December 20, 2008

Silly Atheistic Elitist Logic

My friend Josh and I had a nice discussion about the future. He was teasing me because I had so many children and linked to this video:

Here is the beginning of the movie, that will probably be taken down soon. Rated R, bad language and Adult subject matter:



I posed the question, "How can someone believe in evolution if we're seeing humans becoming dumber?" in relationship to the clip. "Especially since you believe we have been around for 100,000 years. We must of really been smart that many years ago."

Josh said that "we are working opposite of evolution because we are VIOLATING nature by being human" and that "Man DOES have influence, but the laws are the same what man does does not always benefit nature or mankind, but the long run, nature's laws win."

So according to the movie "the dumb" are the predominate species. They are the ones that were thrown back into the proverbial ocean as the Heike Crab (because of the superstition that Japanese fisherman had about it looking like a Samurai's face.)

Josh said that "the "smart" people have put their minds and work to themselves and not considered the survival of mankind as an importance." Josh also threw out this gem during the conversation "[I]f we were a responsible society, we'd embrace eugenics, and encourage self reliance, and not feed those who can't feed themselves. Hitler knew this damn well"

I concluded with "future smart people will be dumb by default since they failed to evolve and maintain heritage" and "so then the smart people of today are the dumbest of tomorrow" The Ignotheists, sorry atheist intellects, portrayed in this video are in fact the not so smart ones. If evolution is truth (we all know the contrary) then, as in eugenics, to render one self's genetic line extinct is not very smart, in the evolutionary model that is. So then "smart" is subjective, and its the "dumb ones" that are portrayed in this video that are the true smart ones.

To which Josh agreed

92 comments:

  1. If you like rock/metal, this is quite complimentary to that piece:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VntFEWF8I8A

    If you don't like metal, the first 30 seconds are still worth it (and not that bad as far as metal goes).

    It's definitely a phenomenon happening globally. But if we wanted to counter-act it, what are we supposed to do? Eugenics? Hrmm, I hope not.

    In Alberta Canada in the 1930s, the government sterlized "idiots" and "morons" to prevent them from having children. Turns out the kids they sterlized were just poor, not dumb.

    I grew up in a working class family. Through the recession of the 80's my Dad literally hunted to keep food on our table. My family was bigger (4 kids) than most of the richers kids in my family. By all accounts you'd think we were blinking idiots. But in grade 7 I scored in the top 5% of Canada on a national math test. My sister scored in the top 3%. She has a masters degree, I do too and now I'm working on my PhD.

    I think if we want to counteract this, we need more social programs to helps kids growing up in large disadvantaged get the education and support they need to leave this lifestyle.

    I'm personally going to fight against the trend by having as many pamperd yuppy babies as my uterus will allow.

    ReplyDelete
  2. *rich kids in my class (not family)

    ReplyDelete
  3. MG,

    I'm personally going to fight against the trend by having as many pamperd yuppy babies as my uterus will allow.

    YES!! Alright, now that is the spirit! Have any yet? They are a true blessing! They soften your heart so much you know there is a God afterwards.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Why the assumption that we are evolving toward the intellectual? A common misconception of evolutionary theory is that it works toward "perfection". As perfection is an abstract, subjective concept based only on thoughts created by firing neurons in the human brain - it logically follows that "perfection" could not have been conceived before the human brain was capable of sustaining the concept. Evolution created a brain capable of sustaining such concepts, therefore the notion of "perfection" is merely a by-product of an ongoing, non-sentient process of advantageous random mutations. Furthermore, any advantageous mutation is only relative to its surrounding environment. Therefore, if the temperature of the earth was hotter (for instance), then many mutations considered advantageous in our current, colder climate would be decidedly unadvantageous. This in itself would suggest that the word "perfect" really means "perfectly adapted to current surroundings", which in turn denies the existence of an objective, universal "perfection".

    In the current climate the intellectual flourishes, but does not necessarily reproduce voraciously. This task seems to be performed by the less-educated demographic of society, assisted by the medical advances and advice proffered by the intellectual. This would imply that the ongoing survival of the human race requires a co-existence between a handful of intellectuals and masses of lesser-educated individuals. In this manner the elite are provided with a veritable army of strong, healthy, unquestioning members of society ideally suited to the functions of war and hard labour, which in turn improve the quality of life for intellectuals who physically could not "fight their corner" should it come down to it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. It's more of a Marxist debate than an evolutionary one... I reckon :)

    ReplyDelete
  6. This should segue nicely into a discussion on abortion, I should think, but I think we've all seen that rather than the meek, the retarded will inherit the earth...

    This is why we must focus on educating all humans, and convincing them that ridiculous and outdated concepts like the Catholic doctrine that contraception is a sin, or that watching NASCAR is somehow beneficial to anyone at all...

    If we actually take steps to eliminate stupidity, in whatever forms it might take, and encourage rational thought rather than dogmatic acceptance (don't think I don't know what you're thinking right now), we may yet be able to avoid the sort of future Luke Wilson portrays in this film.

    I will say that despite the admittedly fascist overtones, people should be required to demonstrate a reasonable intelligence, a reasonable level of financial stability, and above all they should be required to demonstrate some knowledge of how to actually care for a child -- before they can "possess" their offspring. The "right" to procreate should be licensed.

    In this way, an extremely dumbed-down society could easily be avoided, but alas, it would never happen... Perhaps that's best, really, but if that ideal cannot be realized, then at least one of education-for-all could be...

    ...or so I can dream.

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  7. Evolution is not conducive to better and better anything. It just happens. Whatever can survive survives.

    If, the way Dan states this thread, the dumb will be most if not all of the population, then, by all means, humanity would be condemned to self-destruct, as it seems to be doing. So, in the end, humanity would be just one more species to disappear from the face of the Earth. Hopefully not taking everything else with it.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sarah wrote: Evolution created a brain capable of sustaining such concepts, therefore the notion of "perfection" is merely a by-product of an ongoing, non-sentient process of advantageous random mutations.

    cre⋅ate   /kriˈeɪt/
    verb, -at⋅ed, -at⋅ing, adjective
    –verb (used with object)
    1. to cause to come into being, as something unique that would not naturally evolve or that is not made by ordinary processes.
    2. to evolve from one's own thought or imagination, as a work of art or an invention.
    3. Theater. to perform (a role) for the first time or in the first production of a play.
    4. to make by investing with new rank or by designating; constitute; appoint: to create a peer.
    5. to be the cause or occasion of; give rise to: The announcement created confusion.
    6. to cause to happen; bring about; arrange, as by intention or design: to create a revolution; to create an opportunity to ask for a raise.

    -----------------
    It always cracks me up when an evolutionist invokes the name of Evolution, natural selection, or even Mother Nature like they are intelligent beings, then deny such in the same breath.
    It seems that the notion of creation is allowed as long as it is not God.
    Even alien seeding is ok, but God?
    That would be ridiculous.
    --------------------

    Dan,
    I believe Josh touched on his eugenic views in the debate on NM radio.
    I agree with Modern Girl, when considering Death Metal enthusiasts
    it's difficult not to go there. ;-)

    But it's impossible to deny that secular humanist Darwinism has produced such evil eugenics programs in the past, and they are alive today in Planned Parenthood.
    The foundations of which were built on a eugenics program.
    Most PP clinics are in inner city black neighborhoods. Go figure.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well, a different scenario would be that dumbs dominate the population, utter destruction comes by, that leads to smarts helping humanity survive, prosperity, dumbs go to dominate again, again utter destruction, smarts play again, prosperity, dumbs, destruction, smarts, prosperity ... the cycle of humanity? Unless those destructions leave very little genetic backgrounds for intelligence to improve ...

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  10. GE- Evolution is not conducive to better and better anything. It just happens.

    It just happens?
    Sounds like "God did it" to me.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Yeah OK Dan, I said "created". I'm talking about microevolution here, so not even you can deny that this occurs.

    Don't get uptight about semantics, it doesn't prove anything.

    OK, our brains are the product of evolutionary process. If you don't believe that human brains have changed rather dramatically over the years, then seriously throw the towel in. We know brains used to be smaller, from skeletons with smaller cranial capacity that when tested match human DNA.

    Are you seriously denying this?

    Seriously?

    I'm not an evolutionist either. I just believe the parts that I understand through sensory revelation to be true. I do not adopt the parts that I don't understand as some sort of "faith".

    Get it right.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It always cracks me up when an evolutionist invokes the name of Evolution, natural selection, or even Mother Nature like they are intelligent beings, then deny such in the same breath.

    It is called figure of speech Dani'El. I know this is forbidden in your worldview, but it is not in mine. However, I somewhat agree with you, I rather avoid using too many such figures of speech because they can be misleading, or can be taken seriously. You know, some people just do not have the brains to notice when a figure of speech is in use. Others, such as the presuppos or other similar hypocrites, do understand figures of speech, yet, pretend not to understand them for later use in "unrighteous mocking" of people who believe differently. ;-D

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It just happens?
    Sounds like "God did it" to me.


    Of course it sounds like that to you Dani'El. You know, it could help you to have a deeper and thorough education so that you would be able to properly understand things that do not refer to the Bible or to your God. Otherwise, you are condemned to misunderstand anything said about almost anything. You have too few points of reference.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Cmon Princess, don't be angry with me.
    Can't we discuss religion and politics and be.............well that's difficult innit? ;-)

    S- I'm not an evolutionist either. I just believe the parts that I understand through sensory revelation to be true. I do not adopt the parts that I don't understand as some sort of "faith".

    It sounds like your evolving into a pressupp.
    One thing we have in common. Evolution bores me.

    ------
    GE-
    You could use some spiritual discernment.
    Everything and I mean everything points to God and the spiritual realm.
    Your precious education has only blinded you to this.

    Shalom Dani' El

    Off topic-
    Huckabee cracked a joke today.
    OJ Simpson finally was convicted and hell froze over.
    It snowed in Vegas yesterday.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Dani'El:
    But it's impossible to deny that secular humanist Darwinism has produced such evil eugenics programs in the past, and they are alive today in Planned Parenthood.
    The foundations of which were built on a eugenics program.
    Most PP clinics are in inner city black neighborhoods. Go figure.

    Go learn some history, Dani'El: "Darwinism" had compartively little to do with eugenics than the arts of animal husbandry and human traditions.

    Eugenics has been around for a long time: From the second link:
    In fact, eugenics is pretty much as old as human society, and pervasive throughout its history. Most cultures of course have prohibitions against incest, and several US States still ban marriage even between third-degree relatives (first cousins). The Talmud explicitly endorses negative eugenics when it forbids marriage for individuals coming from families with perceived hereditary defects (e.g. lepers and epileptics), and positive eugenics by encouraging marriages with members of scholarly families (a bit self-serving from the highly educated Talmudic authors, for sure!).


    Do some reading, please. Creationists themselves have been noted eugenicists.

    The most notable of these anti-evolution eugenics supporters was probably William J. Tinkle, geneticist and prominent Creationist. Tinkle taught at religious LaVerne College and Taylor University, and participated in the activities of the Deluge Society, the first “Creation Science” organization. He then joined forces with the “young lions” of Creationism, Henry Morris, Duane Gish and Walter Lammerts, and with them he was one of the 10 Founding Fathers of the Creation Research Society, which later became the Institute for Creation Research.

    Tinkle opposed evolution and Darwinian theory, but was an enthusiastic proponent of eugenics, and published several articles on the subject. In his 1939 textbook “Fundamentals of Zoology” he devotes a section to “The Need of Human Betterment”, where he laments the existence of “defective families” who “give birth to offspring like themselves” , producing “persons of low mentality, paupers and criminals in much greater ratio than the general population” [8, p. 130]. Negative eugenics via institutionalization seems to have been his preferred eugenic solution:

    It is an excellent plan to keep defective people in institutions for here they are not permitted to marry and bear children.[8, p. 131]

    and

    [Scientists who are working at the task of improving the human race] would like to increase the birth rate of families having good heredity, while those people having poor heredity should not marry at all.[8, p. 131]

    ReplyDelete
  16. Reynold,
    I never said that the evils of eugenics programs were limited to secular atheist evolutionists.

    Hitler was a pagan occultist after all.
    But the doctrines of natural selection have often been the justification for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot and other atheist regimes.

    If the creationists you mentioned were professing christians they were hypocrites in that they were clearly in disobedience to the commands of Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Reynold-
    Isn't your last post called a Tu quo que argument?

    ReplyDelete
  18. Dani'El,

    Everything and I mean everything points to God and the spiritual realm.
    Your precious education has only blinded you to this.


    See what I said? Your limited points of reference again.

    But the doctrines of natural selection have often been the justification for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot and other atheist regimes.

    Nope, it would be power/control through fear, not any "doctrines of natural selection." Same thing tried by religions such as Christianity: believe or burn. Oftentimes in history taken too much to literally.

    I agree with you that groups of Christians doing wrong does not mean that is what Christianity is/should be about. Now, since you can notice that religions (even Christianity) have been used as excuse for wrongdoing, but you still think Christianity is not that, how then you cannot concede that people making bad use of scientific knowledge does not mean that the knowledge is false? Nor that the knowledge itself is evil?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  19. GE,
    I would think you are the one with the limited view, as you are blind to the things I clearly see.

    There is nothing hypocritical about an atheist using natural selection to justify mass murder.

    But it is clearly hypocritical for a professing Christian to do so.

    That's a significant difference.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dani'El,

    Isn't your last post called a Tu quo que argument?

    It would be, except that you are trying to invalidate evolution showing apparent misuse of evolutionary theory. If such is your argument, then Christianity would be equally invalid if Christianity has been misused.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Dani -

    Sensory revelation = "stuff revealed by the senses".

    'Tis the antithesis of silly presupp nonsense. Guess what guys? I made it onto FSTDT with that stupid Poe.

    Link's in my latest blog entry.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Dani'El,

    I would think you are the one with the limited view, as you are blind to the things I clearly see.

    We were talking about one of my statements that had nothing to do with any gods. Remember? And that was what you could not understand due to your limited points of reference.

    There is nothing hypocritical about an atheist using natural selection to justify mass murder.

    Maybe, but that still does not render evolution by natural selection false, nor does it make it evil. Can you see this or not?

    And I sustain that those regimes were using fear for control purposes, not trying to make any use of "unnatural" selection. (Such selection cannot be called natural.)

    But it is clearly hypocritical for a professing Christian to do so.

    That's a significant difference.


    This would be an excellent answer Dani'El, and I would have to agree, except that those who have done the wrong things in the name of Christianity have done so justifying themselves with what the Bible seems to say. As such, it is not hypocritical. It could be a misunderstanding, but not hypocritical. Take the "you shall not bear witches to live" bit. Wouldn't you agree that ignorant societies might condemn people as witches out of ignorance and not be hypocritical?

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  23. GE-
    I'm not saying that Evolution is false since it bears bad fruit.
    Just that because of it's lack of ethical moral authority, unlike Christianity which does have that moral authority, it has often been the justifaction of great evil.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Sarah,
    See what you get when you bear false witness? lol!

    That's really funny how many atheists bought it.
    You should go over there and feed their delusions some more.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Dani'El,

    I see that we are reaching some mutual understanding! (Which does not mean that you will believe as I do, just that we can understand each other.)

    Just that because of it's lack of ethical moral authority, unlike Christianity which does have that moral authority, it has often been the justifaction of great evil.

    A big problem is that Christians seem to assume that atheists are deriving their morals out of evolutionary theory. No such thing. Evolutionary theory explains the diversity of life. That is it. Nothing more. Morality and ethics are another story. Those are derived from mutual understanding, from empathy.

    And again, Christianity has, is, and will continue to be misused for wrongdoing. The very reason why? Because it claims to have the moral authority. It might have a purpose to provide moral standards, yet, the claim for "authority" is what can render it to wrongdoing. As in the witches case, or nowadays in the discrimination against homosexuality and actions taken thereby.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Dani' El wrote:
    "But the doctrines of natural selection have often been the justification for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot and other atheist regimes."

    BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAhahahaha!

    Oh, damn. I almost split a gut, there. What with Sye asking "were you there?" and you claiming that Stalin justified his terrors with natural selection, I may have to avoid this blog for fear of herniating myself with laughter. Hoooooooooooooboy.

    Stalin had people shot for promoting Darwin's ideas, Dani' El, and burned Darwin's books. Natural selection ran contrary to dielectical materialism. Stalin's pet biologist, Lysenko, was in favor of a Lamarkian theory, and was, more-or-less, singlehandedly responsible for large food shortages due to forcing his twisted, unscientific biology on the farmers.

    Oh, by the way, artificial selection is the only idea needed for eugenics. And you can go read Genesis 30:31-43 to read probably the earliest recorded example of artificial selection we know of.

    Please don't stop pontificating on subjects that bore you, Dani' El. You're utterly hilarious when you do.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Dave,
    I tell you what.
    I'll keep pontificating.

    And you keep on braying like an ass. ;-)

    Shalom,
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  28. Here's an essay on the connections between Darwin, social Darwinism, and eugenics from a secular source.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/darwin/nameof/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  29. And again, Christianity has, is, and will continue to be misused for wrongdoing. The very reason why? Because it claims to have the moral authority. It might have a purpose to provide moral standards, yet, the claim for "authority" is what can render it to wrongdoing.

    Well put, GE. Indeed, the reason Christianity (read: any system claiming a moral authority) gets used to justify evils is because it utilizes a moral authority. The reason evolution can never be guilty of this charge, because it doesn't say anything about morals or ethics.

    This is to say that even if some homicidal maniac claimed to be drawing his inspiration from evolutionary theory, evolution doesn't make a claim as to whether or not that behavior is wrong. Now, before you begin making grandiose claims regarding the fact that Christianity does make a statement regarding behavior, you have to remember just what sort of behavior it allows.

    Did I say allows? Sorry about that -- I meant to say the sort of behavior it requires.

    Remember the 1000+ post in this blog, where Sye first showed up with his presup trash? At one point a question arose as to why in Sye's website one of the questions asks if it is 'absolutely morally wrong to molest children for fun?'

    The question raised was about the apparent redundancy and/or superfluous nature of the addition of the phrase "for fun" in the question. Sye's response? Because some sickos apparently have offered certain scenarios in which molesting a child could be considered a "greater good".

    The point? In that same thread, Sye was careful to distinguish between "killing" infants, and "murdering" infants. Why would such a distinction be at all necessary? Because in Sye's world -- in the bible's world -- infanticide is not only not absolutely morally wrong, but it is absolutely morally right, since it is decreed directly by god.

    Don't you see? When god says to do something, failing to do it is absolutely morally wrong, and subject to punishment. Refusing to do it is even worse. Since god has directly decreed various morally questionable actions, people throughout history have claimed divine decree when committing various comparable atrocities.

    Don't you understand when we complain that Abraham should've immediately declined god's command to go on a long walk with his son? Don't you get it when we point to biblical atrocities directly commanded by god, and say, "Wait a minute, that's immoral"?

    With a so-called "moral authority," if the "authority" requires an action, however distasteful, it must be done. It's a far better defense than "the devil made me do it," and apparently certain base evils are not above divine decree...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  30. By the way, Dan: you and Josh are equally silly for arguing over the introductory clip from Idiocracy (it sets up the premise for the rest of the movie).

    What you and Josh (and the movie, and Korn) did wrong is to look at a single aspect of a human trait that might be a selective pressure and then you assumed that it was the only selective pressure.

    This is the same fault that makes the idea that Republicans will out-breed Democrats so silly (Republicans pay more attention to that "be fruitful and multiply" commandment, while Liberals have abortions willy-nilly).

    ReplyDelete
  31. Nice Dani'El -- the very first sentence of your source states the following:

    Some supporters of Darwin's theory of evolution have misapplied the biological principles of natural selection -- "survival of the fittest" -- to the social, political, and economic realms. (Emphasis mine)

    I suppose it's similar in certain respects to your claims that professing Christians who engage in activities you find immoral (say, abortion clinic bombers, or the "god hates fags" guy), aren't True Christians™ -- except that with respect to evolution and/or atheism (or anti-theism, whatever the case may be), there is no specific doctrine one is expected to follow. So even a-hole eugenicists can be evolutionists without negatively reflecting on evolution, whereas a-hole Christians necessarily reflect poorly on Christianity -- at least when their actions and/or doctrines clearly originate with the bible, differing interpretations notwithstanding...

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  32. Problem is Dave, when the totalitarian state becomes the religion, the head of state a god.
    Like Kim Jong Il.
    And if they hold that men are mere animals, then they can claim to be acting as natural agents of natural selection in murdering the intelligencia, or "lower races" etc.
    --------------------

    I think Korn stole their theology from Devo, the giants of rock theology, who preached theistic devolution in "Jocko Homo".

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRguZr0xCOc

    They tell us that
    We lost our tails
    Evolving up
    From little snails
    I say its all
    Just wind in sails
    Are we not men?
    We are devo!
    Were pinheads now
    We are not whole
    Were pinheads all
    Jocko homo
    Are we not men?
    D-e-v-o
    Monkey men all
    In business suit
    Teachers and critics
    All dance the poot
    Are we not men?
    We are devo!
    Are we not men?
    D-e-v-o
    God made man
    But he used the monkey to do it
    Apes in the plan
    Were all here to prove it
    I can walk like an ape
    Talk like an ape
    I can do what a monkey can do
    God made man
    But a monkey supplied the glue
    We must repeat
    O.k. lets go!

    ReplyDelete
  33. Dani' El wrote:
    "Here's an essay on the connections between Darwin, social Darwinism, and eugenics from a secular source."

    I don't have time to read it right now. Does that essay mention that Darwin specifically spoke out against the very ideas encompassed by the term "social Darwinism?"

    ReplyDelete
  34. Stan,
    The problem with that is the bible also gives ample warning against those who twist scripture to their own evil means.
    It also describes false teachers and heretics who would act in hypocrisy esp in these last days.

    So to us with discernment, it casts no dispersions on the true faith.
    But from your worldview it surely does.
    Satan does this intentionally.
    He sets up grotesque frauds then points at them and says, "See! See what it means to be a christian?"

    And you fall for it it seems.
    I know I did for decades.

    2Pe 2:1 But there were false prophets also among the people, even as there shall be false teachers among you, who privily shall bring in damnable heresies, even denying the Lord that bought them, and bring upon themselves swift destruction.
    2Pe 2:2 And many shall follow their pernicious ways; by reason of whom the way of truth shall be evil spoken of.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Dani' El wrote:
    "Problem is Dave, when the totalitarian state becomes the religion, the head of state a god.
    Like Kim Jong Il.
    And if they hold that men are mere animals, then they can claim to be acting as natural agents of natural selection in murdering the intelligencia, or "lower races" etc.
    "

    But the only people actually making such claims are raving egomaniacs like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And anti-science Christians and Muslims.

    Atheism was not the cause of Stalin's purges. He needed to eliminate the churches because they were a competition to his power. Atheism, in Stalin's case, was a side-effect of his totalitarianism.

    And it's not even totalitarianism that's the problem. A sociopathic dictator can make all sorts of justifications for the evil he does (like Hitler claiming that he was doing God's work in implementing the Holocaust).

    No, the real problem occurs when people like you believe the justifications of a lunatic like Stalin (or fabricate them for him), and repeat them as true to try to score political points against a science that doesn't bow down to your pathetic god.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Dani' El wrote:
    "Satan does this intentionally.
    He sets up grotesque frauds then points at them and says, "See! See what it means to be a christian?"
    "

    Since your God created Satan with foreknowledge of everything Satan would do (Satan never had free will), what you're saying doesn't speak well about your God.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Just so Dave cannot erase that last one I'm going to copy it here-
    ----------------------------
    Dani' El wrote:
    "Problem is Dave, when the totalitarian state becomes the religion, the head of state a god.
    Like Kim Jong Il.
    And if they hold that men are mere animals, then they can claim to be acting as natural agents of natural selection in murdering the intelligencia, or "lower races" etc. "

    But the only people actually making such claims are raving egomaniacs like Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot. And anti-science Christians and Muslims.

    Atheism was not the cause of Stalin's purges. He needed to eliminate the churches because they were a competition to his power. Atheism, in Stalin's case, was a side-effect of his totalitarianism.

    And it's not even totalitarianism that's the problem. A sociopathic dictator can make all sorts of justifications for the evil he does (like Hitler claiming that he was doing God's work in implementing the Holocaust).

    No, the real problem occurs when people like you believe the justifications of a lunatic like Stalin (or fabricate them for him), and repeat them as true to try to score political points against a science that doesn't bow down to your pathetic god.

    -----------------------------

    Dan?
    I recommend this one for the Atheist hall of shame.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Dani' El wrote:
    "Just so Dave cannot erase that last one..."

    Why would I ever want to erase it?

    I notice that you don't actually say what the problem is.

    ReplyDelete
  39. This year's most impact in the science community and it has nothing to do with evolution, but about reprogramming adult stems cells to ES stage.

    As far as why we are not that smart if evolution were true, well evolutionists believe that small changes occur over a vast amount of time. So these small changes hinder on how smart we are today. Bigger leaps would have helped...lol

    I'm not an evolutionary proponent, but that's the way they see it.

    ReplyDelete
  40. The problem with that is the bible also gives ample warning against those who twist scripture to their own evil means.

    You mean like saying that killing infants is demanded by god?

    Why twist scripture when the bible shows that god occasionally finds it necessary to commit genocide, filicide, infanticide...?

    Or, in the spirit of Sye, is it absolutely morally wrong to slaughter infants?

    Why do you refuse to connect the dots? Killing infants is always murder, and if anything approaching an absolute morality actually exists, I think it would be virtually unanimous that infanticide should be considered evil. Apply your own standards and explain...

    It also describes false teachers and heretics who would act in hypocrisy esp in these last days.

    Umm... Do you mean Christians who predict large-scale disaster/catastrophe...?

    --
    Stan

    ReplyDelete
  41. I see my link got cut off.
    Here it is again.

    http://www.pbs.org
    /wgbh/evolution/darwin
    /nameof/index.html

    ReplyDelete
  42. I'm in solstice stress, so I will just note briefly that the issue of intelligence and what constitutes intelligent behavior is complicated, to say the least.

    About Stalin: in addition to what Stan said, Stalin studied theology, and was planning to be a priest. I could far more plausibly claim that this is what turned him into a monster than Darwin. And Hitler (or some one of his underlings; the documentation is not clear) banned The Origin of Species, and Hitler never mentioned Darwin's name once in all his writings. He did mention Jesus and especially Martin Luther repeatedly, and was a big fan of Luther's pronouncements on Jews.

    Social Darwinism is a classic example of something Darwin himself, and latterly Richard Dawkins, warned against: the confusion of is with ought. Yes, the origin of our behavior is in our genes, in our nature as social animals: but that's not all there is to it, and we can decide for ourselves (to a large extent) how we want to behave. That's why we have morals, religions, and governments, which have evolved over time.

    Happy Winter Solstice to you all!

    ReplyDelete
  43. Dani'El
    But the doctrines of natural selection have often been the justification for the mass murders of Stalin, Mao, Pot and other atheist regimes.
    You missed the point. Let me try again here by emphasizing one word: natural selection.

    Did you get that? Natural selection, not artificial selection based on the political whims of power hungry sociopaths.

    There is nothing in Darwin's writings that advocates killing anybody. Contrast that with the OT bible which xians for centuries in the dark ages used as precedent and justification for killing "witches" and "heretics" until the enlightenment came along.


    If the creationists you mentioned were professing christians they were hypocrites in that they were clearly in disobedience to the commands of Christ.
    Even though the OT itself commanded Isrealites not to marry people from certain other tribes? Read the link I gave: Eugenics has been around in one form or another through all of human history.

    ReplyDelete
  44. You know this movie is a comedy, right? It's made by the same people as South Park...

    In reality, average IQs have been raising steadily throughout history.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Kaitlyn- I agree, "Idiocracy" is a comedy, and it was pretty funny too. But what exactly is IQ? (hehe)

    ReplyDelete
  46. IQ is short for intelligence quotient. It's a test... rather subjective to measure relative intelligence within a population.

    ReplyDelete
  47. There is one entity that is the moral/ ethical authority in the United States, and that is the people.

    The people wrote a founding document devoid of any religious connotations and that document set up guidelines for the states to write the laws for the people within their borders.

    The founders set up a constitutional republic rather than a democracy to insure that the rights of minorities could not be trampled on by the majority.

    That is why you will see the courts strike down Proposition 8.

    If some religious sect would have gained control at the beginning and tried to us the bible as a founding document and the basis for our laws, it would have been overthrown a long time ago.

    "We the people of the United States...." No God necessary.

    Thank you and good day.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Michael,

    As far as why we are not that smart if evolution were true, well evolutionists believe that small changes occur over a vast amount of time. So these small changes hinder on how smart we are today. Bigger leaps would have helped...lol

    I'm not an evolutionary proponent, but that's the way they see it.


    Not really. For evolution to occur towards higher intelligence, there would have to be some environmental pressure selecting for the better survival of more intelligent people against the survival of dumber people. Such is not the case. We are stuck with epigenetic evolution now. We have reached enough intelligence for survival and domination over the planet. No need for any extra. However, our current limitations might be our demise.

    Remember, evolution has no feelings, no intentions, no future telling. If a species evolve in a way that it will destroy the whole thing, well, it is an accident, and only the surviving beings will keep evolution going. What those will be, who knows.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  49. I think the increases in average IQ through history, if it has increased, reflect more the further availability of better food and education than true higher genetic capacity for intelligence.

    Have a nice Sunday.

    G.E.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Happy Hanukkah to everyone on Dan's blog!

    Joh 10:22 Now it was the Feast of Dedication (Hanukkah) in Jerusalem, and it was winter.
    Joh 10:23 And Jesus walked in the temple, in Solomon's porch.

    Baruch Hashem!
    Dani' El

    ReplyDelete
  51. Oh, I have a question about this blog. How do you "debunk" an atheist?

    I mean, what do atheists claim? Nothing really. What a sad bunch we atheists are. ;_;

    Is this blog more about debunking evolution? Or is it about debunking the idea that Christianity may not be the one true religion? If that's the case, you're not really debunking atheists but debunking non-christians.

    Just wondering.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Kaitlyn,

    Oh, I have a question about this blog. How do you "debunk" an atheist?

    It's more a blog to show absurdities in the worldview of the individual atheists not necessarily atheism, hence the name and even this post. For a fine example of debunking, listen to the broadcast in the Battle of the wits?, post.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Wow! You owned that guy on the radio! O_O What an idiot!

    Anything absurd about my world view?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Kaitlyn,

    Anything absurd about my world view?

    Possibly, Do you feel its more important to pursue higher education then to pursue a life with Christ? (Mark 8:36; Luke 9:25)

    ReplyDelete
  55. Yeah, I think so, just because I don't believe in that stuff. If I did, then I would be absurd to pursue a life with Christ above all else.

    Since I don't believe in the resurrection, I think it's reasonable to place finding Christ low on my priority list.

    Do you think I'm absurd for thinking that way?

    ReplyDelete
  56. Kaitlyn,

    Do you think I'm absurd for thinking that way?

    It is incongruous to the Bible and what it says about Salvation. Do you want to go to jail? Do you enjoy prison?

    ReplyDelete
  57. Just for fun-
    ----------------------

    Word History: One can readily see that debunk is constructed from the prefix de-, meaning "to remove," and the word bunk. But what is the origin of the word bunk, denoting the nonsense that is to be removed? Bunk came from a place where much bunk has originated, the United States Congress. During the 16th Congress (1819-1821) Felix Walker, a representative from western North Carolina whose district included Buncombe County, carried on with a dull speech in the face of protests by his colleagues. Walker later explained he had felt obligated "to make a speech for Buncombe." Such a masterful symbol for empty talk could not be ignored by the speakers of the language, and Buncombe, spelled Bunkum in its first recorded appearance in 1828 and later shortened to bunk, became synonymous with claptrap. The response to all this bunk seems to have been delayed, for debunk is not recorded until 1923.


    The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
    Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
    Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
    Cite This Source

    debunk

    1923, first used by U.S. novelist William Woodward (1874-1950), the notion being "to take the bunk out of things" (see bunk).

    ReplyDelete
  58. Kaitlyn- haven't you ever seen a train wreck before? Nothing to see here, folks- move along, move along... I mean, welcome!

    Dan- you say:

    It's more a blog to show absurdities in the worldview of the individual atheists not necessarily atheism, hence the name and even this post.

    I was wondering what this blog was for. When are you going to start showing absurdities in our worldviews? I mean, other than our tendency to lapse into limericks when the going gets tough...

    Dani'el: thanks for the info on "bunk". Very interesting.

    Everyone: happy happies!

    ReplyDelete
  59. "Do you want to go to jail? Do you enjoy prison?"

    Absolutely not! I don't want to go to jail. I do not enjoy prison!

    ReplyDelete
  60. Kaitlyn,

    Absolutely not! I don't want to go to jail. I do not enjoy prison!

    Hopefully you understand what I am getting at. I appologize for the canned response but I know you, of all people, have heard of it all before. When will it sink is another question.

    Think of it this way... Imagine you're in a courtroom; you're guilty of many serious crimes. The judge says, "It's a fine of $500,000, or prison." You don't have anywhere near that amount of money, so the bailiff begins to walk you out of the courtroom when someone you don't even know appears. He runs up to the judge with a check and says, "I've paid the fine for you." Now that the fine has been paid, the law no longer has any hold on you. You're free -- because of the gift you were given. Wouldn't you feel grateful for that kind of kindness?

    If you will repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus, God says he will forgive all your sins and grant you the gift of everlasting life. Just like the court case, if you repent (that means to confess and forsake your sins) and put your trust in Jesus, then you will not have to suffer God's justice in Hell(jail) because the payment for your crimes was made by Jesus on the cross.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Andrew,

    Oh yeah,
    hey, we love you too Dan.

    xoxo


    Wait are you now admitting you are an atheist because you said you followed Buddhism earlier? How can I even know your love is for real?

    You slut :)

    ReplyDelete
  62. "Wouldn't you feel grateful for that kind of kindness?"

    I would feel extremely grateful at that man. Why would he do such a thing? I don't know, but I would be eternally grateful.

    "If you will repent of your sins and put your trust in Jesus, God says he will forgive all your sins and grant you the gift of everlasting life."

    This just sounds too good to be true. You're effectively offering me immortality. O_O

    "Just like the court case, if you repent (that means to confess and forsake your sins) and put your trust in Jesus, then you will not have to suffer God's justice in Hell(jail) because the payment for your crimes was made by Jesus on the cross."

    I just don't know if this is true or not. How would I, you know... falsify these claims?

    Thanks again for explaining this to me. It means a lot that you want to offer me eternal life. I'm just not convinced by your good intentions alone... although I do see your good intentions. :)

    ReplyDelete
  63. Kaitlyn,

    I feel that you are playing around with me but if you are sincere then so am I, and I will continue.

    How would I, you know... falsify these claims?

    Scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents. True?

    You could confirm this by applying the ordinary test of historical criticism to the Scriptures.

    Also,here is a website to help you. It's an empirical exhaustive walk through as to the validity and claimsof the Bible.

    When you are ready, do you agree that Scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents?

    If you agree then the Bible is a valid historical record then we can go to the next point, realizing that Jesus Christ claims to be the unique Son of God and that He bases this claim on His forthcoming resurrection from the dead.

    Next, we examine the evidence for the resurrection contained in this historic document and find that the arguments overwhelmingly support the contention that Christ has risen from the dead. If this is true, then He is the unique Son of God as He claimed to be. If He is indeed God, then He speaks with authority on all matters.

    Since Jesus considered the Old Testament to be the Word of God (Matthew 15:1-4, 5:17, 18) and promised His disciples, who either wrote or had control over the writing of the New Testament books, that the Holy Spirit would bring all things back to their remembrance (John 14:26), therefore we can insist, with sound and accurate logic, that the Bible is God's Word. This is not circular reasoning. It is establishing certain facts and basing conclusions on the sound, logical outcome of these facts. The case for Christianity can be established by ordinary means of historical investigation.

    Can you better understand my points with this explanation? Can you understand the authority of the Bible now?

    ReplyDelete
  64. When you are ready, do you agree that Scriptures are reliable and trustworthy historical documents?

    I guess they are kind of reliable and kind of trusworthy, and definitely historical. However, I'm not ready to accept the miraculous claims in the Bible even though it clearly has historical value.

    Can you better understand my points with this explanation? Can you understand the authority of the Bible now?

    Maybe if you simplified things a little bit for more for me. I'm a little confused about what makes you think everything in the Bible is accurate recorded history. Certainly, I've heard that the Bible says that the world is 6,000 years old, but some scientists theorize that the Earth is much older.

    That alone makes me think that a lot of the Bible is not literal.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Kaitlyn,

    I am going to work backwards here to make a point.

    Certainly, I've heard that the Bible says that the world is 6,000 years old, but some scientists theorize that the Earth is much older.

    That alone makes me think that a lot of the Bible is not literal.


    So let me get this straight here, you are discounting the Bible because of how people are interpreting it, and those same people interpreting the Bible are now interpreting the data, that is "available," to conclude the earth has been around for billions of years? We need to get things grounded because you appear to be flying around reaching for doubts. Apparently your preconceived notions are hindering your ability to reason on this subject. Are you looking for the beliefs of others or are you seeking truth?

    First did science 'prove' that the earth is extremely old or is that a 'possibility' interpreted from man? And if 'possible' then is it also 'possible' that the earth is much younger then what is 'believed'? Because you are basing a great deal of your salvation on a bunch of maybes here.

    You ask for a process to falsify the Bible and then you said "Maybe if you simplified things a little bit for more for me." Again we are all over the place here. Are you willing to spend some effort to seek truth?

    Now, I can simplify it for you by merely asking if you are a good person, but I doubt that would suffice.

    However, I'm not ready to accept the miraculous claims in the Bible even though it clearly has historical value.

    Fine, currently you are not convinced by the Bible's veracity. Yet you fully admit to the historicity of the Bible. Let me show you why you shouldn't read the Bible like Aesop's fables. Look in Hosea 1:1, see the time line, the Bible talks about specific and exacting historical events with details of surroundings and time frame. People say "You can't believe the Bible it has a bunch of stories" Fantasy stories don't include details like the Bible which should be taken as historical fact.

    The principle point here is that God communicated through prophets and was specific about the details. God inspired the Bible and we know we should take it as truth, not fiction, because it is written as a historical narrative.

    Kind of reliable and kind of trustworthy?

    The website that I included walked you through many of these such issues, that is, if you wish to seek the truth about things. You appear to be logical and this website is a great resource for that. Are you willing to take the time and effort to save your own life here?

    and scene.

    Thanks for helping me get my ducks in a row for people who are seeking truth. For so long here, I have been in debates instead of discussions. You are a breath of fresh air, even if it's for pretend. For that, I thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Hmm... you've given me a lot to think about. I just wanted to let you know that I read your reply and I found it helpful and very thought provoking. I think I'm beginning to understand.

    I'll reply more later. Thank you.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Dan, to Kaitlyn
    So let me get this straight here, you are discounting the Bible because of how people are interpreting it, and those same people interpreting the Bible are now interpreting the data, that is "available," to conclude the earth has been around for billions of years?
    I can't say for Kaitlyn, but as for me, all it means when people interperet the bible differently is that the authors of the bible didn't write it in such a way that is was specific enough. Too much is left open to interpretation.

    We need to get things grounded because you appear to be flying around reaching for doubts. Apparently your preconceived notions are hindering your ability to reason on this subject.
    I could say the same of you...I myself used to be a xian until I started to think out of the box more.

    Are you looking for the beliefs of others or are you seeking truth?
    Are you assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence?

    First did science 'prove' that the earth is extremely old or is that a 'possibility' interpreted from man?
    Given the multiple lines of physical evidence that corroborate the old age of the earth it's safe to say that it's old age is pretty well established.

    Unlike "interpetations", this isn't words that people are trying to figure out. It's the multiple lines of evidence from geology, astronomy, etc. Remember in one of my comments on a previous post that in the book The Creationists by Ronald Numbers that many people who had graduated from ICR believing and wanting to believe in a young earth wound up having to ditch that faith once confronted with the physical evidence around them, as opposed to the interpretations of man.

    For more examples, see here. Note that the author of the site is a xian like yourself, Dan, just not a YEC.

    And if 'possible' then is it also 'possible' that the earth is much younger then what is 'believed'?
    Only if the physical evidence were to point to it, but if one actually looks at it, it does not. Again, see the link I posted above.

    Because you are basing a great deal of your salvation on a bunch of maybes here.
    It seems to me that you're basing your belief on the earth's age based not on physical evidence but rather on what you want to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Dani'El,

    As someone who lives in Buncombe county, NC, thanks for the history lesson. I'll see about making up some bumper stickers:

    "Asheville, NC. Home Of Bunk"

    ReplyDelete
  69. Reynold,

    I can't say for Kaitlyn, but as for me, all it means when people [interpret] the bible differently is that the authors of the bible didn't write it in such a way that is was specific enough. Too much is left open to interpretation.

    So a 2000-4000 year old book, still very relevant and alive even to this day, was done in a way to hinder interpretation, not considering the billions of Christians throughout these years? Right!?

    I myself used to be a xian until I started to think out of the box more.

    Thanks for proving yet another one of my points/posts.

    Are you assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence?

    You new at this? Are you assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence about me? Stinks of hypocrisy in here.

    Given the multiple lines of physical evidence that corroborate the old age of the earth it's safe to say that it's old age is pretty well established. Really? Were you there? What was it like? Keep in mind that interpretation of evidence is not the same as evidence. Do you want to discuss carbon dating?

    It's the multiple lines of disciplines from geology, astronomy, cheer leading for the current paradigm. Funds would dry up otherwise.

    For more examples, see here. Note that the author of the site is a xian like yourself, Dan, just not a YEC. "Appeal to" fallacies galore! Look just because I think that we live on a young earth doesn't mean all Christians believe that. But that is my point just because there is a discussion among Christians on Biblical iterpretation does not mean one is saved and the other is not. We are fuzzy about many details. As for me I am trusting God because mankind let me down entierely.

    It seems to me that you're basing your belief on the earth's age based not on physical evidence but rather on what you want to be true.

    I would be willing to consider that a fair claim. If we find concrete evidence to remove all resonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same? Keep in mind that my YEC belief does not effect my Salvation but your Atheism sure does. Be afraid, be very afraid.

    ReplyDelete
  70. "Asheville, NC. Home Of Bunk"

    Nice

    California, home of the Bunkinators!

    Dani'El has good etymology game.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Chum,
    Or maybe-

    "Asheville, NC.
    Birthplace Of Da Bunk"


    Lol! :-)

    ReplyDelete
  72. Dan,
    I know this is way off topic, but I saw this shocking video on JihadWatch.
    I know the Polygamist Mormons are running scams like this in the US and I met a muslim who works at the corner store who was doing the same here in SF.
    Check it out-

    http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=b14_1215782328

    ReplyDelete
  73. Dani'El

    Sure is amazing as to the pure subjectiveness of man's justification without the authority of God's Word. That man was pissed. If Prop 8 was turned down that would be the very next thing on the ballot.

    Brigham Young said "Now if any of you will deny the plurality of wives, and continue to do so, I promise that you will be damned." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 3, p. 266). Also, "The only men who become Gods, even the Sons of God, are those who enter into polygamy." (Journal of Discourses, Vol. 11, page 269).

    ReplyDelete
  74. Amen Dan,
    I've got nothing nice to say about Rick Warren, but isn't it ironic to hear the outry from the sodomites concerning Warren's comparison of gay marriage and polygamy and incest?

    Should the Muslims be offended?

    There's a lot of talk about the "intolerance, bigotry and homophobia" of the Church, but the intolerance, bigotry and Christophobia of Sodom is appalling.

    I was not going to post this on my blog but come to think of it, this video is not off topic on my blog after all.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    I can't say for Kaitlyn, but as for me, all it means when people [interpret] the bible differently is that the authors of the bible didn't write it in such a way that is was specific enough. Too much is left open to interpretation.

    So a 2000-4000 year old book, still very relevant and alive even to this day, was done in a way to hinder interpretation, not considering the billions of Christians throughout these years? Right!?
    Just look at the hundred of xian denominations out there. It doesn't sound like the bible authors did a very good job of making all the bible's messages clear.

    I myself used to be a xian until I started to think out of the box more.
    Thanks for proving yet another one of my points/posts.
    "Yet another"? Which other ones did I "prove" for you? Besides, doubt is the beginning of wisdom, as opposed to just blindly accepting anything. Which is what it sounds like you're advocating. So much for the bible verse about "let us reason together".

    Did you think that I accepted evolution based on me wanting to reject "christ" or something? It's only one nail in a large coffin.

    Are you assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence?
    You new at this? Are you assuming what is the "truth" right off the bat without examining all the available evidence about me? Stinks of hypocrisy in here.
    That's why I was asking as opposed to just saying that's what you were doing!


    Given the multiple lines of physical evidence that corroborate the old age of the earth it's safe to say that it's old age is pretty well established.
    Really? Were you there? What was it like?
    Keep in mind that if court cases ran by that "Ken Ham"'s 'Where you there' rule, then the justice system would fall apart, because things like forensics and DNA and other physical evidence would all be ignored because there wasn't an eyewitness to actually see the crime happening.

    Besides, how do you know "christ" rose from the dead? Were you there? How do you know the bible is the "word of god"? Were you there to see him dictate it, or something?

    Get the point?

    Keep in mind that interpretation of evidence is not the same as evidence. Do you want to discuss carbon dating?
    Oh? How do you explain that different people's interpretation of the evidence winds up corroborating other people's interpretation of other physical evidence? Did they all correspond with each other or something?

    If you want to talk about radiometric dating, you could go to this guy's site. A christian who works with radiometric dating.

    It's the multiple lines of disciplines from geology, astronomy, cheer leading for the current paradigm. Funds would dry up otherwise.
    Right, the conspiracy theory of science. What did you think they all did before the current paradigm then? This isn't about funds. If this was just all a conspiracy theory don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now? Don't you think that the publically available scientific articles would have tripped them up by now? Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted?

    I could just as easily turn that back on you by saying that "funding" is what keeps the televangeists and preachers, etc. going, and that's why they're all agreeing to not stray from their bibles (Korans, etc).


    For more examples, see here. Note that the author of the site is a xian like yourself, Dan, just not a YEC.
    "Appeal to" fallacies galore! Look just because I think that we live on a young earth doesn't mean all Christians believe that.
    You're not getting it: I pointed him out because xian a lot of the time keep implying that it's my atheistic presuppositons that were making me believe in an old earth.


    But that is my point just because there is a discussion among Christians on Biblical iterpretation does not mean one is saved and the other is not.
    True, but it does imply that your holy book is not as "perfect" as you say it is. Also, it kind of depends on which parts of the bible are up for grabs. Some people, like the Calvinists, believe that god, not man, is responsible for pulling people towards him.

    We are fuzzy about many details. As for me I am trusting God because mankind let me down entierely.
    If you're fuzzy about many details, how can you tell whether your view of god is accurate in the first place?

    It seems to me that you're basing your belief on the earth's age based not on physical evidence but rather on what you want to be true.
    I would be willing to consider that a fair claim. If we find concrete evidence to remove all resonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same?
    Yes. At least I don't have to adhere to any oaths, unlike the ICR, AIG or other YEC group out there.

    Keep in mind that my YEC belief does not effect my Salvation but your Atheism sure does. Be afraid, be very afraid.
    Of what?

    ReplyDelete
  76. Okay, I have had time to digest Dan's response, and I guess my only question would be how do we falsify the *important* claims about the Bible extra-biblically?

    I have no problem accepting that the Bible is a historical document, but how can we verify that Jesus is the son of God or that even God exists through some testable means?

    I'm willing to convert if that's the only testable means, but I'm still not prepared to make any major life changes without verification, you know?

    ReplyDelete
  77. To be honest, I've met atheist Christian (mostly Catholic) priests. They don't believe a word of the Bible is literal and it was written over a thousand years before modern science. So any claims about the age of the Earth, origin of life, etc... need to be taken from a scientific rather than a biblical standpoint.

    A small but growing percentage of Christian leaders are rejecting the Bible's literacy in every respect, including the miracles of Jesus. I guess they view Christianity as more of a spiritual movement than anything else.

    I just don't see why it's necessary to take the Bible literally? Does it somehow diminish the moral teachings of Jesus?

    ReplyDelete
  78. Reynold,

    Just look at the hundred of xian denominations out there. It doesn't sound like the bible authors did a very good job of making all the [B]ible's messages clear.

    It wasn't meant to be easy and clear. If someone wants to follow man or even themselves, then you will have false religions and denominations. (Proverbs 3:5-6, John 14:26, 1 John 2:27)

    God picks leaders for his flock, not followers.

    Keep in mind that if court cases ran by that "Ken Ham"'s 'Where you there' rule, then the justice system would fall apart, because things like forensics and DNA and other physical evidence would all be ignored because there wasn't an eyewitness to actually see the crime happening.

    Dude!? Forensic and DNA evidence is an eyewitness to the scene of the crime. Are you claiming DNA evidence to the age of the earth? Remember apples and oranges. Please tell me you are not comparing DNA to Radiometric dating.

    Besides, how do you know "[C]hrist" rose from the dead? Were you there?

    Yes. We have believable eye witnesses to the events in the Bible.

    How do you know the bible is the "word of god"? Were you there to see him dictate it, or something? Yes, I trust the men claiming the events that happened in the Bible. God said Jesus is the Word in flesh (John 1:1,14) and I believe that all the events are truth based on all the ample evidence throughout mankind's history.

    Get the point?

    How do you explain that different people's interpretation of the evidence winds up corroborating other people's interpretation of other physical evidence? Did they all correspond with each other or something?

    Yes they indeed did, it's called the common paradigm. They are all familiar with Darwinian Evolution, without billions of years the data would not hold together. It is a necessary primer to the story.

    If you want to talk about radiometric dating, you could go to this guy's site. A [C]hristian who works with radiometric dating.

    Are you claiming Christians can't be wrong? Besides the various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:

    1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
    2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
    3. A constant decay rate.

    These assumptions causes real problems as to its validity.

    Several examples of discordant dates when multiple methods are tried on the same rock, many anecdotes of dating techniques giving obviously wrong data (including some where rock formed after 1900 was dated as being over 3 million years), such as at Mt. Ngauruhoeand and Mt. St. Helens.

    In my search, I came across a book that would be worth checking out called The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods

    If this was just all a conspiracy theory don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now?

    Psst, they have read the book above.

    Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted?

    Yes, I do.

    But that is my point just because there is a discussion among Christians on Biblical [interpretation] does not mean one is saved and the other is not.
    True, but it does imply that your holy book is not as "perfect" as you say it is.

    That is hilarious. Well I believe you commit adultery because of the way your eyebrows raise up. Does that make it true? What does interpretation of men have anything to do with truth or perfection of the Bible? The Bible is perfect for it's purpose, to save the lost. Interpretations of said Book is irrelevant, rejection or acceptance is also irrelevant. The message of Salvation is absolutely clear. On the things that are not clear (irrelevant matters) we pigeonhole things, it's our nature. But the truth remains consistent.

    If you are not accepting the Bible because its vagueness of certain issues, like our friend Kaitlyn, then you are missing the entire Book's purpose and that is to save you from sure death. Irrelevant semantics should be put aside for such an important thing.

    Some people, like the Calvinists, believe that god, not man, is responsible for pulling people towards him.

    Pfft, again, what does that have to do with anything important? These are advanced understandings. You have yet to get to even the beginnings of the purpose and teachings. You still need milk (salvation) before you eat the meat of the Bible (Supralapsarianism). One is relevant and the other is not.

    If you're fuzzy about many details, how can you tell whether your view of god is accurate in the first place?

    Again again, I am extremely clear as to the important things, Salvation for example. God will reveal the important issues to us as He has. The rest is like I said, merely semantics. We can work the details out later (butterfly stokes) but for now you need to know the basics (floating and tredding water), Milk vs. Meet (1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 5:11-13)

    If we find concrete evidence to remove all reasonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same?
    Yes. At least I don't have to adhere to any oaths, unlike the ICR, AIG or other YEC group out there.

    At least most of the people in those organizations are going to Heaven. They are working on the meat of the Bible, you Sir, have yet to drink the milk and you are still unsaved. You will end up in hell and I just don't want that...do you?

    Be afraid, be very afraid.
    Of what?

    I am confident you know of what, and as confident as I am about the truth of Jesus Christ.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Kaitlyn,

    I have no problem accepting that the Bible is a historical document,

    Thats fair

    but how can we verify that Jesus is the son of God

    Through the ample evidence

    or that even God exists through some testable means?

    Have you even read the Bible?

    I just don't see why it's necessary to take the Bible literally?

    Who said you had too? I don't read the Bible literally either, no one should. There are obvious parables and hyperboles so we should in fact read the Bible, plainly.

    Does it somehow diminish the moral teachings of Jesus?

    Only if you misread and misunderstand the message of the Bible. (Salvation)

    Again, have you even read the Bible?

    ReplyDelete
  80. "Again, have you even read the Bible?"

    Yeah. But saying the Bible proves God exists is like saying the Greek myths prove the existence of Zeus and Hercules.

    I would like to be able to falsify these claims on my own. Certainly that's understandable, right?

    Clearly the Bible is evidence for God, I won't disagree with you there. But what can I do to verify the claims of the Bible extra-biblically?

    ReplyDelete
  81. Kaitlyn,

    But saying the Bible proves God exists is like saying the Greek myths prove the existence of Zeus and Hercules.

    That just isn't true at all, for one reason the Bible is supernatural.

    But what can I do to verify the claims of the Bible extra-biblically?

    What would be acceptable for you to believe?

    Read it like a history book or an anthropological study, and you will see that the events can be extra biblically corroborated. Beyond that you can get a glimpse of what God is like and how he raises His children. There are so many passages in the Bible that, when you read them, you'll see that no 'man' would present a religion this way. There are so many complexities and depths that cut across time and culture.

    Although we have better technology and ways of life than people that lived 2000 years ago, they were still as human as we are today. Their intelligence level was the same as today. I believe in God because he first loved me, not because he divinely inspired people to write the Bible. I will also add, believe can exist with faith alone. It does not require proofs or facts.

    Do the right thing Kaitlyn, trust Him.

    ReplyDelete
  82. "Read it like a history book or an anthropological study, and you will see that the events can be extra biblically corroborated. "

    So if I read the bible as a history book or anthropological study, it will prove the claims of the Bible extra-biblically?

    ReplyDelete
  83. Dan +†+ said...

    Reynold,

    Just look at the hundred of xian denominations out there. It doesn't sound like the bible authors did a very good job of making all the [B]ible's messages clear.


    It wasn't meant to be easy and clear.
    Kind of defeats the purpose of having the book and having missionaries spread it all around the world if it's not clear, doesn't it?

    If someone wants to follow man or even themselves, then you will have false religions and denominations. (Proverbs 3:5-6, John 14:26, 1 John 2:27)
    And of course, "god" helps make it easier for them to do that, thus defeating the purpose of having a book that's supposed to draw or convince people of him.

    God picks leaders for his flock, not followers.
    I thought he picked both? Meh

    Keep in mind that if court cases ran by that "Ken Ham"'s 'Where you there' rule, then the justice system would fall apart, because things like forensics and DNA and other physical evidence would all be ignored because there wasn't an eyewitness to actually see the crime happening.
    Dude!? Forensic and DNA evidence is an eyewitness to the scene of the crime.
    Not any more an "eyewitness" than are fossils, or light from stars millions of light years away. All are physcial remnants of things that happened a long time ago.

    You've missed the kind of eyewitness Ken Ham is talking about when he says "How do you know? Where you there?".

    Are you claiming DNA evidence to the age of the earth? Remember apples and oranges. Please tell me you are not comparing DNA to Radiometric dating.
    One is biological, one relies on physics. So what? If one knows what one is doing, they are both realiable.

    Something to note about radiometric dating - (just do a page search for "Isochron dating" there):
    An overwhelming majority of isotopic age measurements yield values consistent with the mainstream age and history of the Earth. The only sensible explanation that we currently have for that fact is: dating methods work most of the time. Explaining away a large body of consistent data as being due to all results being inaccurate is an untenable position. (If the results are wildly inaccurate, why are they consistent?) For that reason, a leap from "unable to 'guarantee' a single result devoid of context" to "can happily ignore all results" is unjustifiable.

    To one who calls himself a scientist, figuring out how and why a dating method sometimes fails is an interesting pursuit. It is part of the process of understanding the limitations of the dating technique. It leads to rules for when the methods shouldn't be applied, and to independent tests that help assess the likelihood of getting a valid result.


    Remember, at one point, both were untested and uncertain. Besides, radiometric dating is not the only way to tell the age of the earth.


    Besides, how do you know "[C]hrist" rose from the dead? Were you there?
    Yes.
    So, you were there then? How'd you live so long?

    We have believable eye witnesses to the events in the Bible.Ah, so you weren't there after all. The available scholarship dates those stories as being written decades after the supposed events. Couple that with stories like the supposed "500 witnesses" to the resurrection, none of whom bother to make any statements themselves (there's only ONE verse that mentions that there were 500 witnesses), and the fact that no Roman or other records at the time record any of the "saints" that were supposed to have arisen at the same time "christ" was supposed to, and the case looks more shaky than you'd lead us to believe.

    How do you know the bible is the "word of god"? Were you there to see him dictate it, or something?
    Yes, I trust the men claiming the events that happened in the Bible.
    But, you weren't there, were you? Yes, it's annoying, but that's what Ham enourages kids to say to teachers, so I'm not sorry about it.

    God said Jesus is the Word in flesh (John 1:1,14) and I believe that all the events are truth based on all the ample evidence throughout mankind's history.
    Even failed messianic prophecies like on here? It also goes on to talk about the gospel writers themselves, etc.


    How do you explain that different people's interpretation of the evidence winds up corroborating other people's interpretation of other physical evidence? Did they all correspond with each other or something?
    Yes they indeed did, it's called the common paradigm. They are all familiar with Darwinian Evolution, without billions of years the data would not hold together. It is a necessary primer to the story.
    So, even when the theory was first proposed all those god-hating scientists got together, worked it out and kept it going for so long? It's not a "common paradigm" you're proposing, it's a massive "conspiracy theory". When the theory first came along, most people did not want to believe it, but after observations and testing were done, they wound up accepting it.

    If you want to talk about radiometric dating, you could go to this guy's site. A [C]hristian who works with radiometric dating.
    Are you claiming Christians can't be wrong?
    No, but he would not have any "atheistic bias" or "god-hating" motive for accepting the old earth dates, other then the evidence itself. He'd not likely be in on the "conspriacy" that you described above.

    I know YEC's like Safarti et al say stuff like that. Besides, if you admit that a xian can be wrong, then I can just go and dismiss Woodmorappe and his book "The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods" just as you've dismissed Roger C. Weins.

    Besides the various isotope dating methods rely upon several assumptions. They are:

    1. Known amounts of daughter isotope (usually zero) at start.
    2. No gain or loss of parent or daughter isotopes by any means other than radioactive decay (closed system).
    3. A constant decay rate.

    These assumptions causes real problems as to its validity.

    You should actually try reading his site, as well as some more about radiometric dating.

    Several examples of discordant dates when multiple methods are tried on the same rock, many anecdotes of dating techniques giving obviously wrong data (including some where rock formed after 1900 was dated as being over 3 million years), such as at Mt. Ngauruhoeand and Mt. St. Helens.
    Again, do some deeper reading other than YEC material.
    Mt. St. Helens, or just do a search on that website for "Helens". As for Ngauruhoe, and again, as well as the link I posted earlier.



    In my search, I came across a book that would be worth checking out called The Mythology of Modern Dating Methods
    Oh yeah, John Woodmorappe. and his Mythology Of Modern Dating Methods book. I heard of that book years ago. He's been "slam debunked" many times before.


    If this was just all a conspiracy theory don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now?
    Psst, they have read the book above.
    Psst, his book has been slam debunked by now, and Woodmorappe was never a part of the scientific community. His name is nowhere. That's not even his real name.

    Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted?
    Yes, I do.
    No you don't, because otherwise you should realize just how impossible it is to keep such a wide ranging conspiracy going for so long. Look at how Watergate fell apart. This would beat the "Illuminati" in sheer magnitude. How would they coordinate? How could that coordination be kept secret? How could they prevent anyone from inside from exposing how they do the conspiracy?

    This would be hundreds of thousand of scientists in MANY fields over a period of 150 years. Good luck


    But that is my point just because there is a discussion among Christians on Biblical [interpretation] does not mean one is saved and the other is not.
    True, but it does imply that your holy book is not as "perfect" as you say it is.
    That is hilarious. Well I believe you commit adultery because of the way your eyebrows raise up. Does that make it true? What does interpretation of men have anything to do with truth or perfection of the Bible?
    Easy. If it was as "perfect" as you all claim it is, then it should also be perfectly clear, should it not? Doesn't your own bible say that your god is not the author of confusion?T

    he multude of xian denominations is typical of a man-made system, not a flawless "god"-made system.

    The Bible is perfect for it's purpose, to save the lost. Interpretations of said Book is irrelevant, rejection or acceptance is also irrelevant. The message of Salvation is absolutely clear.
    No it isn't. Some xians still argue about "faith" and "works". Some xians believe in predestination and others believe in free will when it comes to salvation.

    And again, if you people claim that the book is inerrant and perfect, than it has to actually be inerrent. And not just on the "important stuff".

    On the things that are not clear (irrelevant matters) we pigeonhole things, it's our nature. But the truth remains consistent.

    If you are not accepting the Bible because its vagueness of certain issues, like our friend Kaitlyn, then you are missing the entire Book's purpose and that is to save you from sure death.

    The vagueness is just one piece of evidence that it's not a perfect book. At least not one written by a being who's not supposed to be the "author of confusion".

    Irrelevant semantics should be put aside for such an important thing.

    Some people, like the Calvinists, believe that god, not man, is responsible for pulling people towards him.

    Pfft, again, what does that have to do with anything important?

    Uh, Salvation, maybe? If one believes that god is responsible, than praying the "sinners prayer" and meaning it will not help you in the least unless "god" chooses to accept you.

    These are advanced understandings. You have yet to get to even the beginnings of the purpose and teachings. You still need milk (salvation) before you eat the meat of the Bible (Supralapsarianism). One is relevant and the other is not.
    Wrong. Again, if you xians keep claiming that the book is "inerrant" and perfect, than that means that it has to be perfect in every detail, not just in the "important parts".

    If you're fuzzy about many details, how can you tell whether your view of god is accurate in the first place?
    Again again, I am extremely clear as to the important things, Salvation for example. God will reveal the important issues to us as He has. The rest is like I said, merely semantics. We can work the details out later (butterfly stokes) but for now you need to know the basics (floating and tredding water), Milk vs. Meet (1 Corinthians 3:2, Hebrews 5:11-13)
    This semantic dodging of yours is dealt with above.

    If we find concrete evidence to remove all reasonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same?
    Yes. At least I don't have to adhere to any oaths, unlike the ICR, AIG or other YEC group out there.
    At least most of the people in those organizations are going to Heaven.
    You've just missed the point. They've already made up their minds and that's that. They've already decided that the facts are irrelevent as they've taken an oath before they even go out to research. Remember your statement that started this little topic: If we find concrete evidence to remove all reasonable doubt I would be willing to reconsider my understanding of it. Can you say the same? I answered yes, and gave examples that showed that your YEC friends do not.

    Now, you switch topics and start talking about "heaven".

    They are working on the meat of the Bible, you Sir, have yet to drink the milk and you are still unsaved. You will end up in hell and I just don't want that...do you?
    Hell has to exist first. You Sir, have yet to drink the milk of science and you are still ignorant.

    In other words, preaching means nothing to someone who does not believe you.

    Be afraid, be very afraid.
    Of what?

    I am confident you know of what, and as confident as I am about the truth of Jesus Christ.
    I'm not afraid of some guy who died almost two thousand years before I was born.

    ReplyDelete
  84. I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_O

    ReplyDelete
  85. Kaitlyn,

    I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_O

    I resolve to the fact that you have indeed picked a side between truth or a lie, though it was hastily done. Lets both hope, for your sake, you have made the right choice. It will be only a matter of a short time before we all find out which one is defending truth and the other defends the lies.

    The Bible describes Hell as unquenchable fire,(Mark 9:43) outer darkness,(Matthew 22:13) a furnace of fire and a place where people wail and gnash their teeth,(Matthew 13:42) and a lake of fire.(Revelation 20:15) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,(Mark 9:48) and where people are in agony in flames.(Luke 16:24)

    Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)

    According to the Bible if you have made the wrong choice then you will burn in agonizing pain for eternity. Are you absolutely sure you have truth on your side? Are you 100% confident that Reynold is speaking truth?

    For your sake Kaitlyn, I hope all of this is just a story instead of warnings to mankind. What great length for such a hoax to exist, do you agree?

    I believe Reynold showed his illogical thinking and I would like you to just consider it. He posed this question and I knew he would back himself into a corner as it played out.

    It started by Reynold asking me: If this was just all a conspiracy theory (Age of the earth being millions of years) don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now?

    I said yes for the question about science deceiving us and he said: Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted? I said yes again and it led him to make this claim:

    He claimed "This would be hundreds of thousand of scientists in MANY fields over a period of 150 years. Good luck"

    Now, one could say the very same thing about the Bible, except the figures are much greater.

    This would be billions of people in ALL fields over a period of 4000 years. Good luck

    Are you claiming this many people can be fooled? If so could it be possible that you are also being fooled about scientists claims of millions of years? If not, are you then claiming your superior reasoning skills over those billions of people that have education's over thousands of disciplines of study?

    Unfortunately for you, The Bible is truth and trusting in some dude instead of God just broke the 2nd Commandment and the punishment for transgressing that Law is death. The second death to be more accurate. I hope God changes His mind about you and He softens that hard hearth of yours.

    I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_O You chose some illogical dude, over God Himself? That is just sad. You will see God's wrath for that claim unless you realize the plain truth that we call the Bible.

    And so there you go proof of Silly Atheistic Elitist Logic

    ReplyDelete
  86. Dan, I wasn't agreeing with Reynold. I was just remarking on the length of his comment. It's like a great wall of text. I had a hard time following what he was trying to say, but it was interesting to look at none the less.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Dan +†+ said...

    Kaitlyn,

    I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_O


    I resolve to the fact that you have indeed picked a side between truth or a lie,
    Actually, all it sounded to me was that she thought that I wrote too much. Maybe I should split my posts up?

    Sorry, Kaitlyn. Hopefully upon reading my post you can still get my point?

    though it was hastily done. Lets both hope, for your sake, you have made the right choice. It will be only a matter of a short time before we all find out which one is defending truth and the other defends the lies.
    That's right Dan, if you don't have the evidence to back you up, try threats!

    Yup, that's logic right there.

    The Bible describes Hell as unquenchable fire,(Mark 9:43) outer darkness,(Matthew 22:13) a furnace of fire and a place where people wail and gnash their teeth,(Matthew 13:42) and a lake of fire.(Revelation 20:15) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,(Mark 9:48) and where people are in agony in flames.(Luke 16:24)

    Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)

    According to the Bible if you have made the wrong choice then you will burn in agonizing pain for eternity.

    Yep, if all else fails, try threats. Pascal's Wager, anyone? Perhaps the Islamic religion is the "true" faith and we're all screwed.

    Are you absolutely sure you have truth on your side? Are you 100% confident that Reynold is speaking truth?
    Now you're making it sound like she's worshipping me? Go to her blog: "Happy Atheist Scientist". She wasn't a believer in your god in the first place.

    For your sake Kaitlyn, I hope all of this is just a story instead of warnings to mankind. What great length for such a hoax to exist, do you agree?
    No more so than the hoax that would have to be established for any other religion, like, say: Islam.

    The only difference is that xianity was accepted by Constatine, the Emporer of the roman empire who enforced it in Europe. After a few centuries, people got acclimated to, and accepted the religion, and imported it elsewhere.

    That's not due to a "hoax" right there, that's due to enforcement.

    I believe Reynold showed his illogical thinking and I would like you to just consider it. He posed this question and I knew he would back himself into a corner as it played out.
    Oh please, show her how I've "backed myself into a corner" then, genius.

    I'm not the one who's continually getting caught in errors on his own blog here due to the lack reading his own bible. I like how you dodge that in the next post though; all women are punished because of what eve did.


    It started by Reynold asking me: If this was just all a conspiracy theory (Age of the earth being millions of years) don't you think someone would have blown the cover by now?

    I said yes for the question about science deceiving us and he said: Don't you realize the tremendous amount of inter-specialty cooperation that would be needed to make sure the results stayed within the range they wanted? I said yes again and it led him to make this claim:

    He claimed "This would be hundreds of thousand of scientists in MANY fields over a period of 150 years. Good luck"

    Now, one could say the very same thing about the Bible, except the figures are much greater.

    Actually, you've missed something. The bible for ~2000 years has remained relatively stable. Science is always adding, revising, and interacting with the other disciplines of science.

    So the conspiracy among scientists to keep evolution going would have to be larger. Something else; evolution was not the original belief of the people who went out into the field; those people had to drop YECism in order to accomodate what they say in the actual field.

    As more physical evidence came in, YECism became less and less likely.

    Remember the book The Creationists by Ronald Numbers or the site I gave earlier by xian geology worker Glenn Morton where several YECers had to ditch that belief after being out in the field.

    This would be billions of people in ALL fields over a period of 4000 years. Good luck
    Actually, I'm only including the various preachers and teachers. Not the laymen. Just as in science, I'm not including the laymen.

    Uh? "ALL fields"? Which fields are those? Unlike in science where you've got different fields like astronomy, geology, anthropology, genetics, etc. There is really only been one field in xian theology for most of it's existence: various branches of Christian theology.

    Even in more modern times with the rise of science and the modern creationist movement, those are people who, regardless of what "field" they go into, they have to sign an oath where they promise to never change their mind about the veracity of the bible's account. (See the ICR or AIG sites for that)

    No real scientist does that; it'd be impossible to do science then.

    Are you claiming this many people can be fooled? If so could it be possible that you are also being fooled about scientists claims of millions of years? If not, are you then claiming your superior reasoning skills over those billions of people that have education's over thousands of disciplines of study?
    Not superior reasoning skills, just access to more knowledge than they did. Remember, evolution theory and the old earth are comparitively new ideas in the history of the world.

    As I said before: it's only the accumulation of more knowledge that led to people abandoning the YEC views.

    Again, read Ronald Number's book The Creationists or check out Glen Morton's site, linked to above.

    Now, the creationist movement has only a few followers who have to selectively ignore or distort the evidence to make their views seem more plausible.


    Unfortunately for you, The Bible is truth and trusting in some dude instead of God just broke the 2nd Commandment and the punishment for transgressing that Law is death.
    Sigh...she's not trusting ME, she said I had a point, that's all. Besides, I give links and books for further reading.

    It's not like I'm just spinning all this out of my own head, you know.

    The second death to be more accurate. I hope God changes His mind about you and He softens that hard heart of yours.
    And if he doesn't, then really, whose fault is it then?

    Well, since you prize "logic" so much, Dan, let's see you explain that.

    And of course, again with the threats. By the way, that's another difference between religon and science, and also between religion and atheism. No threats.


    I bow before Reynold's great wall of text. O_O
    You chose some illogical dude, over God Himself?
    Uh, "illogical dude"? No, that's your friend, "rock star" Sye TenB or as we like to call him "circular Sye", who keeps chasing his "presuppositional logic" around in circles by putting his conclusion that "god" exists inside his premise that he uses to "prove" that "god" exists.

    Then there's your own statement about "God changes His mind about you and He softens that hard heart of yours".



    That is just sad. You will see God's wrath for that claim unless you realize the plain truth that we call the Bible.
    Yeah, contradictions, failed prophecies and all.

    (Have a look around the site in that that second link, especially the Knowing Your Orchard and Judaism's Answer sections.)

    And so there you go proof of Silly Atheistic Elitist Logic
    You never got the point of her humour, did you? I don't think that she was actually intending anything other than agreement with what I said; but you're so eager to make that claim of "silly athiestic elitist logic" fit that you're grabbing at straws.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Ok, besides my splitting up my posts in the future, I'll put a notice up saying that

    1) My comments that Dan quoted are in bold

    2) Dan's comments that I'm replying to are in italics.

    I tend to quote all that I'm replying to so one can keep track of the conversation: I didn't think that it made it harder to read, due to it's length.

    Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Kaitlyn ,

    I was just remarking on the length of his comment.

    I see that now. I appologize for the rant then. Umm, belay my last.

    more later then...

    ReplyDelete
  90. You never got the point of her humour, did you? I don't think that she was actually intending anything other than agreement with what I said; but you're so eager to make that claim of "silly athiestic elitist logic" fit that you're grabbing at straws.
    Whoops. Forgot to correct that last statement in my last post.

    She was just commenting on my verbiage, not my accuracy.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Reynold, I think you make a very fine argument. :)

    ReplyDelete

Bring your "A" game. To link: <a href="url">text</a>