David,

Yes, it is interesting how ID has a bias against it while evolution is still at it.

I mean, no one has ever demonstrated macroevolutionary changes on a molecular level, yet people make the claim that macroevolution happens. Shouldn't changes that show at the supposed macroevolution show at the molecular level? If macroevolution does not show at the molecular level, how is there a change that is considered evolution take place?

The make believe of X-Men and mutations that are observed in real life on the molecular level always result in a loss of information, not gaining new information and complexity. Lee Spetner concluded that whoever thinks macroevolution can be made by mutations that lose information is like the merchant who loses a little money on every sale but thinks he can make it up in volume.

Anyway, people should read a book called "in six days" by John F. Ashton, PhD. It's all about PhD level scientists who believe in the truth versus evolution. The PhDs are from all fields such as biology, biochemistry, geology, genetics, medical, zoology, physics, etc. Interesting how scientist who were immersed in evolution brain washing were able to see the truth.
Elvis | 11.12.05 - 10:35 pm | #

Elvis,

The process of speciation (so-called macroevolution) involves genetic differentiation of isolated gene pools. Genetic differentiation is a molecular process distributed among individuals in populations. There are scores of empirical studies that demonstrate molecular genetic divergence between sister species. In some cases the divergence has been observed in real time. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Evolution happens; get over it and grow in your faith if that is what is necessary.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 11.13.05 - 4:18 pm | #

test
David Heddle | Homepage | 11.13.05 - 7:50 pm | #

Shag,

You get over it. People with the credentials that you hold so valuable also see my viewpoint. Why don't you check out biochemist PhD, John Kramer as one example? You clearly don't know what you are talking about. Grow in your faith versus clinging onto the unseen and unproven evolution. Isolated gene pools lose information, not gain information. It's ludicrous to think that information is gained when the evidence says information is lost. Look at your dog breeds in their isolated gene pools that suffer from a variety of genetic defects. Get out of your fantasy world of comics such as X-Men. Looking at differences of DNA between similar living things does not equate to evolution. Your DNA and my DNA are different else we don't get the "CSI" thing with identifying individuals. But, those differences does not equate to evolution.
Elvis | 11.13.05 - 8:04 pm | #

So far as we know, every article about intelligent design that has ever been submitted to science journals has been published.

And you have the -- "gall" doesn't work; what to call it -- lack of understanding of English to call it a bias against ID?

Considering the recent announcements from Rome, it appears that it is the ID folk to distort the Catholic Church's position on evolution. They have no truck with it, Darwin not being denounced in the Bible and all, so long as no one claims that science demonstrates conclusively that God doesn't exist.

Sternberg is a crank. He violated the rules of the society whose journal he edited, and he got no penalty -- so he complained to the inappropriate authority that he was being discriminated against. Nuts. He's as wacky as the claim that ID can't get published, when everything ever submitted to journals about ID has been printed.

Is this intentional comedy on your part? Should we laugh?
Ed Darrell | 11.14.05 - 12:22 am | #

Mr. Heddle, your distortions here are pretty nasty. Let's not forget that Meyer's paper was completely unsuited for the topic of the journal that published it. Also, your continued push on the Catholic issue is becoming tantamount to lying. I'm now calling you out on it. No one is suggesting that JPII's position on evolution supports atheism, but he did not see a conflict with evolution and the Catholic faith. If I am distorting, then point it out. Otherwise, quit making the claim that I and others are distorting the Catholic Church's position when we talk about this. It's time to back it up.
GCT | 11.14.05 - 7:11 am | #

Elvis,
Your contention is that mutations always lose information? Sometimes genes mutate, then for whatever reason will mutate back to their original form.

Question:
Was information lost in the first mutation? Was more lost in the mutation back to the original form? How is that possible?

The fact of the matter is that not all mutations result in a loss of information. Also, losing information doesn't necessarily also entail a loss of complexity.
GCT | 11.14.05 - 7:13 am | #

Elvis wrote:

"Your DNA and my DNA are different else we don't get the "CSI" thing with identifying individuals. But, those differences does not equate to evolution."

Elvis, why do you suppose there are differences in our DNA? If the agents of evolution (mutation, non-random mating, genetic drift, migration, and selection) are not operating, what accounts for the diversity? You are objecting, apparently, that since there hasn't been a speciation event in recorded human history that it is "not evolution". Clearly, you don't understand what evolution is my friend.

The real fantasy of this argument is the false caricature (staw man) you paint of evolution as predicting cross lineage degrees of change during speciation. Evolution does not predict this; only your misunderstanding of evolution does.

If you want to offer serious objections to evolutionary theory as a viable, working explanation of biological diversity, two things would help: 1) start by working on what evolution theory actually says, and 2) offer a competing testable (prediction making) hypothesis that better explains the observed data.

In the mean time, if that is too much trouble, you might consider that evolutionary theory (as well as the whole of natural science) says absolutely nothing about your relationship with your Creator. There is no need to make a competing god out of science.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 11.14.05 - 12:18 pm | #

GCT,

Let's see, "mutating back" sounds a lot like what should be said as breeding where the recessive "mutation" is covered up by the dominant gene or undamaged gene. This is not mutating back. This is why genetic diversity through breeding out versus inbreeding makes for stronger populations.

Shag,

As for observable and testable, evolution falls out. How many humans are there to do the observation at the supposed millions of years?

As for relation with God and Jesus, yes, the importance is with Salvation. But, that doesn't give free license to misguide. Yes, evolution is one aspect. Yes, there are many other misguided Christians who over eat, get drunk, belligerant, lust, hate, etc. It is a Christian's duty to help those who are misguided. This posting dealt with evolution. Some people hold evolution up with more faith than they do God, as in doubt God but believe in evolution.

Much smarter people you or I in the biology field, biochemistry field, zoology field, etc, come to realize in Creation not evolution. I don't need to recreate their work, but to look at the questions they raise about the falsehood of evolution. These people fully immersed in evoltuion and been evolutionists made the change because evolutionary thoughts just couldn't answer their questions and their quest for knowledge.
Elvis | 11.14.05 - 8:47 pm | #

Elvis, it sounds a lot like, but isn't. It is indeed a mutation back to the original form. Gonna answer the question or are you gonna limp away again?

Evolution is testable, has been tested, is continually tested, and has been verified by independent lines of inquiry (branches of science.) You can put your fingers in your ears and cry, "It's not happening" all you want, but you are denying many different branches of science, which is something you never satisfactorily answered in the past, but I doubt you will do so now.

Evolution is not a religion, people do not "believe" in it the way you are implying. I accept evolution as the best explanation for the diversity of life on this planet. My religious beliefs are quite separate.

Who are these nebulous people that you refer to in the biology field, etc.? Is it the AiG crew? How about CRS? They have explicitly stated that the Bible comes first before the science. In other words, they throw out any data that doesn't confirm their interpretations of the Bible, either that or they massage that data to make it fit their preconceptions. That's a funny way to do science, you know with all the answers already set in place. I don't think I have to explain why science is useless if you already have all the answers.
GCT | 11.15.05 - 6:41 am | #

Elvis,

Have you ever considered trusting God enough to open your mind to the knowledge science provides about nature? You might find that your appreciation for the majesty of creation and reverence for the Creator actually increases.

You wrote: "Yes, there are many other misguided Christians who over eat, get drunk, belligerant, lust, hate, etc. It is a Christian's duty to help those who are misguided. This posting dealt with evolution. Some people hold evolution up with more faith than they do God, as in doubt God but believe in evolution."

So it is pretty clear that what you are doing is equating acceptance of a scientific understanding of nature with immoral behavior and lack of faith in God. This is quite a judgement on your part, I must say. It suggests that you aren't really interested in the facts on the ground at all, but are rather trying to provide some kind of misguided (and utterly unnecessary) moral correction. In response, here's a suggestion for theological study: check out the concept of Christian liberty. Christianity can free your mind; it is not intended to close it.

Cheers,

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 11.15.05 - 10:33 am | #

Elvis wrote:
"Yes, there are many other misguided Christians who over eat, get drunk, belligerant, lust, hate, etc. It is a Christian's duty to help those who are misguided. This posting dealt with evolution. Some people hold evolution up with more faith than they do God, as in doubt God but believe in evolution."

This sounds like you reject anything that an atheist may hold as true. I'm sure there are atheists that don't "over eat, get drunk, belligerant, lust, hate, etc." and believe that it is just fine to NOT do those things, while simultaneously having more faith in their correctness than in God. Would you consider those things to be bad now because an atheist agrees with you? One could say that they doubt God but believe in a healthy lifestyle. Are healthy lifestyles bad now?
GCT | 11.15.05 - 11:15 am | #

I see that you are absorbed into your own words. If an atheist agrees with God, great. Does not mean that God is tossed out in your weird comparison. It means the atheist sees some Light. You are the one that brings up atheists. Read the writings again and you see that I was talking about misguided Christians.

Seems like your puny arguments about throwing out evidence is all about evolutionists tossing out data that doesn't fit the evolutionary model.

Suggest you read the book I named in the original post in this thread if you want names before you limp away. I see you also jump to conclusions without the real facts, typical of evolutionary thought.

Freeing ones mind does not mean believe in things that are not true.

Read God's word. Don't be so absorbed into your own prideful words.
Elvis | 11.15.05 - 6:25 pm | #

The fact is that every ID article we know of ever submitted to a science journal has been published.

Bias? Where?

Sternberg again? Why do you continue to defend that backstabber, when he got ZERO retaliation, and when he can't even figure out what agency he's supposed to complain to?

And, do you really believe Old Earth creationists are not creationists? If Sternberg can get away with a whopper like that with you, what standards do you have left?
Ed Darrell | 11.16.05 - 6:00 am | #

Elvis,
I see that you have completely dodged the mutation question, so can I assume that you have no answer for it? How about this, not all mutations are deleterious. That's right. Sometimes mutations mean a portion of the gene was left out, other times it was replaced with something else. How can you possibly say that it ALWAYS leads to a loss of information?

You are right that you were talking about Christians, not atheists, but I was making jest. Of course, I also know that you think evolution is atheistic, so my jest still sort of holds to some extent.

My puny arguments? When someone says that whatever evidence they get MUST not contradict their interpretation of the Bible, how is that objective? How is that science? I thought the newest mantra was the follow the science where it leads. That is completely the opposite of making sure your interpretation of the science matches a preconceived notion.

I happen to find it interesting that you assume I have never read the Bible. I'll admit that I haven't read every single word (have you?) but I've read a fair bit of it. But, since I don't agree with you, then obviously I must be wrong, right? So, what makes your interpretations so right? How can you be so sure that you are right and I am wrong? Are you not human? Aren't humans fallible? Isn't there a chance that you too are fallible and are incorrect in this instance? I'll freely admit that God could have created everything in 6 literal days and evolution never occurred. The evidence points against it and I think there are theological problems with it as well, including the necessity of God tricking us into thinking the universe is older than it really is, but I'm willing to posit that it might just be true and I'm wrong. Are you willing to do the same thing? I won't hold my breath, because the smart money is on you making more hubristic remarks, but prove me wrong. Isn't it possible that the evidence really isn't tricking us and that evolution really did happen?
GCT | 11.16.05 - 6:29 am | #

GCT, just a couple of comments.

I thought the newest mantra was the follow the science where it leads.

And look where that has taken us: Nuclear weapons, overconsumption of fossil fuels, pollution, overfishing, massive species extinction...

All of these, and many, many more things, are the consequences of going where the science leads. Sure, many good things have happened as well, but science is regularly used to prop up abusive regimes (like the military industrial complex, the oil industry etc).

It is plain that science is not amoral. It's can't be because people aren't amoral. It is humans that do science; humans who have hopes, beleifs, fears, prejudices and loves. All of this influences how we do science, what we investigate, how we interpret the results and how we construct theories based on those interpretations.

And all this is as it should be. The mantra that we should follow science where it leads is an outdated platitude from the heights of modernism and scientific imperialism and has been thoroughly discredited by a multitude of schoalrs, from both within "science" and outside it.

I am not saying that science is relative, not at all, there is an objective world and we can understand it to a better or worse degree. But any understanding we have will be coloured by our precritical assumptions about how the world works.

So I wouldn't say the mantra to day is to follow science where it leads, and if it is then it should change.

You also wrote: That is completely the opposite of making sure your interpretation of the science matches a preconceived notion.

But don't you see the irony here that most people, not just creationists and IDers do exactly this. We have precritical assumptions about the world and we look to science to back them up. How well it does this is a moot point. Those that hold to philosohpical naturalism (and even methodological naturalism) do *exactly* the same thing they accuse IDer's and creationists of doing.

I wonder if you ahve read the scripture about removing the pank in your own eye before speck in your brothers. The same can equally be said for many IDer's and creationists.
matt | Homepage | 11.16.05 - 7:06 pm | #

Matt,
Methodological Naturalism is not something one "holds." It is a process, one that is used to explore the world around us. That is, and has been your mistake. You keep wanting to say that everyone has preconceived notions, and that is correct, but the goal of science is to free oneself from those notions and adhere to strict methodological naturalism (which is a process remember, not a belief system.)

"Follow the science where it leads" is the DI's mantra. I was poking fun at the fact that Elvis (who seems to have run away again) seemed to be saying the exact opposite of what the DI has been saying.

"And look where that has taken us: Nuclear weapons, overconsumption of fossil fuels, pollution, overfishing, massive species extinction..."

I'm sorry, but those are all policy decisions. Knowing how to use nuclear power through science versus deciding to create a weapon and use it through policy. It is not science that the government has turned a blind eye to fossil fuel consumption, pollution, etc. for the last umpteen years but policy.

Science is amoral. It is what people do with it that can create a problem.

I have a couple questions for you while I'm at it. What is the preconceived notion of an atheist scientist who accepts and studies evolution? What is the preconceived notion of a Christian scientist who accepts and studies evolution? How is it that they can agree to the same theory (minus metaphysical considerations outside of the scope of the science)? See, that's where your complaint falls apart.
GCT | 11.17.05 - 6:46 am | #

GCT,

There you go again. The preconceived notion of an evolutionist is that there has to be evolution. This is irregardless of the stereotype labels you put on to scientists whether they are Christian or atheists. This mind frame makes them biased in their interpretation versus being what you call unbiased science.

Evolutionists are still looking for their transitory animals. Yet, if evolution were true, there would be plenty of transitory animals to find.
Elvis | 11.17.05 - 10:41 pm | #

And, GCT, see Jesus' own words as recorded in John 5:46-47 - For if you believed Moses, you would believe Me; for he wrote of Me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My words?

In all your haughtiness, you do know that Moses recorded the first five books of the Bible, right? That would include Genesis, the first book.

Don't look to me for your guidance. If you need help, I'm here to help. Only God can lead you. Look to God and read His word.
Elvis | 11.17.05 - 10:53 pm | #

Elvis,
Is it a preconceived notion that the Earth revolves around the sun, or established by volumes of data? Is it a preconceived notion that gravity exists, or established by volumes of data. The volumes of data (and transitional fossils) speak toward accepting evolution, not be preconception but because of the data. I suggest you do some research on transitional fossils from somewhere other than AiG, which admits up front that they take the Bible first and make the data fit it.

Of course, you were answering my question, so let me respond to your answer by saying that if the atheist scientist and the Christian scientist both accept evolution for the sake of evolution, why do you think that there has to be a theological divide?

Now, let me ask you the question you ran away from in the other discussion. I freely admit that I may be wrong; evolution might be completely wrong and God may have created the universe, Earth, man, etc. in 6 literal days. Will you similarly admit that your interpretations of scripture may be wrong and that evolution is correct, or are you infallible?

Also, once again I will ask you why you assume I have not read the Bible? I'll admit I have not read every word, but I've read a fair bit of it, but you seem to think I've never even picked it up. Why is that? Is it because my interpretations vary from yours?
GCT | 11.18.05 - 8:44 am | #

Elvis wrote:

"Evolutionists are still looking for their transitory animals. Yet, if evolution were true, there would be plenty of transitory animals to find."

What would you call a seal, Elvis? All species are transitional forms; you may just be biased by your own frame of reference of time.

Shaggy
Shaggy Maniac | 11.18.05 - 1:02 pm | #

Seals, walruses, otters; legless skinks and legged snakes; okapis; monotremes; there are lots of transitional animals around. And we haven't even mentioned ring species, which are collections of dozens of transitionals.
Ed Darrell | 11.18.05 - 10:36 pm | #

What did they transition from? Not even your great Darwin claims these types of animals to be transitional. Why do you?

Why don't the museums of science put up these animals as transitional forms? Because they are not transitional forms. Only in you trying to make things fit into evolution do you call them transitional in your own minds.

GCT, you make your own assumption that you don't read the Bible. If you think that if I say read the Bible, it means that you haven't read it, that is all you. Or, if I remind you of Moses' books, since not many people seem to know that. How do you know that it doesn't mean read it more carefully? Retain the truth and knowledge that you read in the Bible. That is why we all need to continue to read, not just you, because there is just too much information to absorb all at once to remember.

Miracles happen in the Bible. Creation is no different than the miracles of God. Your evolution needs the origins. If you really look into the origins by evolutionists, you will note that the primordal soup envisioned by evolutionists just won't work. The protein chains needed would not be intact long enough, what would be the cause for protein chains to assemble in the first place, how does a complete cell come to form with just some protein molecules, and so forth. Cells are very complex items including single celled organisms. You can't have a living cell without all its parts. Simplified, evolution does not explain life.

No one has proven evolution. There are those who make the fantastic claims in the threads for transitory animals, but in the end that is all big talk by evolutionary hopefuls.
Elvis | 11.19.05 - 11:11 pm | #

Elvis,
I see you are not big enough to even admit that your interpretations might be wrong. So, you must be infallible? Are you trying to put yourself on the same level as God? What hubris you display. Perhaps you should read the parts in the Bible that talk about humility?

Another question for you, let's say God created the first single celled organism (although current abiogenetic theories do not require a full cell to be formed first), why could evolution not take over from there? As long as the first cell is there, evolution can take over and develop all life.

Also, no one has proven evolution to 100%, that's not how science works. Of course, has anyone "proven" the Bible? Has anyone "proven" the literal 6 day interpretation? It is completely intellectually dishonest of you to require 100% proof for evolution, but accept the other stories on faith alone.
GCT | 11.20.05 - 9:12 am | #

GCT,

How pompous can you get? But, typical of the evolutionist train of thought - make big sweeping assumptions and call it true without verification. If you are inferring that God be put to the test, you are out of line again. Let's see Deuteronomy 6:16 states "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test, as you tested Him as Massah." The Bible is right there in front of you. You just have to go read it. As I have said before, no one reads the Bible once and knows everything. One must continue to read it over and over to bring out the knowledge the Bible contains. Is that such a difficult thing to understand?

You already have God's miracles as a confirmation that God is here with us.

You are intellectually dishonest to think that a partial cell is alive and can sustain itself until it "evolves" into a complete cell. What is he ecosystem that this "animal" thrives in? What is written in John 5:46-47? Then what does the Genesis account say about Creation?
Elvis | 11.20.05 - 5:52 pm | #

GCT,
What does "intellectually dishonest" mean?
John | 11.20.05 - 8:22 pm | #

So, Elvis, you have proof of God? 100% verifiable proof? If not, then all you are doing is blowing hot air. You don't need 100% proof of God (and the Bible even says not to look for it) but you require that of evolution? I see the double standard, do you? But, I forgot that you are infallible in your interpretations. Once again I will ask you why I should accept your religious pronouncements and interpretations over anyone else's? When I have heard many other Christians say that the Genesis account does not mean 6 literal days (Mr. Heddle himself does not believe in the 6 literal day creation) then why should I choose your interpretation over theirs? When the last pope said that he found no inherent conflict between the science of evolution and Christianity (or Catholicism if that makes you feel better) why should I disregard him and listen to you? When I can go into the Bible and find no inherent conflict myself, why should I disregard my own interpretations and follow yours instead? What makes you think you are so right? Isn't it possible that your interpretations are incorrect? Why can't you even allow for that possibility? It's plain hubris that you can't and I think that everyone can see that (with the possible exception of John in the comment above.)

John, I think my comment speaks for itself. It is intellectually dishonest for Elvis to accept the Biblical account with less evidence than evolution, and also to reject evolution for certain reasons while disregarding those reasons in his acceptance of the Biblical account.
GCT | 11.21.05 - 6:25 am | #

The word “dishonest” implies deceit. Is it deceitful if one doesn’t find the evidence for evolution convincing?
John | 11.21.05 - 11:34 am | #

No, it is deceitful to reject one theory for reason A, then to accept another in spite of A. It is deceitful to require 100% proof from evolution while accepting the Bible on faith (thus not having 100% proof in the Bible.)
Anonymous | 11.21.05 - 2:25 pm | #

Oops, that last comment is by me. It wasn't supposed to be "Anonymous."
GCT | 11.21.05 - 3:24 pm | #

GCT,

So, you put evolution on the same level as God. That is just so wrong, too.

I don't require that God prove Himself, because I believe in God. Besides, God has proven Himself through the Bible and the miracles that He provides. Things that you appear to reject.

I do not compromise the Word of God for some flaky theory.

You call evolution a science of which needs proof in order to do it scientifically. Therefore, in order for people to take evolution, it must be proven. Else, evolution is just some sort of religion.

You can use all the names you want, but in the end you need to research the Word of God.
Elvis | 11.21.05 - 6:46 pm | #

Elvis,
Do you have 100% proof of God? Can you be sure that the miracles are truly miracles and that the Bible is truly God-inspired? I mean 100% sure? That's what you require of evolution, so in order to be fair, you should require that of all things.

I never said evolution is/was/will be proven. In fact, I said that that is not how science works. We can be very sure of the correctness of evolution, but we may never be 100% sure. The fact that you will not accept any of the evidence just means that you are not willing to consider that your interpretations might just be wrong, which is why I called your attitude "hubris." I'm not putting evolution on the same level as God (quite the contrary, I'm saying science and religion are two completely separate things) but you seem to be putting yourself on the same level as God, seeing as how you are all infallible and all. I hope you can see how hippocritical you are by doing that.
GCT | 11.22.05 - 6:33 am | #

GCT,

One does not have to be infallible to read Genesis and see how God created instead of replacing God with evolution.

It's spelled out in whatever language translation you want to read it.

Let's see 100% proof for God is all around you, but you fail to see how LIFE is from God. Use your evolution to explain life. It can't. God gives life to where there is no life.
Elvis | 11.22.05 - 6:23 pm | #

Elvis

You are putting your faith in a fiction book, there is no evidence that the Bible is divinely inspired. In fact your only evidence of the Bibles’ divinity is in the book itself. That is like asking me to believe that the poodle boy from the World Daily News is real because the paper itself says so.

There is no evidence that the apostles actually wrote the gospels. There are no original surviving manuscripts; and the earliest copies are from hundreds of years after the alleged death of Christ. The few names that are in the epistles are vague; for instance Paul could be any Paul not necessarily the apostle. Another issue; in peter 5:12 it says that Silvanus wrote it. At any rate the gospels cannot be used as a historical account they are hearsay at best.

It appears that the words Jesus and Christ are actually bad mergers from Greek, Irish and Egyptian mythos, but if there was a person named Jesus and he did 1/1000th of what was claimed, other people in that region would have taken note. Many so called messiahs were executed by the Romans in those times, but there is no record of a Jesus.

That region was the record keeping center for the Jews at that time. So there was no shortage of paper or scribes to record his actions. We have records for dog breeders and pig sales, yet no one bothered to write down anything about their God?

The Bible claims that Jesus was as famous as Michael Jackson, but not one person in the world wrote a single sentence about him during his lifetime? Sure.

Add to this that there is no record in the historic documents of a city, town, or village called Nazareth. Yet the records of the populace centers in that area are quite thorough.

As a historian these are the first few of the problems that spring up when the Bible starts being used as a factual book. There are MANY more. And historians are learning more about the myth of Christianity all of the time.

At any rate if you want to punch holes in evolution, (and they do exist) you will have to be ready to have the same thing done to the Bible.

If anyone has any interest in learning more check out

www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
and
www.taroscopes.com/astro-theology/ astrotheology.html

Later
Frank | 11.22.05 - 10:51 pm | #

Frank,

That's too bad you take that perspective. You can check out sites that support archeological facts of the Bible, too.

http://www.christiananswers.net/...et/archaeology/

Yes, there are other writings that validate events around the Bible. I suggest some research into this area versus spending your time trying to debunk God.

It is the other way round, historians/archeologists are learning the importance of the Bible and using it to help with their digs.

You want an example? Sodom and Gomorrah were considered "myths" until they were discovered.

Just one thing - explain life. Why do you exist as a living being? If you believe in rocks deciding to come to life by themselves, you are mistaken. It takes God to provide life.
Elvis | 11.23.05 - 5:06 pm | #

Elvis

Actually I check out all of the sites I can find, but I don’t quote the stupid ones.

Just because a city mentioned in the Bible actually existed, means nothing. Archeologists found what they believe to be the city of Troy, does that mean that the Greek gods actually fought battles along side the heroes in Homers Iliad and Odyssey? What would you say actually happened? I don’t know either, all we can do is speculate, but I don’t think either of us is going to start worshipping Zeus.

Yet here you stand with similar evidence planted in front of you about the Bible and you will not even consider the possibility that it could be made up. The Egyptian Cults of the time have some amazing similarities, take a look;

The Egyptian mythical Horus, god of light and goodness has many parallels to Jesus. [Leedom, Massey] For some examples:

Horus and the Father as one
Horus, the Father seen in the Son
Horus, light of the world, represented by the symbolical eye, the sign of salvation.
Horus served the way, the truth, the life by name and in person
Horus baptized with water by Anup (Jesus baptized with water by John)
Horus the Good Shepherd
Horus as the Lamb (Jesus as the Lamb)
Horus as the Lion (Jesus as the Lion)
Horus identified with the Tat Cross (Jesus with the cross)
The trinity of Atum the Father, Horus the Son, Ra the Holy Spirit
Horus the avenger (Jesus who brings the sword)
Horus the afflicted one
Horus as life eternal
Twelve followers of Horus as Har-Khutti (Jesus' 12 disciples)

This is not some vast trick being played by the scientists; it is just an honest translation.

Everything in the Bible is hearsay at best, and lies from a corrupt church at worst. I believe that it is most likely a combination of both. The proof of its fallibility lies in its own writing. If there was a God why would his inspired works need whole teams of people to determine the meaning of many of its passages? If the Bible was inspired by God why is that it can be perverted so easily to evil works? To say that we simply cannot understand God is equally as unintelligent. If God created us, he could have given us the ability to understand him. Couple this with the fact that he must have made the earth look older than it is, knowing that many of us would misinterpret the data, and you have a pretty shady deity. If this is your God master of tricks then you can have him.

I can show you through translation the true meaning of the words Jesus and Christ, and that they were made up, not a real person’s name. But you cling to your false hope because you are afraid to face the world without the crutch of false belief.

Check this out:
The divine title "Lord", in the New Testament, is translated from the Greek "Kuros," which is the Persian name for the sun; God is "Gad," and Ammonian name for the sun; Jehovah by translation and declension, become Jupiter, which, is "the sun itself." Deity is from the Latin "Deus," which is traceable to "dies," a day - a period of time measured by the sun; Jesus is from "Jes"...which means "the one great fire from the sun," and Christ is derived from "Chris," a Chaldean term for the sun - Kersey Graves (Bible of Bibles, 1863 AD)

And this:
The following agreement in the writings under the names of "Matthew," "Mark," and "Luke," regarding the impression made upon the people by the teachings of Jesus, is an example which shows plainly the work of the forging priests. It would be impossible for such agreement to have occurred in the original writings of any three men writing individually and independently...Here is forged testimony: Matthew says: "They were astonished at his doctrine" (22:33), Mark says: "They were astonished at his doctrine" (1:22), Luke says: "They were astonished at his doctrine." (55:32) - Conor Mac Dari (Irish Wisdom Preserved in the Bible and Pyramids, 1923)

I have seen the Christian/Bible historic stuff but most of what they claim to find turns out to be falsified. They jump to conclusions because they are desperate to find the answers that their religion cannot, and never will answer. One problem is that religion in the past few decades is loosing credibility. Let me refer you to some artifacts.

The Shroud of Turin… Fake, not only was it painted but it was painted badly, the image on one side is taller than on the opposite, the hands were to big and it was dated at about 1200 to 1300 CE.

The Burial Box of James…Forged, the person who did it went to jail.

The spear that pierced Christ’s side… Fake, probably a 7th century forgery. In addition, it was the wrong type of spear. Any good roman of the time would not have been caught dead with a normal spear, they used the pilum. For a roman soldier to use a common spear, is the equivalent of a modern soldier using a musket.

To say God did it, just does not cut it for a lot of people anymore. So when people of faith attack, this is the type of response that free thinkers are going to bring to bear.

I have never said that life sprang from a rock, but you want me to believe that it came from a lump of clay. God made it. Ooooh, really… want to explain how he did it? While you’re at it can you explain the technology behind the workings of Santa’s sleigh? Oh wait… God did it, that’s right.

I have never claimed to know the origin of life, and to the best of my knowledge neither does Science. (I am just as happy without that knowledge.) Science does have some Ideas, although they have yet to be proven, or falsified.

Elvis you seem to have a very firm grasp of the Biblical writings, so I have a test for you. If you do nothing else, answer no other questions put to you in this thread, can you please tell me where in the bible it gives a physical description of Jesus? If you can’t, how do you know that the image that you have placed your faith in is the real image of Jesus? If it is in fact not the real image of Christ then aren’t you worshiping a false idle? Wouldn’t that make you guilty of violating the most important of commandments?

Lastly I do not mind that people have faith in God. I do not have faith, but I have seen it help people through some rough times. I do however, mind when people of faith try to push their beliefs on the rest of us. Case in point ID.

ID is dangerous because it has the capacity to hurt our education system. It would allow mythical thinking in a logical setting. Add this to the fact that the US is already falling far behind in the logical fields like science and math and we are compounding the problem.

Later
Frank | 11.23.05 - 9:25 pm | #

Frank,

I'd suggest you do better research in the Word of God. Christians should not be worshiping images as in idols. If you are trying to quote one of the Commandments, what is that Commandment saying? Don't worship false idols (as in human created things that people end up worshipping). These human created things can be money (as many people worship money), sports figures, actors, weapons, trees, animals, weather, rocks, etc. Don't quote from the stupid ones. Worshipping God is not idol worship.

If you say people are pushing their faith on you, it is most apparent that you are pushing your atheistic views on others. Athesism is a belief in itself.
Elvis | 11.23.05 - 10:30 pm | #

Elvis

First of all I am not an Atheist, I'm Agnostic, meaning that I remain unaffiliated. I am currently reading the Bible but I do not see anything devine about it. I do not totally trust evoloution either but it at least has supporting fossel records, and can one day be proven false if they are indeed wrong. I normally do not talk about my beliefs outside of blogging except when asked and then I attempt to be as respectfull as possible. But when attacked, I attack back.

I only bring up these arguments for two reasons.

One, I wanted to see how open minded you were. It appears not at all. That’s Ok your not alone.

Two, to show you what is to come. These arguments are sprouting up all over the net, Free thinkers, Evolutionists, Atheists and non-religious types are arming themselves with this information all over the country.

As far as the false idol thing, it was just a hypethetical question based off of the information that the old Christian frescos found in the Roman catacombs was depicted as a blonde short haired youth. The common version that is used today did not come into use until the renaissance.

I do not have a problem with ID in general, my concern is only with putting it in science class. Science has an established process, it works for them. Right or wrong it is their way and it has worked out more often then it has failed. If evolution is false it will eventually be sorted out one way or another. Asking them to accept ID would upset the critical thinking necessary for a neutral testing process. If we allow for leaps of faith without supporting evidence in science, we will be taking a giant step backwards. The US would be the laughing stock of the world, and our children, who are already lacking in this field, would not be able to compete in the international community.

As of right now science and religion have a good but strained relationship. We have seen the results of religion without science it was called the Dark Ages. Please do not try to send us down that road again.

Later
Frank | 11.24.05 - 8:51 pm | #

Elvis

I hope you do not feel too comfortable in your handling of the questions I posed.

If your entire stance is going to be to stand there red faced stomping your feet and saying,

"It takes God to provide life."
and ,
"I'd suggest you do better research in the Word of God."

then your movement is in real trouble. By saying God created life you have not really answered the question. You have in fact added two more questions. Now my questions become Ok then how did this God character create life, who is this God guy anyway and where did this God guy come from?

If you try to answer these questions my next Question will be "How can you possibly know that?"

Don’t get me wrong, Evolution does not have the answers either. The friction comes from both parties having members that are guilty of saying that they do.

I remain unaffiliated

Later
Frank | 11.24.05 - 9:45 pm | #

Frank,

Why would ID make anyone the laughing stock? Evolutionists take generous leaps of faith in their extrapolation without proof. Shouldn't that make evolutionists the laughing stock?

I am not in a movement as you say. If anyone truly had an open mind to look at the facts and the logic, God is the best answer.

Look at what evolutionists call a simple cell. It's really not that simple of a creature. It has many parts that need to work all at once in order for it to survive. It also needs an ecosystem to survive. Where did its life come from? Where did it get assembled all at once?

Look at the multicellular animals. If some change happened to something, where did its mate come from?

Look at the Laws of thermodynamics. Why is the 2nd Law violated in forming higher energy more complex items for replication and life that is suggested by evolutionists? Oh yes, and the sticky life question again.

As for the fossil record, here is a thought experiment for you. If there was a great global catastrophy today. The life forms from the bottom of the ocean to the land animals get buried. Doesn't that mirror the order of the animal life forms in the fossil record? What humans deem as simple life dwells at the bottom of the ocean while the higher life dwells on land.

God provides answers in the Bible. However, there are many answers that we may not understand now. I believe the mathematician Pascal put something to his critics like - If by me believing in God what have I lost if God turns out not to be true? Think of the corollary - If one does not believe in God what have you lost if God turns out to be true?

Instead of standing there stomping read faced on where is God, look at the wonderful creation around you and say that God is all around.
Elvis | 11.24.05 - 11:08 pm | #

Elvis

I am never red faced; I am having a good time. I am just sitting here laughfing most of the time.

You keep asking questions, but you have not answered a single one of mine.

If your God has the answers why can't you pass them along to me?

As a neutral observer in this whole argument I can say this, just having someone read the Bible does nothing to further your claim.

and you still can't answer my most important questions?

How did God create life? Who is God? and Where did God come from?

Yet you demand the same information from Science. Christianity has has a 3,000 year head start and they do not have any better answers.

lastly I will not fall for the old trick, "what’s the harm in believing, just in case. You don't want to go to Hell do you?"

For that to work, I would first have to believe in Hell.

Later
Frank | 11.25.05 - 7:36 am | #

Elvis

Sorry, I forgot to answer your last reasonable question.

"Why would ID make anyone the laughing stock? Evolutionists take generous leaps of faith in their extrapolation without proof. Shouldn't that make evolutionists the laughing stock?"

I will restate my position from before.

1. ID is dangerous because it has the capacity to hurt our education system. It would allow mythical thinking in a logical setting.

2. Science has an established process, it works for them. Right or wrong it is their way and it has worked out more often then it has failed. If evolution is false it will eventually be sorted out one way or another. Asking them to accept ID would upset the critical thinking necessary for a neutral testing process. If we allow for leaps of faith without supporting evidence in science, we will be taking a giant step backwards.

3. To say that Evolutionists make leaps of faith is not exactly true either. Scientists put forth hypothesis that are derived from the evidence at hand. That Hypothesis is then tested, and the data that would falsify the hypothesis is determined and also tested for. If the hypothesis stands up then it becomes a theory. Even as a theory the new idea is still tested rigorously, for both support and fallibility. It is true that the scientific community has extremists just like religion, and just like religion it has people who believe on faith who do not really understand the theory. But to push a religious based idea which even the church has said is not provable into the testable world of science is just a ghastly idea.

The schools that have taken ID into their science curriculum have already begun to see problems.

The board's 6-4 vote reverses a 2001 decision that affirmed Darwin's theory of natural selection. That vote came two years after most references to the theory were removed from state standards, making Kansas the butt of jokes by scientists and late-night comedians.

"You're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, the answer is yes," Bush said.

Sen. Rick Santorum, R-Pa., pushed for language in federal law asking public schools to teach criticism of evolution.

The Discovery Institute used the momentum to actively encourage school districts to turn a critical eye on evolution. In 2002, it helped persuade Ohio to change its curriculum so teachers could present criticism of evolution in science classes and in May of this year, Discovery officials helped convince the Kansas state school board to do the same thing.

Now, some school boards are pushing beyond the Discovery strategy. Earlier this year, the school board in Dover, Pa., was sued for violating the separation of church and state after mandating a textbook teaching intelligent design.
USA today

We have received thousands of emails from scientists around the world. At first, they all tried to explain good science to us. After the vote last week, however, they have resorted to calling us hillbillies and morons. And those are the nice letters!
Sincerely,
Carol Rupe
Kansas State Board of Education

"It's a shame," says Eugenie Scott, director of the National Center for Science Education, "because if these standards are actually introduced into the curriculum and shape how biology students will be trained for the next several years, those kids are in for a big shock when they go to college, because they're going to learn that what they had been taught by their teachers in high schools is a lot of rubbish."

It wasn't enough for them to undermine the teaching of biology by falsifying a scientific controversy over evolution. No, the Board of Education went as far as to redefine what science is: it's no longer just a search for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Now it's a search for... well, that's a bit hard to say. Any sort of explanation, apparently. Pixies, ghosts, telekinesis, auras, ancient astronauts, excesses of choleric humor, they all seem to be fair game in the interest of "academic freedom." Oh, and God, of course. The Board might not say that because it could get them into trouble with the Supreme Court, but can anyone say with a straight face that getting God into the science classes isn't the goal of the people who pushed for these changes?

Students from Kansas will still manage to get into colleges, at least if the colleges aren't too picky about preparation in science, and at least some of those students will come to realize how backward their public educations were, and they'll scramble to compensate. The students who don't will surely find work in fields other than science. If Kansas becomes scientifically irrelevant for a while, I'm sure that plenty of other places, inside the U.S. and out, can pick up the slack. John Rennie of Scientific American

"This is a sad day. We're becoming a laughingstock of not only the nation, but of the world, and I hate that," said board member Janet Waugh, a Kansas City Democrat.

This is a very small sampling of the scientific community’s thoughts on the ID problem. Not just here in America either so yes it is safe to say Laughing stock.
Frank | 11.26.05 - 12:23 am | #

Elvis,
"One does not have to be infallible to read Genesis and see how God created instead of replacing God with evolution.

It's spelled out in whatever language translation you want to read it."
Many people interpret Scripture to say that God used evolution. It's not an either/or dichotomy here. One does not either believe in God or in evolution. So, it's really YOUR interpretation that God could not have used evolution. So, I ask again, isn't it possible that YOUR interpretation may be wrong, or are you infallible?

"Let's see 100% proof for God is all around you, but you fail to see how LIFE is from God. Use your evolution to explain life. It can't. God gives life to where there is no life."
That is simply an argument from ignorance. You don't know how life originated, so it must have been God. Making logical fallacies does not constitute proof.

"Athesism is a belief in itself."

Oh yeah? What is it a belief in then?

"If anyone truly had an open mind to look at the facts and the logic, God is the best answer."

Not according to Occam's Razor.

"Look at the Laws of thermodynamics. Why is the 2nd Law violated in forming higher energy more complex items for replication and life that is suggested by evolutionists?"

Completely false.

http://www.talkorigins.org/index...c/CF/ CF001.html

"As for the fossil record, here is a thought experiment for you. If there was a great global catastrophy today. The life forms from the bottom of the ocean to the land animals get buried. Doesn't that mirror the order of the animal life forms in the fossil record? What humans deem as simple life dwells at the bottom of the ocean while the higher life dwells on land."

No. Do you really think there are no simple organisms on land?

"I believe the mathematician Pascal put something to his critics like - If by me believing in God what have I lost if God turns out not to be true? Think of the corollary - If one does not believe in God what have you lost if God turns out to be true?"

That's a howler. OK, so those who do not believe should believe just in case, because an all-powerful God would not see through their clever ruse and figure out that they are simply believing "just in case" which I think you would agree is not true belief.
GCT | 11.28.05 - 7:54 am | #