@shinyblurry

Sin is defined as disobedience to Gods commands

Who defined it? Don't avoid agency by using the passive voice.

Natural death temporarily exists..the second death is eternal

I thought words had meaning. What the hell are you talking about with two deaths? Death is death. Now there's two kinds? why not eighteen kinds? Which kind did Eve bring?

This isn't a rule, it is simply a consequence of the disobedience of Adam and Eve.

That's what I mean by "rule", a pre-determined consequence. Who determined that disobedience would have to result in death (or the other "death" or whatever)? Surely God, right?

The law was given because of sin

Who gave the law? Enough with the passive voice.

On one hand He desired to be merciful to the prince, his son, but on the other hand he had to maintain his standard of justice to maintain the integrity of his authority in the kingdom. Therefore, to solve this conflict between justice and mercy, he put one of the princes eyes, and one of his own.

This isn't a good analogy. A king is a mortal who has to maintain a false authority (unless you think that kings rule by divine providence). This king made a mistake, an oversight, and later realized the consequences of his mistake. So, he fudged it by letting his son keep his second eye (a tiny punishment compared with losing both eyes) took out one of his own (again, not a big deal, comparatively) and called it even. God doesn't make mistakes. God doesn't make oversights and later realize the consequences. He knew right from the beginning what would happen.

Are you saying that God was afraid of losing his authority or losing the force of law? How can there be any consequences for God when God invented the consequences and can change them at will?

The law was given because of sin, and the law couldn't make anyone perfect. What the law did was serve as a mirror unto man to show him what sin is. What was required was someone to perfectly fulfill that law so man could be reconciled back to God. Until that point, man had been spiritually separated from God because of sin.

Again, a ton more passive voice to avoid the issue of God's agency. God, himself, determined to give the law. If it's because of sin, God invented sin too. God invented sin and made us imperfect. God made commands that were against our natures to follow. Why not just not make those commands? It's like a parent leaving out a jar of cookies, and commanding the two-year-old not to eat them. What do you think is going to happen?

It took a sinless person to build that bridge and restore mans fellowship with God.

Why? Surely God decided that a sinless person would be required to act as a bridge? Why didn't God just make us closer to begin with? Or why didn't he just come on over himself? Couldn't he? Why did he determine that to disobey his commands would create distance?

Why did your parents tell you not to play in traffic or take candy from strangers? For your protection.

Exactly. And if my parents had also invented cars and paedophiles and put them near my house, I would ask them why the hell they did that. Wouldn't you? God created the law to protect us from a danger that God created himself. Why did he create the danger in the first place? Whim?

Because we're not animals, and because we know better. He created us in His image and gave us a conscience to know right from wrong. We are set apart for His purposes.

No, we are animals, and before God's law existed, we didn't know better. Otherwise, why make laws? I'm afraid to ask you to define "his image", but I've got to know how much we could possibly resemble an omnipotent omniscient omnipresent entity. Why make sin and laws and conscience and death and hell in the first place?

Death was a punishment for sin.

Death 1 or Death 2? Why does God need to punish us at all? Does that do any good once we're dead? Is he just trying to terrify the living into doing his will while we're still alive?

It is when man chose to sin that his nature became corrupted.

So, man was uncorrupted before, but capable of sin, then immediately decided to sin and became corrupted. Simpler to say man was corrupted from the beginning, no? And it was just God's bad luck that the very first people he ever made screwed the pooch right off the bat? Or did he know they would screw up? Or did he design them to screw up? Did he make us a little too independent an rebellious? Could things have turned out any other way than they have?

And why did they become corrupt? That must have been one of God's rules, that when you sin the first time, you corrupt your DNA (or whatever) for all generations to follow. He created that consequence as much as he created the physical rules of the universe. Why?

If you want to understand it, then instead of trying to constantly falsify it, you might actually try studying what Christian theologians (and not skeptics) have said about it.

Falsifying things is how scientists discover real truth. If you can falsify something, then it's false. If you can't, it might be true. Scientists who propose theories are often the ones who try the hardest to falsify them. If they can do so, they know they were wrong, or maybe a bit off-base. If they can't, then it stands as a very good theory. That's what I'm doing when I ask all these questions. I cannot possibly believe anything which on its face is impossible. What I'm trying to understand is you, the faithful person. In the face of what I see as a mind-numbing array of internal inconsistencies in the Bible, I'm curious to understand how an otherwise rational person doesn't see the same thing I do. So far, you've cleared up some misconceptions I did have, but otherwise you've managed to dance around things by changing definitions of words, defining things only vaguely, removing agency from God, and telling me I don't understand. The only thing I have ever done is challenge the theory you've put in front of me for my criticism. If it's true, then I'll eventually realize it, right? But the more I plumb its depths, the less plausible it is.

...but one day he starts doing meth on your kitchen table and bringing hookers into his room every night. Are you going to compromise your standards and say that is okay or are you going to lay down the law and give him an ultimatum?

If I had such a son, and I'd also invented meth and venereal disease and made the human body both vulnerable and attracted to both of them, then I'd be pissed off at myself more than at him, and I would "uninvent" them both. And even in the real-life situation, my wife and I wouldn't resort to an ultimatum like hell. We would talk openly with him about what he's doing, what effects he thinks it's having on himself, on us, and on the rest of the family, and whether that's what he wants. We'd try and get the rest of the family to support him likewise. If he showed no intention of stopping and it was damaging the home environment, we would probably decide, regretfully, to ask him to leave with the understanding that any time for the rest of his life that he wanted to return and live like a family again, we would welcome him with open arms. What I wouldn't do is build a torture chamber in the basement and threaten him with it, then consign him there forever if he didn't change. That wouldn't be just.

coming down from God out of heaven...

Cool. So it's only up to the last book of the Bible that heaven is in the clouds, and now heaven is on Earth. You're right that that's different from what's in the video, but it's no more ridiculous to talk about living in the sky than to talk about living in an alternate parallel dimension on Earth.

Two:

About my past. This is the THIRD time you've said this same thing. This is borderline abuse, FUCK YOU! Get off your high horse your are not an immortal moral high judge sent here to Earth to tell us what was a wrong or "sorrowful" mistake. I'm sorry, I'm being really damned aggressive right now, but I'm tired of your cockeyed charades and your imperative to make sure every Mormon that is or ever was KNOWS how "sorry" you are for them.

Sorry if you were offended. I think you're being overly melodramatic. You spent 3 paragraphs mentioning how indoctrinated you were into the mormon faith, and how this impacted your beliefs, as well as ragging on Christians and creationism, in the topic of "creationism vs evolution". Have some awareness of what you're doing and where you're doing it before you fly off of the handle.

---

I'm tired of the targeted trolling!

That also means I will never qualify your "horizon" crap with a response, because it doesn't deserve one. I know this came off rude so sorry for that, on the other hand it was suppose to

It's not crap, it's a legitimate problem which cannot be explained without the inflationary fudge factors. It's the same thing with dark matter and dark energy. They were invented to explain away discrepancies in the SBB model, a model which is held together with duct tape and elmers glue, but you're a true believer, and you call everyone else morons. The pathological skeptic is skeptical of everything except his own cherished beliefs.

>> ^kceaton1:

If you reread my post, taking into account that when i say evidence i refer only to public evidences, not personal ones that can't be substantiated by the public, i.e. me, then i think my points might become clearer as to why i say faith is an assumption. This is not including personal evidences and felt that I covered that sufficiently enough near the base of my previous post. The basic gist is: if you have personally experienced God, this is in no way a defensible evidence in a discussion requiring objective evidence.

Hence, you have a trump card, one that is only truly valued by yourself and easily discarded by others.

Actually, no. The evidence I have (the internal witness of the Holy Spirit) is the result of a test of the validity of the claim that Jesus has risen from the dead. Jesus promised that after He had been raised from the dead that He would ascend to Heaven and send the Holy Spirit from the right hand of power to everyone who believes in Him. To receive the promised Holy Spirit is objective evidence of the validity of the claim of the resurrection, and Jesus' claim to be the Savior of the world. I cannot prove to you that this has happened to me, but it is something you can test on your own:

Which leads me to this:

It's my knowledge that the faith-claim or God-claim has been unsubstantiated to myself personally as well as others (based on hearing their testimonies and reasons for it being unsubstantiated for them). This is not an assumption on my behalf, you or other religious folk haven't proven anything to me, this I know.

What Jesus said is this:

John 14:6

Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me

Jesus said there was no other way to know anything about God except through Him. So far, your experience precisely matches His claim. You have no seen no evidence of God what so ever. Therefore, if Jesus' claim is true, you shouldn't be surprised to find a lack of evidence of Gods existence; it is in fact exactly what you would expect to see. Yet, you erroneously use this as evidence to rule out Jesus' claims, when He Himself claimed this would be the case if you tried to know God by any other means except through Him. So therefore, you fail to do the one thing that would provide you evidence, not understanding that the lack of evidence you have encountered actually validates His claim.

Additionally I do not believe that 'there IS NO God' as a true Atheist, i claim to be an Atheist because it's easier to define my position quickly as I'm a pin prick away from being one.

I know nothing as to whether God definitively exists or not, to claim otherwise would be an intellectual failure as one wouldn't be taking into consideration that they may be so delusional to the point of not realizing they could be delusional. To which both extreme's are something to ridicule as there is a trump card for both sides.
Theist trump card: God never shows him/her/itself, so can not be disproved.
Atheist trump card: One's so delusional that they can't comprehend that they're suffering from a delusion.

If you are that close to being an atheist, what is the practical difference? To maintain a hairbreadth of uncertainty so as to hold the "intellectual honesty" card is actually intellectually dishonest I think, no offense. I don't think being certain and being a hairsbreadth away from certainty is really much different. Where is the genuine humility about the limited capacity of mans ability to reason and his subjective and biased experiences? If you think you are merely matter, why would you trust the chemicals in your brain to be able to rationally determine that? Have you pondered that everything is equally unlikely? How would you know you were looking at a Universe that wasn't designed?

I very strongly doubt there is an intelligent-entity that cares about us based on biological and psychological survival drives such as the delusional properties of 'hope' and the chemical reactions that can occur in extreme scenarios having incredible benefits to over power paralytic levels of fear and keep us moving forward when logical-processing would hold us back or tell us to give up (these are live or die situations with extreme level's of emotion)

This is the standard reply of the atheist (the theist is too scared to face the big bad universe so he makes up an invisible friend to comfort him) but it doesn't apply to me. I grew up without religion and was agnostic until I came to believe in God. I wasn't afraid of death (I was resigned to it happening at some point)..I came to God because I wanted to know what the truth is. I was prepared to die even after finding God.

combined with my thoughts of the statistical probability being unlikely due to both the sheer size of the universe compared to how small God's favorite pet is and that science can explain reasonable theories on how stars and planetary bodies formed.. among many other psychology based reasons.

The medulla oblongata is a relatively small part of the body but you could not live without it. The size of the Universe has nothing to do with the relative importance of Earth. Scripture never says either way whether there is life elsewhere, either.

If you've read up on big bang theory then you would understand that there are some gigantic fudge factors in it (such as cosmic inflation), and understanding of stellar evolution is actually very primitive. Even if scientists understood this perfectly, what does that actually prove? The question, as it relates to God is, why is it in existence in the first place?

Did you know that scientists must make fundamental assumptions, such as a uniformity in nature, to even do science? Can you answer why there is a uniformity in nature?

PS: good on you for responding to all those posts, i like reading other peoples discussions about religion.

I enjoy talking with you guys..I am interested in your POV. Most of all, I want you to know the love of God.

EDIT: comment on your reply to Sagemind "If God is perfect, then He is the source of the highest good, and He is perfect love", ok, but by that logic he is also the source of the highest bad, and He is perfect hate.

Scripture says differently:

1 John 1:5

This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.

It would be less perfect for God to be a mixture of good and evil versus being perfectly good.

God stories involve good things yes, but they also involve bad things. To disregard all the bad because of some good is to review the subject lopsidedly.

I'm aware that some like to pluck things out of context from the bible and call some of Gods judgments evil. An atheist calling God evil is par for the course, but the real question is, were His judgments just? Some atheists seem unable to think past a superficial level about the nature of God, and His role in creation.

For instance, God is the giver of life. He gives everyone a body and soul, air to breathe, water to drink, and He even upholds the atoms that comprise your being. Life is only possible because of what God is doing for you in this very moment, and every moment.

So, if this is true, why is it wrong for God to take it away, at the time of His choosing?

Let's say someone is doing something terribly evil, and causing many people to greatly suffer. The evil he is doing is going to cause many people to miss the boat on what God had planned for them. Is God wrong for judging this person and taking away his life to serve the greater good? Now lets say this is a nation, which is causing many other nations to suffer in the same way. Is God wrong for judging that nation? Wouldn't God actually be evil for ignoring it and allowing people to suffer needlessly? How about if the entire world becomes corrupt? Wouldn't God be evil for allowing it to continue that way?

It is the combination of good and bad that would lead me to reply to God on my door step "Ok, now i believe you exist, but you're still a sociopath and i don't respect that given your incredible capability, why not be a humanitarian?.. and why give humans intelligence then condemn them for using it when they ask for reliably testable proof? ..please don't hurt me. Also if humans are made in your likeness, can you confirm to Christians that you do in fact have homosexual tendencies?".. naturally God would then proceed to kick my ass with his perfect love/hate

I think you are suffering from a lack of imagination. Here is the being that has created everything you have ever loved, appreciated, been in awe of, who is intimately familiar with your comings and goings, all of your thoughts and feelings. He gave you your family, your friends, your talents, your purposes. He understands you better than you understand yourself. All you can do is think to insult Him? I might call this evidence of a pathology in your thought process.




>> ^Sepacore:

>> ^shveddy:
@HadouKen24 - All that you say is very dandy and very well may be true, but you'd be shocked at how widespread it is to cling to 19th century literalist beliefs. I'm not sure what country you're from, but here in the US it's remarkably common and even presidential candidates manage to think it despite pursuing the most powerful office in the world. I grew up in a particular Christian denomination, one of hundreds, and we had an official statement of faith that stated the absolute, literal, inerrant nature of the bible. This particular flavor of Christianity has about 3 million adherants, and again, this is only one of hundreds - many of which are even more conservative in their biblical interpretation.
When you say that it has been common for some time to regard sacred texts in a metaphorical sense I think that's definitely true, especially in the case of liberal theologians. However, when you take away the literal interpretations and leave interpretative metaphor all that remains is an interesting and influential piece of literature that has no specific authority. And I think this is a good thing. But the fact of the matter is that it lowers it to the same level as Moby Dick, Oedipus, Infinite Jest and Harry Potter - all of which are books that have interesting, moralistic metaphors just like the bible.
Let's face it, religion needs the teeth of absolute truth and the threat of moral superiority to have any privileged relevance over other interesting, moral works. I see neither in any of its texts.
@shinyblurry - Give me a non-macroevolutionary reason that junk mutations in Cytochrome C just happen follow a clear developing and branching pattern that just happens to coincide perfectly with those independently developed by scores of other disciplines (such as embryology, paleontology and so on) as well as those based on hundreds of other non-coding markers (such as viral DNA insertions and transposons, to name a few).
If you can give me an answer that can account for these coincidences, does so without macroevolution, and indicates that you actually took the time to understand the concepts I listed above, then I'll take the time to write a much more exhaustive response as to why you're wrong.


Hmm, your statement is littered with all sorts of inaccurate information.

Okay, first of all, this idea of "junk dna" is dying a slow death:

http://www.princeton.edu/main/news/archive/S24/28/32C04/

Contrary to your assertion, so-called junk dna is functional. And the idea of viral DNA insertions is completely ruled out when this "random" DNA turns out not to be so random after all, and serving very specific purposes. The idea, created in ignorance, exists mainly as a fudge factor for the evolutionary paradigm. The problem for evolutionists is that natural selection cannot produce enough mutations to account for the millions it needs in the 300,000 generations it took for humans to evolve. It's a lot easier to come up those numbers when 95 percent of the genome is "junk".

Second, molecular and morphological phylogenies are often wildly divergent. This is from an Article in nature magazine subtitled:

"Evolutionary trees constructed by studying biological molecules often don’t resemble those drawn up from morphology. Can the two ever be reconciled, asks Trisha Gura"

"When biologists talk of the ‘evolution wars’, they usually mean the ongoing battle for supremacy in American schoolrooms between Darwinists and their creationist opponents. But the phrase could also be applied to a debate that is raging within systematics. On one side stand traditionalists who have built evolutionary trees from decades of work on species' morphological characteristics. On the other lie molecular systematists, who are convinced that comparisons of DNA and other biological molecules are the best way to unravel the secrets of evolutionary history. . . .

Battles between molecules and morphology are being fought across the entire tree of life. Perhaps the most intense are in vertebrate systematics, where molecular biologists are challenging a tradition that relies on studies of fossil skeletons and the bones and soft tissue of living species. . . .

So can the disparities between molecular and morphological trees ever be resolved? Some proponents of the molecular approach claim there is no need. The solution, they say, is to throw out morphology, and accept their version of the truth. “Our method provides the final conclusion about phylogeny,” claims Okada. Shared ancestry means a genetic relationship, the molecular camp argues, so it must be better to analyse DNA and the proteins it encodes, rather than morphological characters that can end up looking similar as a result of convergent evolution in unrelated groups, rather than through common descent. But morphologists respond that convergence can also happen at the molecular level, and note there is a long history of systematists making large claims based on one new form of evidence, only to be proved wrong at a later date"

They are so divergent that two camps have emerged in systematics, each claiming their phylogenies are more accurate. So your claim that Cytochrome C matches "scores" of different phylogenies is patently false, since hardly any of them agree. If want to say that isn't true, please provide the evidence. Note that "scores" means at least 40.

Third, creation theory predicts a hierarchical pattern, so finding one isn't going to falsify creationism or prove common descent. Especially in the case of the phylogeny of Cytochrome C, which has no intermediates or transitionals to be found. You do also realize that a common design can be explained by a common designer? It could simply be the case that Cytochrome C was tailored for different groups according to individual specifications, which then diverged futher by mutations. If your response is that Cytochrome C functions the same way in all life, my response is that the differences could be for coding other proteins.

Before I go any further, I would ask you to support your claims. Show me the specific data you're talking about so I can rebut it.

>> ^messenger:
Someone who believes in something despite evidence against it is not using sense, reason and intellect. The Bible contradicts itself internally (contradictory lists of the "begats" is the clearest example I can think of), so cannot be accurate. If you believe the Bible is infallible, that isn't a reasonable belief. Some people "believing in a personal god" doesn't equate to "believing in Yahweh", which is your contention, so it doesn't matter if they're true or not. There's nothing unscientific about spirituality, and identifying some aspect of your spiritual experience a personal god. There's plenty unscientific about declaring the Bible to be infallible. Again with not understanding science.


If you're referring to the geneology of Jesus, it is presenting one geneology through David's son Solomon, which is the royal line, and one geneology through David's son Nathan, which is the non royal line. The lineage in Matthew is Josephs line, and the lineage in Luke is Marys line. There is no actual contradiction there, or anywhere else in the bible. What skeptics call contradictions are usually things they simply do not understand.

In any case, it would not be unreasonable to believe the bible, even if there were contradictions. This is simply a fallacious argument.

>> ^messenger:
The absence of circumstantial evidence where you might expect to find it is circumstantial evidence of absence. If the Bible were true, we would should expect, for example, that miracles would continue to occur, because why not? They should be even more commonly documented because of our massively increased population and information technology. But they appear to happen less! This is absence of circumstantial evidence. Amazing discoveries in science aren't evidence for God. God is one theory that explains them, but it doesn't work the other way -- you can't start with an amazing fact, and declare that it suggests all other theories are wrong. No matter what the universe looks like, it will still conform with the theory of God creating it, so amazing discoveries are not evidence -- they're just things we can't explain yet, like retrograde motion was once considered "amazing" and attributed to gods.)


Your contention is false for a few reasons; first, that miracles do not occur, and second, that we should expect to find an abundance of miracles. Not only have I seen miracles occur, I have been a party to them. As far as the number of miracles, we shouldn't expect to know how many miracles occur. God isn't performing for the general public. Even the post-resurrection appearances were only for a limited number of people.

We do have circumstantial evidence for Gods existence, such as the information in DNA and the evidence of fine-tuning. The theory of God has explanatory power, and is a better explanation for these phenomena. We should never ignore a theory which better explains the evidence.

>> ^messenger:
This where I start picturing you with your hands over your ears going LALALALALALA! Nothing rules out God's agency. Nothing rules out God period. He cannot be ruled out because there's nothing verifiable about his existence whatsoever. Nobody ever makes this claim, ever, ever, ever. It's like you wish we were saying this, but we're not. Really, we're not. BUT, if someone claims that their god has a chariot that moves the sun across the sky, I call bullshit because we have actually seen with our eyes that the Earth is spherical and rotates on its axis, which causes the apparent motion of the sun. If someone says the Earth is only a few thousand years old, I say bullshit and refer you to archaeology and to every branch of science that demonstrates the Earth to be much older.


It is the persistant claim of atheists that science has sufficiently described the Universe and is regulating God to a smaller and smaller corner. It's called the "god of the gaps" and you hear this all the time. You hear it from eminient scientists like Dr Krauss. So I don't wish it is being said, it is being said all the time.

As far as the age of the Earth goes, there are more evidences for a young earth than an old one. Since you don't know much about macro evolution, you probably don't know much about the theory of deep time either. Paleontology and archaelogy are historical sciences. The age of the earth is assumed, and the evidence is interpreted through that assumption. The assumption itself is never challenged.

>> ^messenger:
This is the least scientific thing you have ever said.


Messenger, you seem like a thoughtful person, so step outside of your box for a moment and think about this. The statement that "If God exists, the entire Universe is evidence of His existence" is a scientific statement of absolute fact. If it isn't, explain why not.

>> ^messenger:
You and I agreed before, no solipsism.


I engaged in no solipsism, as you will see, and I also thought we weren't going to be doing cherry picking either. I noticed you avoided these questions:

The question I would put to you is, how would you tell the difference? How would you know you're looking at a Universe God didn't create? What would you expect that to look like?

>> ^messenger:
You realize that you are using logic to prove that logic isn't real? "If-then" statements and implied questions come from logic. If logic doesn't stand on its own, then you can't use it to prove that it doesn't stand on its own. If you want to know where the rules of formal logic come from, you can look it up. If you don't accept them as valid, you've descended into solipsism, at which point I don't even accept that anything exists but my own mind. If you accept the definitions and rules of logic as valid on their face, then we don't require anything to explain where they came from. Logic is definitions, like equality. a=a. How do I know this? It's the definition of equality. If you disagree, then words have no definition, and thus no meaning, and we also agreed that "words have meaning".


I am not using logic to disprove logic, I am using logic to show you that you don't have a foundation for your own rationality. You live your life as if logic is a transcendent and absolute law, the same way as you do right and wrong, but you can't account for it in your worldview. It's a bit like sitting in Gods lap to slap His face. If logic doesn't have the same value independent of human belief, then you have no basis for your own rationality. Words do have meaning, which is why I am pointing out you have some intellectual sinkholes in your worldview that you just accept without thinking about it.

>> ^messenger:
Also, as your argument goes, if you assert that logic is a creation, and that God created logic, this entails that God exists outside of logic. Interesting prediction.


I didn't say God created logic, I said He is a rational being. Since we are made in His image, we are also rational beings.

>> ^messenger:
No, I wouldn't, necessarily. That's one field of science that I know very little about. If you've read a single book about it, you know more than me. That' doesn't mean you understand better than me how science works in general.


It doesn't mean that, no, but it does mean that you spoke authoritatively and condescendingly about something that I actually know more about than you do, jumping to conclusions based on your misunderstanding of what I said, that on a lack of knowledge about the theory itself. I would say this is positive evidence in my favor, and negative evidence against you.

>> ^messenger:
But since you bring it up, the theory of macro evolution may or may not be weak, I don't know, but outdated quotes from Darwin and about Darwin about the impossibility of macro evolution don't convince me any more than outdated quotes from Newton about the impossibility of the Solar System holding together. Do you know what Newton concluded? He concluded it must be God holding it together. Einstein figured out why it really doesn't fly apart, and it wasn't because of God.


They aren't outdated quotes, they are predictions that were made about what we should expect to find if the theory is true. Darwin made a great discovery, that changes can occur within a species. From there, he made an unjustified extrapolation that all species had a common ancestor. He expected to find evidence for this theory in the fossil record, but what he found was evidence against his theory. He blamed this on the relative poverty of the fossil record. 120 years later, we know it isn't the poverty of the fossil record; there simply is no fossil evidence to confirm macro evolution.

Do you know what a gluon is? It is a theoretical sub-atomic particle that binds quarks together. It has never been observed; it is simply a fudge factor, and without it, atoms would fly apart. Scripture says God is upholding them.

>> ^messenger:
Likewise, the problem of the lack of fossil records has been resolved since Darwin's time. The fossil evidence of intermediary links isn't a problem with the fossil evidence: it's a problem with Darwin's model. Darwin believed all evolution happened gradually, as he had observed. But there's no reason to believe it must all be slow. If one species had some tiny mutation that happened to give it a massive advantage over other species, its descendants would naturally spread into all sorts of new niches and tons of evolution would take place, both for it and other animals in its environment. Again, these changes were very rapid, so rapid, that they may not have left fossil evidence. Sometimes they did and other times they didn't, or we haven't found it yet. Check this video out: It's mostly a rebuttal to the "God is not a blind watchmaker" argument for Intelligent Design, but you can skip to 1:33 and still understand the premise. If you watch until 8:42, you'll see the reason why we wouldn't expect to find fossils of intermediary links, and why this isn't an argument against macro evolution anymore.


You're talking about the theory of punctuated equillibrium, or the modern "hopeful monster" theory. This is one of my favorite quotes:

In fact, most published commentary on punctuated equilibria has been favorable. We are especially pleased that several paleontologists now state with pride and biological confidence a conclusion that had been previously been simply embarrassing; 'all these years of work and I haven't found any evolution.'

Gould & Eldredge
Paleobiology v.3 p.136


It's the theory to explain why there is no evidence for evolution. How convenient. Do you realize that this makes macro evolution unfalsifiable? It also makes macro evolution a metaphysical theory, like abiogenesis, which you must take on faith. The video you referenced is not an accurate demonstration of macro evolution, either, since nothing is being added to the genome. A reconfiguration of the same genetic material is not traversing above the species level and is therefore micro evolution.

Since you're never read a book on macro evolution, try this one and challenge yourself:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

No. I didn't miss anything. You didn't hear what Cenk said. He said that some Republicans were trying to convince voters that a) Obama has been ignoring domestic energy, and b) that's the reason gas prices are high. Cenk put paid to both of these ideas because neither is true. It's the Republicans that Cenk quotes who are saying that oil drilling in the US counts as Domestic Energy, and that it would affect gas prices.

I don't watch any American TV news except what pops up on the Sift, which is almost all Fox News, so I can't compare. I can tell you that Fox is the worst journalism that I have ever seen, so much so that it's not really journalism to me, but shoving opinions down people's throats and still calling it news. If CNN and the rest are the same way, then that's a shame.

FWIW, Fox News viewers consistently poll as among the most misinformed of news consumers, often coming in lower than people who don't watch the news at all.

Also, I've never understood when the word "liberal" became a swear word. It just means "open-mminded." I think being able to receive and process new information and change long-held ideas in the face of such information is a strength rather than a weakness. But if you enjoy believing whatever you believe just because you believe it and like having others tell you that you're right even if it's incorrect, then have at it.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.
I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.
Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.
Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.

>> ^messenger:
You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

Ok, you clearly didn't understand what i said because you responded exactly how I warned.

"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"
"Oil Production" does not equal "Domestic Energy"

Solar power doesn't fuel my car. We could triple our "domestic energy" production with nuclear power plants, but that wouldn't do shit for my car and gas prices. Do you not understand that? He is responding intentionally with misleading points.

I'm sorry you are such a hater of Fox News and that you don't understand that all Fox News did was match CNN, MSNBC, NY Times and every other liberal media with conservative media. You ever heard the phrase "liberal media" its been around for almost 100 years. But the first Conservative media pops up and you all start crying.

Hell there have been so many cover up of democratic representive.

Example: Sen. Feinstein, Dianne [D-CA] was on a council that was awarding all military contracts to a company her husband was the primary share holder in. (Illegal) Once someone found this out, she resigned and the media refused to write on it.


>> ^messenger:

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.
Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]
But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:
TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

You've got to be kidding me. In his opening statement, Cenk says (1)Republicans are accusing Obama of ignoring domestic energy production, and (2)they are publicly linking this failure with increased gas prices. Cenk then responds that not only is Obama doing more domestic energy production than Bush (point 1), but there isn't even a causal relationship between the two stats (point 2). That's good journalism, as long as his opening statement is true about what Republicans are saying. If he had only said, "We're not drilling enough!! (without mentioning domestic energy) and then gone on with the domestic energy fact as a counterpoint, that would be misleading.

Even if he had fudged it like that --which he does on rare occasion, but not here-- comparing him with FOX is the news integrity equivalent of Godwin's Law. Fox are so bad, so reprehensible, so intentionally misleading, so ideologically driven that Cenk on his worst day couldn't even approach their level of deceit. [Edit: to your second point, without doing the background research, I'll just accept that you're right, and say this IS one of the times that Cenk fudges things a wee bit. But seriously, if the worst you can say about him is that he tars all Republicans with the same brush, that's not that serious.]

But if you still think you're right, if you can remember any time TYT did anything as corrupt as some of Fox's worst moments --and remember that they've been caught intentionally manipulating stories-- tell us about it here, even if you can't find the link. I bet you've got nothing. Check your hyperbole.>> ^ptrcklgrs:

TYT is a manipulative as Fox News. On 2 Counts
1: He says "Fact we are at a 8 year high for domestic energy production in this country". Ok, I believe that fact but its a stat based on domestic energy production. Not domestic oil drilling. Oil is one piece of energy. We've gone nuts in the last few years with solar, wind, fracking energy as going green. So that stat looks quite misleading.
2: When he says "Republicans" yes there is a hand full of republicans pushing this point. But by the vast majority it is held as not true. Why doesn't he name names. He is just finding any issue he can to dig deeper trenches between lines and make his money.
TYT = Fox News Opionists

What, are you PRO facial fractures or something!?
>> ^solecist:

>> ^budzos:
edit: the guy in the video is a dipshit. What he's doing is the same thing I'm complaining about, squared. He's putting on a performance instead of just riding the ride. Extra dipshit points for putting everyone behind him at risk of facial fractures.

really? maybe you should chill the fudge out, brosef.

>> ^budzos:
edit: the guy in the video is a dipshit. What he's doing is the same thing I'm complaining about, squared. He's putting on a performance instead of just riding the ride. Extra dipshit points for putting everyone behind him at risk of facial fractures.


really? maybe you should chill the fudge out, brosef.

>> ^dystopianfuturetoday:

Iowa has picked 6 of 8 of the last nominees of both parties (including unopposed 2nd term seekers) which is a decent track record.


That sounds a bit like number-fudging If you only have one choice, you could argue an inherent strong correlation of candidate and outcome, so no real point in counting those.

Throwing out the unopposed candidates and going back to 1980, we have 5 of 7 correct picks on the democratic side and 2 of 5 correct picks on the republican side. So in sum 7 of 12 or about 58% where there was an actual choice.

So just from the numbers, I would argue that there isn't that strong of a connection between Iowa caucus winners and chosen candidates. The abrupt about-face of the media (as presented here) is strange though.

Edit: Speeling

Brilliant, the botox smile and stare combined with the floating movement effect would scare the fudge cake mix out of me if one were to approach me in real life.

@kceaton1

I wholly agree that I detest these once atheists that have literally taken what is normally a balanced "naught" position as to God(s) existence barring evidence and instead these anti-theists ditch that stance and deem that not only is all religion a wash, but any God is as well. They're very "militant" in nature and seem to draw in those that are less secure about their own opinions; kind of like the Westboro Baptists. Unfortunately, they are also very pro-active, boisterous, and vitriolic in nature--worse of all they call themselves atheists still, giving the rest of us a bad rap.

And they're everywhere. The only place that I can go and say anything about Christianity without being ridiculed is a Christian forum. This goes from the obvious places like atheist forums, to a place like this, to even the comments section on CNN.com. Antitheists seem to outnumber thoughtful atheists at least 100-1.

Some of them though are just plain tired of the charades they have had to play with men they worked with, people they once respected--but, those same people might as well put their workmate, friend, and neighbors into brutal conditions for a simple principle held: atheism. It's happened before, not as ruthless as it may have been in the earlier centuries, but black listing someone in a community can happen. I've seen it happen innumerable times first hand! I can't blame some for their outrage and pointed damnation they hold for others; it was created by those that may complain that the volume and acidity of their words may be too strong--or too true.

Some have been mistreated, and some are just on the hate bandwagon because they are angry, insecure people who scapegoat religion for the evil in the world. Much like an anarchist blames all the evil in the world on governments.

Of course religion has it's share of idiots as well. They are almost always the fundamentalists, like the Westboro clan. Papa (George H. W.) Bush once said that atheists should have no rights in the U.S.--if he had his way--they would not be citizens nor would they be patriots. Because, this is a nation "under God"--atleast after that was added. Maybe Papa Bush didn't know that historical part. Religion also has a grand stand in politics and the media. That is yet another thing that must be remembered is that when an anti-theist does speak it will outrage the religious; but, atheists, anti-theists (even Jews, Muslims, Hindu, Buddhism, etc...), endure the endless exposure and should be expected to remain quiet... Fox News is the epitome of which I speak as it is nothing more than a pulpit for the rich, white, Christian, American, white collar worker.

Stupidity, of course, is not exclusive to any particular group of people, but is common to all of them.

But, there is one more consideration that HAS to be mentioned. As this point gets me to go after religious people all the time. If this makes me anti-theist, because I voiced a concern over what is being said--then anti-theism is far more wide-spread and has NOTHING to do with atheism. I do think this may be a common misconception from just my general experiences on the messageboards, here and elsewhere.

The problem is: Science!

This is especially true for all of the fundamental type religions. They all have a huge laundry list of minor science flaws to HUGE science flaws. Fundamentalism Christianity in the U.S. tends to take the lead in this war of fact versus opinion. There are plenty of fully qualified scientists out there that are religious, but ones that tend to go against the full body of evidence and scientific community to prove a religious claim tend to be "not fully qualified". They tend to use full scientific data and factual evidence to create a new theor...I mean hypothesis (many will try to use "theory", but their reason for their arrival at the new understanding tends to have no basis) and inject a very large amount of opinion, sprinkled with some facts. One such example is the red-shift video provided above by @shinyblurry .

The video I posted does have a basis, the phenomena was legitimately observed:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0606294

Obviously it isn't conclusive, but it definitely has merit and should be explored rather than dismissed. I would really like to know the difference between something like this and the pure speculation accepted as fact in big bang cosmology, such as the existence of dark matter and dark energy. They are little more than fudge factors, as well as cosmic inflation, to account for the glaring holes that don't fit observation. That isn't science, but you excuse it because..?

Science can become a VERY heated area of topic when it comes to religion. This begins when a religion: tries to debunk a theory or a part of it, to commandeer a theory and direct a new conclusion to fit an already preconceived destination which has not been peer-reviewed or tested, repeating scientific theories in religious pamphlets or media while purposefully undermining the theory by not presenting in full and correct context or actually printing falsehoods, lying about the nature of scientific testing, repetitiously incorrectly stating current stances on various theories (like radio-carbon dating, etc...), attempts by any churches through the state to eliminate the teaching of branches of science--especially ones that have been tested so much that have attained the rank of THEORY (Evolution, etc...), again the use of lying in media against science--this has reached every facet of media-large and small.

Here's the problem with the so called theory of evolution. What Darwin observed was microevolution, not macroevolution. He observed that species will adapt to their environments. That is scientific fact, and a great discovery. What he did from there is speculate that because species adapt to their environments, that those adaptations would lead to new species, and therefore, that all life has a common ancestor. Since it wasn't something that could be observed, what was supposed to prove his theory would be evidence from the fossil record. There was only one problem with that:

innumerable transitional forms must have existed but why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? ..why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links?

Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain, and this perhaps is the greatest objection which can be urged against my theory.

Charles Darwin
Origin of the Species

The total lack of transitional fossils was a complete embarrassment to Darwin. The excuse made was that because the record was so poor, more time was needed to unearth the fossils. Here we are 150 years later, and those transitional forms have failed to materialize. The fossil record is composed mainly of gaps. It also defies all the predictions of gradualism. All the major body types appeared suddenly in the Cambrian explosion without any discernable evolutionary history, and they appeared highly diversified. All the major phyla, classes, orders etc were there at the beginning. Species appear suddenly in stasis and leave just as suddenly. Macroevolution is not science, it has never been observed nor can it be tested. It is a just-so story which does not fit observation.

Christians don't have a problem with science, they have a problem with what isn't science. Macroevolution was a giant leap made by Darwin for which there was no evidence, and the fossil record does not match the predictions of the theory. Because of this, evolutionists have moved away from the fossil record and have used other lines of evidences to prove macroevolution, like common genetics in our DNA. The problem with that is, common genetics also indicates a common designer, and is better indicated by it actually, because of the mosaic pattern we observe in the genome.

I'm sure there are more. History has been a great use to show us what religion WILL do to science, even though all that is being shown is the truth. It truly is a dangerous weapon. If you can't except truth what hope do we have for you. Yes you can be a good person, but somehow you're flawed, unable to except reality.

Historically the church supported scientific inquiry. Science got its start in Christian Europe, and many of the greatest scientists were devout Christians.

When I was a believer (no matter what @shinyblurry says I was; I was Mormon and shiny seems to believe that his religious path is of course a T3 hard-line; were as Mormons just get the basic 56k dial-up...) I FELT the presence of God, or more accurately The Holy Ghost. I had no problem believing in everything science told me when I was religious. I knew it was the truth and I knew that God would not want me to ignore the grand insights into the workings of his masterpiece. I could feel in my soul, the first year I had physics, that something profound had just happened. I had found something I had been searching for my whole life. I felt connected to everything. I began to dismiss those that were religious around me and disliked evolution--to me evolution was so simple and yet such a wondrous way to create the most complex of things from literally the simplest. A literal masterpiece. So I do know that some can believe all that science says, but it's very hard in Christianity.

There are two kingdoms in this world, the kingdom of darkness and the Kingdom of Heaven, and they are both supernatural kingdoms. You can get a supernatural experience in a false religion, but it is just a corrupt copy of the real thing. Were you feeling a burning sensation in your chest? What you were feeling wasn't the Holy Spirit, or the presence of God, but the false spirit that pervades the mormon church. The presence of God is something that goes beyond feelings and sensations. This is how people get duped into false religions, because they get a spiritual experience from a false spirit.

I grew up secular, and when I became a Christian I was more than willing to accept the conclusions of science. I had believed them all my life because they had been taught to me as factual. I was even willing to intergrate them into my faith. It was only after investigating these things that I found, to my shock, that there wasn't any actual evidence for these things, and that they were neither testable or observerd. I changed my mind based on my investigation of the facts and not because of any religious duty. I would still believe it if I thought there was convincing evidence, but it isn't there.

Since you're scientifically minded, let me give you a challenge. You appear to be quite confident that evolution is proven true, so if that is the case, see if you can refute the arguments in this book:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0890510628/ref=olp_product_details?ie=UTF8&me=&seller=

So I hope I made a point with this. Anti-theism comes from quite a few directions. The most usual and common sight is that you'll see between someone defending scientific theories, while the less common will be those that have been directly burned by the religious community they most likely once belonged to. The last is of course what was brought up in earlier posts: atheists who turn into anti-theists. They tend to be the kind that will assert that religion is evil no matter how small or insignificant it may play a role in someones life.

It's because they have no idea how much of western civilization is built upon Christian principles and philosophy. What they need to do is educate themselves:

http://www.amazon.com/Book-that-Made-Your-World/dp/1595553223

In the end most atheists boil down to this:

Stephen speaking to a religious friend...
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.”

~Stephen Roberts

Haha! You are so generous!
I admit this one is extremely bizarre but having just watched a pile of "Mighty Boosh" episodes it seems tame now!

In reply to this comment by oritteropo:
*quality

I had to watch it about three times before making up my mind about this, but upvote from me.

You're confusing the philosophy of "empiricism" with "empirical data". The two are semantically related, but the former derives its name from the latter, not the other way around, just as stoic people are not necessarily stoicists, nor all humans humanitarian, nor all who exist existentialist.

The scientific method is founded upon empiricism:

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

I'll let some physics majors sort you out on this one:

http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-184699.html

Science is based on no philosophy. The scientific method can be derived entirely from logic, which Craig just told us is a rational thing to believe in (I agree). It happens that the scientific method can only be applied to empirical data (which is separate from the philosophy of empiricism), which is defined simply as information gathered from the senses. This has nothing to do with beliefs about what is knowable. Nothing in science suggests any opinion on what else is knowable or not, just what appears to be or not to be a candidate for experiment. Science is incapable of determining whether abortion is morally wrong, and it takes no stance on whether that information is knowable. That's a question for philosophers and such.

I think you're forgetting that scientists are not objective, and must interpret the data, which can have as much to do with philosophy and belief as anything else. Check this out:

http://www.emotionalcompetency.com/sci/sm6.htm

I can also give you an example. At www.cosmologystatement.org there is an open letter to the scientific community, which is signed by over 500 scientists who doubt the big bang theory. These aren't creationists, btw. An excerpt:

"big bang relies on a growing number of never observed entities. inflation, dark matter, dark energy, etc, it cant survive without these fudge factors..in no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical factors be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.

without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by the astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory.

Even observations are now interpreted through this biased filter, judged right or wrong depending on whether or not they support the big bang. so discordant data on red shifts, lithium and helium abundances and galaxy distribution, among other topics, are ignored or ridiculed.

this reflects a growing dogmatic mindset that is alien to the spirit of free scientific inquiry."

This was published in New Scientist magazine in 2004.

Are you still dubious of science, or just empiricism now? If you still are, can you point to any faulty information or conclusions science has arrived at that you are dubious about? Or if I've improperly worded the question to best get at your issues with science, please provide some specifics about science's methods, conclusions, or whatever that give you discomfort.

My trouble with empiricism is really more of a philosophical issue. I know empiricism can get results which are trustworthy, although the conclusions that people draw from them are a different story. I really just a have problem with things which aren't science; ie, theories or practices which have no hard evidence, which cannot be been tested or observed. I'll list them:

Big Bang Cosmology
Radiometric Dating
Uniformitarian Geology
Macro Evolution

>> ^messenger