attacked me and that you can do so because science supports you. I'd like to see that experiment. In fact, I'm fairly certain the problem with ID as a scientific hypothesis is that an intelligent supernatural being is unfalsifiable.

Oh I've read all the posts, though I must admit this type of forum system is not as easy to follow as, say, usenet. Nevertheless, I replied to one post, I am not in the habit of re-reading all the posts to follow one person's history. I replied to the content of that one post - no others.

I understand. So you prefer to make assumptions about what a person believes and operate from the assumptions. That's pretty much the definition of ignorant. Well, now that you're educated as to my beliefs, I suppose you should probably slink away now.

Are you really so weak that you have to use an answer like that?

If not feeling the need to justify myself to you is weak then the majority of the world is weak. Yes, I'm so weak that your opinion means nothing to me. How I manage to hold my head up, I'll never know.

Don't be silly. The reason there is no emperical evidence, even after 15 billion years, is that there is no god to leave any evidence - he simply doesn't exist.

Prove it. You're operating on faith. You're the only one trying to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING so you can't place the burden of truth on me. I really don't care if you believe or not.

Once again the harpic idea that you can get away without providing evidence. Please feel free to come back when you have some.

I have no interest in convincing you. I do have an interest in you ceasing your bigotry.

What you continue to do is avoid facing the fact that you need to provide evidence for this mythical god of yours.

Why? I'm not proposing God in a scientific theory. Prove determinism. Yet many people believe it to be accurate. I have to prove it because YOU said so? Forgive me if I don't care.

Your fear is showing sonny. Maybe when you grow up and learn to face reality you will understand the danger that depending on fantasy brings to you.

What am I afraid of? There it is again "I know you are but what am I". You continue to attack and bait and I continue to remain nonplussed.

What am I depending on fantasy for? Care to enlighten me. I don't have faith because it brings me anything. I have faith because I believe it to be true. I also could never prove to you that I once threw up seeing if something in a movie was possible, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. My lack of ability to 'prove' it to you could never convince me that it didn't happen.

Yes, because I see the damage all three do to people.

What damage? What damage has my faith ever done?

The damage that religion does to our society.

The damage that some religious individuals do to society. Atheists have done damage to society as well, particularly ones that hold your level of faith. Unless you are arguing that bigotry should be accepted then you must show me how my faith is responsible for those people.

If, as you claim, you accept the answers science gives us, then where is your god? There is no place left for him, nowhere for him to hide and no reason to believe in him.

Unless of course you have something to hide from.

There is no place left for him? What happens when you die? Prove it. Why are we here? No answer for why from science, my friend. Where did the universe come from? Yes, I know a singularity, but where did the singularity come from? Why was it there? Why did it suddenly create the universe? To pretend science has all the answers is simply to ignore the nature of science, the world and human consciousness. Uh-huh. It's me that's hiding. The only one of us that has said anything that can be shown to be absolutely untrue is you. Science does not address the supernatural and never will. It falls outside of science and scientists accept that. To pretend that science can or will ever provide evidence for or against an intelligent entity unbound by the universe or any ABSOLUTE REALITY is to simply not understand science.

When did I say I wanted you to accept anything?

Then why the hell take part in a debate?

I do have evidence. You don't and won't accept that evidence and I'm fine with that. So long as you don't FORCE to people to adhere to your FAITH or get government support of the same, then what you do is on you. I feel the same way about ID'ers, Christian Fundamentalists, etc.

Oh, I see, you do have evidence but lack the confidence in it to actual put forward that evidence. Typical!

Not good enough for what. You have nothing to justify your attacks on me. You never will. Are you suggest I've haven't adequately shown your attacks to be unprovoked and unnecessary? Interesting view of the world you have there.

You haven't even show an attack existed.

Really? What evidence do you have against my faith? You'd be the first person ever to present it? Unless science is suddenly claiming to have falsified God.

You give the best evidence there is against your faith - youyr inability to put forward and evidence for this mythical being you claim to believe in.

Calling my beliefs fairy tales and comparing it to being addicting to drugs is not an attack.

No.

fairy story (fairy tale)
n noun a children's tale about magical and imaginary beings and lands. Øan untrue account.

magic
n noun
1 the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Care to try and explain how the bible differs from those descriptions?

I wonder what qualifies as an attack to you. Oh, wait, you've already admitted you attacked me and that you can do so because science supports you. I'd like to see that experiment. In fact, I'm fairly certain the problem with ID as a scientific hypothesis is that an intelligent supernatural being is unfalsifiable.

Again. What attack.

I understand. So you prefer to make assumptions about what a person believes and operate from the assumptions. That's pretty much the definition of ignorant. Well, now that you're educated as to my beliefs, I suppose you should probably slink away now.

What you have shown so far is that your beliefs have no foundation.

If not feeling the need to justify myself to you is weak then the majority of the world is weak. Yes, I'm so weak that your opinion means nothing to me. How I manage to hold my head up, I'll never know.

Oh gawd - sarcasm.

Prove it. You're operating on faith. You're the only one trying to convince ANYONE of ANYTHING so you can't place the burden of truth on me. I really don't care if you believe or not.

I just did.

I have no interest in convincing you. I do have an interest in you ceasing your bigotry.

Come forward with some evidence for the existance of your mythical god and you will find there is no bigotry involved. The fact that I refuse to allow you to use faith as evidence is not bigotry - its plain common sense.

Why? I'm not proposing God in a scientific theory. Prove determinism. Yet many people believe it to be accurate. I have to prove it because YOU said so? Forgive me if I don't care.

Without evidence you fail.

What am I afraid of? There it is again "I know you are but what am I". You continue to attack and bait and I continue to remain nonplussed.

Afraid to admit you have no evidence.

What am I depending on fantasy for? Care to enlighten me. I don't have faith because it brings me anything. I have faith because I believe it to be true.

Bases on zero evidence???

I also could never prove to you that I once threw up seeing if something in a movie was possible, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. My lack of ability to 'prove' it to you could never convince me that it didn't happen.

You could evidence the movie, it would be a good indicator.

What damage? What damage has my faith ever done?

Faith prevents people from facing reality.

The damage that some religious individuals do to society. Atheists have done damage to society as well, particularly ones that hold your level of faith. Unless you are arguing that bigotry should be accepted then you must show me how my faith is responsible for those people.


The religious view has damaged society since the dawn of history. I'm not talking about individuals I'm talking about religion.

There is no place left for him? What happens when you die?

End of story.

Prove it. Why are we here?

Becasue we are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

No answer for why from science, my friend. Where did the universe come from? Yes, I know a singularity, but where did the singularity come from? Why was it there? Why did it suddenly create the universe?

Actually, no, not a singularity, though some of the properties are very similar. Where did it come from? Quantum flux, M-brane collision, collaps of a preceeding verse? All are possibilities.

[quote]To pretend science has all the answers is simply to ignore the nature of science, the world and human consciousness.

I've never said science has ALL the answers, just that it is clear from the answers that science does have that one day it WILL have all the answers. We started with primitive peole who needed a explination. Magic and the supernatural gave them answers. We have now grown up, used science to provide successive layers of answers and reached the point where magic and the supernatural can nolonger be taken seriously as an explination for events.

Uh-huh. It's me that's hiding. The only one of us that has said anything that can be shown to be absolutely untrue is you. Science does not address the supernatural and never will. It falls outside of science and scientists accept that. To pretend that science can or will ever provide evidence for or against an intelligent entity unbound by the universe or any ABSOLUTE REALITY is to simply not understand science.

To rely on a spernatural being to explain something, without a shread of evidence for that supernatural being, isn't just weak - its totally lame.

End of story.

Prove it. Yours is based on faith as well. I'm sorry that is so difficult for you to see. Science can't prove it. Science doesn't address it in any way nor does it try.

Becasue we are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution.

That's not why, that's how. Why?

Actually, no, not a singularity, though some of the properties are very similar. Where did it come from? Quantum flux, M-brane collision, collaps of a preceeding verse? All are possibilities.

And where did they come from? Why did it happen? Each answer just passes it back another step. And again science will never answer why. It is not its role.

I've never said science has ALL the answers, just that it is clear from the answers that science does have that one day it WILL have all the answers. We started with primitive peole who needed a explination. Magic and the supernatural gave them answers. We have now grown up, used science to provide successive layers of answers and reached the point where magic and the supernatural can nolonger be taken seriously as an explination for events.

Ha. No, it won't. There are some questions science does not even seek to answer. Science will never have all the answers and no self-respecting scientist suggests it ever will. It's amusing that you would suggest it is otherwise. Why don't you write a paper on it and watch as ever science journal ever published laughs at you. You probably get less laughter if you suggested ID is a scientific theory.

To rely on a spernatural being to explain something, without a shread of evidence for that supernatural being, isn't just weak - its totally lame.

Oh, the arguments keep getting better. Is that your best one? First, we have your claims of infallible science that does not even attempt nor will ever attempt to answer why. "It's got all the answers so there is no room for God. Oh, no, wait, it doesn't have ALL the answers, but it will." In fact, scientists accept that why cannot be answered by science as a basic tenet of the scientific method. Next, we have bigotry. Some religious folks committed some attrocities so we punish all of them. And when all else fails, it's lame. Ha. Yep. I'm convinced.

Your debate skills are simply overwhelming. This is clearly emperical evidence.

You have proven one thing. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, in fact. That there are fanatics of every brand of faith. I dub you a radical fundamentalist atheist, an amusing one at that.

Then why the hell take part in a debate?

It's a forum. You're not the only one here. You've demonstrated that you don't actually deal in reality when you suggested that science can answer every question.

Oh, I see, you do have evidence but lack the confidence in it to actual put forward that evidence. Typical!

Ha. Triple dog dare me and I'll probably do so. I can't show it to you. I already told you. It's not a matter of confidence.

You haven't even show an attack existed.

I listed them. But if you just keep saying no, then I guess that negates it.

You give the best evidence there is against your faith - youyr inability to put forward and evidence for this mythical being you claim to believe in.

See, that's actually a rational argument. You admit you have no evidence for or against God. You can't objectively prove that I have no evidence for God. There is however NO evidence for your faith. There in fact can never be any evidence for your faith in fact. EVER. That is the nature of reality.

Now, I only claim to believe. Interesting. Now you suggest you have evidence of what's in my head.

No.

fairy story (fairy tale)
n noun a children's tale about magical and imaginary beings and lands. Øan untrue account.

And if it was a children's tale or an emperically untrue account you would have an argument. It isn't, so you don't.

magic
n noun
1 the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces.

Care to try and explain how the bible differs from those descriptions?

The Bible is a true account and it's not meant for children. In fact, according the Bible children are not subject to the same faith requirements as adults.

Again. What attack.

Amusing. Yes. You weren't baiting anyone or trying to be insulting. I'll refrain from suggesting what would have to be wrong with you to have not intended your statements as an attack.

What you have shown so far is that your beliefs have no foundation.

My beliefs by their very nature have more foundation than yours. In fact, you've said several things that can be proven objectively to be untrue.

Oh gawd - sarcasm.

I'm thoroughly enjoying your replies.

I just did.

You're incorrect. You tried. Proof is only required to convince a person. I'm sure you're aware of this and simply pretending to be this silly.

Come forward with some evidence for the existance of your mythical god and you will find there is no bigotry involved. The fact that I refuse to allow you to use faith as evidence is not bigotry - its plain common sense.

You refuse to let me use it. Try to stop me. The only one who I am convincing is myself. You don't really have any choice about what I'm 'allowed' to believe. And grouping people by your stereotypes is bigotry and you did so, and suggested that our faith should be eradicated for the betterment of the world based on your unproven assumptions.

I haven't asked you to use faith as evidence. In fact, as far as my beliefs, I've said it's unlikely you're capable of my faith.

Without evidence you fail.

I love that you keep saying this. What do I fail at?

Afraid to admit you have no evidence.

I'm not afraid of anything. Are you afraid to admit that you have no evidence? You're the only one trying to convince anyone of anything. Several of your assertions are patently false, like science can answer all questions.

Bases on zero evidence???

It is based as much evidence as I have for my throwing up from imitating something I saw in a movie. I can't show you emperical evidence for that part of my life either. Does that mean it didn't happen? Nope. And because I experienced that event in my life nothing you say can convince me it didn't happen. Now if some evidence suddenly appeared that suggested that I never had the experience of throwing up from imitating a movie, then I would have to reexamine. Same with the existence of God. Can you show me some evidence that God does not exist?

You could evidence the movie, it would be a good indicator.

It would be a good indicator of what? That the movie exists. It doesn't prove the event happened. We can prove the Bible exists. Where does that get us? Nowhere. It's not evidence for the existence of God. The movie would prove or provide evidence for that event in my life. In fact, the only thing that could provide proof of anything is if the movie didn't exist at all, but that would only prove that I was incorrect about the movie.

Faith prevents people from facing reality.

What reality? The only one here has been objectively shown to not be facing reality is you. You can't accept that some questions will never be answered by science and as such science does not even attempt to touch them. This is so much a fact, that science rejects theories that include anything having to do with the supernatural in either an attempt to prove or disprove it.

The religious view has damaged society since the dawn of history. I'm not talking about individuals I'm talking about religion.

Really? How? How is MY faith damaging society? You keep making these assertions but you've shown no evidence for it.

Prove it. Yours is based on faith as well. I'm sorry that is so difficult for you to see. Science can't prove it. Science doesn't address it in any way nor does it try.

If there was anything after we would have the evidence for it.


That's not why, that's how. Why?

It is botht he how and the why. We are here because we are here, if we were not here we could not have this debate.

And where did they come from? Why did it happen? Each answer just passes it back another step. And again science will never answer why. It is not its role.

There is no "why". It happened. About 15 billion years ago. There doesn't have to be a why, it is not a logical question to ask as there was no choice being made.

Ha. No, it won't. There are some questions science does not even seek to answer. Science will never have all the answers and no self-respecting scientist suggests it ever will. It's amusing that you would suggest it is otherwise. Why don't you write a paper on it and watch as ever science journal ever published laughs at you. You probably get less laughter if you suggested ID is a scientific theory.

ID is laughed at. Steven Hawking isn't.

Oh, the arguments keep getting better. Is that your best one? First, we have your claims of infallible science that does not even attempt nor will ever attempt to answer why. "It's got all the answers so there is no room for God. Oh, no, wait, it doesn't have ALL the answers, but it will." In fact, scientists accept that why cannot be answered by science as a basic tenet of the scientific method. Next, we have bigotry. Some religious folks committed some attrocities so we punish all of them. And when all else fails, it's lame. Ha. Yep. I'm convinced.

Why does the sun shine? Answered by science. The universe exists. How is a valid question, why is not.

Your debate skills are simply overwhelming. This is clearly emperical evidence.

Then provide it.

You have proven one thing. Beyond a shadow of a doubt, in fact. That there are fanatics of every brand of faith. I dub you a radical fundamentalist atheist, an amusing one at that.

Now. put up some emperical evidence or admid your beliefs have no foundation.

If there was anything after we would have the evidence for it.

Oh, wow. Someone really is blind. What evidence? In fact, prove, even logically, that evidence of what happens after death would have to exist if there were life after death?

It is botht he how and the why. We are here because we are here, if we were not here we could not have this debate.

We are here. You have not answered why? You know you haven't. Initially, I thought you were being intentionally obtuse. Perhaps I give you too much credit. Most people can see the difference between why and how. I'd still prefer to believe you're being intentionally obtuse, but evidence is beginning to suggest otherwise.

There is no "why". It happened. About 15 billion years ago. There doesn't have to be a why, it is not a logical question to ask as there was no choice being made.

There is no why? Says who. That's a philosophy in itself. I love that you're telling me about your philosophies while arguing there is no room for any.

ID is laughed at. Steven Hawking isn't.

Stephen Hawking said that we will eventually know what ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE REALITY is through science? If he said that, he most certainly was laughed at. Science only brings us closer to the truth as it is presented to us. It only provides conjectures on what the evidence suggests. Science makes no bones about the facts that they are just conjecture based on available evidence that available evidence can and does change.

Why does the sun shine? Answered by science. The universe exists. How is a valid question, why is not.

You're incorrect. How the sun shines is answered by science. The mechanism of it. Purpose is not answered by science. Science does not deal in philosophy.

Then provide it.

Someone doesn't know what sarcasm is. I was laughing at your emperical evidence that is so overwhelmingly convincing. You know why this argument never ends, because you have no evidence for your philosophies. By their very nature, your philosophies can never have evidence supporting them and thus require more faith.

Now. put up some emperical evidence or admid your beliefs have no foundation.

Are those my only two options? Again, prove I have an obligation to show you evidence. In fact, prove I have any obligation to you. Again, I'm amused that you shout your philosophies while suggesting that philosophies are dangerous.

Where is your emperical evidence for the infallibility of science? The evidence actually suggest the exact opposite of your assertions about science. Where is the evidence for your assertions about death?

You're amusing.

Oh, wow. Someone really is blind. What evidence? In fact, prove, even logically, that evidence of what happens after death would have to exist if there were life after death?

For anything to exist there has to be evidence.

We are here. You have not answered why? You know you haven't.

There is no "why", we exist, the only valid question would be how. You can ask "why did someone do something?" That is a valid question which they can answers. You can ask "why does the sun shine?" Though to be correct that should read "how" not "why".

There is no "why" to existance there is just an "is".

Initially, I thought you were being intentionally obtuse. Perhaps I give you too much credit. Most people can see the difference between why and how. I'd still prefer to believe you're being intentionally obtuse, but evidence is beginning to suggest otherwise.

I'm still waiting for ewvidence for this god of yours. :)

There is no why? Says who. That's a philosophy in itself. I love that you're telling me about your philosophies while arguing there is no room for any.

See other answers.

Stephen Hawking said that we will eventually know what ABSOLUTE OBJECTIVE REALITY is through science? If he said that, he most certainly was laughed at. Science only brings us closer to the truth as it is presented to us. It only provides conjectures on what the evidence suggests. Science makes no bones about the facts that they are just conjecture based on available evidence that available evidence can and does change.

Yes, Steven Hawking (and for that matter a lot of other scientists) do believe we will eventually have the answers.

You're incorrect. How the sun shines is answered by science. The mechanism of it. Purpose is not answered by science. Science does not deal in philosophy.

No, science deals with reality.

Someone doesn't know what sarcasm is. I was laughing at your emperical evidence that is so overwhelmingly convincing. You know why this argument never ends, because you have no evidence for your philosophies. By their very nature, your philosophies can never have evidence supporting them and thus require more faith.

This argument is never ended because people like you will never produce any evidence for this thing you call god. Either you have to admit there is none, or you have to produce it.

Are those my only two options? Again, prove I have an obligation to show you evidence. In fact, prove I have any obligation to you. Again, I'm amused that you shout your philosophies while suggesting that philosophies are dangerous.

You have ignored repeated requests for evidence. As you saying someone is preventing you from giving that evidence?

Where is your emperical evidence for the infallibility of science? The evidence actually suggest the exact opposite of your assertions about science. Where is the evidence for your assertions about death?

The evidence for science? Well I have at least 500 books on the subject just in this room. Where is your evidence for a god?

You're amusing.

You are not.

For anything to exist there has to be evidence.

Philosophy again. Science doesn't speak in absolutes. Science deals in drawing conclusions from available evidence. Don't spout philosphy and pretend it's science.

There is no "why", we exist, the only valid question would be how. You can ask "why did someone do something?" That is a valid question which they can answers. You can ask "why does the sun shine?" Though to be correct that should read "how" not "why".

There is no "why" to existance there is just an "is".

More faith. More philosophy. I have to say you could at least try to be consistent with your message. "I don't deal in unprovable assumptions because they ruin the world and destroy unless they are my unprovable assumptions on which I would like to base the extermination of religion."

I'm still waiting for ewvidence for this god of yours. :)

No, you're not. You already said there is no evidence. If you were waiting for evidence you would be open-minded, which is the antonym of the word, Benchley.

See other answers.

So your answer is - because I said so. I see. Again, that's an awful lot of philosophy for some who believe unproveable assumptions destroy the world.

Yes, Steven Hawking (and for that matter a lot of other scientists) do believe we will eventually have the answers.

There is no science in that statement. If Stephen Hawkings wrote in a scientific paper that he believed that, people laughed. It certainly wasn't part of any hypotheses, for certain. Link to it. Link to where he said it. I enjoy reading hubris. (By the way, a lot of 'scientists' believe in ID, that doesn't make it scientific.)

No, science deals with reality.

Science makes no such distinction, because it can't know that. It deals with what is observable and repeatable. If it dealt with 'reality' it would never be wrong. A better answer is science deals with what APPEARS to be reality at the time.

This argument is never ended because people like you will never produce any evidence for this thing you call god. Either you have to admit there is none, or you have to produce it.

You've produced no evidence for any of the things you've said were true.

You have ignored repeated requests for evidence. As you saying someone is preventing you from giving that evidence?

Not ignored. Denied is the word you want. And I told you why. Yes, I am. You.

The evidence for science? Well I have at least 500 books on the subject just in this room. Where is your evidence for a god?

If what you were espousing was science we wouldn't be disagreeing. What evidence do you have that science is infallible. Tell me what did atomic theory look like 100 years ago? What were the basic elements 500 years ago? Methinks you don't know what science is, because nearly all of what you argue is philosophy and most of it defies basic logic.

Isaac Asimov -
The young specialist in English Lit, ...lectured me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.

... My answer to him was, "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."

You are not.
I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you by poking holes in your religion... ehem... I meant philosophy.

Michelson, Albert, Abraham
(1852-1931) b. Germany
(In 1903)
The most important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplemented in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote.

Hawking, Stephen W.
(1942-) b. Oxford, England
Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?


It appears, my friend, that Stephen Hawking disagrees with you. I can't say I'm particularly shocked. Even the hubris of Hawking knows bounds.

Philosophy again. Science doesn't speak in absolutes. Science deals in drawing conclusions from available evidence. Don't spout philosphy and pretend it's science.



More faith. More philosophy. I have to say you could at least try to be consistent with your message. "I don't deal in unprovable assumptions because they ruin the world and destroy unless they are my unprovable assumptions on which I would like to base the extermination of religion."



No, you're not. You already said there is no evidence. If you were waiting for evidence you would be open-minded, which is the antonym of the word, Benchley.



So your answer is - because I said so. I see. Again, that's an awful lot of philosophy for some who believe unproveable assumptions destroy the world.



There is no science in that statement. If Stephen Hawkings wrote in a scientific paper that he believed that, people laughed. It certainly wasn't part of any hypotheses, for certain. Link to it. Link to where he said it. I enjoy reading hubris. (By the way, a lot of 'scientists' believe in ID, that doesn't make it scientific.)



Science makes no such distinction, because it can't know that. It deals with what is observable and repeatable. If it dealt with 'reality' it would never be wrong. A better answer is science deals with what APPEARS to be reality at the time.



You've produced no evidence for any of the things you've said were true.



Not ignored. Denied is the word you want. And I told you why. Yes, I am. You.



If what you were espousing was science we wouldn't be disagreeing. What evidence do you have that science is infallible. Tell me what did atomic theory look like 100 years ago? What were the basic elements 500 years ago? Methinks you don't know what science is, because nearly all of what you argue is philosophy and most of it defies basic logic.

Isaac Asimov -
The young specialist in English Lit, ...lectured me severely on the fact that in every century people have thought they understood the Universe at last, and in every century they were proved to be wrong. It follows that the one thing we can say about our modern "knowledge" is that it is wrong.

... My answer to him was, "... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."


I'm sorry. I didn't mean to upset you by poking holes in your religion... ehem... I meant philosophy.


I refer you to the answers you have already been given.

I also look forward to one single shread of evidence for the existance of this thing you call god.

Put up, or as they say - shut up.

I refer you to the answers you have already been given.

I also look forward to one single shread of evidence for the existance of this thing you call god.

Put up, or as they say - shut up.

You don't seem to have any difficulty at all saying things you can't prove and in some cases things that are patently untrue. I asked for a quote of the statements by Hawking and instead the only quote by him in the thread is by me, a quote that directly disputes your claims. If I were you I would just ignore my points as well. It just continues to make you look completely unaware of the purpose and boundaries of science.

If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning

I think that summs up the point Jocabia is making. You cannot claim that science answers "all" the questions because it doesnt. Science and philosophy are diffrent things and the notion that you are putting forward that the universe has no meaning and no purpose, and that there is no why is a philosophical idea. Its called Nehilisim (I'm not sure thats how you spell it). The idea that everything is meaningless ultimately.

You don't seem to have any difficulty at all saying things you can't prove and in some cases things that are patently untrue. I asked for a quote of the statements by Hawking and instead the only quote by him in the thread is by me, a quote that directly disputes your claims. If I were you I would just ignore my points as well. It just continues to make you look completely unaware of the purpose and boundaries of science.

Your evidence for the existance of god is?

I think that summs up the point Jocabia is making. You cannot claim that science answers "all" the questions because it doesnt. Science and philosophy are diffrent things and the notion that you are putting forward that the universe has no meaning and no purpose, and that there is no why is a philosophical idea. Its called Nehilisim (I'm not sure thats how you spell it). The idea that everything is meaningless ultimately.

Again you just talk rubbish while still avoiding posting even a scrap of evidence for your fairy tale god.

Evidence. Put up or shut up.

Your evidence for the existance of god is?

For me its in the Bible and in the things I have seen in myself as a result of faith and in others. Jocabia proberbly has a diffrent take on it, which is not so much that I disagree with him, but that we think along parralell lines. Diffrent, but still in the same direction

Again you just talk rubbish while still avoiding posting even a scrap of evidence for your fairy tale god.

Evidence. Put up or shut up.

You have not answered my question. Prove to me that the idea that the universe is meaningless is scientific.

Put up or shut up, to mimic

You have not answered my question. Prove to me that the idea that the universe is meaningless is scientific.

Put up or shut up, to mimic

Where is your evidence for a god. Why do you try so hard to avoid answering? Is it because you have no evidence?

Again you just talk rubbish while still avoiding posting even a scrap of evidence for your fairy tale god.

Evidence. Put up or shut up.

Perhaps if you just keep posting that, you won't look like you've been shown to be clueless about science. It's okay. I'm sure you've got plenty of life left to learn. No need to be embarassed. Simply admit that your version of reality has no evidence either. The difference is I've never said anything that can be emperically shown to be wrong. You have. I notice you still don't post a link to support your claims of 'scientists' or Hawking. It's amusing that you keep talking about 'putting up' while not doing so.

Keep posting though. With baseball on all the time, there is no Simpson and I don't get to laugh enough.

Perhaps if you just keep posting that, you won't look like you've been shown to be clueless about science. It's okay. I'm sure you've got plenty of life left to learn. No need to be embarassed. Simply admit that your version of reality has no evidence either. The difference is I've never said anything that can be emperically shown to be wrong. You have. I notice you still don't post a link to support your claims of 'scientists' or Hawking. It's amusing that you keep talking about 'putting up' while not doing so.

Keep posting though. With baseball on all the time, there is no Simpson and I don't get to laugh enough.

I get paid for my ability with science.

Now. when will you post some evidence for this god of yours?

I get paid for my ability with science.


I've already given evidence. Its in the form of the Bible, the faith and actions of those who believe and the miricles that have been seen here and now.

Now you listen to me. Science does involve the examining of how. But science itself cannot explain everything in the universe. It cannot explain the Why behind it. Just because Science cannot explain the why does not mean there isn't one. The idea of yours that there is no why is nehilisim and an extreme form of scientific reductionisim. You cannot use science to prove that the universe has no meaning, because meaning is not what science examines. Meaning is what philosophy examines. The idea that life has no meaning is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. You may ground it in what you consider science, but the fact is you have no reason to. A philosophical position is one of faith as much as anything else. You cannot prove that the universe has no meaning through science.

I've already given evidence. Its in the form of the Bible, the faith and actions of those who believe and the miricles that have been seen here and now.[quote]

You can try to use a collection of fairy stories as evidence if you like - but it makes you look very silly. Now, put forward something from the bible that you consider to be evidence for god and we will look to see if it is.

[quote]Now you listen to me. Science does involve the examining of how. But science itself cannot explain everything in the universe. It cannot explain the Why behind it.

That is because the answer to "why" is "because it is". Now if you ask a valid question, like "how" or "when" then that has an answer.

Just because Science cannot explain the why does not mean there isn't one. The idea of yours that there is no why is nehilisim and an extreme form of scientific reductionisim. You cannot use science to prove that the universe has no meaning, because meaning is not what science examines. Meaning is what philosophy examines. The idea that life has no meaning is a philosophical one, not a scientific one. You may ground it in what you consider science, but the fact is you have no reason to. A philosophical position is one of faith as much as anything else. You cannot prove that the universe has no meaning through science.

The universe doesn't need a meaning - it exists, we are part of it.

So, over to you again. Please produce some evidence for your god.

That is because the answer to "why" is "because it is". Now if you ask a valid question, like "how" or "when" then that has an answer.

The universe doesn't need a meaning - it exists, we are part of it.

That is not a scientific position. It requires faith. You are being just as irational and non-evidence based as you claim I am.


You can try to use a collection of fairy stories as evidence if you like - but it makes you look very silly. Now, put forward something from the bible that you consider to be evidence for god and we will look to see if it is.

Two words. The Gospels

You can argue it as much as you like but they are contempary historical accounts of the man who was God

That is not a scientific position. It requires faith. You are being just as irational and non-evidence based as you claim I am.

Either he exists or he doesn't - to judge that you need evidence. You cannot base the existance of something on faith alone.

Two words. The Gospels

You can argue it as much as you like but they are contempary historical accounts of the man who was God

Not good enough buster. Those have very little to do with god anyway, are full of contredictions and were written long after the events they claim.

However, if you can find individual items in them that you claim as evidence for your god then please give clear direction to those items - one at a time - and were will see where we get.

Advanced warning though. until you come up with specifics I'm just going to have to conclue you don't know what you are talking about.

Prove it. Yours is based on faith as well. I'm sorry that is so difficult for you to see. Science can't prove it. Science doesn't address it in any way nor does it try.


Actually - I'm going to have to reply to that... science finds that life stops when the body dies... although, of course, we then become food for all kinds of OTHER life...

Anything that claims an extension BEYOND that 'point of death', is doing so without scientific evidence, but the scientific evidence for death being 'the end' is pretty strong.

To say we stop and decompose is not so much a matter of faith, as of observation. All the 'afterlife' myths in the world should be blessed with so much evidence.

Two words. The Gospels

You can argue it as much as you like but they are contempary historical accounts of the man who was God

The Gospels were not contemporary.

They were also not 'independant'.

Both factors count heavily against their value as 'historical evidence'.

Indeed, there is much evidence to suggest that at LEAST two gospels were based on a different text (which is speculated as the 'Q' document, I believe)... thus they are non-contemporary, non-independant AND secondary.

Actually - I'm going to have to reply to that... science finds that life stops when the body dies... although, of course, we then become food for all kinds of OTHER life...
Now here's a big disclaimer: I am not religious at all! I went to Church Kindergarten, annoyed my teachers there and instead went on to become an Atheist.

However, it must be said that I recently thought about a what if:
What if we found some new type of radiation which we hadn't been able to measure before, and now we can measure that whenever someone dies, this radiation leaves the body and moves to some mother's womb?
It would certainly shake me a bit..but isn't it possible that science could prove some religious ideas to be correct (although most of the Christian stuff is very, very far-fetched indeed. Re-Incarnation is probably as far as I would go, seeing how energy can't just disappear like that).?

Now here's a big disclaimer: I am not religious at all! I went to Church Kindergarten, annoyed my teachers there and instead went on to become an Atheist.

However, it must be said that I recently thought about a what if:
What if we found some new type of radiation which we hadn't been able to measure before, and now we can measure that whenever someone dies, this radiation leaves the body and moves to some mother's womb?
It would certainly shake me a bit..but isn't it possible that science could prove some religious ideas to be correct (although most of the Christian stuff is very, very far-fetched indeed. Re-Incarnation is probably as far as I would go, seeing how energy can't just disappear like that).?

'What if' is not evidence.

Science currently is fairly cut-and-dried on the whole 'death' issue. We have yet to see ANY evidence of the continuation of life beyond that point - EXCEPT in the 'worms eat me' model.

If there WERE to be discovered a 'new type of radiation' that matched the description you cite, then science might change it's perspective (that's the GOOD thing about science)... but it is unlikely to start accepting wishes and desires as equal to evidence any time soon.

If there WERE to be discovered a 'new type of radiation' that matched the description you cite, then science might change it's perspective (that's the GOOD thing about science)... but it is unlikely to start accepting wishes and desires as equal to evidence any time soon.
It was a hypothetical question, posed to remind you guys that being dogmatic about science is no better than being dogmatic about religion.

Always keep an open mind.
That being said, I'm on your side on this, so carry on...:p

It was a hypothetical question, posed to remind you guys that being dogmatic about science is no matter than being dogmatic about religion.

Always keep an open mind.
That being said, I'm on your side on this, so carry on...:p

To be 'dogmatic' about science, is to fail to understand what science IS. Science is the attempt to understand what is observed. It must be a malleable discipline, since observation can (and does) change... not only HOW we observe, but WHAT is observed.

A 'true' scientist MUST have an open mind, or he/she is no scientist, at all. However, THAT does not equate to believing something is 'true' JUST because you want it to be, or because someone said it was.

Actually - I'm going to have to reply to that... science finds that life stops when the body dies... although, of course, we then become food for all kinds of OTHER life...

Anything that claims an extension BEYOND that 'point of death', is doing so without scientific evidence, but the scientific evidence for death being 'the end' is pretty strong.

To say we stop and decompose is not so much a matter of faith, as of observation. All the 'afterlife' myths in the world should be blessed with so much evidence.

Science finds that they have no evidence as to what happens to a 'soul' upon death or even evidence of a 'soul'. That is not a position and certainly does nothing to claim that when you died it's over.

Again, that is merely dealing with the body. Science makes no claims about things which it cannot deal with. Science makes no claim about ABSOLUTE TRUTH despite the claims of very silly posters. Science doesn't even make claims about 'reality'. Science makes conclusions based on available observable evidence. If evidence is either unavailable to science or untestable then science simply ignores it. Science will never rule out God or the afterlife and it is quite frankly out of its realm. Some, like Willamena believe the mind itself is supernatural and that we have tons of evidence for it, but not for where it resides. I disagree with a logical basis, but science can't actually falsify Willamena's claim and thus it falls outside of its realm.

There is not one shred of evidence that you don't have a soul or that death is the ultimate end of anything other than the body, so the evidence is not strong as you claim. Despite the claims of many fundamentalists many scientists are religious.

I can't speak for other faiths or even other people, but the point of MY faith is faith itself. Faith is a wisdom like knowing that all that there is, is not observable by us, accepting our shortcomings as humans, and accepting that our knowledge will ALWAYS be limited. If it were possible to prove God scientifically, faith would no longer be required. Free will in terms of my faith is referencing the ability to choose to not believe in God. Angels don't have free will because they have knowledge of His existence. If we could prove the existence of God we would put ourselves in the same position as angels, and it's really not the point. The amusing part is that many Christians would agree with me and supporting evidence for this being the purpose according to the Bible is strong, as you know. Still there is and continues to be a bunch of fanatics who want to push God into the realm of science either to prove He exists or to prove He doesn't. Either way, the idea goes directly against the very nature of science. Expecting science to accept a 'truth' simply because you want them to is hubris (I see you agree based on another post than the one I am replying to).

To be 'dogmatic' about science, is to fail to understand what science IS. Science is the attempt to understand what is observed. It must be a malleable discipline, since observation can (and does) change... not only HOW we observe, but WHAT is observed.

A 'true' scientist MUST have an open mind, or he/she is no scientist, at all. However, THAT does not equate to believing something is 'true' JUST because you want it to be, or because someone said it was.

See, that is the problem. Brenchley is being dogmatic about science like it is a religion. Read his fairly uneducated posts about how the scientific community has left has found enough information to rule out God because there is 'nowhere left for Him to hide" and how close they are to knowing everything and a bunch of other philosophical points some of which are readily falsifiable, particularly the first one. I know you didn't say otherwise but the scientific community, with the exception of a couple of idiots on each end of the spectrum, makes no assumptions and thus does not hypothesize in the realm of the supernatural since as you noted there is no emperical evidence on which to do so. They don't hypothesize as to the end of your life, only to the end of your observable life on Earth. They don't hypothesize as to the existence or nonexistence of any supernatural deity unless some basic aspect of that deity would make it observable.

GnI you do accept that though science only deals in emperical evidence, that not all evidence is emperical, yes?

Let's use an example. A group of a thousand people see a UFO in the sky. They see it clearly and there is no question in each of their minds that it is, in fact, an alien craft.

Now, science can't accept their seeing this as evidence that aliens exist as there are too many other explanations that are possible and what humans have witnessed might be considered evidence in a court of law but to science humans as witnesses are remarkably unreliable. That's why repeatable experiments are so necessary.

However, you couldn't convince even one of those thousand, assuming they are rational beings, that they didn't see an alien craft unless you could show them something that to them is a more rational source. On the flip side, you certainly couldn't suggest they believe something for which there is no evidence.

That is because the answer to "why" is "because it is". Now if you ask a valid question, like "how" or "when" then that has an answer.

You havent yet proved WHY that is the case

Either he exists or he doesn't - to judge that you need evidence. You cannot base the existance of something on faith alone.

Let's say the year is 1937. I believe that the coelacanth did not go extinct and still lives today, but I admit rightfully that it cannot be scientifically proven that it exists. The belief that it exists is not a scientific hypothesis because existence is not falsifiable. You say, "either it exist or it doesn't. Since I have no evidence and science has explored everywhere in the ocean and never seen it, it must not exist." You don't say "there is no evidence for its existence", but "it must not exist."

Grave_n_Idle, a more reasonable scientist, says, "We have not seen the coelacanth in the fossile record for 65 millions years, so we must hypothesize that it is extinct. I accept that this hypothesis could be proven wrong at some point, but I must go with current evidence."

Brenchley, "Science knows everything there is to know, so there is no evidence to be found."

GnI and I simply giggle at the young hubris of such a statement. Someone worships a god(science) and declares it infallible, when even the god does not make that claim.

Then, in 1938, a fisherman catches a live one off the coast of Africa. As GnI and I accept science often has to change its views when new evidence arises which is a constant process. All evidence suggests this process will never stop and that science will be ever-growing, ever-evolving.

More importantly, whether my view in 1937 was objectively recognized by science, I was objectively correct. That is the difference between belief and science. Belief can be right or wrong and we are not in position to prove or disprove a belief, with only rare exception. Science, technically, can't be right or wrong, because a basic aspect of science, and assumed part of every hypothesis, is that it comes from available evidence. A scientific conclusion looks more like "All available evidence suggests" rather "The answer is ... and there is no room for any other answer."

Since you are not omniscient you are not in a position to say that if something exists there must be evidence for it, since you can't possibly know that. More importantly, you can't know that this evidence avails itself to science as emperical. You are not in position to know if science is close to knowing everything or will not know everything for billions of years. More importantly, all available evidence suggests that science cannot and will not EVER know everything.

That is because the answer to "why" is "because it is". Now if you ask a valid question, like "how" or "when" then that has an answer.

The universe doesn't need a meaning - it exists, we are part of it.

Because it doesn't NEED a meaning does not lead one to the conclusion that it must not have one.

It's amusing because you assume that because you don't know how to read the collection of letters on the page must have no meaning. All evidence that is available to you suggests that you are correct, but objectively it's simply not true. The letters are placed so as to make words and words are placed so as to make sentences and sentences are placed so as to convey an idea and simply because you can't read or science doesn't read doesn't make the words nonsensical in nature. It just means that it appears to be so, because you haven't seen evidence to the contrary.

The most significant point about you is that you are so certain the letters are nonsensical that you refuse to be taught to read and then laugh at us that we can't prove to you that the letters say something to us. You say prove to me the letters are not just in a pattern and the amazing part is until you learn to read we will never be able to show you the difference between a bunch of letters that are simply in a pattern and a bunch of letters that form words, sentences and convey ideas.

You havent yet proved WHY that is the case

I'm waiting for you to come up with some evidence for your god.

I'm waiting for you to come up with some evidence for your god.

Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

I'm waiting for you to come up with some evidence for your god.

Consider this the nature of the experiment.

One day, both of us will pass away.

If there's a God then, you'll know it.

I'm waiting for you to come up with some evidence for your god.

Oh, and I can easily prove that Hell exists. I have two ex-wives I can introduce you to - I'm sure you'll agree.

Consider this the nature of the experiment.

One day, both of us will pass away.

If there's a God then, you'll know it.

Yeah, but if it turns out he's right, he can't gloat. So he has to pretend he's right and gloat now and if we're right we can get it back then.

Yeah, but if it turns out he's right, he can't gloat. So he has to pretend he's right and gloat now and if we're right we can get it back then.

If we're right, then we'll be having a good time in Heaven, and he'll be smoking a turd in Hell.

Oh, and I can easily prove that Hell exists. I have two ex-wives I can introduce you to - I'm sure you'll agree.

Ouch. My condolences to you and your wallet.

Ouch. My condolences to you and your wallet.
Yes. You don't have to believe in God to know about Hell.

If we're right, then we'll be having a good time in Heaven, and he'll be smoking a turd in Hell.

I actually don't believe that people are sent to hell for being incorrect, but I understand you're point. I do agree that he should have to smoke a turd.

Okay, okay, I'm kidding. I don't wish him ill. I do wish he would be more open-minded, particularly in understanding what science really is and is not.

Oh, and I can easily prove that Hell exists. I have two ex-wives I can introduce you to - I'm sure you'll agree.

Ah! Heaven and Hell. Well of course those exist - just funny they both involve women :) - you found one while I found the other 34 years ago.

Well I have to say that in case she looks over my shoulder :) :) :)

I'm waiting for you to come up with some evidence for your god.

Ok, so your unwilling to provide evidence of your position because your unsatisifed with my evidence. I've given you evidence. You've ignored it. Now you take your own medicine and "put up or shut up".

Ok, so your unwilling to provide evidence of your position because your unsatisifed with my evidence. I've given you evidence. You've ignored it. Now you take your own medicine and "put up or shut up".

I'm still waiting for YOUR evidence. You were asked first. Come on, if you are really so sure your god exists it can't be hard to find just one key piece of evidence you rely on.

I'm still waiting for YOUR evidence. You were asked first. Come on, if you are really so sure your god exists it can't be hard to find just one key piece of evidence you rely on.

I talk to him every day, and He's never said anything about you.

Science finds that they have no evidence as to what happens to a 'soul' upon death or even evidence of a 'soul'. That is not a position and certainly does nothing to claim that when you died it's over.

Again, that is merely dealing with the body. Science makes no claims about things which it cannot deal with. Science makes no claim about ABSOLUTE TRUTH despite the claims of very silly posters. Science doesn't even make claims about 'reality'. Science makes conclusions based on available observable evidence. If evidence is either unavailable to science or untestable then science simply ignores it. Science will never rule out God or the afterlife and it is quite frankly out of its realm. Some, like Willamena believe the mind itself is supernatural and that we have tons of evidence for it, but not for where it resides. I disagree with a logical basis, but science can't actually falsify Willamena's claim and thus it falls outside of its realm.

There is not one shred of evidence that you don't have a soul or that death is the ultimate end of anything other than the body, so the evidence is not strong as you claim. Despite the claims of many fundamentalists many scientists are religious.

I can't speak for other faiths or even other people, but the point of MY faith is faith itself. Faith is a wisdom like knowing that all that there is, is not observable by us, accepting our shortcomings as humans, and accepting that our knowledge will ALWAYS be limited. If it were possible to prove God scientifically, faith would no longer be required. Free will in terms of my faith is referencing the ability to choose to not believe in God. Angels don't have free will because they have knowledge of His existence. If we could prove the existence of God we would put ourselves in the same position as angels, and it's really not the point. The amusing part is that many Christians would agree with me and supporting evidence for this being the purpose according to the Bible is strong, as you know. Still there is and continues to be a bunch of fanatics who want to push God into the realm of science either to prove He exists or to prove He doesn't. Either way, the idea goes directly against the very nature of science. Expecting science to accept a 'truth' simply because you want them to is hubris (I see you agree based on another post than the one I am replying to).

The whole issue comes down to the soul... which is, of course, outside of the realm of science... IF one understands 'soul' to mean some nebulous ghostly form that inhabits our flesh. It wasn't in the Hebrew scripture, and I'm not really sure WHEN this 'spectral form' became accepted.... but I don't see any scientific OR scriptural basis for it.

As far as I can see, the Hebrew was fairly clear about the nature of the 'soul'... and it was the animation of the flesh... the hunger... the 'fire in the blood'. Thus - if one is true to scripture, the soul DOES end when the body dies.

Aside from that - the point I was trying to make is that, as you say, science has little (and SHOULD have little) to say about spiritual matters. Thus, it is not an error to say that, as far as science is concerned, life DOES end with the death of the body... since ALL the observable evidence vouches for that assumption.

See, that is the problem. Brenchley is being dogmatic about science like it is a religion. Read his fairly uneducated posts about how the scientific community has left has found enough information to rule out God because there is 'nowhere left for Him to hide" and how close they are to knowing everything and a bunch of other philosophical points some of which are readily falsifiable, particularly the first one. I know you didn't say otherwise but the scientific community, with the exception of a couple of idiots on each end of the spectrum, makes no assumptions and thus does not hypothesize in the realm of the supernatural since as you noted there is no emperical evidence on which to do so. They don't hypothesize as to the end of your life, only to the end of your observable life on Earth. They don't hypothesize as to the existence or nonexistence of any supernatural deity unless some basic aspect of that deity would make it observable.

I make no excuses for those who treat science like a religion... or claim that it knows ALL the answers... or even that it COULD know all the answers. To do so is folly, and very unscientific.

To be 'scientific' is to accept that we don't know much, and probably never will... and to realise that there will always be questions that cannot be answered through a direct observation.

That said, however, if there is NO evidence that life continues beyond the end-point of the flesh, then it isn't unreasonable to assume that life does, indeed, end when the flesh ends. We don't question whether a fire still exists in some 'other state' once it ceases to burn (although maybe we should...? But, then... that wouldn't be science...), because there is no real reason to expect that it might. To make a special exception for 'life', as being somehow assumed to be 'different' in it's interaction with observable reality, is to impose something of 'desire' to intrude upon objectivity.

GnI you do accept that though science only deals in emperical evidence, that not all evidence is emperical, yes?

Let's use an example. A group of a thousand people see a UFO in the sky. They see it clearly and there is no question in each of their minds that it is, in fact, an alien craft.

Now, science can't accept their seeing this as evidence that aliens exist as there are too many other explanations that are possible and what humans have witnessed might be considered evidence in a court of law but to science humans as witnesses are remarkably unreliable. That's why repeatable experiments are so necessary.

However, you couldn't convince even one of those thousand, assuming they are rational beings, that they didn't see an alien craft unless you could show them something that to them is a more rational source. On the flip side, you certainly couldn't suggest they believe something for which there is no evidence.

I suspect you already KNOW how I would respond to this question, since you have debated enough religion threads with me to be (one assumes) fairly conversant with my Implicit Atheism. There is no 'logical' standpoint from which to declare that there IS or IS NOT a deity, unless one has a personal evidence of such... and even that 'personal evidence' can be taken as no kind of generic proof. The same must be true in all situations where observation cannot rationally be quantified or qualified.

The flipside, of course, is that the thousands of people who believe they saw UFO's MIGHT be right... but they might also be wrong... and the simple fact that I cannot PROVE "that they didn't see an alien craft unless"... I... "could show them something that to them is a more rational source"... does not mean that they DID see Martian invaders.

Belief is NOT automatically equal to reality.

Let's say the year is 1937. I believe that the coelacanth did not go extinct and still lives today, but I admit rightfully that it cannot be scientifically proven that it exists. The belief that it exists is not a scientific hypothesis because existence is not falsifiable. You say, "either it exist or it doesn't. Since I have no evidence and science has explored everywhere in the ocean and never seen it, it must not exist." You don't say "there is no evidence for its existence", but "it must not exist."

Grave_n_Idle, a more reasonable scientist, says, "We have not seen the coelacanth in the fossile record for 65 millions years, so we must hypothesize that it is extinct. I accept that this hypothesis could be proven wrong at some point, but I must go with current evidence."

Brenchley, "Science knows everything there is to know, so there is no evidence to be found."

GnI and I simply giggle at the young hubris of such a statement. Someone worships a god(science) and declares it infallible, when even the god does not make that claim.

Then, in 1938, a fisherman catches a live one off the coast of Africa. As GnI and I accept science often has to change its views when new evidence arises which is a constant process. All evidence suggests this process will never stop and that science will be ever-growing, ever-evolving.

More importantly, whether my view in 1937 was objectively recognized by science, I was objectively correct. That is the difference between belief and science. Belief can be right or wrong and we are not in position to prove or disprove a belief, with only rare exception. Science, technically, can't be right or wrong, because a basic aspect of science, and assumed part of every hypothesis, is that it comes from available evidence. A scientific conclusion looks more like "All available evidence suggests" rather "The answer is ... and there is no room for any other answer."

Since you are not omniscient you are not in a position to say that if something exists there must be evidence for it, since you can't possibly know that. More importantly, you can't know that this evidence avails itself to science as emperical. You are not in position to know if science is close to knowing everything or will not know everything for billions of years. More importantly, all available evidence suggests that science cannot and will not EVER know everything.

Agreed.

I make no excuses for those who treat science like a religion... or claim that it knows ALL the answers... or even that it COULD know all the answers. To do so is folly, and very unscientific.

Why? If science is seeking the answers then one day it must have all ther answers.

To be 'scientific' is to accept that we don't know much, and probably never will... and to realise that there will always be questions that cannot be answered through a direct observation.

We know a lot, and we are finding out more every year. It is scientific to believe that we are learning. It is scientific to believe that the universe is built on foundations that are understandable. It is therefore scientific to believe that the answers are knowable.

Why? If science is seeking the answers then one day it must have all ther answers.

You're forgetting Godel's theorem, aren't you?

I talk to him every day, and He's never said anything about you.

Funny, I talk to hime every day and he is always talking about you... Oh wait, my mistake, that isn't god that is the little pixie that sits on my shoulder while I'm online.




Well you started the silliness :)

Why? If science is seeking the answers then one day it must have all ther answers.


Not at all. Reality SEEMS to be finite, and human perception SEEMS to be finite. Both are reasons why science may never have 'all' the answers.

Also, one must remember that every answer brings with it MORE questions... and SOME of those questions may well be beyond the capacity of science to ever adequately explain.

As an example - one could look at the formation of matter. We isolate the atom - and it opens a new can of worms... WITHIN our smallest part, we find interactions... so we have to redefine what is POSSIBLE to know. We isolate the sub-atomic, and again we find evidence for lesser interactions - so again we move the boundary of what CAN be known. What lies BELOW the quark level of interaction? Can it ever be observed? If it cannot - there will always be speculation... but never certainty. If it CAN - we will again be in a position where we are looking at a lowest denominator that has levels BELOW it... since, even if there IS a true 'smallest particle'.. it is still an entity of energetic reaction - and the mechanisms behind THAT reaction will stretch the boundary still further...



We know a lot, and we are finding out more every year. It is scientific to believe that we are learning. It is scientific to believe that the universe is built on foundations that are understandable. It is therefore scientific to believe that the answers are knowable.

This is simply not true. Observation affects the observed on a quantum level - thus we can NEVER 'know' ALL the answers.

There are, of course, OTHER reasons why we will never 'know' everything... since there are certain situations in which it is impossible to know two data about the same object...