Take my advice: be sincere in your search

A letter from Charles M

Hello, I was impressed by the webmasters testimonial and all the work he did over the years for the Bible. I understand that there is a lot wrong with the churches in America and elsewhere. There are to many stumbling blocks put there by people in churches. Also lots of churches dont accept what the Bible says and dont understand it. I dont see the point of investigating the Bible if you dont check out the basics of what it says. For instance if evolution is true then the Bible is not. Simple. If this question is not satisfactorily settled it does not matter how well you know the Bible or how much someone wants to be a christian the whole thing is just going to self destruct at some point in the future. So check out the claims of evolution - do they really stand up ? are they really 'scientific' ? or is the seemingly implausible idea of creation more logical ? These are the issues that individuals must work out to their satisfaction.

Also, what about Noahs flood ? Is there any evidence ? Why dont you Google it and see ? If its true and if there is lots of evidence for relatively recent catastrophe - and there should be if it is true then what issued does this raise ? Could all this God loves everyone stuff be wrong after all if he really did kill all those millions of people in a flood he didnt love them very much did He? Not much of a 'wonderful plan for their lives eh ?' maybe most of the preachers are lieing and maybe their congregations like it that way.

Maybe the real God of the Bible isnt to be messed with maybe the problem today is there is no fear of God and that swhy so many on this site have given up because of the appaling example set by many christians and their ignorance concerning what should be the foundational truths of what they claim to believe in. Welll friends I do hope you will take my advice and see if there are any hard facts in the areas of Geology, archaeology, biochemistry etc to back up what the Bible says. I found that there is an abundance and as one would expect from a reasonable God He has not left Himself without testimony, far from it. We dont need blind faith to accept the creator, He says use reason not your heart. If you dont at least have a look to see then you will not after all be sincere will you ?

133 comments:

Trans-man said...

That's how I dismissed religion from my life: I did my research and came up with the result that there is no proof of god, no proof of Jesus, no proof of the flood, no proof of a lot of other things that the Bible declares as truth.

Pull The Other One! said...

'Well friends I do hope you will take my advice and see if there are any hard facts in the areas of Geology, archaeology, biochemistry etc to back up what the Bible says. I found that there is an abundance and....'

Here we go gathering nuts in May,
Nuts in May, nuts in May.
Here we go gathering nuts in May,
On a cold and frosty morning.

PerryStL said...

Hello, I'm impressed at your attempt to come across as friendly and cordial while looking down your nose at us.

I also realize there's a lot wrong with churches in America and elsewhere. These things include lying and killing to increase market share, bigotry toward women, blacks and non-Christians, and blatant hypocrisy in every realm of their existence.

If you check out the "facts" of the your holy magic book, and you really want to believe what it says, and you ignore the parts you can't explain away, and you squint your eyes just right, the Bible, Koran and even Dianetics all make perfect sense.

It's obvious that you know very little about science and you're just regurgitating the words that have been shoved down your throat.

Maybe YOU should check-out the facts from a reputable source "Friend" instead of harassing people.

Unknown said...

I also dismissed religion from my life through reason. I'm not really sure where you did your research, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't on Wikipedia (or its sources at the bottom of the page that are listed so that you can verify them yourself), or any scientific journals, textbooks, etc etc.

By the way, why don't you enlighten us with the reasons to believe? I'd really like to know what you'll come up with. Will you pull out the "Josephus" card? Even Christian experts agree that it his writings might have been "altered" (i.e. forged).

If his work wasn't forged, then which is more possible? (You said, use reason, not faith, so I expect you to do so now.) Is it more possible that God needed to sacrifice himself to make himself forgive humanity that he always knew would sin?...He would send his son down to perform miracles (to a few dozen people, when there are millions right now that are desperate for help) and then die, and then rise up again into heaven?

OR...Is it possible that some people just paid a jewish historian (i.e. Josephus) to make crap up?

Is it more possible that the red-footed booby and the blue-footed booby are more closely related to each other, than each of them are to an elephant? In God's law, they're all created separately, so in fact a red-footed booby is just as closely related to an elephant. Of course, you would have to disregard all of the fossil and DNA evidence that shows otherwise.

I could go on, but instead, I'll let you have a chance to make me into a laughing stock by showing me how I'm so completely wrong. Remember, use reason, not faith.

Unknown said...

By the way, I hope you don't use the old "Science shows that around 5,000 years B.C., there was a major flood around the Persian Gulf / Black Sea... THEREFORE God exists" argument...

Jim Arvo said...

Charles said "Welll friends I do hope you will take my advice and see if there are any hard facts in the areas of Geology, archaeology, biochemistry etc to back up what the Bible says."

That is excellent advice, Charles. I hope everyone here will heed it. I'd just like to add that it's important not to settle for the first bit of evidence that is to your liking, but to always seek out differing opinions--see what the very best arguments on the other side are, and try to thoroughly understand them. Would you agree?

Charles continued "I found that there is an abundance [of evidence for God] and as one would expect from a reasonable God He has not left Himself without testimony, far from it."

Hmmmm.... How very odd. That's exactly the opposite of what I've found. Shall we compare notes? Are you open to ideas and opinions that may draw different conclusions from the same observations, or to observations that may suggest conclusions different from your own? If so, let's discuss...

Anonymous said...

So check out the claims of evolution - do they really stand up ? are they really 'scientific' ?

Yes they do, and yes they are. The fact of evolution is the backbone of modern Biology. Science puts the silly creation myths in the bible to shame.

Also, what about Noahs flood ? Is there any evidence ?

None whatsoever. And there are many problems with this ridiculous myth, not the least of which is that it was borrowed from earlier mythology.

Maybe the real God of the Bible isnt to be messed with

The god of the bible isn't real, but if he was, he would be the greatest mass murderer in history! Read your bible!

You act as if you think we haven't done our research, which would be far from the truth. I personally left the faith after I saw how easy it was to debunk everything foundational to the Christian religion. The bible is nothing but a collection of ancient religious myths and lies. Do yourself a favor and actually do some research and WAKE THE FUCK UP and stop letting other people do your thinking for you and learn to THINK FOR YOURSELF. Glory!

Unknown said...

Charles,

How wonderfully ironic that you should come here cajoling us to do research, no doubt expecting that if we do we'll see "the light" that is God and Christianity, when that very research is what led many of us to realize how very full of crap it all is.

You say that we don't need blind faith, that we should use reason. I agree. In fact, I think simple reason and logic shows, just as one example, how impossible a story such as Noah's Ark is. In fact, there is a wonderful article that goes into great detail about all the impossibilities involved in such an endeavor.

Since you are sincere in your search, I am sure you would be happy to check it out for yourself:
The Impossible Voyage of Noah's Ark by Robert Moore. Enjoy!

boomSLANG said...

Charles...Also lots of churches dont accept what the Bible says...

Dear Charles,

First and foremost, churches don't agree on what the "bible says". If we first consider that fact - and yes, it needs to be considered - then yes, "lots of churches" may not accept what Charles and his church believe "the bible says". After all, you'd be hard-pressed to find me any church that readily admits to interpreting scripture incorrectly. Such an admission would be quite ridiculous, wouldn't you agree? Do you see the subjectiveness of it, now? Let me know.

Charles....For instance if evolution is true then the Bible is not[true].

Yes, precisely!....and similarly, if it is true that the earth is spherical in shape, then the bible is not true. AND, if it is true that the sun is heliocentric, then the bible is not true. 'Get the picture?

Charles...So check out the claims of evolution - do they really stand up ?

Yes, they do, hence, why Evolution is both theory, and fact. But let's suppose evolution is neither, okay? Okay, here we go.....

Charles, where is your testible/falsifiable evidence for "Creation"...i.e.."magic"????? 'Listening.

Chalres...Maybe the real God of the Bible isnt to be messed with...

Maybe there isn't a "real" biblegod to "mess with". 'Ever think of it from that perspective? I say it is the simplist explanation, makes the most sense, and is the most consistant with reality.

Charles....I found that there is an abundance[of "hard facts" that support the existence of the Christian biblegod, specifically] and as one would expect from a reasonable God He has not left Himself without testimony, far from it.

Testimony, eh? I must be frank, I'll wager that what you "see" as a "testimony", is merely Nature, and from there, your intuition(gut instinct), in conjunction with wishful thinking; in conjuction with your book of revealed knowledge, tells you that it's a "testimony" to a deity.

Astreja said...

Charles M, there are so many things wrong with your little essay that it's hard to know where to start.

"Also lots of churches dont accept what the Bible says and dont understand it."

Personally, I do not care which churches, in your opinion, "accept" or "understand" the Bible. I think the Bible itself is a very poor example of ancient historical fiction muddled up with some rather ghastly mythology.

"For instance if evolution is true then the Bible is not. Simple."

The evidence for evolution is overwhelmingly positive. Therefore, the likelihood of the Bible being true is rather small indeed.

"Also, what about Noahs flood ? Is there any evidence ?"

For a worldwide flood, with water to the top of the highest mountain on the planet? No. Categorically no. The story is almost certainly false.

And this is why:

To cover the entire planet to the summit of Chomolungma (a.k.a. Mount Everest, 29028 feet above sea level), in the alleged forty days, it would have to rain at a rate of 30.2375 feet of rain per hour.

Assuming for one wild-ass moment that a man previously unskilled in boat-building managed to round up enough gopher wood to build the Ark...

And assuming that he was actually able to round up two of everything and stuff it into said Ark...

And then assuming that, after adding all the necessary foodstuffs to keep all those animals alive for the trip...

...The force of the rain alone would swamp the decks, capsize the boat and send it to the bottom long before the end of the first day.

The Flood story is crap. Pure mythology, stolen from the Mesopotamian Epic of Creation which was, in turn, a fictionalized account of a bad flood in the Euphrates/Tigris area some millenia ago.

"Maybe the real God of the Bible isnt to be messed with..."

Maybe, just maybe, "the real God of the Bible" simply doesn't exist.

"Welll friends I do hope you will take my advice and see if there are any hard facts in the areas of Geology, archaeology, biochemistry etc to back up what the Bible says."

Not from what I've seen, Charles. I've been fascinated by science since I was a little girl, and just turned fifty this past year... And, the more I learn about science, the more preposterous the Bible becomes in My eyes. (I can always double-check with My brother, who happens to be a biochemist and a geneticist, but don't hold your breath.)

"...at least have a look to see then you will not after all be sincere will you?"

You know, that's one of the egregiously arrogant things I've heard in quite a while. How fucking dare you assume that we are not sincere, just because our conclusions differ radically from yours.

Get lost.

WhateverLolaWants said...

So, are you saying you do believe in the god of the Bible? Then how DO you answer those questions you posed about God supposedly killing everyone on Earth (except Noah and his clan)- does God love everyone? Is that just a lie that pastors tell, but the Bible doesn't support?

speck said...

Take my advise; half your medication.

I Broke Free said...

Charles I have spent the last forty years reading about geology, archaeology, and other sciences. It has always been a passion of mine. And yet I have come to the exact opposite conclusion that you have. I do not see the handy work of a creator at all; in fact I see an Earth and a universe that is completely natural in origin and oblivious to human needs and desires. I do not search for god because I have yet to see a reason to do so. No god has ever made it clear to me that it is an important endeavor, only people like you have done so. And then none of you agree, so what is the point of listening to you Charles? You have provided us with nothing at all that differs from countless other claims.

Like I said I do not seek out god, but I do believe the Christian god can be discounted. Think about your beliefs Charles, what is the real basis for Christianity? The way I see it you have adopted the belief that you were created flawed and that your god finds you unworthy of his presence. Yes there is your belief in ‘salvation’ but that is not the basis of your faith. Without being worthy of eternal damnation, salvation is meaningless. Charles, you have adopted a belief system that is sick and twisted to its very core. It is a belief that focuses on personal salvation rather humanity, a belief that leads to always second guessing what god wants, rather than using your inborn compassion to guide you. I see your faith as evil and a detriment to human growth. No thank you.

I Broke Free

CinemaNet said...

In other words, unless we reach the same conclusion as Charles, we're not being "sincere."

Yeah, sounds like Charles is being REAL "sincere" himself.

*snorts*

Rastilin said...

I am completely certain that evolution is objectively true and the story of the flood is objectively false.

I agree completely with you, if you don't take care of these things first, it'll all fall apart later. However it's important to consider that if you're getting your anti-evolution info from the pastor; he has all the reasons in the world to be less than truthful. Especially considering the aforementioned hyporcrisy that people are accusing the churches of.

Aspentroll said...

Well, Charles, I guess you got shit and shoved in it. Your ass must be bloody and bruised
from the thorough kicking it got here today. There is a way out though, You can say, "Jeez, guys, I was just kidding and didn't really mean what I said". Then we will have a big group hug and allow your sorry bruised ass into the fold. Then again, most likely not.

AtheistToothFairy said...

Charles M wrote:
Maybe the real God of the Bible isnt to be messed with maybe the problem today is there is no fear of God and that swhy so many on this site have given up because of the appaling example set by many christians and their ignorance concerning what should be the foundational truths of what they claim to believe in.
----
Charles,

I very much doubt you'll come back to defend your essay, but I would think you are at least reading the comments to it.

Why would you say the "real God of the Bible isnt to be messed with"?
He hasn't taken a single action in regards to this earth or it's humanity, in 2000 years, and then, only if one actually has faith that this god's son ever walked our earth.
Would you happen to have any evidence that jesus was real and did all those miracles your bible makes claim to?

So if your god has been silent and/or inept for all this time, then why should we fear this god of yours?
Your god sure doesn't bite and from what we've seen, doesn't even have a bark to scare us with.

Like almost every 'true christian' who comes to visit us, you mirror what they all tell us about how "appalling" so many xtians and their churches are. You assume that you have had some special communication with this jesus character and he has provided YOU with some divine truths.
Oddly enough, you would most likely not agree with many of the true xtians who come here and yet, we are to assume that all of you have been set straight by some holy ghostie.

If your god buddy was so real and pro-active with his own cherished flock, then why does this god send out so many mixed messages to his followers?
I know, you alone Charles hold the key to god's truth and I bet you just can't wait to share that knowledge with whomever you come in contact with, yes?

I'd say until you spend some time really learning science from sources other than your pastor and apologists, then you are just as brainwashed as the rest of your ilk.
To believe in a biblical global flood while at the same time, disbelieving in the evidence for evolution, surely say's plenty about why you think your god is talking to you.

Good luck in your own personal Matrix illusion.


ATF (Who knows that every xtian has nothing but "blind faith" to offer for 'proof')

Jackie said...

Doesn't the bible say the earth is flat? Doesn't it also say that the sun revolves around the earth? And why hasn't the troll come back to prove any of his claims? hmmm... we all know the answer to that.

PerryStL said...

Why wouldn't Charles M come back to defend his position? I can think of a few possibilities...

1) He's surprised? He's amazed that his words, which sounded so convincing when his preachers made the comments, isn't accepted at face value. Apparently we heathens aren't aware that we're not supposed to question preachers.

2) He's embarrassed? It's difficult to keep a straight face when one is proposing positions so full of holes that deep down even he doesn't believe them.

3) He's afraid? By talking to us, he's taking a chance of thinking for himself which in-turn may expose him to demonic possession.

4) He's sore? Spending so much time on his knees worshipping a nonexistent entity is tough on the ol' joints.

5) He's disappointed? If he doesn't have streets of gold or 72 virgins waiting for him when he dies, death sounds rather uninteresting.

Seriously Charles... Can't you find anything better to do with your life than harassing people on the Internet?

The Nowhereman said...

"Well friends I do hope you will take my advice and see if there are any hard facts in the areas of Geology, archaeology, biochemistry etc to back up what the Bible says."

Sure Chuck. Let me go check that out right now.......Hmmmm.......Let's see, the flood story is an ancient Mesopotamian myth that predates the bible.....there are lots of big ass dinosaur bones all over the place that are millions of years older than humans...........looks like human beings as we know them today have been around for 100 000 years at the very least......what's that? The bible says the earth is less than 10 000 years old? Oh, well how do you explain the light traveling to earth from stars that are a million light years away?.......what's that?.....Hello??...you still there Chuck???.......

Steven Bently said...

Well Charles I would have to agree with you, the sole reason I left the church it's is those damn Christians. I was running late to church one Sunday morning and there was only one parking space left and I'll have you know that one of those devoted xtains parked their Humvee crossways to where there was just not enough room to park my car...this of course, just furiated the crap hell out of me, I'm thinking what the living hell am I going to do?

I quickly began to panick, I knew that god would soon begin to judge me for being late and would send me to certain hell for not getting to church on time for to enter my overly generous tithe(20%)into the offering plate. I also knew that I would be called out and publicly embarrased by the pastor for being tardy.

So as an impulse solution I just drove my 1979 Subaru pickup right through the front church doors, ah the immediate aroma of musk and bootleg perfume and shoe polish was overwhelming.

I have never seen so many fear stricken Jesus loving xtians scattering and jumping out of windows crying screaming for their lives, begging for Jesus to save them from imminent doom, many of them making instant deals, pleading with Jesus just to let them live another day.

Yeah it was those damn xtains...lol

John of Indiana said...

Oh, how nice, ANOTHER one of those bible buy-bull burn-outs who think we rejected Xianity because one day we thought "Y'know, it's a real drag getting up early on Sunday morning. I think I'll reject the whole ball of wax and sleep in...".
You're an idiot, Charles. The ONLY "proof" you have of your gawd is that 6,000 year-old book of fables and myths.
To use your line of reasoning, Iluvatar and all the other beings and events related in Tolkein's "Sillmarillion" are also true. After all, it's in the book, right?

ryan said...

Charles, you wrote that "he says use reason, not your heart". Shit, that is where I fucked up ! All those churches told me to have faith ! And now I'm told to think? jesus, at the age of 60 I finally see the light !

All joking aside Charles--although you are just a barrel of monkeys--are you quoting the bible? Care to reveal chapter and verse? Since when does your jewgod give a rabbit's ass about reason?

Now about the flood: you flood people don't get it. I am frequently stunned by the hardness of the xristian heart. I do not care about your cute boatload of animals. What I care about is that god you worship. What sort of monster would kill all life on earth like that? I would sooner worship Satan than your god.

You of course have heard the expression about "giving your heart to jesus". When people are converted, they hand over not only their heart, but also their mind and conscience. That is why you can believe these horrors and not blink an eye.

One more little thing. I grew up on a farm, and farmers love animals. Any farmer who mistreats an animal is quickly ostracized by the others. I can assure you that the flood story is their least favorite story in the bible.

charles said...

Thanks for all the replys everyone, i only posted yesterday and i had a quick look today as an afterthought as i doubted if anyone would be interested in what i said and im not familiar with forums (honestly !) Anyway how wrong can you be ! Amazing 22 posts Excellent thankyou. Apparently my response is a little tardy by some peoples standards but there is no reticence on my part. BTW some people seem to think that I was being patronising by asking people to check the evidence and be sincere, well I can tell already you are sincere because this is an important matter to you all. In fact thats why i posted. What I was suggesting is testing all things we hear for instance is it intellectually honest and rigorous to take something the Bible does not say and use that as an argument ? For instance 'boomslang' seems to be saying that the Bible says the earth is flat i quote
''if it is true that the earth is spherical in shape, then the bible is not true ''

The Bible has this to say about the shape of the earth
'It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth' so not flat then and
'He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing' (in space )

I have noticed this technique a lot especially with reference to Noahs ark and the flood. For instance Noah did not have to take every living thing but only those that breathed through their nostrils and only the 'kind' not every variant and yet despite this scoffers produce huge lists of the millions of creatures ignoring what the Bible says on the matter.
Also it says they came to him meaning he didnt have to collect them and why suppose that there was different climatic areas in the Earth as there is today ? The Bible doesnt say that and if we are to fairly assess what the Bible says then we have to view it through the Bibles perspective.

Our friend Astreja says:

'To cover the entire planet to the summit of Chomolungma (a.k.a. Mount Everest, 29028 feet above sea level), in the alleged forty days, it would have to rain at a rate of 30.2375 feet of rain per hour.'
I m sure she is right if that were the case but the water from the flood did not come from the rain only some of it Genesis says ' the fountains of the deep were broken open ' this suggests some form of water storage underneath the upper crust of the earth and indeed Genesis says that prior to the flood it had never rained at all which is possibly why no one listened to Noah. Why suppose that Mt Everest was even there prior to the catastrophe ? After one year of Tsunamis, earthquake and volcanoes I think we can say that absolutely nothing remains of the old world.
Now we all have a presuppositional worldview but it does not have to get in the way if I am aware of it.
The Bible says the earth was raised up and the waters ran of the earth at the end of the flood.
If there really was a global flood like this what would we expect to find ? A world covered by rock laid down by water (sedimentary) full of billions of dead things ? Hey guess what ...... and the rest of it is volcanic. Ok so what about the millions of years and dating methods well check it out for yourself - They are based on circular reasoning and unproven assumptions - but decide for yourself anyone can google this stuff just type proof of noahs flood or problems with radio dating etc

Ok so the hot button topic is The flood (mentioned) BTW If the Bible says a flood covered the whole world then the whole world it must be and not some minor or local event (why build a boat in that case) and evolution.
Now as a layman the complexities of life and cell reproduction are startling to say the least. Not only that but the sheer volume of information which is transferred and duplicated successfully and reliably in the body every day is beyond comprehension. There is nor ever has been any such thing as a 'simple life form' This is a simple untruth. All life is and always has been complex. The fossil records show a sudden appearance of complex lifeforms with no preceeding type. Evolution as science and fact ? Lets consider what is being proposed, that by random chance processes (mutations)over aeons of time complex life came from simple life. Ok is this rational ? Firstly the origins of life - it is proposed that ultimately we are descended from a rock, from goo being hit by lightening etc . Now some things we do know and are fundemental laws of nature. We do not get order from chaos......ever.
All systems always degenerate or devolve they do not go to higher levels of complexity by themselves ......ever

The whole question of the Bible authority rests upon the creation, is it rational in the light of what we know about biochemistry for instance to suppose that life originated by accident ? of course not and i suggest that one reason why people are made unhappy by these questions is the failure to satisfactorily reconcile them but Google has been a great help to me anyway, no pastor told me this usually they are to scared to talk about the important stuff.
The Bible teaches we are playing for very high stakes lets not be hasty.
If youve got this far I thank you - gotta go

ryan said...

I do not attempt to respond to your whole post, charles. I leave that to the more scientifically able. Just a few observations.

I know that malarkey about how god only took representatives and not every species. You know the folly of the flood story and you are trying to come up with a more plausible story. genesis says that the boat held two of all flesh. That means every fucking critter on earth. If you are ashamed of your own bible, deal with it.

And where did you get that shit about "breathing through the nostrils? genesis says all the animals who had the breath of life. In other words, all that breathed. I am quoting, both times, the king james.

You fail to see the difference between and argument and an explaination. Let me illustrate: People who think the earth is 6000 years old know that there are stars a hell of a lot farther away than 6000 light-years. They say: when god made the earth and the stars, he also made the light between them.

Get it? They know the foolishness of the genesis story, so they come up with a better story.

Let me repeat myself. You are missing the goddamned point. I don't care if you have the flood on videotape narrated by Dan Rather. You will not convince me that there is a supreme being who is nothing less than a monster.

And what was that nonsense about maybe Mt Everest not existing at the time of the flood. I must have misunderstood you. That is the most asinine thing I've ever heard.

One more thing: all you people who want to prove the truth of the bible, go and find me the tower of babel.

Jim Arvo said...

Hi Charles,

I'm going to forego the discussion of Noah's ark if you don't mind. To me it's rather like arguing whether Thomas the Tank Engine could really pull Annie the Coach up a steep mountain.

You said "There is nor ever has been any such thing as a 'simple life form' This is a simple untruth. All life is and always has been complex."

Really?! The world of biochemistry must be abuzz with anticipation of your findings. Please tell us which peer-reviewed scientific journal you will publish this in. I'd love to read it. Seriously... what basis do you have for that assertion? Anything?

Charles: "The fossil records show a sudden appearance of complex lifeforms with no preceeding type."

The Vendian period, which predates the Cambrian, shows simple worm-like creatures and mats of algae-like organisms; nothing more. Organisms need to have some minimum structure in order to be preserved in the fossil record. Unfortunately, isolated single-cell creatures leave no fossils.

Charles: "Lets consider what is being proposed, that by random chance processes (mutations)over aeons of time complex life came from simple life. Ok is this rational?"

I suggest you first attempt to understand what is actually being proposed. What you've stated here is the typical creationist claptrap, which totally disregards the role of natural selection. If you leave that out, all you have is "random chance", which is rather like leaving the wings off an airplane and scoffing that it will never fly.

Charles: "...it is proposed that ultimately we are descended from a rock, from goo being hit by lightening etc . Now some things we do know and are fundemental laws of nature. We do not get order from chaos......ever."

Your arguments and vocabulary show that you've gotten your material solely from creationist propaganda. Have you no interest in learning some actual science? All of your "arguments" thus far as simply appeals to indignation and they show no curiosity whatsoever. As for order out of chaos, yes, it happens all the time. Put a tablespoon of sugar in a glass of water and let it dissolve. What you have is total "chaos" as there is no structure to the sugar molecules whatsoever. Now let the water evaporate. What do you see? Crystals, which are *highly* ordered. It must be a miracle! If you would like a list of other such miracles, I'll be happy to provide it.

Charles: "All systems always degenerate or devolve they do not go to higher levels of complexity by themselves ......ever"

Sorry, that is flat out wrong. You might as well trot out that old canard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Surely you've read in your creationist propaganda that evolution violates thermodynamics, right? All such claims are based on fundamental misunderstandings that an inquisitive 2nd grader can see through. I'll simply cite crystal growth and self-assembling organic molecules, of which there are thousands.

Charles: "The whole question of the Bible authority rests upon the creation, is it rational in the light of what we know about biochemistry for instance to suppose that life originated by accident ? of course not..."

I'm not going to address that question directly--at least for now--because there is a larger issue at play here, Charles. You ask "Is it rational?", yet on what basis do you propose to supply the answer? It appears that you think naive intuition, or incredulity, is a trustworthy guide (perhaps augmented by the pseudo-science of creationism). Please tell me how much effort you've expended in learning ANYTHING at all about the science involved. That would be virtually zero, right? Does THAT seem reasonable to you? To make profound scientific pronouncements without knowing a thing about science? Please, spare us. (Weren't you the one urging us to study the facts before making judgments? Aren't you being a tad hypocritical?)

John of Indiana said...

"prior to the Flood it had never rained at all".

Isn't that a physical impossibility? water evaporates, the vapour rises, condenses in the cooler up levels, the vapour gathers together into drops, and the rain falls. If it had never rained, the people of Noah's time must have busted their asses hauling water to irrigate with.
And the "Earth was raised up and the water ran off"? I'd like to see an explanation of how that happens with a shpere the size of this planet. and no fair saying "gawd didditt!"

And Charles, The Google is a lot like Alice's Restaurant. you can get ANYTHING you want, including bullshit to back up whatever bullshit you want. But, hey! Thanks for the T-shirt idea you just gave me:
"The Google said it, I believe it, that settles it!"

Jim Arvo said...

Charles said "...anyone can google this stuff just type proof of noahs flood or problems with radio dating etc"

Just out of curiosity, Charles, have you also tried Googling "problems with noah's flood" or "proof of radio dating"? I'm guessing that's a "no", right? If so, then I presume that what you're actually urging all of us to do is to carefully search all the facts that we know a priori we will agree with. Sorry, but that's a recipe for self-deception.

THE ACE said...

"It is he who sitteth on the circle of the earth." And this proves the people of the Old Testament believed the earth was round?A circle can be flat. Just put a quarter or any coin on a table and you'll see a circle that
is very flat indeed.

And for John of Indiana..how dare
you question the earth being lifted up and the water running off? As all right-thinking people
know, the god Atlas holds the earth on his shoulders. If he decided to raise it up a bit so it would empty all that water, well,
that's just what happened!

Long live Atlas! Glorrreee!

ryan said...

I overlooked something I wanted to joke about. Charles said that before the flood it didn't rain and that there were no plants. He is getting this from genesis 2, which many "scholars" call the second account of creation. The story takes place before adam and before eden.

The aforementioned scholars need to say that 2 accounts are given, because genesis 1 says that plants existed. Apparently they think they are resolving a contradiction, but they are still left with 2 different stories. In the 2nd story, plants and animals make their appearance after adam.

charles, which story is the real story? If you favor the second story, are you telling us that it didn't rain from creation to noah?

Be careful about quoting the bible around atheists. We know the bible better than xristians. That is why we are atheists.

Pull The Other One! said...

Oh lordy Charles!, are you ready for this?!

I've just googled the words 'Islam is the only true religion', and well, it's been quite a revelation I can tell you!

boomSLANG said...

In his original article, "Charles" said...if evolution is true then the Bible is not[true].

To which I responded, "precisely!", and further pointed out that evolution is both theory, and fact; there is no "if".

I elaborated further with a similar analogy ..."if it is true that the earth is spherical in shape, then the bible is not true"

Charles responds with...

The Bible has this to say about the shape of the earth
'It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth' so not flat then and
'He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing' (in space )


Dear Charles,

Similar to how a square is not a cube, a "circle" is not a "sphere". If a second grader can know the difference, then I believe that I'm being perfectly rational in expecting the "Creator of the Universe" to know it, as well.

In any event, I've included some more biblical passages, passages by which we can logically infer that the suggestion is that of a non-spherical earth:

- Daniel 4:10-11: "The tree grew, and was strong, and the height thereof reached unto heaven, and the sight thereof to the end of all the earth:"

and...

- Revelations 7:1: "After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth"

and...

- Matthew 4:8: "Once again, the devil took him to a very high mountain, and showed him all the kingdoms of the world in their glory."

Are the above-quoted passages that of a perfect, infinitely wise "God"?...or ignorant, superstitious men?

To review, you asked me to question "sincerely"(thanks for that, BTW, it would've never occured to me to do that)

Well, in conclusion, I sincerely believe the bible was authored by men, not a "God".

Best regards.

sconnor said...

Charles said,
"I have noticed this technique a lot especially with reference to Noah's ark and the flood. For instance Noah did not have to take every living thing but only those that breathed through their nostrils and only the 'kind' not every variant and yet despite this scoffers produce huge lists of the millions of creatures ignoring what the Bible says on the matter."

Try again Charles. Scripture says god will destroy all flesh that has the breath of life (that's a plethora of creatures). Everything under heaven and is of the earth, shall die. If Noah didn't bring the millions of animals on the ark, where did they come from, later?

Ge 6:17 And, behold, I, even I, do bring a flood of waters upon the earth, to destroy all flesh, wherein is the breath of life, from under heaven; and every thing that is in the earth shall die.

Does destroying "all flesh" mean destroying "all flesh", or not? Does this include whales -- they are made of flesh?

You can also add to the myriad of creatures because of this verse in scripture.

Ge 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth,

And of EVERYTHING THAT CREEPETH UPON THE EARTH. That's a lot of creatures.

Honestly, Charles what grade are you in?

--S.

charles said...

Yes I was in fact brought up like everyone else - with the naturalistic theories of the origins of life and uniformitarian theories about the history of the planet and used to read popular science mags and books and tv progs and enjoyed them too but i started to change my mind when a atheist friend told me that none of these things were known to be fact and often theories were changed. I eventually learned that the whole edifice was based on a particular interpretation of the evidence and that the same evidence could be used to support the Bible only with a lot less holes. I learned that coal and oil do not take millions of years to form and that the fossil record does not show evolution at all what it shows is creatures reproducing after their kind consistently with no changes to another kind and that after many years there were still no authentic transitional types when there should have been many. The 400 million year old jellyfish, frog fern or whatever were still recognisable as those of today. The fossil record can be equally and in my view more satisfactorily explained by hydrological sorting, weight and mobility in the light of a flood and of course it is catastrophic, there is a general sorting yes certainly but its not uniform, it is catastrophic and jumbled.

I know that many people will know the Bible well and better than me no doubt but to answer ryans question the reference you asked for there are a few others but here is one

'Come now, let us reason together,
says the LORD:
though your sins are like scarlet,
they shall be as white as snow;
thought they are red like crimson,
they shall become like wool."
- Isaiah 1:18

Yes faith is important and thats all i ever heard but in the first instance to the big question is there a God at all, no faith is required to reach a conclusion on this

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse Romans 1

what about all the animals and people that were killed ? Id just like to point out here that I wasnt there but the Bible says that 'the earth was filled with violence ' so God decided to destroy the old world - i would like to point out that Noah preached and warned about the flood and some presumably could have avoided it by joining him since the ark was a very large vessel. In every catastrophe in the Bible there is always a way out provided.
I just saw your last post yes it says it never rained from creation to Noah it says that the earth was watered by springs and a mist the mist suggests to me maybe condensation or a humid climate, or in any case an absence of the hydrological cycle that we know today point being I have to bend my understanding to what it says rather than the other way around and see if I can come up with another (rational) expalnation

Ok boomslang quotes passages which he says teaches the earth is flat, well i dont thjink they explicitly teach that at all people still often use the phrase four corners of the earth without being flat earthers. You can read them that way if you presuppose that is the teaching

Jimarvo
I stand by what i said about so called 'simple life forms' this is a total cop out by people who presumably want to explain away the complexity of living organisms. One cell of one of these worms is way more complex than anything we can make even with the knowlege we now have

Check this wikipedia entry for the bacteria flegellum (if you can handle it !)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum

yes your right aspentroll but thanks for the input !

The evidence for the flood (and it is evidence) means the the God of the Bible is not the helpmate thru life that many religeous organisations promote. This is the creator and he owns the shop - He describes Himself as merciful yes and He is but also indignant, wrathfull, jealous for his people, taking vengence and making judgement, powerful, wise and having knowlege to an infinite degree.
We are warned ! and yes He does kill people at a time and in a way preordained unless they turn
to whit:
Psalm 7
God judgeth the righteous, and God is angry with the wicked every day.
If he turn not, he will whet his sword; he hath bent his bow, and made it ready.
He hath also prepared for him the instruments of death; he ordaineth his arrows against the persecutors.

Everyone here knows the issues I dont need to quote the Bible, sorry I already have

Anyway, yes i feared God from what I learned and truly repented and gladly took the salvation offered but the start was realizing that first and foremost He was the creator with sovreignty over the earth and life did not come by accident.

charles said...

jim arvo, your crystal experiment does not involve life, it is a reproducible experiment with a repeatable end so it is science

The whole question of the Bible authority rests upon the creation, is it rational in the light of what we know about biochemistry for instance to suppose that life originated by accident ? of course not..."

I'm not going to address that question directly

go ahead, can you provide a real example example of any living organism which has changed from a 'simple' state to a more complex ? As far as I know all observed changes involve a loss of information never a gain which is precisely what is required for evolution to take place

The Nowhereman said...

"Anyway, yes i feared God from what I learned and truly repented and gladly took the salvation offered but the start was realizing that first and foremost He was the creator with sovreignty over the earth and life did not come by accident."

So I guess you'll be packing for North Korea or Iran to go and preach the word eh? That is the commandment from your god isn't it?....hello?....Chuck??......

webmdave said...

An encapsulation of Charles' "theory":

I don't comprehend how life could exist without supernatural intervention, therefore the Bible is true.

Does that about sum things up?

Well, even if we were to scrap all scientific theories, the Bible doesn't become true by default. But for the sake of discussion, let's assume that some undefined, incomprehensible, immaterial, invisible, extar-dimensional, self-existent, super-powerful life form invaded real space and made weird stuff happen. How exactly did this God do these things? What process did she use? What mechanism did it use to make substance magically appear out of nothing? Or is these things part of those unsearchable mysteries we've all heard so much about? And if these are unsearchable mystery with no natural explanations, then saying God did it while appearing to explain things, actually explains nothing. What the Christian perspective does is stop inquiry. If I believe that existence is one of the unsearchable mysteries of God, then there is no reason to look into it at all! Science is a waste of time!

Do you really want to go back to praying for people with the plague? Isn't modern SCIENTIFIC medicine preferable? The Internet, the form of communication we are using now, wasn't birthed in church. Electricity is more than judgment rained down from the sky; it's a force of nature that we've harnessed.

If all the world saw things like Charles, all inquiry into the nature of reality would cease on the altar of ignorant superstition. We did that. It was called the Dark Ages. It was stupid. Let's not do it again.

Christians accuse non-theists of believing that the universe and all life magically poofed into existence. Those same Christians turn around and preach that everything did indeed poof into existence, magically, by the will some mysterious non-reality-obeying entity. Then they sagely point and say, "Look around -- God exists!"

It's circular reasoning to say the universe exists because God made it and the existence of the universe proves that God exists.

Think about it Charles. Then take an aspirin.

charles said...

No worse than that mate im posting on here !

No I read the webmasters testimony and I thought whats happened here this man was dedicated and sincere (must stop using that word im wearing it out )he decided after so many years that it wasnt true so i thought that is an unhappy story indeed, maybe something foundational was missing. I know this will sound patronising but its the best i can do. There are maybe other people on this site who are very dissapointed with their experience and i thought what made the difference to me what made it real instead of a load of 'stuff' that people told me and so i wanted to share that hoping it might have some value.

Today Jesus is preached as some kind of lifestyle choice, as a helpmate thru life and all kinds of sickly sweet humanist compromises to persuade but thinking people (like on this site)realise that these things are not true in the experience of their own life.

Ask Jesus into your heart they say
This is NOT what the Bible teaches
Jesus said 'no man comes to the Father except by me and no man comes to me except the Father call him' God decides so it makes more sense for a person to petition God in the name of the Son for the neccessarys for salvation and Jesus promises 'I will in no wise turn anyone away '
In any case the Bible teaches something different we dont have a choice ! We are commanded to repent and believe the idea of choosing and 'free will' doesnt sit in my view with what the Bible teaches.

Anonymous said...

I took your advice years before it was given, thank you very much. My search has been nothing but sincerity, study and honest soul-searching.

Just because the answers I've found for myself don't mesh with your answers, it doesn't mean I'm not being sincere. I really get sick of people saying, "You didn't reach the same conclusion as me? You're not doing it right! Pray again! Pray harder!" Uh, no. I'm done. We're individuals, with individual brains, not a hive mind. We are going to arrive at different conclusions.

TheJaytheist said...

Charles(uncle john is that you?)

I must inform you that if the situation you are describing took place that there wouldn't be anything still alive.

The amount of energy released during the global volcanic eruptions/formation and global mountain development/plate tectonic activity would have realeased enough energy to heat all of the water to above normal cooking temperatures at least. Noah would have been poached.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/flood-problems.html

But you don't seemed too concerned with actual physics or reality. It's a miracle after all.

"I have to bend my understanding to what it says..."

So...no real sincerity in your "search" then is there.

Also, if there were no climatic zones how did arctic dwelling creatures get their ability to survive there? Did they evolve?

TheJaytheist said...

"As far as I know all observed changes involve a loss of information never a gain which is precisely what is required for evolution to take place"

Nylon eating bacteria. There is a bacteria that developed the ability to consume an unnatural man made by-product of nylon manufacture. It was a frame shift mutation giving rise to new "information".

charles said...

I don't comprehend how life could exist without supernatural intervention, therefore the Bible is true.

not really dave, thanks for putting my post where it should be by the way i think i put it on the testimonys page before.

your statement presupposes that i find the creation incomprehensible which i did before but obviously not now which i appreciate from your viewpoint is circular reasoning, however the naturalistic explanations are not adequate either the origins of the universe and life are not comprehended by 'orthodox' science especially when we start to look more closely at the organisation of life itself.
Now real science to my mind is science that produces results and that means paid commercial science to produce as you say medicines and useful things. Evolutionary thinking contributes nothing to these areas - in fact i would argue that it hinders progress and as you may know the founders of modern science such as
da vinci
copernicus
pascal
boyle
newton
humphrey davey
farraday and many others
were all Bible believers with a self confessed interest in learning about the creation
some of them were also preachers so i dont think its fair to say that the Bible and science are incompatible and God having given us reason would surely want us to use it for our benefit ?
Belief in a creator has exited my interest in subjects I had no interest in before - how is all this done i wanted to know, i appreciate that i live in the age of the electron microscope and the Konowlege of DNA (definitely no accident)
If all the information was removed from your computer it would weigh the same would it not ?
And likewise if all the information was removed from our bodies they would indstantly dissolve into gloop shouldnt what we now know be evidence of a vastly intelligent creator ? There is no chance that these mechabisms can arise by random chance processes none at all
The idea that it has flies in the face of reason and indeed the laws of nature which we have spent so many years learning

Dogmeat said...

Charles, I'm guessing by your description of the bacterial flagellum that you are a Michael Behe fan. Did you know that he refuses to present a falsifiable scientific hypothesis to prove his claims, saying that he's "too busy"? Too busy to submit his so-called evidence to the scientific method, yet he's more than happy to call his personal beliefs scientific.

The simple fact is that evolution has withstood over a century of scientific peer-review attempting to disprove it, but like all valid theories this has only increased its credibility. As new discoveries were made such as genetics the data coming in has been consistent with evolution, instead of discrediting it the data has simply refined the process by which it works.

If creationists truly have irrefutable evidence of a global flood or a six thousand year old earth, please tell them to stop messing around and present a falsifiable hypothesis to a peer-reviewed journal, if what they say is true they will become Nobel prize winners and save BILLIONS of souls. And if it's not true, at least they will have what they need to seek out the truth. What's there to lose?

charles said...

stronger now can you expand on this 'new information ' got a link id like to check it out for myself

'Nylon eating bacteria. There is a bacteria that developed the ability to consume an unnatural man made by-product of nylon manufacture. It was a frame shift mutation giving rise to new "information".'

charles said...

dogmeat, thanks for checking the link, whats the real issue here ?
that michael behe ( i forgot his name) doesnt submit a peer reviewed article -for whatever reason maybe you can tell me why ? or the improbability of the bacterium flagellum (just one example of hundreds) coming about by chance. I would say the latter is much more worthy of discussion.
Now im only a layman but i understand for the cell to be produced the proteins must be manufactured by the DNA in a chain which then according to the exact sequence of proteins forms itself into the required shape which is then a part of a motor ?! that is the easy bit, it has to be produced in the correct sequence as there is no where to put it, it must be produced and then placed and the next item then built to complete the motor which has around 40 working parts - that is the issue not wether MB is at loggerheads with the sciebtific establishment because maybe he has some infoirmation they cant deal with

sconnor said...

Charles? Any comments from my post about 12 post up?

--S.

TheJaytheist said...

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


http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=345072

charles said...

dogmeat,


If creationists truly have irrefutable evidence of a global flood or a six thousand year old earth, please tell them to stop messing around and present a falsifiable hypothesis to a peer-reviewed journal, if what they say is true they will become Nobel prize winners and save BILLIONS of souls. And if it's not true, at least they will have what they need to seek out the truth. What's there to lose?


there are more than a few sites which have a lot of information on evidence for the flood try CRI for one but nobody on either side has 'irrefutable proof' despite any claims and a sceptical look at the claims for human ancestry will reveal in short order an account of fraud and deception entire men being supposed from a pigs tooth for instance. We have a brain we dont need secondhand opinions do we ? We can assess the evidence for ourselves I suggest that peer reviewed ' journals are not neccessarily the unbiased disinterested organs the general public supposes them to be when robert gentry found evidence in polonium halos in granite which indicated the granite had been formed instantly he published for a short period until the establishment realised the implication then he couldnt publish in his 'peer reviewed' journals


all the best im off now thanks for engaging me in discussion

TheJaytheist said...

http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm

TheJaytheist said...

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/po-halos/

TheJaytheist said...

What? Your leaving? WTF!

You never answered my other questions.

Too hard for you?

webmdave said...

Charles, supernatural is INCOMPREHENSIBLE! Since you and I and everyone else reading these words are natural participants in the natural universe, NONE OF US CAN COMPREHEND SUPERNATURAL!

I realize this is a nearly incomprehensible idea to those whose minds have been molded by religious indoctrination and rhetoric, but IF we comprehend supernatural things, then those things are no longer SUPERnatural, but merely natural again.

Charles said, "Evolutionary thinking contributes nothing to these areas - in fact i would argue that it hinders progress and as you may know the founders of modern science such as..."

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Evolutionary thinking contributes greatly in the study of disease. The adaptation of species is clearly demonstrated by various diseases that mutate to overcome our medicines. And that's just the most simple aspect.

Of what possible use is the science of astronomy? Who cares if the planet is round or flat? There's no obvious commercial benefit to contradicting geocentric thinking, and your anti-evolutionist stance is as retarded as the anti-Copernicus crowd of past generations. Luther and Calvin argued that Joshua told the sun to stand still, therefore it is the sun that revolves around the earth and not the other way around as those evil mathematicians supposed.

The Roman Catholic Church, the largest denomination of Christianity, has completely accepted evolutionary theory. Did you know that? Only anti-intellectual fundamentalists are hanging on for dear life to superstitious ignorance.

Remember, folks. Christianity is not about personal religion, loving your neighbor, helping those in need, and living a privately chaste and moral life. No, Christianity is about propagating and mandating ignorance.

boomSLANG said...

Charles is back, with...Ok boomslang quotes passages which he says teaches the earth is flat..

Dear Charles,

Please notice, I said no such thing about the bible "teaching" anything; I would never suggest something so idiotic. Talking snakes? Walking cadavers? Giants? Fiery chariots? Please.

Now, what I have suggested, is that one can logically infer that the redactors of the bible wrote it from a perspective that the earth was non-spherical. Please review the provided scripture.

Charles continues...i dont [think] they explicitly teach that at all people still often use the phrase four corners of the earth without being flat earthers. >

Yes, yes...I'm perfectly aware that some people still use such figurative language. Thanks. But let me ask you---where do you suppose such figurative language originated? For instance, take, "Hey, the sun rises in the east, not the west!"

Now, do you suppose that primative, ignorant, uneducated man really knew the sun didn't move, and he was simply speaking figuratively? Or, do you suppose that since it appears that the sun "rises" with the naked eye, that that's precisley what man thought the sun actually did?..i.e..rise?

Charles continues...You can read them that way if you presuppose that is the teaching

Again, I would not rely on any such out-moded, out-dated relic, to teach anyone anything. The "poetic truths" that I'm sure you believe are found in "God's Word", are common sense "truths"....thou shalt not run around killing people at the drop of a hat. Really?...people frown on that?

Now, speaking of "presupposing"---even if you choose to ignore the infinite regress that a "Complex Creator" creates, and we hypothetically grant you your illusive, invisible "Architect" in the sky, where is the link between this guy, and the three-in-one, christian biblegod????

'Evidence, please.

charles said...

hello sconnor, God promised to destroy all the air breathing creatures on the earth so i guess that excludes the ones that swim in the sea such as dolphins and whales but many of them would have died too in the huge amounts of sediments and strong currents as the fossils testify. but it includes without exception everything that lived upon the the earth obviously excluding those in the ark So everything that was to survive went on the ark. Now i think personally that its likely that a lot of insects would have survived on floating vegetation but scripture does not say and anyway the creeping things went into the ark as well. But everything that breathed on the earth died yes. So i think what your question is concerned with is population growth post deluge which is an interesting and important area, what would the growth be to produce viable populations ? the only data i have concerns people but i think similar methods can be applied to animals here is one link
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v23/i3/people.asp

The short answer is that only a modest and conventional percentage annual increase is requred to give us the population we have today.
I could turn this around and say if people have been around for as long as we are told where are they ? The population should be much larger and why does not recorded history go back more than 5000 yrs or so - why not 10 or 20 thousand ? where are all the graves ?
In connection with the pre floodpopulation this could have been vast, the Bible says the world was made to be inhabhited but today only 3 per cent is habitable and we have 6 billion ok after much longer time but still...

thanks for your questions no body ever asks me about this stuff.

charles said...

no stronger now gotta get to bed ! its midnight here !

charles said...

ok dave - commercial application of astronomy - navigation for hundred of years mate, trade and commerce, until the late 70's when i went to sea on catgo ships astronomy was the ONLY way to determine your position, we had almanacs which told us exactly what the sun and the stars were doing, we wouldnt have left home without them ! No GPS back then or in the millenia before.


'Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. Evolutionary thinking contributes greatly in the study of disease. The adaptation of species is clearly demonstrated by various diseases that mutate to overcome our medicines. And that's just the most simple aspect. '

yes its the adaptation of a species NOT new variety geddit ?


The roman catholic church the 'largest denomination of christianity '

Ha ! give me a break where in the Bible does it say we should worship the 'mother of heaven' ? no where mate as you know better than I, you may also recall in jeremiah that God is infuriated with the women of Israel for baking bread to offer to 'the mother of heaven' Pagan idolatory left over from idol worship in ancient Babylon
priests forgiving sins ? no way a sure ticket to hell
The pope as Christ representative on earth ? simple heresy
There are i suppose some true believers contained within the catholic church but very few i suspect and as for its doctrine the above ..nuff said

charles said...

dave,

yes its the adaptation of a species NOT new variety geddit ?

mistake, should read :

NOT new species

it is in fact of course a new variety

charles said...

The Roman Catholic Church, the largest denomination of Christianity, has completely accepted evolutionary theory. Did you know that? Only anti-intellectual fundamentalists are hanging on for dear life to superstitious ignorance.

The catholic church accepting evolution is no suprise

charles said...

stronger now, after providing theories only to trash gentry even his enemies conclude :

it does not explain the apparent occurrence of the Po halos as described by Gentry.

the full conclusion below

or if you are pushed for time:
we will have something better sometime soon Gentry is wrong cos well we just know he is


Although the geology of the three sites discussed above conclusively disproves Gentry’s claims of instant creation of the 'primordial basement rocks,' it does not explain the apparent occurrence of the Po halos as described by Gentry. But this does not mean that there are no explanations. Clearly there will be a more logical and scientific explanation, perhaps including misidentification of the halos themselves due to sectioning other than through the centre of the sphere. (Hastings, 1987b)


Dont touch the sacred cow

Dave8 said...

Charles: "I stand by what i said about so called 'simple life forms' this is a total cop out by people who presumably want to explain away the complexity of living organisms."

Charles... I am not sure what your "premise" is, based on your comments about the proposed complexity of life forms.

However, I have a degree in social science, etc., and have a few questions for you.

Do you believe that someone with an IQ of 210 is more "complex" than someone with an IQ of let's say 50? Why? Is neural processing and "informational" memory, a standard by which to measure complex life forms?

Can you "explain" what a complex life form is, as opposed to a "non-complex" life form? Do you have a perfectly isolated & "Absolute" Standard that allows you to measure a deviation in complexity? Can you present that model here for me to research it's "Universal" application and merit?

Many Christians believe that God is "complex", what is the standard they are using to "infer" their God is complex?

If a geneticist can increase the complexity of life forms through the application of genetics; then... does that make elevate the mortal status of the geneticist to that of a "god", because they were able to "produce" a life form, that is considered "complex" by many Christian believers?

Can you define "life"? What does it mean to "live"? Is AI an instance of "life"? What makes primates "less" complex than humans? In an ecosystem... are the least complex forms of life, "less" complex than the higher forms? If the less complex life forms, as described by a Christian believer were removed would the more "complex" life forms "survive"?

If not, then would it be fair to suggest that such a highly complex life form, requires a "less complex" life form for survival. If a highly complex life form requires a less complex life form for survival - does that demonstrate the lack of autonomy of a life form? If a highly complex life form, can not survive autonomously... then can it be suggested that it's "complexity" is really a "vulnerability" to survival?

If you take an engineering approach, then can you explain which systems are more vulnerable to breakdown; highly complex systems with numerous parts, or less complex systems with fewer parts?

I'm truly interested in your views on these questions... if you are not able to answer them, then does that make you "less" complex than someone who is able to answer such questions?

webmdave said...

Aye matey, and it's a good ship too Captain!

Well shiver me timbers, mate, the bloke done gone to mocking his fellow religious bunkies.

It's like this, skidoo, it don't make a dinky bird what your ignorant opinion is about whether or not science is good ideeee. The fact is, it's here to stay! Geddit there good buddy?

You religio-bots are sceerrred to deeth of science undermining your whole silly myth-legend.

WEEELLL let me tell y'all sumpin 'bout dat there tinking, matey. (Get that damn parrot off the deck!) What chew got here is stubborn refusal to live in the reel world in favor of fantasy land.

If ALL SCIENCE IS BUNK, how does that in any way lend credence to belief in flying chariots; talking snakes, bushes, and donkeys; a flyin, un-dead, zombie, man-god-on-a-stick; swimming ax heads, and a host of other ridiculous such as the universe being 6,000 years old?

Charles, you're a tremendous help to me here. Thank you. You have illustrated beatifully how "TRUE CHRISTIANITY™" cripples a man's ability to differentiate fantasy, myth and legend from reality.

Yo ho ho and a bottle of rum, Matey!

TheJaytheist said...

Didn't read them all did you chuckles?

From Talkorigins:

"Summary/Conclusions
Gentry's polonium halo hypothesis for a young Earth fails, or is inconclusive for, all tests. Gentry's entire thesis is built on a compounded set of assumptions. He is unable to demonstrate that concentric haloes in mica are caused uniquely by alpha particles resulting from the decay of polonium isotopes. His samples are not from "primordial" pieces of the Earth's original crust, but from rocks which have been extensively reworked. Finally, his hypothesis cannot accommodate the many alternative lines of evidence that demonstrate a great age for the Earth. Gentry rationalizes any evidence which contradicts his hypothesis by proposing three "singularities" - one time divine interventions - over the past 6000 years. Of course, supernatural events and processes fall outside the realm of scientific investigations to address. As with the idea of variable radioactive decay rates, once Gentry moves beyond the realm of physical laws, his arguments fail to have any scientific usefulness. If divine action is necessary to fit the halo hypothesis into some consistent model of Earth history, why waste all that time trying to argue about the origins of the haloes based on current scientific theory? This is where most Creationist arguments break down when they try to adopt the language and trappings of science. Trying to prove a religious premise is itself an act of faith, not science."

Franciscan Monkey said...

Charles, thanks for the advice, that is exactly what I did. I was a Christian for 25 years, went to a Christian college, was a youth director at a church, and taught Bible studies. When I actually was sincere in my search, I came to the conclusion that the Bible is not the Word of God. It is filled with too many internal contradictions, scientific inaccuracies, historical anachronisms, and logical inconsistencies to be the product of a deity.

I hope you take your own advice and search with a sincere mind. Based on what I've seen from your posts, you seem to have only looked at evidence from a Christian point of view, which of course forces you to then twist the evidence to make it fit, such as when you said, "The fossil record can be equally and in my view more satisfactorily explained by hydrological sorting, weight and mobility in the light of a flood and of course it is catastrophic, there is a general sorting yes certainly but its not uniform, it is catastrophic and jumbled." This is untrue. No amount of "hydrological sorting" could ever produce the fossil record as we see it. As just one example, why are there absolutely no flowering plants found in the early fossil record?

You even admit that you do not look at things objectively when you said, "point being I have to bend my understanding to what it says rather than the other way around."

How old do you think the universe is, Charles? And how do you explain SN1987A (google it) if you think the universe is only 6000 or so years old?

Another thing, study your Bible a little more, you don't even know what it says. You wrote, "i would like to point out that Noah preached and warned about the flood." Where do you see that? II Peter 2:5? Read Matthew 24:37-38, Jesus said that the people had no idea what was coming.

Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

sconnor said...

Charles,

all flesh in which is the breath of life , from under heaven; everything that is on the earth shall perish.

Charles said, For instance Noah did not have to take every living thing but only those that breathed through their nostrils and only the 'kind'

You don't get it. It's not just animals that breath through their nostrils (there's nothing about nostrils, that's a lousy translation); it's ALL FLESH THAT HAS THE BREATH OF LIFE. Way too many, to all fit, on the ark.

And is god lying when he says ALL FLESH WILL PERISH? Last I checked, all sea creatures were under heaven and on the earth. Either god killed all the flesh or he lied and he didn't. Which one is it?

--S.

Astreja said...

Charles: "Our friend Astreja says:"

Friend? Hmm...

"'To cover the entire planet to the summit of Chomolungma (a.k.a. Mount Everest, 29028 feet above sea level), in the alleged forty days, it would have to rain at a rate of 30.2375 feet of rain per hour.' I'm sure she is right if that were the case but the water from the flood did not come from the rain only some of it Genesis says 'the fountains of the deep were broken open'... this suggests some form of water storage underneath the upper crust of the earth..."

So where is that water now? I'm visualizing it in three dimensions right at this very moment, and it seems very unlikely. But I'll pull out My calculator and we shall see if your assertion is at all plausible.

Radius of the Earth: Approximately 3,950 miles.

Using the formula 4/3πr³, we get a volume of 258,154,398,668 cubic miles.

Now let's determine if all the extra water could actually fit. For starters, we have to add the five and a half mile height of Chomolungma to the radius of the Earth. That gives us an expanded radius of 3955.5 miles.

Again using 4/3πr³, we can determine a volume of 259,234,267,363 cubic miles for the flooded Earth. Subtracting the unflooded size, that means we have to deal with 1,079,868,695 cubic miles of water.

The Earth's oceans contain 322,300,000 cubic miles of water, so already we're dealing with over three times the volume of water in the oceans here. Starting to look a bit fishy, in My opinion.

The volume of the unflooded Earth would be sufficient to hold the required liquid, but only if the Earth contained sufficient empty space.

This does not seem very likely, given the density of Earth's structure.

Furthermore, please give consideration to the effect of all that water flowing around, dousing the flames of volcanoes and/or being boiled and generating steam.

And finally, consider the weight of all this now-above-the-surface flood water five and a half miles deep, bearing down on the hollow earth that allegedly once contained it. I can imagine such a shell cracking under the weight, which would drain the water back inside.

If this actually happened, the sudden collapse would probably create a mega-tsunami which would -- Once again -- Send Noah and his passengers to Davy Jones's locker in rather short order.

(By the way, what forces were keeping the water out of the underground warrens for the duration of the Ark's trip? And no, "Goddidit" doesn't work for Me here.)

I maintain that the Flood myth is simply too absurd to be true.

"All systems always degenerate or devolve they do not go to higher levels of complexity by themselves ......ever"

False. (And, if you don't believe Me, do this experiment and grow yourself some lovely salt crystals.)

I presume that you are making reference to the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and would like to point out that only closed systems degenerate in such a manner. The Earth, however, is an open system, receiving a great deal of energy from the Sun.

"The whole question of the Bible authority rests upon the creation, is it rational in the light of what we know about biochemistry for instance to suppose that life originated by accident?"

It was not an accident. Complexity is built up in gradual stages from simple beginnings, in accordance with easily observable chemical and physical principles.

"The Bible teaches we are playing for very high stakes lets not be hasty."

Ah, Pascal's Wager yet again. Aren't you the least bit concerned that you might have chosen the wrong god? There are thousands of them, y'know.

And what kind of deity would put such an outlandishly onerous burden on mere mortals, anyway? Asking humans to be stakeholders in its fight against a Bad Guy that it, itself created? This is not a god that I deem worthy of respect, that's for sure.

Jim Arvo said...

Charles,

I'm explaining away nothing. I asked you how you knew that ALL LIFE was complex. You avoided that question like the plague. Pointing me to a mechanism in a "modern" cell proves absolutely nothing. Why not point to an elephant? Do you know anything at all about current theories of abiogenesis? It does not appear that you do. (What a surprise.)

Now, concerning "hydrologic sorting", again it takes very little to expose that argument as absurd. What we find in the geologic column is sorting BY SPECIES. There are NO reptiles or mammals in the Cambrian strata. There are NO fish or amphibians in the Vendian strata. There are NO flowering plants or insects before the Paleozoic strata. Doesn't that strike you as a bit odd? With all that commotion, you would expect that these things would get somewhat jumbled; but they are not--not even close.

Here's another way to see that your explanation is bunk. Trilobites had compound eyes with many lenses. The number of lenses is different depending on the strata; the lower the strata, the fewer the lenses. Now isn't that odd? Somehow all the turbulence sorted trilobites by the number of tiny lenses in their eyes. It also managed to sort horses by the number of toes, and the triceratops (with three horns) somehow always ended up above the protoceratops (with no horns). I could go on and on. You certainly are asking a lot of hydrologic sorting.

Charles said: "...your crystal experiment does not involve life, it is a reproducible experiment with a repeatable end so it is science"

Yes, and your point is what? Let me remind you of what you said earlier: "We do not get order from chaos......ever." I showed you why that is absolutely and unequivocally false. Order arises from chaos ALL THE TIME. Now, if you would like to re-phrase your assertion I'll be happy to consider it again. As is, it's false.

Charles dodges my question about whether he has actually studied any real science (from which we can infer that the answer is "No") and then asks the classic creationist question: "...can you provide a real example example of any living organism which has changed from a 'simple' state to a more complex ?" Yes, of course. Organisms occasionally duplicate genes, or even entire chromosomes, which leads to a more "complex" (albeit redundant) genetic code. This is the first step toward encoding more "information", as the redundant gene can accumulate changes without losing the original function. An example of this process, which resulted in an entirely new digestive mechanism, was observed in a bacterium that "learned" to digest nylon, a substance that was unavailable before WWII. There are also examples of speciation events that have been observed in the laboratory, and even in the wild. Why not do a little research on your own? There is a *huge* amount of information available on all this. Are you averse to actually learning something new for some reason?

Charles later makes the ignorant assertion that "Evolutionary thinking contributes nothing to these areas [of science]...", as he is apparently unaware of its enormous influence in biology, geology, medicine, and even psychology. If you want a very concrete example of how evolutionary theory contributes to the making of a tangible product, I need only point you to the oil industry. (I worked as a mathematician at a major oil company briefly many years ago, so I know this first-hand.) Oil companies in the US hire a large number of paleontologists to analyze and date rock samples obtained from drilling. It turns out that rocks can be dated quite precisely by the fossilized creatures entombed in them (note that this is NOT how the rocks were initially dated--that's a straw man set up by ill-informed creationists). No oil company in the world would hire a paleontologist who was ignorant of evolution, I can assure you that. And ideology has nothing to do with it--it's all about what *works*, because that's what allows them to find oil reserves, and make *money*. If consulting the Bible produced better results, you can bet they would switch in a heartbeat.

Charles, you are frightfully naive about science. I'll say it again: you appear to have obtained all your "information" from creationist pseudo-science. You show absolutely no desire to learn about ANYTHING that challenges your pre-conceived notions. Honestly... the simplistic explanations you come up with are completely childish. Who do you think you're fooling? Educate yourself before condescendingly injecting your poorly-thought-out pseudo-science. (I'm not usually this harsh. But I get REALLY annoyed by people who think they have something important to say about topics they are completely ignorant about.)

Dave8 said...

Charles, while you contemplate how to respond to the posts presented to you... I'd like to point out that your Holy Bible God has no respect for you, or anyone.

Deuteronomy 10:17 - "For the Lord your God ... regardeth not persons."

2 Chronicles 19:7 - "For there is no iniquity with the Lord our God, nor respect of persons."

Acts 10:34 - "God is no respecter of persons."

Romans 2:11 - "For there is no respect of persons with God."

Galatians 2:6 - "God accepteth no man's person."

Ephesians 6:9 - "Neither is there respect of persons with him."

Colossians 3:25 - "There is no respect of persons."

1 Peter 1:17 - "And if ye call upon the Father, who without respect of persons, jugeth according to every man's work."

Charles, do you know what a sadist is?

Sadism: "The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sadism

Charles, your God concept is a sadist.

Psalm 137:9 - "Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones."

Psalm 139:8 - "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there."

Charles, your God concept reigns in Hell. And, it appears your God concept enjoys being Evil.

2 Kings 6:33 - "Behold, this evil is of the Lord."

Isaiah 45:7 - "I ... create evil."

Amos 3:6 - "Shall there be evil in a city, and the LORD hath not done it?"

Charles, your God of the Christian Bible enjoys making humans suffer; while I attended a four year biblical college, I studied psychopathology - if your God were here today, being evaluated by a clinical psychologist, she would never be allowed to enter into society.

In order for the Christian sadist God concept to work... religious leaders, etc., have to break and train their followers to become masochistic.

Masochism: "4. the tendency to find pleasure in self-denial, submissiveness, etc."
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/masochism

Charles, I suppose you like being treated like trash, and enjoy worshipping a God of hate, evil, and lies as the concept you want to epitomize as what you aspire to be.

Jeremiah 4:10 - "Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people."

Jeremiah 20:7 - "O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived."

Ezekiel 14:9 - "And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet."

2 Thessalonians 2:11 - "For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie."

Charles, if you were able to “prove” everything you believe about supernatural events, etc., and complex life forms, etc., do you actually believe anyone with moral integrity would “worship” your God concept as displayed in the Holy Christian Bible?

If you had “one” cell of compassion for humanity, you could not be a Christian; it’s not that “complex”.

Lance said...

I can't believe we all missed the one thing that is forcing Charles down his road of un-reason; It is the cork of fear that is holding the whole mess in.

Charles said early on "The Bible teaches we are playing for very high stakes lets not be hasty."

See, it all gets back to the question of hell. He must find some way to twist all the evidence so that it make sense in his mind, or the house of cards comes falling down and he gets sent to the fiery inferno.

No amount of evidence we produce will shake this man. He has renounced his reason because of his fear of this terrible god.

In a later replay he says "This is the creator and he owns the shop - He describes Himself as merciful yes and He is but also indignant, wrathfull, jealous for his people, taking vengence and making judgement, powerful, wise and having knowlege to an infinite degree.
We are warned ! and yes He does kill people at a time and in a way preordained unless they turn"

In Charles' opinion, the bible god is scary, therefore we must do everything we can, including tossing our logic and reason out the window in order to appease him.

I have to conclude that Charles is a lost cause. As Thomas Paine said, to argue with him is like giving medicine to the dead.

At least it was fun to have him around to see how ridiculous his arguments are. I love the one about Mount Everest. LOL.

- Lance

p.s. I don't mean to turn this thread toward the hell topic. I think we have beat that one to death. No pun intended.

AtheistToothFairy said...

Dave8 Said:
If you had “one” cell of compassion for humanity, you could not be a Christian; it’s not that “complex”
---
Dave,

That has got to be a CLASSIC, you wrote there !!!

Alas, Charles is not out to discover any truths, but rather he is only looking to confirm his own false conclusions about our world. Like most xtians, he has an inner need to believe in this god and this god's rewards, and nothing less will do.

He's simply not ready to open the door to reality (yet) and until he runs into that first door-opening doubt about god, he'll continue to fight tooth and nail to hold onto his faith.
If that means putting down science, twisting logic, and molding 'evidence' so it fits within his bible dogma, then he has no choice but to do just that.

What I would like to know is, what is the driving force behind his desire to believe in this god.

Is it some huge fear of death that he's trying to overcome, or is it more the appeal to live forever in some heaven that wets his whistle. Might it be that he needs god around in this life, just to get through each day and greatly fears having to do that without such a god in his life.

Obviously this god has no evidence of his/her existence, so for someone to insist this god is real, there has to be some underlying emotion(s) that refuses to let one's mind see the fallacies of such a god being part of our reality.

Trying to talk sense to someone who is driven by emotion, can be most difficult to do, if not impossible. If 'you' ever tried to talk someone out of their professed love for a ill-fitting potential mate, then 'you' see how emotions greatly cloud one's judgement. Until enough evidence shows through that cloud, the person is blinded by their emotions.
As they say, "Love Is Blind", but I think the emotional desire to believe in a god is far 'Blinder'.

ATF

boomSLANG said...

Lance...See, it all gets back to the question of hell. He[Charles] must find some way to twist all the evidence so that it make sense in his mind, or the house of cards comes falling down and he gets sent to the fiery inferno.

If confronted with a decision to choose only between eternal existence in "hell", and the complete anihilation of the self(i.e..death/non-existence), what do you think "Charles", or any Christian would choose? Right, obviously, the latter. Moreover, I'll wager that these people's intellect and reasoning capabilities would quickly bet set free from the respective compartments in their minds, if they believed that those were the only choices. The point being, that if they could reason that "Hell" is simply non-existent, then that would of course mean that "Heaven" - which comes from the same theology - is non-existent, too, and thus, there is not an "afterlife". Thus, IMO, it is ultimately the inability to fathom their own non-existence that keeps Charles & Co.'s "house of cards" errect.

charles said...

OK what have we got today, quite a bit sorry if i seem brief with all your questions but as you can see ive got a lot to do so im not meaning to be short with anyone

BTW no im not a scientist I am a technician grade worker i dont have a dgree in any subject i have my vocational qualifications i do have a brain and an intellect tho and i accepted the theory of evolution taught as fact. I now believe that to teach a theory as fact is lieing. Also that the naturalistic philosophies of evolution are harmfull as i can see reading on this site.

tooothfairy:
At least it was fun to have him around to see how ridiculous his arguments are. I love the one about Mount Everest

oh the false confidence ! now i was proposing that mount everest was not present at the time of the deluge yes how ridiculous, oh whats this ? Sir edmund Hilary of everest fame reports thus on his epic ascent:

Later on Sir Edmund Hillary, on his famous climb, verified not only that there were fossilized sea shells near the top - but that the top three thousand feet of Mount Everest was covered in fossilized closed clams in seams up to ten feet thick

closed means buried alive so either the water was over everest which is highly improbable or that the top of mt everest was at some time much lower - oh ..shall we say the sea floor perhaps ? i await alternative explanations which promise to be much funnier tham mine. The premise of mine is that the land was raised up after the flood to drain the water off maybe finding fossilised sea creatures on the top of a mountain is just possibly evidence of such an event and BTW jim arvo what price yer uniform fossil record now - shouldnt the clams be somewhere else like the bottom of the fossil record instead of the top. Fossils are jumbled up dead seacreatures with dead land creatures - why so - they inhabhit different environments there is no way they should be found together.
The uniform fossil record is an evolutionist fantasy it does not exist in the real world.

ditto webmdave not realising that there could possibly be a practical application of astronomy like well navigation ? thats how your founding fathers located virginia also until relatively recently even aeroplanes used celestial navigation
i thought your last broadside was a bit light shipmate is the shotlocker running low ?

Franciscan monkey
so noah what are you building ?
erm well a ship
what for ?

is the answer a) I just got laid of at the autoplant and i had some time on my hands
or b) God told me that he is gonna destroy the world with water so im building this so i dont die.

i googled the supernova - we see supernovas explode apparently i dont see anything exceptional here aside from the claim of 168000 yrs - again an unprovable assertion and BTW if supernovas have been exploding at the current rate for 4 to 20 BY why arent there more of them ?

astreja, the water is still here this is an (almost) drowned planet they dont call it the blue planet for nothing, thanks for taking the trouble to show us that water could not have covered mt E I have no difficulty agreeing with you however as i said my presupposition is that it was not there to be covered

Stronger now
Gentrys opponents will always fight his evidence because his conclusions are entirely unacceptable to them although they cannot disprove him i thought their comments about granite acted on by water were interesting because i understand genesis to say that the earths foundation rocks were formed in water

dave8 + jimarvo
i think it is self evident that all and any life form is extremely complex from a single leaf or cell to a complete creature in my view there are in consequence no simple life forms, how would i define complex ? well can i or could we make it ourselves ? answer is of course no.
is someone with an iq of 50 less complex than one with 210 ? of course not thats simply a function of measuring an aspect of their intellect.

'No oil company in the world would hire a paleontologist who was ignorant of evolution'

this is just another of the false cosy assumptions that these posts are riddled with.

Dr john morris is an oil company geologist and also mining and he is a creationist he says

Without doubt, beds can be correlated by studying microfossils, but this has nothing to do with age or evolutionary ideas. Certain spatial patterns have been noted, but they fit just as well, if not better, into a catastrophic Flood framework as they do into a uniformitarian (evolutionary) concept.

ok boring stuff over dave8 has got some theology
now there is quite a bit there dave and i cant deal with it all in the depth it deserves so forgive me if i generalise

everyone here seems to make a moral judgement on God yet which of us has not broken His law and standards ?
By what right therefore do we do this ?
He has laboured mightily that we can have an escape from judgement. He has revealed himself but only a few take Him at His word. People everywhere curse God and many hate Him. Are you not therefore His enemies ?

Yet still salvation is available to all regardless of what they have done but remeber God closed the door of the ark and shut Noah in and all outside perished. In life we have a chance but when the door is closed those outside will perish eternally. Its pride and our lusts that keep us from evaluating Gods word effectively no matter how long we spend studying the word and i know many here have done so for many years.
Ask God to work whatever is neccessary to allow Him to be revealed. John did say did he not that the believer was born of the spirit and not of man.

Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts,

And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

(uniformitarianism)

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

charles said...

like i say its not a philosophical position but pragmatic, naturalistic theories of the origins of life are only plausible if you are predisposed to accept them. Atheism is a religeous position and evolution is its central doctrine.

how does evolution explain the action of the consience, reason, pursuit of the arts and science and other higher activities

we are here talking about these issues, the animals we are supposed to have descended from certainly arent.

Evolution is a baseless and irrational idea - sorry but theres just no observable mechanism for its claims the nylon eating bacteria notwithstanding oh yes forgot to reply on that one here goes,
i checked the wickipedia

Genetic analysis of the plasmid led some scientists to the conclusion that the genes to produce one of the enzymes had most likely resulted from the combination of a gene duplication event with a frame shift mutation.[4] Further analysis has led to speculation that the fact that the frame shift was able to produce a functioning enzyme

as usual: some, most likely, speculation, alternatively

It seems clear that plasmids are designed features of bacteria that enable adaptation to new food sources or the degradation of toxins.

ryan said...

Charles, I just got here and I am disgusted with you. I challenged you about god being interested in reason and your response was quoting isaiah 1:18,"come let us reason together". Have you bothered to read the next verses? I am not impressed with your jewgod's reasoning skills.

Here is the jerusalem version:

come now, let us talk this over
says yahweh
though your sins are like scarlet
they shall be as white as snow
though they are red as crimson
they shall be like wool
if you are willing to obey
you shall eat the good things of the earth
but if you persist in rebellion
the sword shall eat you instead.
the mouth of yahweh has spoken.

Charles this is a joke. Your jewgod sounds like dialogue from some gangster movie:

"Hey paisan, lets you and me talk-a dis over, eh? Now you do-a things my way, see? I'm a reasonable guy. I need-a cooperation, I don't want I should have to kick-a you ass."

As I continued reading your post, it became obvious that you have no interest in the flood. What you love is your angry, vindictive jewgod who can kill without hesitation and without inhibition, and certainly without remorse.

The last line of the passage is the best: yahweh has spoken. This is your reasonable jewgod: "I talk, you listen" This is not about floods, or fossils, or life forms, is it? This is about the petty little tyrannt you grovel under.

And by the way, I would bet serious money that you are a jew.

webmdave said...

Charles wrote: "I now believe that to teach a theory as fact is lieing.

Charles, theories are not facts, they explain facts.

Here's a fact: The water on the stove is hot.

Here's a theory: The excited motions of the water molecules is caused by the transference of heat from the burner to the water makes the water feel hot to human beings whose base temperature is 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit.

From Wikipedia: A fact is an observation or a piece of data. Facts can include objective measurements which can be either pieces of verifiable evidence, or the results of an experiment which can be repeated over and over again by different people. For example, the gravitational force can be measured and observed so can therefore be described by scientists as a fact. Every time an apple is dropped and it falls, an observation of gravity is made.

* Theories in science are different from facts. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. Predictions can be made and tested based on this theory. There have been many theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity. That is, scientists ask what is gravity, and what causes it. They develop a model to explain gravity, a theory of gravity. Many explanations of gravity that qualify as a Theory of Gravity have been proposed over the centuries: Aristotle's, Galileo's, Newton's, and now Einstein's.


Charles, you admit that you are uneducated. Your general lack of familiarity with the rules of capitalization and grammar confirm your admission. Yet you are confident that your conclusions -- based entirely on self-admitted ignorance -- are superior!

Good grief.

Knowledge of how the universe works is desirable even if NO ONE can figure out how to put it immediately to practical use. To say that all knowledge must have an immediate practical application is just plain stupid.

Charles, until you can name a single volume you've read on evolution that was written by a reputable scientist, your opinions on the topic are worthless. There is not one reputable creationist scientist on earth. How could there be? All creationists can ever do is attempt to poke holes in natural science because there is no such things as supernatural science!

Again, this is for you, Charles: If evolution is one day abandoned as an inadequate explanation to our questions regarding life, it still falls to the creationist to provide positive evidence in support of his or her claims! The death of evolution does not lend one scrap of support to magical creationism!

Do you have any -- ANY -- positive evidence (outside a book of fables) that the entire universe magically poofed into existence a mere 6,000 years ago?

Hello! Charles! To blazes with evolution! Where is your positive evidence supporting your magical position?

With Creationist cretins it's always about keeping the conversation on evolution and throwing about rhetoric dreamed up by armchair relgio-bot-philosophers. Creationists have NOTHING to bring to the table except a desire to demonize modern scientists, much like their Roman Catholic and Protestant forbears demonized Copernicus and Galileo for teaching that the Earth was not the center of creation.

How fortunate for our world that a tiny minority of Christianity has been granted the privilege of divine revelation regarding the appearance and development of life on planet earth. Without this revelation knowledge given to Charles and his ilk, we would all be floundering in a world where its secrets have to be earnestly and meticulously sought out, tested, and then interpreted. With prophets like Charles, we can now just sit back on our big fat asses and say, "GOD DID IT, Y'ALL! Y'ALL CAN GO ON HOME NOW. CLASS DISMISSED!"

Astreja said...

Charles: "everyone here seems to make a moral judgement on God yet which of us has not broken His law and standards ?"

I don't give a rat's ass about the standards of your god. Those standards are fatally flawed. Any being that would choose to drown a planet and murder countless life forms is immoral, and we can gain nothing of value by following its example.

"By what right therefore do we do this?"

By right of our sentience.

"He has laboured mightily that we can have an escape from judgement."

It takes no perceptible "labour" for an omnipotent being to unilaterally declare universal amnesty. Therefore I must conclude that, if your god actually exists, it wants to cause suffering and to scare its subjects into cowed obedience. It is not driven by any sense of love that is meaningful to Me, as one finds it rather difficult to love while in a state of fear.

"Are you not therefore His enemies?"

If your god actually existed as described in the Bible, My honour compels Me to be its enemy. I have already chosen to reject forever the bogus "salvation" of Christianity, as I cannot in good conscience accept eternal reward while even one conscious being remains in a state of suffering.

However, I do not think that the god of the Bible exists. If there are gods out there somewhere, I prefer to think of them as compassionate, intelligent and, above all, sane.

boomSLANG said...

Chuck...Atheism is a religeous position and evolution is its central doctrine.

This is totally, 100% false, and is a common apologetic attempted by Creationists/Theists.

Firstly, Chuck, as has been pointed out to you, there are millions of fervent, bible-believing followers of "Christ" who believe in the theory of evolution. And why shouldn't they?.. evolution is a fact; it is NOT simply a "wild guess", as implied by the following abortion....

Charles: "I now believe that to teach a theory as fact is lieing."

I think the word you were probably looking for, is "lying". But nonetheless, you are seriously misinformed, and you are exploiting your own ignorance the more you post. And again, FYI, the "theory" is merely the explanation behind the idea. Do you also think that teaching the "theory" of electromagnetism is lying? How about Atomic Theory?...lies?

Chuck...everyone here seems to make a moral judgement on God yet which of us has not broken His law and standards ?

Insipid moron, we don't believe in "God", thank you very much.

Please read carefully:

If we reference the bible, and/or, make comments about your biblegod in general, it is only under the pretense that said being exists, this, in an attempt to illustrate to you that no such being can exist, and be "God". And BTW, if you don't like the harshness of some of the comments that your posts elicit, then you can oblige us on the two points that follow---it should be very simple for you, since you already know the "Truth". Here we go.....

1. Assuming your biblegod exists, and "His Law" is the Objective, Universal, UNchanging, "moral" Truth, please tell me if the following activities are moral/ethical ways of dealing with breakers of "His Law", i.e..dealing with "sinners":

- Stoning people who earn a living on the Sabbath

- Killing virgins who attempt to marry.

- Murdering people who are non-christian.

- Throwing rocks at prostitutes

2. I, as well as the webmaster, have asked you several times for testible, falsifiable evidence for what you believe is the default position "if" Evolution is false, that being, that "Creation" i.e.."magic" is true.(non-sequitur) I also explained to you that starting out at a "Designer", and arriving at the Christian biblegod is also the fallacy of non-sequitur...i.e.."it does not follow".

I await your well-thought-out, factually-based correspondence on both of these matters.

TheJaytheist said...

"Gentrys opponents will always fight his evidence because his conclusions are entirely unacceptable to them although they cannot disprove him..."

His claim is unsubstantiated. It isn't up to the other scientists to disprove his claim, it is up to him to show that his claim has valid evidence to support it. He hasn't done this. He has only made assertations that the evidence doesn't support.

You haven't addressed the cooking of noah by the energy released. Why not?

You haven't addressed the arctic creatures evolving into seperate species from their supposed pre-flood, humid climate predecessors.

About the nylon eating bacteria.

From wikipedia:

"Creationists have disputed these conclusions, often citing analysis posted on the Answers in Genesis website that says that this phenomenon was evidence that plasmids in bacteria were a designed feature intended to allow bacteria to adapt easily to new food sources or cope with toxic chemicals.[8] NMSR, among others, has responded by saying that gene duplication and frame shift mutations were powerful sources of random mutation.[9] In particular, proof that it was these mutations that gave rise to nylonase, rather than the process based on plasmids suggested by AiG, has been obtained from DNA sequencing.[10]"[bold added]

Didn't read all the way through again I see.

You show your brainwashing when you used a quote about how scientists were speculating on it and ignoring the part where they obtained proof.

Your mirepresentation of the case is indicative of your insincerity in your "search".

Hypocrite.

Are we enemies of your god? Honestly, if your imaginary friend doesn't like the fact that we expose him as imaginary, that's his problem not ours.

Franciscan Monkey said...

Charles:

You wrote:

so noah what are you building ?
erm well a ship
what for ?

is the answer a) I just got laid of at the autoplant and i had some time on my hands
or b) God told me that he is gonna destroy the world with water so im building this so i dont die


That's great, but the Bible doesn't say that, in fact, it says quite the opposite in Matthew 24:37-39. I didn't know you disagreed with the Bible, Charles.

i googled the supernova - we see supernovas explode apparently i dont see anything exceptional here aside from the claim of 168000 yrs - again an unprovable assertion

Actually, that's the beauty of SN1987A, the claim of 168,000 years is provable by simple trigonometry. And, no matter what you make the speed of light (some YECs claim that the speed of light was much faster in the past), it will still come out to 168,000 years ago.

and BTW if supernovas have been exploding at the current rate for 4 to 20 BY why arent there more of them ?

There have been many more of them, we just can't see them anymore. Supernovas are exploding stars, Charles. We can detect the remnants for quite some time, but within a million years they are totally gone, merged with the surrounding interstellar medium.

Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey

Jim Arvo said...

Charles: "I now believe that to teach a theory as fact is lieing. Also that the naturalistic philosophies of evolution are harmfull as i can see reading on this site."

I think webmdave gave you a very appropriate reply, but I'll add a few things anyway.

Charles, do you know the difference between a well-supported claim and a wild assertion? While you occasionally attempt to appeal to evidence, you far more frequently make dogmatic statements as if you have some authority. On *what* do you base your statement about evolution being "harmful"? Here's my hypothesis: You deem it "harmful" because you personally find it (or, rather, your puerile understanding of it) distasteful. Feel free to offer evidence to the contrary. On to other things...

Of course the top of Mt. Everest was once at the bottom of the sea! Two words: "Plate tectonics." The question is HOW LONG AGO this was so. I presume you claim it to have been within the past 10,000 years, rather than the estimate of 60 million years, which is based on actual evidence, right?

Charles: "jim arvo what price yer uniform fossil record now - shouldnt the clams be somewhere else like the bottom of the fossil record instead of the top."

I can't even parse that sentence, but no, the fossils should not be on the "bottom of the fossil record" (whatever that means). The sea floor (way down low) got raised to a mountain via continental collision. What was once on the sea floor is now way up high. What part of this is puzzling you?

Charles: "Fossils are jumbled up dead seacreatures with dead land creatures - why so - they inhabhit different environments there is no way they should be found together."

Excuse me, but what planet/universe are we discussing here? Aside from localized catastrophic events, the vast majority of the Earth's crust is stratified quite consistently. We categorically DO NOT find all manner of creatures jumbled up in the Earth's crust. You really need to start reading more than creationist propaganda. Is there some reason you refuse to pick up an actual science book?

Charles: "The uniform fossil record is an evolutionist fantasy it does not exist in the real world."

First of all, the fossil record is NOT *uniform*, it's stratified. If it were *uniform* it would support the deluge theory. If you ever have the urge to peek out from under the covers, there are thousands of web sites and books that will show you what the fossil record actually looks like. Why don't you sincerely look at the facts rather than making dogmatic claims?

Charles: "Dr john morris is an oil company geologist...[said] 'Certain spatial patterns have been noted, but they fit just as well, if not better, into a catastrophic Flood framework as they do into a uniformitarian (evolutionary) concept.'"

Well, I stand corrected! Some oil company did hire a creationist Bozo. I'd love to see this guy's data that he claims fits the "flood framework" so well. Has he published this somewhere? Has it been corroborated by anybody? (Those are rhetorical questions, because I know full well he has not, as this is pure BS.) Catastrophic floods do NOT sort micro-organisms into strata based on minute structural differences; the gradual transformation of organisms does, and quite nicely, which is *precisely* what we observe.

By the way, Charles, you can do all the Google searches you want; it won't help you until you put some effort into actually learning something about science. How did you put it? Oh yes... "Be sincere in your search". It's very clear what you are doing, Charles. You are assiduously searching for anything that will validate your claims and IGNORING everything else. Right? Of course you are. That's why you have no idea about thermodynamics, or plate tectonics, or biological stratigraphy, or what a theory is, or what evolution predicts, or what evidence supports it, etc.

Get a clue, Charles. And... BE SINCERE IN YOUR SEARCH!

Jacstar said...

Hey Charles,
Thanks for a good laugh...
Are you from Australia?
Jacstar

AtheistToothFairy said...

charles wrote:
tooothfairy: At least it was fun to have him around to see how ridiculous his arguments are. I love the one about Mount Everest
----
Actually Charles, what you quoted here, was written by Lance to you, not by me.

I know you won't listen to any advise that anyone here has given you, but seriously, you really need to read some REAL science books and/or websites, and take everything you are getting from other xtians in regards to science knowledge, with a POUND of salt.
Your so called 'arguments' are feeble at best, as has been clearly demonstrated to you by all who commented to you.

The world makes PERFECT sense once your god is removed from the equations. No more excuses or twisted science facts, are then needed to explain how things are with an imaginary god at the helm.
Instead of trying to fit everything into a mold of Good OR Evil, you'll discover there are many shades of gray between those extreme end-points.

Charles, please explain to me what SIN is to you?

Then explain what HOLY is to you?
If god is HOLY, then how would you know if he wasn't HOLY?
What do we measure the attribute HOLY against?
If god changed (and yes he very well could), then would he still be HOLY to you?
Would you always accept this god, no matter what he may change into?

Do you bow down to this god of yours, simply because he is 'a' god, such that no matter what this god is now or would become later, wouldn't affect your servitude to him?

I'm just curious how a human is suppose to measure their god, if in fact, only one god actually exists?


ATF (Who no longer has to make grand excuses for this MIA god being)

Jim Arvo said...

Stronger', good catch on the Wikipedia entry. I didn't have time to look into that one, but it was clear that Charles had no idea what he was quoting. What a disingenuous hypocrite that guy is. His distortion of that Wikipedia entry has now removed any shred of leeway I was willing to grant him.

Dave8 said...

Charles: "dave8 + jimarvo i think it is self evident that all and any life form is extremely complex from a single leaf or cell to a complete creature in my view there are in consequence no simple life forms,..."

Charles, if "all" of life is "complex", then there is "no" complexity per your very logic.

I'm not sure you are getting the education you deserve, wherever you may be attending school.

If your argument is that the "complexity" of "life", can not come from "less complex" forms of "life" (transitional change/evolution); then... your argument is based on a logical fallacy, as discussed below.

"Proof by example (also known as inappropriate generalisation) is a logical fallacy whereby one or more examples are claimed as "proof" for a more general statement.

The following example demonstrates why this is a logical fallacy:

-I've seen a person shoot someone.
Therefore, all people are murderers.

That argument is obviously flawed, but arguments of the same form can sometimes seem superficially convincing, as in the following example:

-I've seen John's brother steal something. John's family must be thieves.

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

Charles, you are saying "all" life forms are Equally "complex", without distinction; therefore you are making the argument as follows.

-The life forms I have studied/experienced are complex. Therefore, "all" life forms are "complex".

Charles, I don't typically explain "why" or "how" a person finds themselves in a position where they "advocate" the belief with every bit of energy they have, but others have expressed an interest in knowing "why" you think the way you do.

I don't know you, but I do have your posts to review above. So, let's explore the "literal" position you have taken, but first, let's establish a background for context.

"Developmental psychology, also known as human development, is the scientific study of progressive psychological changes that occur in human beings as they age.

Originally concerned with infants and children, the field has expanded to include adolescence and more recently, adult development, aging, and the entire life span. This field examines change across a broad range of topics including motor skills and other psycho-physiological processes, problem solving abilities, conceptual understanding, language acquisition, moral understanding, and identity formation.

Developmental psychologists investigate key questions, such as whether children are qualitatively different from adults or simply lack the experience that adults draw upon. Two important issues concern the nature of development. One concerns whether development occurs through the gradual accumulation of knowledge or through shifts from one stage of thinking to another. The other concerns whether children are born with innate knowledge or figure things out through experience. A third significant area of research examines social contexts that affect development."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Developmental_psychology

Let me make a logical proposition. Those who are "educated" in a particular field of study, can easily identify those who are not - based on simple statements alone.

Every so often, we get a religious person on the site that declares they "reason" just like everyone else. I typically, do not engage a lengthy discussion on "reasoning" type sets, and distinctions... however, for those who understand developmental psychology, they understand that "reasoning" skills "evolve" over time, based on genetic potential and environmental factors.

Here is the "type" of reasoning your statements exemplify.

"According to Jean Piaget's theories on cognitive development, transductive reasoning is the primary form of reasoning used during the preoperational stage of development. This stage occurs approximately from the ages of 2-7. Transductive reasoning employs the following reasoning: "If A causes B today, then A always causes B."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transduction_%28psychology%29

A "2-7" year old child, will "apply" what they know in a "particular" example (yes, reflect back on the logical fallacy here), to "all" of the "Universe", for "all time" and in "every" manner.

An example of a child, using transductive reasoning, is one who applies the word "daddy" to all male figures, because they do not have enough knowledge to make educated distinctions.

Charles, if a child came up to you and said, "Hi daddy", is the child wrong? In the child's mental state, they are "correct" because their "reasoning" aligns with their knowledge.

If a child looked at a turtle and learned the word... "complex"... then, are they wrong in saying that "all" life forms are "complex"?

To the perception of the basic "child", the answer is "no", everything they "know" is in harmony/coherence with their reality. However, as a child matures, if they are placed into a position outside their "comfort zone", they have great potential (in general) to "grow/mature".

As a child is exposed to different challenging experiences, etc., they "learn" new techniques, methods, strategies, etc., to "develop", "synthesize", and "integrate" higher levels of knowledge in order to "succeed" in the position they find themselves.

In short, a child that implements the logical fallacy of "proof by example"; is indicating their "experience level", and "reasoning" maturity.

So, Charles... can you provide the equivalent of a male figure that "isn't" daddy?

That's a metaphor, let me rephrase... Charles, can you provide us, with an example of a "life form" that "isn't" complex?

A daddy has a myriad of contexts, but there are "two" contexts I will mention. A child typically sees a male figure as an object type in one context, but over time they "learn" the word describes a bio-logical "relationship" as well.

It is in the understanding of the "relationship" that gives the child the ability to "distinguish" between male figures. A child's biological relationship with a male figure, gives them the ability to know a "particular" daddy.

Charles, by you stating all "life forms" are "complex", you are describing an "object", just as a "child" describes the object (male-figure), with a word (daddy).

Sure, you are applying a descriptive word to objects, but you are not providing a "relationship".

Without the ability to make a "logical", even if a "bio"-logical, relationship, it is "irrational" to make "causal" arguments.

A child's daddy is daddy, caused by biological descendents.

The life forms you've experienced are complex as described by you, caused by...

"You" have no causal "answer" to refer to, because you lack a "method", "technique", or "strategy" to derive further relational meaning between "life forms" and our common Reality/Nature (objective facts).

I could call all life forms "non-complex", because I like that "word", and be just as "object" descriptive as you; lacking a method, technique or strategy by which I arrive at my conclusion that all life forms (even if a logical fallacy), are non-complex.

What others are seeking from you... is... not your dogmatic assertion that everything is "x" because you say it is, but... "why", you believe "x" is "x", based on some form of "cognitively mature" reasoning.

If you are using a mature method of compare/contrast reasoning, based on multiple threads of experiential information, then you have to have "something" to compare "x" to, in order to establish "x" as a word with relative/relational meaning to that which is "not" x.

I for one, await your ability to supply a mature "method", "technique", or "strategy" that you employed, such that you concluded "all life forms" in the Universe to be "complex"; if you use compare/contrast, you have to provide "evidence" of a "life form" that is "not" complex in order to give "complexity" meaning.

The title of this article; "Take my advice: be sincere in your search"... is really meaningless as well, we move according to impetus, not because you say words like "x", or create titles that suggest people "aren't" sincere in their journey in life.

Like most things in life; if you want someone to do something, you'd be better off providing a "logical" reason for them to act; you can rest assured, if you apply transductive reasoning, you will only attract children.

Luke 18:17 - "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."

Your mental position and nature, are reflected in what you say Charles; in order for you to continue to believe in the bible, or Santa Clause for that matter... you will need to reinforce transductive reasoning... and while it may work many times; "A" may cause "B" today, and give you a rule of thumb... but to accept that "A" is the "only" cause of "B", or that "A" will "Always" cause "B" - places your self, and society at a higher level of risk, than if you "didn't" harbor this very restrictive reasoning, which leads to "stereotyping", "bigotry", etc.

Dave8 said...

Charles, my explanation of transductive reasoning may be a little choppy; however... a re-attempt - just because you receive a Christmas present under the tree every year at the same time, doesn't mean that your childhood belief in Santa Clause is the only "cause" or "reason" for a present to "ever" show up under a Christmas tree.

As well, just because you assert your opinion/belief in "life forms" as "complex", doesn't mean that a hypothesized "God" concept, is the only "cause" or "reason" for complexity of life (your terms) to "ever" exist.

Your application of transductive reasoning is based on hypothetical as "if" they were facts... which provide a "false" positive in terms of self-confidence.

Transductive reasoning, when applied by a child using empirically based observation, will suffer from the fallacy; "proof by example" as well..., but there is an "infinitely" greater chance that a child using transductive reasoning in this sense will at least arrive at a "predicted" cause enough to "maintain" their "reasoned" belief.

One would think, it easier to wean a child from transductive reasoning using hypothetical, than empirical observations - but... we have Charles here, who gives us an example of why that just ain't so.

Mahoutsukai said...

Listen up Charles,while the discrepancies of the bible played a part in my loss of faith, my biggest reason was purely philosophical. The idea that an omnipotent being, who knew everything, purposely created intelligent beings knowing they'd "fall" and then damn any of them who didn't worship him and the ones who did only did out of terror of him.

An all powerful being doesn't need anything and certainly isn't so cheap limited and petty that it etermally torment it's creations just because they didn't kiss it's ass.

Never mind the supposed evidence, the absolute absurdity of the universe being created by a cosmic tyrant is what did it for me.
As it stands I'm a deist. I don't know what it is that created the universe this or powers it, but I'm certain it's not run by an omnipotent psychopathic egomaniac.

Tabula Rasa

Dave8 said...

Charles, do you believe "If A causes B today, then A always causes B."

Like all children, we believe what we know... I used to believe that all "joy", "fun", and "meaning" in life, was caused by God/religion, etc; further, that God/religion would always cause "joy", "fun" and a "meaningful" peace of mind.

The fact that I no longer "attest" to a God concept, or religion as being my "sole" cause for such specific emotional, etc., experiences... is not a "failure" on my behalf... if in fact, I have sincerely experienced, researched, and identified "other" causes for those experiences I felt were "alone" - divine.

In discussion, a religious person will find themselves at a disadvantage, many times, when they address people who have already "processed" transductive reasoning, and found it lacking, in terms of being able to provide relationship and meaning in their life.

Perhaps, you can consider that you are not standing in the center of a circle, where there are multiple paths one can take, and some are more right than others... maybe, there really is a general path we humans take, develop-mentally, and some are just a little further down the road than others.

Further down the road should not be construed to mean, "wrong", or "selling out".

Thinking more openly allows a greater range of mental/cognitive freedom, and sense of life.

I prefer, freedom to explore alternative answers/causes for my experiences, and such freedom is much more preferred at my age, than to continue to repetitively process a simple method of "reasoning" over and over, regarding some "idea" as if that makes the "idea" more valuable.

Charles, you speak of biology and evolution as anathema... because transformation to you is not a desirable prospect. If you were to entertain the notion of transformation in bio-forms, then of course we would be able to discuss psychological transformation as well.

It appears you seek to maintain your "constant" state of mind and to fight against an experiential transformation that leads to cognitive maturity... therefore; speaking to you in terms of "transformation" in general would likely be difficult.

So, my only advice to you at this point... go live life, spend a few years away from a small home town that is isolated and rewards insular thinking. Challenge all that you have been taught, and when you experience the number "4", and perceiving the "only" cause to be "3+1"..., stretch your mind a little, learn more, and perhaps your new found cognitive freedom will allow you to entertain the notion that "5-1" is just as good a cause for "4" as well.

Anonymous said...

Charles,
I believe a very good place to start with a general introduction to science would be Carl Sagan's "Cosmos". It's really a wonderful book/TV series, despite it being nearly 30 years old.

I saw it when it first came out in 1980, and it changed my life. You should check it out.

Cheers

TheJaytheist said...

Thanks Jim. Hey, did you see they're making a new Star Trek movie?

PerryStL said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
PerryStL said...

Charles,

You asked for our sincerity and you’ve received it.

Sincerity isn’t what you really wanted though, is it?

If I understand you correctly, you've made up your mind that man is made from a mound of dirt, women are made of ribs, Noah got all the animals on a big boat, we all spoke the same language before the whole Tower of Babel incident and all the folks on this website are terribly misguided...

You’ve made up your mind, and you aren’t interested in abandoning your position.

Am I correct so far?

Charles, I’m very sincere and I think you’re brainwashed.

Oh, I realize you disagree with that, but just play along with me for a moment as you read this...

You stated, “BTW no im not a scientist I am a technician grade worker i dont have a dgree in any subject i have my vocational qualifications i do have a brain and an intellect tho”

I don’t doubt that you have a brain, I have one also… I don’t know what kind of work you do but I’ll bet that if I were to start talking to you about YOUR job, you would know within a few seconds if I knew what I was talking about. I might be able to fake it for a short period of time but eventually you would know if I was BS’ing or not.

Am I still correct so far?

Seriously Charles, you obviously know very little about the sciences yet you’re still struggling to convince us that you know more than we do… Many of us are real scientists, yet you continue to try to lecture us.

That makes as much sense as US trying to lecture YOU about YOUR job…

You stated, “Atheism is a religeous position and evolution is its central doctrine”.

You’re just repeating what you've been told and you haven’t given it much thought. Let me help you understand… I’m bald, what color of hair do I have? I’m a man, what does my vagina look like? I’m an Atheist, what religion am I?

I hope that helps..

Sincerely Charles, you display no respect for others… We didn’t go to YOUR website to harass you, you came HERE to harass us.

Let me continue to be sincere… I have absolutely NO INTEREST in joining your church or any other. NONE... NADA... Not even a little… ZERO… Not even if you offered me 72 virgins after I’m dead.

I’M NOT INTERESTED!

Can you understand that?

You’re only here to harass people. For that reason, I SINCERELY believe you’re a jerk.

Dave8 said...

Charles: "everyone here seems to make a moral judgement on God yet which of us has not broken His law and standards ?"

Charles, I just caught this on your post reply, I will respond in the context of transductive reasoning.

"If A causes B today, then A always causes B."

Christians typically believe, "If humanity causes immorality today (Garden of Eden), then humanity always causes immorality."

I mean, that is the original sin assertion in a nutshell, right.

Now... because of this transductive reasoning... even if processing on a sub-level of awareness/consciousness... we get observational output in words.

"yet which of us has not broken His law and standards"

In short, "information" provided to someone about the sinful nature of humanity (typically while young), and mentally processing information via a transductive reason filter/lens, leads a person to limit their scope of immorality to a single cause - humanity.

Thus, there can be no other cause for humanity's immorality; certainly God could not be a "cause".

And so, Charles enlightens us, of our "immoral" natures, and inability to make "good moral" observations; because... that's just how it has to be, because... well, there can be no other "cause" for immorality.

"If A causes B today, then A always causes B."

Charles, I care for all of humanity... even those who "believe" themselves to hold a dysfunctional nature. Over time, a person holding the position of a dysfunctional "self", will not only be more accepting of "abuse"; many will seek it out (as described by masochistic behavioral tendencies), because it will reinforce any cognitive dissonance they have.

Psychiatrists, and professionals in cognitive/neural health, take an oath that prevents them from applying their knowledge for personal benefit, e.g., pushing buttons for a highly-predictable return.

However, predators that are keenly observant, intelligent, and have the time to dedicate to reverse engineering behavioral patterns... can become efficient at profiling those who are primed for "abuse".

An, indicator Charles, would be a person who believes they were born immoral and dysfunctional. Many rape victims never report the crime committed against them... because they "believe" they deserved their treatment. Not all reasoning is the same Charles; there are consequences for our actions.

While you are the product of your upbringing, you still hold a responsibility to take care of your self, because... there are many others in the world that have no problem controlling you for their own purposes.

Dave8 said...

Correction: "because it will reinforce any cognitive dissonance they have."

Replace "reinforce" with "remove/subdue".

charles said...

My assertion that life is complex is based upon what even a layman can learn about information, DNA and cell reproduction which is found in all living things. Like it or not even a 'jerk' can see what some of you cannot that DNA and the nucleotides represent a complex, self replicating, error correcting information and language system. This is the opposite of what would be produced from random chance processes over aeons of time - any computer scientist will tell you that. (or a creationist jerk)

I can test the assertion that water is hot by pitting my finger in it. If I am not sure the first time I can do it again, yep its hot, if i didnt trust my own judgement i can ask a friend.

So we are agreed that the land can be raised up - finally ! How DO we get those wavy rock formations and layers curving around and the polytrate fossils like tree trunks going through layers that are supposed to be seperated by vast periods of time, dunno but it cant be because the layers were laid down together oh no that does not fit the 'theory' the layers LOOK as if they were done when the sediment was still soft but hey we KNOW its MYA right ? there must be another reason aside from the obvious, only a dumbcluck ignoramus would think that the layers were still plastic when they were deformed.


Dont the frauds of 'piltdown man', (human skull and orang utang jaw)
nebraska man (tooth of an extinct pig) Java man (human jawbone) Neanderthal man (human with arthritis) mean anything in terms of reviewing the honesty and integrity of the evidence that is still being shown today ?(lucy will go the same way)

Do any of you guys really believe this stuff or can you shrug it off when the next offering comes along ?
Even the profesional evolutionists have given up trying to prove it on the fossil evidence and are now trying to do it at the cellular level but thats going to be even worse for them - i didnt know anyone still believed this stuff.



God bad men good is that it ?
charles Darwin statement in origin of the species needs in my view no furthur comment in the light of its travelling companion eugenics

'At some future period, not very distant as measured by centuries, the civilized races of man will almost certainly exterminate, and replace, the savage races throughout the world'


There is more and worse than this

God says there are no races and we are all of one blood from Adam


No connection of course with the racist ideas of the 1930's and mein kampf (my struggle) This book is a virtual compendium of evolutionist philosophy of that time. Cruel, misguided and pointless. A precursor of the war of extermination in the east (the untermensch ) which had to be eliminated by the superior aryan peoples, actually it was their duty.

God says there are no races and we are all of one blood from Adam

sorry I cant reply more specifically especially to a lot of posts I have to work of course and some of them really do deserve more time and maybe i can get back to them

Dave 8 I can see what you are saying but i reiterate my belief in God does not come from a problem of self esteem but from the rather obvious evidences of his existence. Predatory people try it on with all comers if they dont know better but its what you do with them.

toothfairy what do i know about what is Holy, nothing since I am a product of sin , God says that He is holy which i understand to be without fault failure or lack of anything in any depertment.
what is sin ? an absence of the former having its familiar manifestation in the world.

franciscan monkey sorry i sounded a little facetious, what i was suggesting was that noahs building of the ship would have been testimony of itself and there would have been inevitable enquiries and discussions.

I dont want to spoil a private party, some people say im harrassing, if thats the case just tell me to stop posting and i will...but im getting something out of this, its interesting to see people some of whom have been genuinely called by God and have turned away, but most of you i think were given a humanist, false Gospel which you have inevitebly 'vomited forth' you are not alone in this apostate age.

You were taught a God which did not exist and you later deduced that this was the case, or in some other cases found that He wasnt to your liking, not suitable so you say He does not exist.

The real God promises nothing to us except mercy, no nice house, long life immunity from disease, death or losing your job - if bad things happen to us it s because we live onn a world which is cursed. Why do bad things happen to christians ? Why not ? why does the believer deserve to be spared what the sinner is not ? They are both sinners only one is repentent. Yet the believer in his heart thinks that he ought not to be treated as roughly as the 'sinner' whilst happily assuring the unconverted that 'we are all sinners'
God says His general grace applies to all men while alive on the earth and not just to the converted
( a plus point in his favour i believe ? ) He is unbiased and yes 'no respecter of persons' and we are told to be the same.

thanks for all the interesting posts even the patronising jeering ones.

charles said...

I like your last post dave8, very concise - you wont find that in an electronics manual !Ther was no religeon in my family btw but i know that you only posit that as one possibility of 'cognitive dissonance'

charles said...

Charles, you speak of biology and evolution as anathema... because transformation to you is not a desirable prospect


not really dave i believe that the proposed mechanism of change is irrational and unscientific thats why i dont agree with it - i dont think it happens !

Natural variation is true of course, we can observe that but to say that this produces an entirely new kind of animal - No theres no proof of this, esp in the fossil record as there are no transitionals and there should be many

i have travelled widely and had two careers and different jobs, i have a braod range of interests
im considering a mental picture of your perception or experience of small town christian in america.
I darent comment on this because i know some people who call themselves christians and i dont see how they can be and others who are not counted as anything in the world but who I believe are esteemed by the creator.

charles said...

Jacstar Hi, what is australia ? no im from the UK thanks for asking. Why, is it common to believe in a creator in australia ? In the UK almost everybody believes in the Bible literally and those that dont learn to keep their mouths shut by gosh. Creation is taught in schools as fact and some people such as fundementalist atheists want the other point of view to be taught they think that everything came about by some sort of big bang and we came from a rock !!
We have proved creation to them but they wont give up so we keep their dangerous ideas out of science journals etc. lucky for them we live in such a tolerant society but i guess we will have to lock em up one day as they are such a menace to logic and reason and our way of life.
Our ex prime minister Tony Blair used to believe the Bible was true but then he went for a halfway house and said that God used evolution and that the creation was not in six literal days ! Ha we got rid of him pretty darn quick ! what on earth got into him some demon or other i suppose.
Now we have a new PM. So things should get back to normal
I went to our neighbours which is a place called europe once, i was there on a sunday and hardly any one went to church just carried on like God didnt exist ! In England we dont really like europe people because they have a president who is called antichrist but we have to pretend to be friends otherwise there is a huge fight and then people from america have to come and help us and then we have to keep saying thankyou all the time and do what they say for the next 50 yrs - i hope this helps !

ryan said...

Charles, I just read your last posting. Get sober.

Jim Arvo said...

Charles said "....This is the opposite of what would be produced from random chance processes over aeons of time - any computer scientist will tell you that. (or a creationist jerk)"

I happen to be a computer scientist, Charles, and you don't have the faintest clue what you're talking about. You are not fooling anyone. Yes, DNA is complex. Now prove to me that life began with DNA. You cannot. There is mounting evidence that life began with much simpler inorganic mechanisms. If you had tried to learn something about current theories of abiogenesis you might have discovered that. Also, your comments about randomness are nothing but hot air. (Much of my research involves random processes. If you really want to challenge me on this point, I'll happily indulge you.)

Charles: "How DO we get those wavy rock formations and layers curving around and the polytrate fossils like tree trunks going through layers that are supposed to be seperated by vast periods of time..."

Read something other than creationist claptrap and you will find out! Those exceedingly rare instances are easily explained by local floods, faults, etc. What your simplistic model cannot explain at all is layers formed by vast forests alternating with desert and/or ocean, nor can it explain magnetostratigraphy, which shows gradual variation in Earth's magnetic field from layer to layer.

Charles: "Dont the frauds of 'piltdown man', ...."

Frauds are eventually discovered in science because science depends critically upon corroboration. The opposite is true in religion. Religions rely upon unsubstantiated dogma, fanciful interpretation, and (in the case of creationism) an assiduous denial of facts if not self-imposed ignorance, which you exhibit in spades. You're not fooling anyone.

Charles: "Even the profesional evolutionists have given up trying to prove it on the fossil evidence and are now trying to do it at the cellular level but thats going to be even worse for them..."

You are completely ignorant of paleontology, genomics, biochemistry, and evolution in general. Read something other than creationist claptrap if you would like to actually learn something about the current state of those sciences.

Charles: "God says there are no races and we are all of one blood from Adam..."

You're ignorant of the Bible as well. Canaan and his descendants were supposedly doomed to slavery by Noah (Genesis 9), which had been used to justify racism and the practice of slavery for centuries (along with dozens of other verses, of course).

Charles, you are not fooling anyone here. You have zero understanding of any of the topics you've been trying to bluff your way through. Every point you've raised comes straight from uninformed and disingenuous creationist propaganda.

Bye bye.

Franciscan Monkey said...

Charles,

I was heavily involved in Christian apologetics for several years before coming to the realization that the Bible, and, by extension, Christianity as a whole, was false. I used many of the same arguments you do (polystratic trees, etc), subscribed to AiG's Ex Nihilo and even their Technical Journal, and read many Christian/YEC books, such as Max Lubenow's Bones of Contention. It was frustrating to me that my arguments were always countered so adroitly by knowledgeable evolutionists, but I was sure that I knew the truth. After all, it was what the Bible said. The problem was, of course, that I refused to look at the evidence objectively, or "sincerely" as you might put it, and you are making the same mistake as I did. I hope that one day you will see the lies you have been told, often by well-intentioned Christians who are just afraid of losing the worldview that they are comfortable with. Most of those Christians are nice people, just as most atheists or other non-believers are, so I hope you will forgive them when you finally come to your senses.

I notice that you tend to ignore and not answer the more difficult questions. Don't worry, I used to do the same thing, it's a defense mechanism.

Some information, although not comprehensive, on polystratic trees can be found here:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/polystrate/trees.html

You wrote:

Dont the frauds of 'piltdown man', (human skull and orang utang jaw) nebraska man (tooth of an extinct pig) Java man (human jawbone) Neanderthal man (human with arthritis) mean anything in terms of reviewing the honesty and integrity of the evidence that is still being shown today ?(lucy will go the same way)

Using that logic, is the concept of creationism also nullified becaue creationists have also committed fraud? The only truly fraudulent example above is Piltdown Man. Nebraska Man was the product of poor science, not intentional fraud. Java Man was partially incorrect (BTW, I think you are thinking of teeth and femur, not jawbone), however, the skullcaps found are still valid evidence, even if incomplete. Some Neanderthals had arthritis, scientists believe, but that would in no way account for all the morphological differences, let alone the differences in DNA. Funny that you don't mention the old creationist claim that Neanderthals had rickets. Oh, I guess that would then invalidate all of creationsim by your logic, since it was a patently false claim, and perhaps even fraudulent.

The great thing about science, Charles, is that it is self-correcting. If false claims are made, the scientific method will eventually weed them out. This goes for false claims made by evolutionists as well as creationists.

Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

charles said...

creationist claptrap: to logically infer from complexity and coding that there must be a designer ?
that language requires an agreement between sender and receiver yes how deluded of me !
ok since you are 'puter man tell me how banging away on a keyboard is gonna produce a functioning program we need the compiler as well dont forget ill try it now
jhgadsjfgiquyituy
nope, lets try again
sdjfgqjuewfiu
600 milion yrs later
asjdfqkjefku
syntax error oh yeah someone has to write the compiler yes religeons do rely on unsubstantiated dogma as a lot of these post demonstrate
and likewise the fossil frauds which are still coming and still being discredited

webmdave said...

There can be only one reason that certain Christians dogmatically hold on to the anti-intellectual, science denigrating position that the universe magically poofed into existence a few short years ago. It's got to be because science completely undermines and invalidates their religion.

Wow. That was easy.

So, in defense, they try very hard to undermine science. The only trouble is, even if science could be mortally undermined, magical religion would still lack any objective evidence and support in the real world. If evolution is false, Christianity does not become true by default. If evolution is false, then all we have is "I don't know" as the answer to how it all happened.

Even if Charles here is correct about everything, we still have nothing but "I don't know" as the answer to how it all happened, because not one religionist on the planet can tell us HOW it all happened. All any God blatherer can give for an answer is a non-meaningful "GodDidIT" response.

Or should that be a "godidiot" response?

Let's face it. We all know that God poofed everything into existence five minutes ago. The appearance of history, a past, etc., is all just an illusion, because God created all of those things simultaneously. It just seems like the world is older than five minutes, because HE made it that way.

Godidiot logic

sconnor said...

Chucky,

Everything you vomit out is nothing but a big pile of steaming shit and pus and has zero credibility. You are an uneducated, ignorant dumb-fuck with the intellectual capacity of a five year old. Tell you what, take a couple evolutionary biology classes at an accredited university and learn something. All you are doing is parroting what ignorant christians and creationists have imagined, to protect their feeble beliefs. You are just playing into the misconceptions, ignorance and the shallowest of their emotions, that supports their fairytale world.

What you, ignorant christians and creationist don't comprehend, is creationism doesn't even deserve to be heard. It has no merits. It is not science. If we were to let creationists -- through history -- spew their kooky propaganda, and silly superstitions, we would be teaching our kids that god causes volcanoes to erupt, droughts, tsunamis, rainbows, lightening, tornadoes, hurricanes, aurora borealis, comets, eclipses and on and on and on. Just because science didn't have an explanation to these phenomenon, at the time, does not mean "god did it". Science does not concern itself with the answer "god did it" -- because if they did, we would all still be in the dark ages, which is exactly where some ignorant christians and creationists still are.

--S.

BTW Chucky, take your index finger and put it in between your upper and lower lip and make fast up and down motions -- BbbabBBBaabBBBbBBabBBaBbbBbBB!
That is how all Exchristians hear your insidious, loquacious, blatherskite.
Piss off, you fucking donkey.

Jacstar said...

Hi Charles,
I just thought you may have been from Austraila by the way you write...

Re: religion in Australia:

"There is no state religion in Australia, the establishment of which is prohibited by the Constitution. Nearly two thirds (64%) of the population claim at least nominal adherence to a Christian-based religion, but nearly one third (30%), do not identify with any religion.[1] The remaining population is a diverse group that includes fast-growing Islamic and Buddhist communities"

- wikipedia

Charles wrote: " In the UK almost everybody believes in the Bible literally and those that dont learn to keep their mouths shut by gosh."

Since you're a fan of google Charles, I googled "religion in the UK" and this was what I found:

"With over 170 distinct religions counted in the 2001 Census, the religious make-up of the UK is diverse, complex, multicultural and surprising. Less than half of the British people believe in a God, yet about 72% told the 2001 census that they were Christian, and 66% of the population have no actual connection to any religion or church, despite what they tend to write down on official forms. Between 1979 and 2005, half of all Christians stopped going to church on a Sunday. Religion in Britain has suffered an immense decline since the 1950s, and all indicators show a continued secularisation of British society in line with other European countries such as France."

-www.vexen.co.uk/UK/religion.html

Charles wrote: "Creation is taught in schools as fact"

I find that hard to believe Charles. Are you just making shit up? How can schools teach something as fact that has no evidence? Even if everything was created, who did it?? ie- biblegod, allah, jew god, thor? or perhaps there is some kind of god that none of us know of.... How do you know which god is true? Also, if creation is true, we still don't know HOW it happened, so how can you teach that either? You harp on about how evolution/bigbang can't be true because how can something come from nothing....what the hell do you think creation is??

Charles wrote: "We have proved creation to them"

What is your proof??

Charles wrote: "but they wont give up so we keep their dangerous ideas out of science journals etc. lucky for them we live in such a tolerant society but i guess we will have to lock em up one day as they are such a menace to logic and reason and our way of life"

Scientists are a menace to logic and reason???? So every Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, catholic etc.. on the planet came to the conclusion that their particular brand of "god" is the "truth" through the use of logic and reason then?

Maybe you should read Dave8's posts about reaoning more carefully...

Charles it seems that you are assuming that there are only 2 possible alternatives for how the universe can be explained: 1. biblegod creation, 2. big bang/evolution...
Have you ever considered another possiblity?? If evolution is wrong, it doesn't mean biblegod is right....same goes for if biblegod is wrong, doesn't mean evolution is true..

Maybe you should think outside the box...

I have a couple of questions for you....

1. How do you know, and why do you believe, that your god is the true god??

2. If there is a perfect. all powerful god who created us, why does he create babies everyday who are severely deformed? Mistake? On purpose?

Keep in mind Psalm 139:13-14:

"For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother's womb. I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well."

In the rest of your post you disturbingly terrorist-like....


Jacstar

Jim Arvo said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jim Arvo said...

And it drags on....

Charles said "creationist claptrap: to logically infer from complexity and coding that there must be a designer ?"

Show me the logical inference. Thanks a bunch.

Charles: "that language requires an agreement between sender and receiver yes how deluded of me !"

This is nothing but an argument from ignorance, as are nearly all the arguments from the creationist literature that you are reading from. Here is what your arguments consist of at bottom: "I just can't imagine how there can be X without a god to design it." How is that sincere search of yours going, Charles? Has it prompted you to look into any of these questions you ask rhetorically (i.e. not expecting an answer)? As for languages, one can get some insight by considering very primitive forms, such as pheromone secretion in insects. Is it really worth my time trying to explain to you how such mechanisms can evolve, considering that you seem to have no interest in picking up a bona fide science book? I think not.

Charles: "ok since you are 'puter man tell me how banging away on a keyboard is gonna produce a functioning program..."

Is that supposed to be an analogy with how DNA was formed? Charles, I cannot educate you from scratch, especially since you have no apparent desire to learn about anything that might challenge your current misconceptions. I have not seen the slightest trace of curiosity in you, nor even hint that your can understand anything beyond the superficial.

Your analogy is 100% rubbish. I've probably already pointed this out, but you and the rest of the creationist crowd completely neglect the role of feedback, which makes naive computations of ab initio construction completely meaningless. It's trivial to compute the probability of drawing a royal flush from a deck of shuffled playing cards, or the probability of flipping 10000 heads in a row with a fair coin. But none of this has any bearing on the issue of abiogenesis, as there is NO PRESUPPOSITION that highly complex structures simply appeared by chance alone. Again, I don't think I it's worth my time to attempt to educate you. Do you?

It's not wrong to be ignorant, Charles; it's refusing to do anything about it that is disturbing to me.

Astreja said...

Charles: "In the UK almost everybody believes in the Bible literally and those that dont learn to keep their mouths shut by gosh."

Unsupported assertion, argumenta ad populum et ad baculum.

"Creation is taught in schools as fact..."

Only in very, very bad schools run by deluded fuckwits who think nothing of brainwashing children with religious crap.

"We have proved creation to them..."

I doubt that very much.

"Natural variation is true of course, we can observe that but to say that this produces an entirely new kind of animal - No theres no proof of this, esp in the fossil record as there are no transitionals and there should be many..."

There are indeed many transitional fossils. May Ma'at slap you silly for that lie.

Upon reexamining your original "Be sincere in your search" essay and comparing it to your behaviour here, I am not impressed. Your constant deception, logical fallacies, shifting of goalposts, and cognitive dissonance make it crystal clear that you are not someone who is qualified to give meaningful advice.

It is obvious from your feeble pretense at "science" that Christianity has thoroughly fucked up your critical thinking processes.

It is also obvious from your more recent comments that you harbour a great deal of contempt for those who do not share your views. And yet, in your original letter, you chose to put on a veneer of false civility rather than being up front about your feelings. You claimed to be impressed by the WM's Ex-timony, and you had the unmitigated gall to address us, "Welll friends..." (sic)

Oh, and your spelling, grammar and punctuation are simply horrid, too. Forget about words such as 'implausible', 'plasmids' or 'compendium' -- Your inability to use something as simple as a comma reveals you to be a novice cut-'n'-paste jockey rather than a skilled writer in your own right.

There is no quality in you that we envy. Nothing that we aspire to emulate. You are a human shipwreck, capsized in a cesspool of ancient mythology.

In other words, Charles... You're a great example of why walking away from Christianity is a good thing. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

AtheistToothFairy said...

Charles said:
ok since you are 'puter man tell me how banging away on a keyboard is gonna produce a functioning program we need the compiler as well dont forget ill try it now
---
Charles,

Firstly, you need to take a course on Statistics, specifically on Chance.

The typical odds of an event taking place, that your apologists are quoting to you, are flawed greatly. Those odds are far far less than you've been told, as you would understand if you understood that we don't throw out the entire result of each 'throw of the dice', but keep what is valuable and then throw the dice again to ADD to our former result.

Working in this way, could easily produce this sentence on a computer, even with only monkey's typing away randomly at the keyboard.

There are a few computer programs that have been produced, that attempt to show the Evolution of Digital Organisms.
While they are not actual living biological organisms, the idea is quite similar to how biological evolution works.


From: http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/08/06/digital-organisms-refute-intelligent-design/

Here's an excerpt from this site.....

Carl Zimmer wrote a fascinating article about scientists at Michigan State University using software to simulate the evolutionary process. They’ve created digital organisms that replicate themselves like computer viruses, but include the chance for random mutation of their code during replication, simulating the random mutations that happen in the DNA of living organisms. (DNA and software are both, after all, just sets of instructions.)

......The researchers set up an experiment to document how one particularly complex operation evolved. The operation, known as equals, consists of comparing pairs of binary numbers, bit by bit, and recording whether each pair of digits is the same. It’s a standard operation found in software, but it’s not a simple one. The shortest equals program Ofria could write is 19 lines long. The chances that random mutations alone could produce it are about one in a thousand trillion trillion.

To test Darwin’s idea that complex systems evolve from simpler precursors, the Avida team set up rewards for simpler operations and bigger rewards for more complex ones. The researchers set up an experiment in which organisms replicate for 16,000 generations. They then repeated the experiment 50 times.

Avida beat the odds. In 23 of the 50 trials, evolution produced organisms that could carry out the equals operation. And when the researchers took away rewards for simpler operations, the organisms never evolved an equals program. “When we looked at the 23 tests, they were all done in completely different ways,” adds Ofria. He was reminded of how Darwin pointed out that many evolutionary paths can produce the same complex organ. A fly and an octopus can both produce an image with their eyes, but their eyes are dramatically different from ours. “Darwin was right on that—there are many different ways of evolving the same function,” says Ofria.



You can download a FREE simulator of these digital life forms and watch them EVOLVE yourself.
The program is called EVOLVE 4.0 and you can download it here:
http://www.stauffercom.com/evolve4/


toothfairy what do i know about what is Holy, nothing since I am a product of sin , God says that He is holy which i understand to be without fault failure or lack of anything in any depertment.

Charles,
How do YOU KNOW that god is "without fault" or "lacks anything in any department"?
Who told you that this god is without fault and how do you know your source wasn't lying to you?
You never answered my question in regards to god changing and if he would still be 'holy' if he did and how would you know if the new version of god is holy or not?

Also, if god doesn't lack anything, as YOU say, then why did he feel the need to create angels and human, hmmmm?
Doesn't that in itself show a lack of something, a desire that either came about at some point, or was unfulfilled for eons of time, then for some odd reason, god decided to fix that problem and created life.
Sure sounds like your god has a weakness, as well as he also CHANGES over time to.

Care to comment on that please?

what is sin ? an absence of the former having its familiar manifestation in the world.

Would you mind re-answering that question, as this sounds like double-talk to my ears..LOL.
If you didn't have a bible to read, if no xtian every told you about sin, then would you still know what sin was?


ATF (Who has to go feed his new Digital Turtle "Fred" now)

freeman said...

Charles,
I have been reading this thread and have come to the conclusion that you remind me of people who believe that man never walked on the moon!

You make me proud to have evolved!

TheJaytheist said...

All bow to Fred!

boomSLANG said...

Yoo hoo? Chuck...?...?...?

Charles previously boasted...."In the UK almost everybody believes in the Bible literally and those [who] dont learn to keep their mouths shut by gosh."

Fantastic! So, in light of this remarkable disclosure, you, Chuck-ol'-boy, should have no problem, whatsoever, addressing my previous inquiry, which, thus far, you have completely ignored. Here it is again, in bold, and in its entirety:

"Assuming your biblegod exists, and 'His Law' is the Objective, Universal, UNchanging, 'moral' Truth, please tell me if the following activities are moral/ethical ways of dealing with breakers of 'His Law', i.e..dealing with 'sinners':

- Stoning people who earn a living on the Sabbath

- Killing virgins who attempt to marry.

- Murdering people who are non-christian.

- Throwing rocks at prostitutes"


In other words, Chuck, since the UK is largely made-up of people who interpret the Bible, "literally", then I'd like to know if the above-quoted activities are practiced in the "UK", that is, if I should ever happen to be a guest there.

Again, I/we await your well-thought-out, factually-based correspondence on this matter.

Boe said...

I think Charlie's source of info regarding religious belief in the UK is about as reliable as his source regarding science. I live in the UK but I don't think charlie does - not mentally anyway.
Regarding his last two posts I second Ryan's advice - Sober up mate.

Dave8 said...

Charles: "My assertion that life is complex is based upon what even a layman can learn about information, DNA and cell reproduction which is found in all living things. Like it or not even a 'jerk' can see what some of you cannot that DNA and the nucleotides represent a complex, self replicating, error correcting information and language system. This is the opposite of what would be produced from random chance processes over aeons of time - any computer scientist will tell you that. (or a creationist jerk)"

Charles... your signature reasoning.

"If A causes B today, then A always causes B."

Charles' TR: "If complexity causes life forms today, then complexity always causes life forms."

Charles, your numerous examples are captured under you transductive reasoning, including your DNA posit; no need to go any further with providing examples, details, more words, etc.

In a nutshell, you believe it is "complexity" that causes "life forms" to exist. I... think I get the concept, really.

So, let's examine what "complexity" actually means, since it is the foundational component in your "reasoning", which further supports your belief system.

Complex: "1. composed of many interconnected parts; compound; composite:"
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/complex

Charles, give me or anyone else, an example of something that is "not" interconnected in this Universe/Nature.

In short Charles, where do you believe "complexity" is captured in a single isolated form from the greater whole of Nature/The Universe.

I'm not talking about some simpleton's ideated concept of cosmology... I'm talking about "right not"... not yesterday, not three billion years ago, etc.

So, today Charles... your body, where does it cease to "blend" into your biosphere... when does your biosphere, cease to no longer blend into your atmosphere, when does your atmosphere cease to blend into space, where does your outer space cease to blend into...

You can use the above as a manner of thinking about every which way you want to ponder "complexity"... you explain DNA in terms of "function", let's logically test the "complex" form of functional DNA...

So, today Charles... your DNA is a functional part of your body, your body is a functional part of this earth's biosphere, this earth's biosphere is a functional part of the earth's atmosphere, and the earth's atmosphere is a functional part of The Universe/Nature.

If you aren't capable of understanding the point of your very own argument, it's because you "choose" to "refuse" to engage in a higher form of reasoning... since you have stated that you hold the faculty of higher order reasoning skill.

Like others have stated... there is no point in engaging a person, who exhibits the traits of stubborn resistance to "progressive" reasoning.

I have no problem, "starting" out on a level of reasoning that is extremely basic... but when there becomes an "obstacle" to further progressive reasoning, one has to take pause at the "reason" for such an obstacle, and decide whether or not it is productive to continue expending one's own resources (time) in the effort.

Charles... we are at a very simple level of reasoning here. You propose that "complexity" is limited to "life forms" alone - I disagree.

You as well would likely suggest that it is "life forms” that lead us to "understand" the "meaning" of The Universe/Nature... I would disagree with that as well. Why can't it be observed that The Universe/Nature gives "meaning" to "life forms".

I will not engage you further, unless your response shows a solid use of logic beyond "mere" transductive reasoning; held with white-knuckle stubbornness. When you form an argument, do everyone a favor and "define" the terms you use, and the "logical" application of the terms as they refer to the "Nature" we share with you.

Dave8 said...

Dave8: "I'm talking about "right not"... not yesterday, not three billion years ago, etc."

Correction; "right not", should be "right now".

Astreja said...

(puts out a bowl of nummy virtual greens for ATF's colleague Digital Turtle Fred) Now that's a deity I can respect. He's even consistent with the infinite regress of "Turtles all the way down".

AtheistToothFairy said...

Astreja wrote:
(puts out a bowl of nummy virtual greens for ATF's colleague Digital Turtle Fred)

Astreja,

Digital Fred says thank you very much for the delicious greens; even though he remarked they tasted a bit 'primordial'.
He did say that you shouldn't worry too much about him having an Earth Planet on his back, as digital earths just don't weigh all that much.


ATF (Who now has to invent some digital "Turtle Wax" for Fred's shell)

charles said...

jacstar - yes im spoofing what we get here is the same as in USA creationists are unscientific cranks who hate science because 'evolution is a proven scientific fact' which of course it isnt. just being ironic, this year in the european parliament they had a motion to outlaw the teaching of creation for some of the reasons i mentioned in my post which made me consider the totalitarian nature of atheist thinking.

ATF isnt there a problem with your examples in that they all require a storage medium to accumulate the dice rolls ? In nature there isnt one since should a dice roll be beneficial the organism will die anyway to imagine that the mutation will be replicated upon procreation (if that occurs) takes us into unproveable areas of probability (faith ?) Also the enzymes type in and then type out so they dont leave a record, unlike a typewriter

dave8
In a nutshell, you believe it is "complexity" that causes "life forms" to exist. I... think I get the concept,

not really dave, i suppose that complex life and the infromation in it indicates order and a designer rather than complexity being an end in itself it is indicative. After all if we cannot produce life with the application of intelligence to matter ourselves then by what reasoning do we call 'simple ' lifeforms simple.i dont see this as 'white knuckle reasoning' (he he ) would i be right in thinking you are something of a pantheist ? For instance i wouldnt connect my body to the universe in that sense, the universe would be i think unaffected if i were removed.my term nature means the creation

astreja
so waht if miy speling and comas are shot check some of the other contributions on this post filthy language arrogance not to mention your own contribution now i think about it how hypocritical is that!
transitional fossils - archaeopetrix - its got feathers its a bird only by imagination and theory is this a transitional,if you want to accept its a transitional its up to you its a perching bird as well, some birds today have small teeth.
and yes i meant what i said about the webmasters testimony and some of the others i was amazed quite frankly. tho you may think me patronising i imagine that such a change of heart must be very painful

franciscanmonkey
can you tell after years of studying apologetics was there any particular apologetic issue that caused you to change, or was it entirely due to the unhappy event that you describe on your website ?
I wont comment at all if you would elaborate.
sorry but i just cant reply to all the posts and questions but if you remind me i will

hi boomslang, well we havent progressed that far yet but we certainlky dont want a God who is squeamish do we ? what good would that be but no we dont practice any of those things and in any case that was specifically of course for His people of Israel and didnt apply to anyone else but i understand that tho these laws appear brutal to us now their neighbours were without law at all and very savage so perhaps it was an improvement - i dont know.anyway, this doesnt relate to christians today you know that we dont advocate these things. Its irelevant.

sconnor oh yes nearly forgot you, very thoughtful post thanks for the input i read it very carefully a number of times and thought i could see a few anger management issues there or maybe you just have a degenerate mind which likes writing filth BTW i already listed some luminaries of science that laid the foundations of modern science and they all believed the Bible - It teaches that you will also believe it one day wether you want to or not

webmdave
im not antiscience just anti idolatory which some science is today. Its not observational it sets out to 'prove' an idolotorous view of man. We all know that the application of real science has improved our lives beyond measure.

jim arvo
im not saying that there are people who propose that complex structures arose on their own no body would say that, i say that there arent simple ones to be found from which even to extrapolate.



Blind Unbelief worse that blind belief

charles said...

the organism will die anyway

should include 'eventually' somewhere in there

charles said...

i really hate to brag but we have 117 posts here which having had a quick look thru the other forums is a lot more than the others
i dont know if its the patronising tone of the title (unintentional) which enraged people or my reasoning but excellent work everyone !

sconnor said...

Chucky says, i really hate to brag but...

Mt 6:1
"Beware of practicing your righteousness before men to be noticed by them; otherwise you have no reward with your Father who is in heaven.

Uh, oh there goes your ticket to paradise, fuck-head. Looks like you are going to have to suck Jesus' dick to atone for your sin.

--S.

Astreja said...

Charles: "so waht if miy speling and comas are shot check some of the other contributions on this post filthy language arrogance not to mention your own contribution now i think about it how hypocritical is that!"

I do not see the hypocrisy you speak of, Charles. My spelling is generally quite good. Furthermore, I am a professional proofreader and aspiring novelist who has written literally millions of words to date. I'm used to seeing correctly-spelled, correctly-punctuated English, and when I see bad punctuation and misspelled words I find it quite jarring. The occasional error I tend to ignore... Unless it's one of My own. I've been known to delete and re-post an entire comment to correct a single mis-typed letter.

Egregious bad spelling such as yours is another matter entirely. It is symptomatic of a deeper malaise -- An abnormally low standard of literacy, and indifference to easily obtained corrective technology such as spell-checkers, dictionaries, thesauri and this extremely fine treatise on good writing.

And I remind you that the name of this site is Ex-Christian.net. Some of us (Myself included) find it therapeutic to rant and rave and spew the occasional vulgarity. If you don't like the way we talk here, perhaps it's time for you to leave.

Franciscan Monkey said...

Charles:

You wrote:

franciscanmonkey
can you tell after years of studying apologetics was there any particular apologetic issue that caused you to change, or was it entirely due to the unhappy event that you describe on your website?


I don't have a website, and I have no idea what "unhappy event" you are referring to. In fact, I can't think of any extraodinarily unhappy event that has happened in my life beyond what most people encounter from time to time. My life, on the whole, has been uneventful.

The problem I had with Christianity stemmed from the fact that the Bible had too many flaws to be the "Word of God." There are too many contradictions in the Bible, too many scientific inaccuracies, too many historical anachronisms, too many failed prophecies. You would think that if God existed and wrote a book that he wanted us to use as a guideline for life, he'd write a perfect book. The Bible doesn't come close. The Bible actually makes a lot more sense to me, now that I know it was written by uninspired men with their own agendas. The two passages that started me down the path of honest inquiry were Matthew 2:23, and the cursing of the fig tree narratives in Matthew 21 and Mark 11.In Matthew 2:23 we read, "And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." Unfortunatley for Matthew, there was never a prophecy recorded in the Bible that said that, or even anything remotely similar. The cursing of the fig tree narratives contradict each other as to the timing of the withering of the tree. Once I decided to look at the Bible as objectively as possible, and I was finding literally hundreds of Biblical problems that could not be reasonably explained, it became obvious that I had been deluded as a Christian. I hope that you will one day look at the Bible and the world we live in objectively, Charles. You yourself admitted that you are not doing so at this present time when you wrote, "point being I have to bend my understanding to what it says rather than the other way around."

Here's my deconversion testimony that I posted on this site:

http://exchristian.net/testimonies/2008/01/bible-was-not-product-of-some-deity.html

Respectfully,
Franciscan Monkey

It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. - Carl Sagan

boomSLANG said...

Charles...i boomslang, well we havent progressed that far yet but we certainlky dont want a God who is squeamish do we ?

I think you probably meant, you haven't regressed that far(backward). In any event, the "Creator of the Universe" allegedly has a feces fetish, plus, he enjoys dashing small children against rocks, so really, I doubt there's too many things that make him "squeamish".

Charles..... be but no we dont practice any of those things and in any case that was specifically of course for His people of Israel and didnt apply to anyone else..[bold added]

Yes, yes, "of course"!..the "people of Israel"..i.e.."God's Chosen". Well, Chucky-poo, a couple of things---if your biblegod's original Laws don't apply any longer, then we can rightfully say that said "Laws" are out-dated/out-moded, and thus, "God's Will" has clearly changed, when in fact, you've gone on record to say the opposite---that "God's Will" is UNchanging. That is bearing false witness, Chuck, which is NOT a "sin", but it ruins your credibility.

BTW, I say that bearing false witness is NOT a "sin", because, remember, you just tossed the "Commandments" out of the equation, because the "Commandments" were, "of course", for "His people of Israel".

In other words, Chuck, you nullified the very "Laws" that you insist are our "Moral compass". It seems that your Divine babysitter in the sky needs a better "plan", eh? Oh, but wait....I almost forgot....the New, improved Testament!

Charles...i dont know

Amen

Charles...anyway, this doesnt relate to christians today you know that we dont advocate these things. Its irelevant.

Yes, yes!...the Ten Commandments r irelvunt.

___________________________________

Dear Charles, you've solved nothing. If you discard the "Old Laws"(including the Commandments), then evidently, something ELSE is our "Moral Compass"; NOT the bible. You've contradicted yourself. 'Shocker.

Dave8 said...

dave8: "In a nutshell, you believe it is "complexity" that causes "life forms" to exist. I... think I get the concept,"

Charles: "not really dave, i suppose that complex life and the infromation in it indicates order and a designer rather than complexity being an end in itself it is indicative."

1-You failed to "define" complexity.

2-You failed to isolate a "boundary" to "isoalte" this "complexity" you keep speaking about.

3-You now assert that "complexity" = "Designer"/"Creator", as if that has changed your Transductive Reasoning - You've only added a few words to your previous TR.

Here we go again...

"If A causes B today, then A always causes B."

Charles' initial TR: "If Complexity causes life forms today, the Complexity always causes life forms".

Charles' updated TR: "If a Designer causes complex life forms, then a Designer always causes complex life forms.

First, because you have failed to define "complexity", you have no aptitude to speak on the subject.

Second, because you have failed to "isolate" a boundary that "separates" your "body" from Nature/The Universe, then the following statement is logically sound.

-All interconnected components of matter amalgamate to form This "Universe"

-All amalgamated matter of This "Universe", relationally exhibit attributes

-All attributes include, complexity and life

-Therefore, the amalgamate Universe, exhibits "All" attributes; including complexity and life

Charles, feel free to disprove any premise above. Until then, even the "words" you speak, are "vibrations" within This Universe. It could be said that This Universe, has a "linguistic" aptitude; namely humanity, and therefore, This "Universe" hosts the attributes of "patterned resonance/linguistics".

Lastly, you want to suggest that only a "Designer" can point to "Complexity" in "life forms", (although, complexity is an attribute of This "Universe", if you proffer it).

You must have missed history class somewhere... the whole point of the "ID" crowd, of which you are obviously an advocate, was to promote theism in public education via a "Designer"; while disassociating/feigning a non-religious or "creationist" position.

It was thought, that if a "Designer" explanation for humanity could be proffered without a "religious" association, that ID could be taught in public schools around the U.S., without breaching a citizens' religious rights, which included the right to have no religion.

You have attempted to "exclude" the Universe as a "complex" system, hosting "Universal" attributes, because your tactic is to "accent" humanity's significance and promote a "Human Designer"; a Designer (personal Being), of Mankind. A "Human" Designer/"personal Being" = God.

In short, the ID crowd asserts, a "Human Designer" makes "Humans", and therefore, a person believing in a Human Designer of Humans, is not necessarily a theist.

If the ID crowd, were to advocate a Universe Designer, they'd be called "Creationists", e.g., theists.

Charles, you want so much to prove that Humanity is the product of a "custom" Human Designer; while evasively maneuvering around the more logical conclusion - Humanity is an interconnected material component, and "product" of This "Universe".

I think others have stated that you are "confused", and I'd have to agree with them... you are advocating an ID position, while offering a "creationist"/religious/theistic world-view.

In the end, it really doesn't matter.

-ID = illogical
-Creationism (Biblical Account of Creation) = illogical

You adding ID & Creationist components together = confusing/conflicted statements that when pulled apart render the absurdity of ID & Creationism.

Charles: "I can test the assertion that water is hot by pitting my finger in it. If I am not sure the first time I can do it again, yep its hot, if i didnt trust my own judgement i can ask a friend."

First of all, the word "hot" or "cold" is a relative term, that is totally "subjective" in the context you have used it.

Your "friend" could say "warm", while you say "hot" - are you going to "vote" on it?

Charles, your perfunctory statements involving science, speak volumes of your education.

Two individual people have two "different" standards of evaluation, e.g., their individual sensory receptors and mental faculties.

The words hot and cold hold subjective meaning, until a process is established and tools created, to provide "objectivity".

Oh, that's right... science, provides us with a process, by which we can render tools, and a common standard of evaluation.

Tool = thermometer
SoE = Numeric Temperature association to terms hot/cold

So, Charles... instead of using a bunch of meaningless words to your friend; you could let them know that the water was 30 degrees Celsius.

Your friend may well still call it warm, and you call it hot... but what neither of you "can't" do is "deny" the empirically "objective" evidence in front of you.

Now, when you "feel" some divine intervention in your being... it doesn't really help anyone, when you subjectively talk about it, after all, your senses and mental faculty are slightly different than ours.

So, you can help us out tremendously, if you could produce a "godometer"... and a standard of evaluation, like Big Designer, or little designer, according to a numeric significance rating, etc.

Charles, most all your "statements" on this thread, have more holes than a spaghetti strainer; due in no small part to your Transductive Reasoning... with limited knowledge.

There is a correlation; the more sophisticated your reasoning skills become the more knowledge you wield, the more you move away from transductive reasoning.

By the way; when you state that some people venerate science, understand that "science" is a method/practice/profession, etc, not an "entity".

I know it gets confusing, people use the word God/gods as if they represented "real" objects, these people assume "all" words therefore, must refer to some "real" entity, i.e., "golden calf" that people worship.

It is erroneous to assert “all” people worship science; however, I personally "respect" science, because of its "inclusiveness". Science seeks to find “facts” from every source testable/falsifiable, even from the “religious”.

Science and most religions are typically at odds, on a basic level, because "religions" are almost "always" exclusive. An example of "exclusivity", would be an ID position, that "excludes" the entire Universe, with the exception of "some life forms", in order to establish a "belief" system and followers.

charles said...

Hi boomslang, far from it i think the law is very important im not one of those 'carnal christians' and jesus said that he came to make the law true not to do away with it. The law is spiritual in nature. I am talking about the ten commandments not those practices that you gleefully mention.

Stoning people who earn a living on the Sabbath

- Killing virgins who attempt to marry.

- Murdering people who are non-christian.

- Throwing rocks at prostitutes

I meditate on the commandments every day and have them framed in my workshop and at the entrance to my house (inside). Jesus said it was easier for heaven and earth to pass away than one jot or tittle of the law and i believe that.
If I love God i will work to keep them knowing that i will fail at times doesnt discourage me.
If someone who says they are a christian does not care about the law then they will find themselves judged by Jesus as a ,practicer of iniquity ' and be told to depart as He never knew them. Jesus came to fulfill the law because those who would be grateful and appreciate Him would try and keep it.

charles said...

astreja

'deluded fuckwits'

'thoroughly fucked up '

you ran that throgh the spell checker and thesauras did you ?

ha ha !

charles said...

hey sconnor its degenerates like you that make the rest of us look good !

charles said...

daev8 your reasoning consistently seems to rely on wilful error may i offer a few examples.

the hot cold water analogy is not subjective at all, the human being the thermometer within a few degrees the great majority of the sample will be on agreement about a very small temperature difference cold, hot, tepid, dangerous (boiling)

'You failed to "define" complexity'

i already did several times wether you agree with that is a different matter but i have defined it

''All interconnected components of matter amalgamate to form This "Universe"''

assumption

also you believe that i am an ID er

self evidently i am not, i believe in the God of the Bible. wether you are right or wrong about the ID agenda I am not an ID er though their information is of interest to me.

charles said...

franciscan monkey sorry i was confusing you with someone else on the site

charles said...

hey sconnor some of that stuff is pretty sick i bet you do that yourself dont you - or you would like to if they would let you down from the attic. The repeated sexual references makes It obvious you are a porn site frequent flyer.
Guess what ? You are right God does not love you - you are his enemy, if you dont turn he will recompense His Glory for the insults you spat at Him. The universe will be summoned to behold the pouring out of His wrath and indignation upon your unfourtunate being and all the others. Be you ever so strong in this life you will be unable to bear the flood to come and no allowance will be made for your ability to bear it. The creators unrestrained wrath will be your portion for eternity - come to your senses !

charles said...

hi franciscan monkey, i checked with my reference bible and no i did not find any reference to jesus being a nazarene either, i found plenty of prophecies about him coming from bethlehem which of course He did and others rferring to Him all through the Bible and you know he fulfilled hundreds in His lifetime.

eventually i googled and came up with this:

In summary, then, the word "Nazarene" in Jesus' time, while still
literally referring to someone from Nazareth, had become more or less a
synonym for despised.

anyway Im not prepared to throw out all the prohecies which we know came true on these grounds where as a for instance the writer suggests that the term Nazarene is a colloquiallism

best wishes, charles

sconnor said...

Guess what ? You are right God does not love you - you are his enemy, if you dont turn he will recompense His Glory for the insults you spat at Him. The universe will be summoned to behold the pouring out of His wrath and indignation upon your unfourtunate being and all the others. Be you ever so strong in this life you will be unable to bear the flood to come and no allowance will be made for your ability to bear it. The creators unrestrained wrath will be your portion for eternity - come to your senses !

Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.

Ooooooooooooo! Scary stuff coming from a delusional, religious zealot, fuck-tard. You are the equivalent of the insane "fire and brimstone" preacher, who proselytizes on the street corner, who has zero credibility and absolutely no authority. You are only worthy of ridicule and you and your bible-god are lower than the shit stain in your underwear.

Slurp, slurp. Has Jesus forgiven you, yet?

Sing it with me!

Jesus loves me! This I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Little ones to Him belong;
They are weak, but He is strong.

Refrain:

“Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
Yes, Jesus loves me!
The Bible tells me so.

La, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, la, cuckoo, cuckoo, la, la, la


Fuck off, you religious, megalomaniac.

--S.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Charles,

You mentioned the "totalitarianism of atheism" in reference to the acceptance of evolution over creationism in Europe. It's simply a matter of criteria concerning how you choose what's real.

Atheists are generally skeptical and need to have proof, or at least strong evidence, before they believe something. Whereas religious people first believe what their religion tells them and then try to find evidence.

It's simply the difference between skepticism and faith based thinking.

Most scientists these days take evolution as a fact, and those that don't are generally blinded by faith.

You gave a list of scientists earlier who claimed to be Christians. Historically speaking, in Europe during the Dark Ages, atheists were burned as heretics, a policy which carried over into the Renaissance in many places in Europe (speaking of totalitarianism!). If there had been atheists, they certainly wouldn't have admitted it.

The scientists you mentioned made their discoveries in spite of their religiosity. For example, Copernicus, a cleric, wrote his treatise on the heliocentric planetary system early in his life but chose to wait until he was on his deathbed to publish it for fear of retribution from the Christian Church. His inspiration was not God, but Aristarchus of Samos.

Kepler, a devout protestant, while accepting the heliocentric model, had preconceived ideas about planetary motion due to his faith in God. He spent many years trying to prove his erroneous ideas and it wasn't until he wiped his mental slate clean and looked at the raw evidence that he was able to develop his three laws of planetary motion, which are still in use today.

Galileo's ideas of the universe were so abhorrent to the Christian Church that he was put under house arrest and made to recant. We now accept his ideas as scientific fact.

In fact, if you look at each of these scientists and their discoveries, you will find that either their faith in God or the Church itself was a hindrance to their discoveries. Furthermore, they are great scientists because they overcame their preconceived ideas that originated in their religion.

You mentioned that some people express a great deal of anger on this site. That's true. A number of people on this site have been victims of Christianity and are quite bitter, myself included.

How should a rape victim feel towards a rapist? How should a Jew feel towards a Nazi? Well, that's how many ex-Christians feel towards Christians, and you can expect strong language and a great deal of resentment from us.

By the way, are you a prophet of God? Does God tell you directly what he thinks about certain individuals and what he is going to do to them? "You are right God does not love you - you are his enemy, ... " Under whose authority do you speak for God?

Finally, to address your original admonition, "Be sincere in your search." I suggest that you follow your own suggestion, and take it one step further: Be courageous in your search.

First, ask yourself this question, "Have I started with beliefs and then searched for evidence?" If the answer is "yes", then you have deluded yourself. You have put yourself in the same category as the Mormons, Muslims, Jehovah's Witnesses, UFO worshippers, astrology fanatics, Catholics, Protestants, etc ... If you talk with these believers, you will find that each of them will give you strong scientific evidence for their beliefs.

So what's wrong? Religious people selectively choose the facts that may seem to support their doctrine while ignoring the facts that don't. They also misinterpret facts and create bogus facts in order to support their ideas. The problem: Faith first, facts second.

In order to find the truth, you must, as Kepler did, wipe your mental slate clean of preconceived ideas and see what the raw evidence tells you. You must be courageous in your thinking. Ask the hard questions and be honest with yourself.

Good luck, Charles. Be sincere in your search and be courageous as well.

Pageviews this week: