religionisbullshit.net

Pretty good.
Although creationists would have a pretty hard time explaining the Chernobyl gamma-ray-absorbing bacteria.

Numerous, 23.06.2009, 6:11am #

"most atheists have no understanding of probability theory" - surely you're joking here!
"...doesn't know the difference between macro and micro evolution" - same thing over a considerably greater time scale (and ALL creationists have no grasp of "big numbers")

Tim, 02.07.2009, 11:18am #

You have been charged, and been found guilty of AD HOMINEM.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem
Seriously. Learn basic reasoning.
Also, try argumentum ad populum. And straw man (cant remember the latin, f**k it).
RHF, would you kindly cite a source that indicates that you aren't just slandering tim.
If you don't then obviously it's fair enough for me to say that you smoke cocaine.
Cocaine is a hell of a drug. Don't do it, kids, look what happened to RHF when he tried it. His brain got fried.
:)

Numerous, 30.07.2009, 11:51am #

So you really can't understand what ad hominem is?
Funny how you think I would care about someone calling me gay. I wouldn't care if I WAS gay. It wouldn't make me any less of a person. Feel free to call me gay whenever u like, it'll demonstrate how addicted to crack you are, RHF.

And by the way, this may be very complex for you, but evolution is NOT random chance. only the random mutations are 'random chance', but the SELECTION of which of those mutations will or won't be passed on is definitely not random chance. If the said mutation increases the chances of reproducing, it'll usually (as in it will, assuming an unavoidable random event like a meteor landing on it, doesn't happen) be passed on.
BTW, you stil haven't told me how you think the events of chernobyl happened. That's PROOF of evolution. So really, I can just disregard you since I already have proof.

Numerous, 01.08.2009, 2:02am #

Seriously RHF, are you, like, mental or something? I mean, you've been coming to this site since I set up the original blog in Jan 2005 [get to it from the articles page] using various different names (Mr. X, TimNot4Me and probably more) - I thought at that time you were some bored young teenager with no friends - but nearly FIVE YEARS later you're still coming out with the same kind of crap , thinking that calling some one "gay" is an insult and claiming to have "defeated" atheists without actually making any worthwhile points at all.
I really hate this expression, but ... get a life, yeah?

Tim, 02.08.2009, 10:47am #

You will miss me.

RHF_FINAL, 02.08.2009, 3:48pm #

Bye Tim,
peace be with you.

Mr. X, 03.08.2009, 3:11am #

But seriously RHF, you should learn how to be subtle. It's really, really obvious that you're 'Timnot4me' and 'Mr. X'.
Feel free to come back any time your IQ doubles, though.

Numerous, 04.08.2009, 6:43am #

It's surprising that the one tossing around that atheists need to learn basic probability theory is the one who believes in an improbable bush-burning, world flooding, sending-messages-telepathically-to-humans, fire-balls-shooting-from-heaven-that-destroy-civilizations biblical God.
The only thing, as I've understood it, that the probability theory states is that the existence of SOME god in the universe (closer to the deism or panentheism beliefs) may have a pretty low probability but we can't really rule it out since science can only take us so far at the moment. And improbable is not the same thing as impossible.

B, 29.08.2009, 2:13pm #

religion is pure fraud. It is the only business where you never get the goods promised for all your donations. Nobody ever comes back to complain.

Brian, 02.09.2009, 11:32pm #

Numerous: whaaat?? Are you honestly telling me no one believes in little leprechauns anymore? D: the leprechauns must feel a bit sad then.
But still, I stand firmly in my belief, in spite of your comparison to little green men roaming the earth, that you can't just by saying it's improbable define that it's not true. As I recall it the happening of big bang was highly improbable but still it occurred. And please note that just because you can't say it's not true doesn't mean it's true either. That's the beauty and ugliness of religion I guess?
Why I love science is because it can always change and advance- to keep my mind open for the possibility of something that can only be countered with an improbability theory is in my opinion very important. The more I look, question, try to understand, the more I research and the more answers I obtain. To now try and convert people who believe in a deity without clear evidence of its non-existence would to me seem very wrong in the eyes of science- whose very core lies in facts and proof- not speculation and personal conviction.

B, 10.09.2009, 4:05pm #

Dude, you are a genius :D, your video is pure genius :D, but as you know arguing with religious people is like talking to a brick wall but keep it up, people like you and me who are devoted science are the only ones who can answer the final questions before its too late :/ , while religion holds the old obsolete answers to question we can answer

Kapee, 19.09.2009, 1:18am #

The point is, you don't question your own sanity, yet you question whether god exists or not, even though the existence of god is approximately equal to the chances of you being insane. Sure, the god of the bible COULD exist, but the fact is, even the scientific method assumes 'he' doesn't interfere.

Numerous, 24.09.2009, 11:33am #

So you know what, I won't ever seriously consider if god exists, and am JUSTIFIED in doing so, until you seriously consider if you're insane.
Who knows, maybe this whole world is a construction of your mind to help you cope with a major shock in the whole world. Maybe I'm just a construction of your mind, from a little tiny portion of your brain that questions whether your view of god is correct.
That reminds me of the pokemon coma theory, for some reason, take a look:
http://www.gamerstyle.com/forums/lounge/19832-pokemon-coma-theory.html
http://community.livejournal.com/pokemon/1575631.html
Pick a link.

Numerous, 24.09.2009, 11:54am #

Actually, Albert Einstein was a pantheist, and Charles Darwin was a deist. Einstein being a pantheist is actually pretty well known, in the atheist community (by that I mean EVERYONE knows it).
Also, considering that for the last 2000 years, christianity has been the dominant, if not ruling, religion, then you can't say that people were necessarily religious, just because they said they were. Imagine if extremist muslims took over the world, and enforced a theocracy. How many people would publically announce their atheism?

Numerous, 22.10.2009, 7:11am #

*doesn't

Scooby, 23.10.2009, 1:07am #

If evolution is true, you are just a random accident with no purpose in life. If Creation is true, you were created out of love, and have a wonderful purpose for your life.

me, 10.12.2009, 4:27pm #

besides, most of the founding fathers were Christians. Of all the founding fathers, ten were not "Christians," but all acknowledged a supreme power, though. To quote http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html, "None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator." John Adams said "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand."

me, 10.12.2009, 4:38pm #

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=23909

me, 10.12.2009, 4:41pm #

"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were. . . . the general principles of Christianity." JOHN ADAMS

"The teachings of the Bible are so interwoven and entwined with our whole civic and social life that it would be literally impossible for us to figure to ourselves what that life would be if these teaching were removed." TEDDY ROOSEVELT

"America was born a Christian nation America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of Holy Scripture." WOODROW WILSON

"American life is builded, and can alone survive, upon . . . [the] fundamental philosophy announced by the Savior nineteen centuries ago." HERBERT HOOVER

"This is a Christian Nation." HARRY TRUMAN

"Let us remember that as a Christian nation . . . we have a charge and a destiny." RICHARD NIXON

me, 10.12.2009, 4:43pm #

Humans are unique from every other living organism in the world, specially created and specially purposed. The Earth is also like no other planet, specially created by God for humans, and we can observe evidence of His design elements in His creation.

me, 10.12.2009, 5:00pm #

http://www.icr.org/nature/

me, 10.12.2009, 5:02pm #

http://www.icr.org/

me, 10.12.2009, 5:04pm #

http://www.icr.org/mutation/

me, 10.12.2009, 5:05pm #

Nognog, you say: (commentary added)

??Creationists are dumbfuck sheeple with low IQ's (excuse me, I have an IQ of 136) that aren't capable of processing anything that doesn't come from father Chester the Molester's (who?) mouth or one of the numerous versions of the bible. A book, not of divinity, but written and created by mortal men who can't even be identified. (only one or two of the authors of some of the books of the Bible cannot be identified) So where does the good book stand on the scientific proof in radio-carbon dating of geological formations and skeletal remains of bipedal hominids. BTW, if the bible is gods word alone, why so many differences, versions, and interpretations? (The original translations were in greek and Hebrew. A single Greek word can be translated the same way. And besides, the Bible has been translated into so many languages, by so many different people. You are going to have differences.) Just curious. Put 100 theologians in the same room and you get 100 different theories (with the same principle, same deity, and same basic beliefs).

me, 10.12.2009, 5:13pm #

"me", you're just like a certain moron who kept commenting here a while ago, who used the name "RHF". Hell, if your writing didn't have a different style (ie less mindless insults and more actual information, true or not, to back up your assertions) I'd assume he just came back under an alias. Please try not be like him, and make sure you actually attempt to refute other people's assertions, not just adding your own.

Now, i'm going to go through your arguments and rip them to shreds:

"If evolution is true, you are just a random accident with no purpose in life. If Creation is true, you were created out of love, and have a wonderful purpose for your life."

Let me say this now: your personal thoughts DO NOT DEFINE REALITY.
First of all, according to the bible, there was nothing before there was god, and thus there was no purpose anyways, originally. When god (supposedly) appeared, he would have made his own purpose, correct?
Now, since without a god, we're the next best thing, then humanity as a collective whole can make it's own purpose, WE can make OUR OWN PURPOSE.
Besides, we already have plenty of purposes in the world now, even ignoring religion. We'll never be short of purpose. Ever.

"besides, most of the founding fathers were Christians. Of all the founding fathers, ten were not "Christians," but all acknowledged a supreme power, though. To quote http://freethought.mbdojo.com/foundingfathers.html, "None of the Founding Fathers were atheists. Most of the Founders were Deists, which is to say they thought the universe had a creator." John Adams said "It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand.""

Remember this: 200 years ago society was DOMINATED BY RELIGION. In fact, quite often the presiding rulers were reliant on religion to actually uphold their office, so if people didn't believe in that particular god, then that current ruler was out of a population to rule. Not to mention, the church/collective religious majority held the majority of power, and in general if someone was seen as against the religion, then they could be persecuted (you know, by what was held as law). I mean, imagine someone going to a strict fundamentalist muslim country and announcing that they were an atheist. Within the week someone would have shot them, and justified it with the bible.

If you were an atheist during that period of time, you kept it to yourself.

I'm out of time, so I'll explain why the anti-evolution stuff is complete crap later.

That said, if anyone has some anti-evolution propaganda, feel free to try posting it at antievolution.org - they can rip through bullshit in record time.

Numerous, 11.12.2009, 11:45am #

Hey dudes!
Looky what I found!
BTW, I am not for one side, but creation sure looks more believable.

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_TOC.htm

skateboarder, 11.12.2009, 4:09pm #

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/sci-ev/sci_vs_ev_3.htm

ME, 11.12.2009, 4:16pm #

Also, if evolution is true, you are all random accidents and you were not created for a purpose, but are descendants of the monkeys in zoos (behind bars)

me, 11.12.2009, 4:23pm #

oops, they wer all Christians, so creation/Christianity is most definately a part of science.

Skateboarder, 11.12.2009, 4:27pm #

be 11. To be fair, there should be negative numbers, to show degeneration, but I'm trying to keep this simple so anyone can understand it. Now, assuming previously the highest 2 numbers were 2 sixes, and this time the highest numbers were a 5 and a 6, then you get the AVERAGE of (6+5) and (6+6), which is 11.5 - Now, using 11.5 as the average (or what corresponds to it in your test), do the same thing, for the "3rd generation" (the 3rd roll). You'll notice that due to natural selection, the traits that increase the adaptation to the environment (and thus make the organism more likely to survive to reproduce) will become more widespread, with the only aspect of the trait that really matters being whether it assists or desists the organism to survive (nature takes no prisoners).

Now, after that, tell me the upwards trend is random. However, it ISNT. Because (like natural selection) the 2 levels of adaptation (I knoiw its a lot more complex, but this is a simple model) are not randomly elected, but selected according to which is more likely to survive. In reality, this sometimes doesn't happen, but it happens most of the time by far (like, 19/20 times).
That is why evolution is not chance. The chance is only who gets what mutations. Which mutation gets passed on is not random at all.
Next up: a dumbass comment by someone assuming that all scientists do their research according to their personal beliefs:
"BTW, a bunch of scientists like Louis Pasteur, Isaac Newton, Thomas Edison, and many others.
Skateboarder, 11.12.2009, 4:25pm #
oops, they wer all Christians, so creation/Christianity is most definately a part of science.
Skateboarder, 11.12.2009, 4:27pm #"
First of all, these people Did NOT assume that god exists, or had any influence on the results, during their research. So according to their work, they could have been atheist (they never once considered that experimental error was due to a miracle by god, or something similar). Creation science, however, does. And if you assume the bible tells the truth, then you will ALWAYS come to the conclusion that the bible is true. The fact is, that is a direct fallacy known as "begging the question" (look it up on wikipedia). They use confirmation bias to an extreme level, and almost raise it to an art form. THAT is the difference. They investigate very thoroughly ANYTHING that MIGHT contradict the bible, while taking for granted anything that backs the bible up.
You can guess what happens in the end, from that, in fact you don't even need to guess.
Next up:
I'd like to elaborate on why the following is bullshit:
"Also, if evolution is true, you are all random accidents and you were not created for a purpose, but are descendants of the monkeys in zoos (behind bars)
me, 11.12.2009, 4:23pm #"
Let me explain this AGAIN: First of all, we are not descendants of monkeys. Monkeys only SHARE A COMMON ANCESTOR. Let me put it like this: You are not a descendant of your cousin, your cousin just shares a common ancestor (which would be grandparents).
We are descendants of apes, and this makes a difference from a biological point of view.
This was too long to post in 1 comment by the way

Numerous, 12.12.2009, 3:28am #

That said, it DOESNT MATTER who you're descended from. The fact is, if your mother was a prostitute and your father was a serial killer/multiple rapist, then it doesn't make you any less of a person. It's fairly irrelevant, seeing as how either way you're still the same person.
Besides, according to evolution, you might be descendants of apes, but according to the bible, you were made directly from dirt.
Again, as I said before, evolution was NOT an accident, it was NOT random chance. You clearly need to do a course on biology if you think so.
Next up: a bunch of random flawed questions.
Before I quote it, note this: I'm going to reply directly below the questions, with my reply between the ##s. Now:
" have a few questions to ask you about Evolution.
What if you are wrong?
##There are so many direct fallacies and contradictions in the bible, that I can't be wrong. Besides, if you take a gamble where you double your money, as long as someone doesn't acheieve something they have a 1 in a million chance of achieving, it's always worth it to take the bet. Except I'm not gambling with money. And unlike you, I have the highest chance on my side. Metaphorically, I made the smarter gamble by far.##
Aren't you using chance in the exact same way in which you accuse Christians of using "God of the Gaps"?
##Nope, because the "god of the gaps" is about using "stuff we don't know the answer to" and assuming that since we don't know, then it must be magic (or god, same thing really). Ultimately, your question relies on the assumption that evolution is pure chance, which is incorrect. It's not chance, chance only determines how long it takes.##
Would you agreethat it is illegitimite to take an event and then propose a whole bunch of probablistic resources because otherwise, chance would be implausible?
##Yes, however evolution is not based on chance. It's a scientific fact that if you keep rolling a dice, eventually you will get
Darwinism makes chance in the form of random variation a creative force in Biology. Does that make any sense?
##Does your question make any sense? Your first sentence, which is over half the question, is an incorrect assumption. Therefore, this question is invalid.##
Why should there be something instead of nothing?
##I just use a simpler explanation, due to occams razor. Rather than an"all-powerful" magical deity appearing out of nowhere, and creating the universe, leaving no valid evidence of his existence, I assume that he wasn't actually there, and take out the middleman.##
Where do you get your morals from?
##I like how you answer your own question with the one below. They evolved, effectively, because if we killed someone every time it was advantageous in the short term, or whenever we felt like it, in the long term there would be no working together. Also, empathy and the golden rule really help. If I were you, I wouldn't want me to kill you, and we aren't that different.##
How did morals evolve?
##See above. Although I assume you mean "why", as "how" is more based on biology, which isn't your strong suit.##
Can Nature generate complex organisms in the sense of originating it, when previously there was none?
##Yes. Abiogenesis. And after abiogenesis, evolution.##
Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark, or signature, something specific and complex by Nature, contingent and not necessary, complex, and therefore not readily repeatable by chance.(like we see)
##Your first question is an assumption, and you haven't backed it up. But since you asked it, I might as well point out that nobody has actually duplicated it, YET. Not with our limited technology. It is not readily repeatable, as we need a couple of hundred million years without better-adapted organisms completely blocking them out. For obvious reasons, this is hard to simulate, or reproduce, considering the timescale.##
So what you are saying is that time and chance plus something coming out of nothing, morality evolving and then suddenly we're here?
##Nope, seeing as how evolution isn't chance. See, this is the problem. The crux of your argument is an incorrect assumption that evolution is chance. Natural selection completely proves you wrong.##
"

Now, BEFORE you retry and re-fail to disprove my arguments, could you please try to explain the chernobyl gamma-ray absorbing bacteria? Link:
http://unitedcats.wordpress.com/2007/05/29/major-biological-discoveryinside-the-chernobyl-reactor/

Numerous, 12.12.2009, 4:26am #

Also, all life is dependent on God, who gave the first breath of life.

me, 15.12.2009, 7:00pm #

What if you are wrong?
##There are so many direct fallacies and contradictions in the bible( Name ten. Surely, if there are "so many direct fallacies and contradictions in the bible," you can at least name ten, right?), that I can't be wrong. Besides, if you take a gamble where you double your money, as long as someone doesn't achieve something they have a 1 in a million chance of achieving, it's always worth it to take the bet. Except I'm not gambling with money (you are gambling your life). And unlike you, I have the highest chance on my side. Metaphorically, I made the smarter gamble by far.##
Aren't you using chance in the exact same way in which you accuse Christians of using "God of the Gaps"?
##Nope, because the "god of the gaps" is about using "stuff we don't know the answer to" and assuming that since we don't know, then it must be magic (or god, same thing really). Ultimately, your question relies on the assumption that evolution is pure chance, which is incorrect. It's not chance, chance only determines how long it takes. (What is it?)##
Would you agree that it is illegitimate to take an event and then propose a whole bunch of probabilistic resources because otherwise, chance would be implausible?
##Yes, however evolution is not based on chance. It's a scientific fact that if you keep rolling a dice, eventually you will get
Darwinism makes chance in the form of random variation a creative force in Biology. Does that make any sense?
##Does your question make any sense? Your first sentence, which is over half the question, is an incorrect assumption. Therefore, this question is invalid.##
Why should there be something instead of nothing?
##I just use a simpler explanation, due to Occams razor. Rather than an ??all-powerful" magical deity appearing out of nowhere, and creating the universe, leaving no valid evidence of his existence, I assume that he wasn't actually there, and take out the middleman.##
Where do you get your morals from?
##I like how you answer your own question with the one below. They evolved, effectively, because if we killed someone every time it was advantageous in the short term, or whenever we felt like it, in the long term there would be no working together. Also, empathy and the golden rule really help. If I were you, I wouldn't want me to kill you, and we aren't that different.##
How did morals evolve?
##See above. Although I assume you mean "why", as "how" is more based on biology, which isn't your strong suit.##
Can Nature generate complex organisms in the sense of originating it, when previously there was none?
##Yes. Abiogenesis. And after abiogenesis, evolution. ("In the natural sciences, abiogenesis, or origin of life, is the study of how life on Earth began from inanimate matter. It should not be confused with evolution, which is the study of how living things have changed over time. Amino acids, often called "the building blocks of life", occur naturally, due to chemical reactions unrelated to life. In all living things, these amino acids are organized into proteins, and the construction of these proteins is mediated by nucleic acids. Thus the question of the origin of life is a question of how the first nucleic acids came into existence.
Some facts about the origin of life are well understood, others are still the subject of current research. The first living things on Earth were single cell prokaryotes and they first appeared on Earth about four billion years ago, just a few hundred million years after the formation of the Earth itself. By 2.4 billion years ago the ratio of stable isotopes of carbon, iron and sulphur shows the action of living things on inorganic minerals and sediments and molecular biomarkers indicate photosynthesis, demonstrating that life on earth was widespread by this time.
On the other hand, the exact sequence of chemical events that led to the first nucleic acids is not known. Several hypotheses concerning early life have been proposed, most notably the iron-sulphur world theory (metabolism without genetics) and the RNA world hypothesis (RNA life-forms)." (http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/276362)) (PROBLEM: I asked ??Can Nature generate complex organisms in the sense of originating it, when previously there was none? so basically something out of nothing. The old theory of spontaneous generation has been disproved. Spallanzani had proved that Needham's theory of little animals arising spontaneously was wrong just as the old master Redi had proved the idea was wrong that flies can be bred in putrid meat. Unknowingly he had laid the foundation for the germ theory of disease later discovered by Pasteur and Lister.)( The law of biogenesis states that all life comes from life.)
##
Intelligence leaves behind a characteristic trademark, or signature, something specific and complex by Nature, contingent and not necessary, complex, and therefore not readily repeatable by chance.(like we see)
##Your first question is an assumption, and you haven't backed it up. But since you asked it, I might as well point out that nobody has actually duplicated it, YET. Not with our limited technology. It is not readily repeatable, as we need a couple of hundred million years without better-adapted organisms completely blocking them out. For obvious reasons, this is hard to simulate, or reproduce, considering the timescale.##
So what you are saying is that time and chance plus something coming out of nothing, morality evolving and then suddenly we're here?
##Nope, seeing as how evolution isn't chance. (What is it?) See, this is the problem. The crux of your argument is an incorrect assumption that evolution is chance. Natural selection completely proves you wrong. (I believe in Natural selection)(Are you saying that mutations + natural selection = a new type of animal, creating us? Mutations are losing information, not gaining. The three types of mutations are Deletion, Substitution, and Insertion) ##

First, there's nothing, then, all that nothing condenses!!
For some reason!!
then, it EXPLODES!!
and, marvel of marvels, we are what we are today
For another unexplainable reason, monkeys turn into people, then stop "evolving"!!!
Evolution as a whole is so shaky and questionable, and makes no sense!
If you were to take a look at just something like the human body, you would see that there is NO WAY that something so unstable as evolution could create us.
It is much easier to believe, for me anyway, that it was created by God, and things just were
I have no doubt that some things can evolve, but not something as drastic as apes to humans
As for the weaker species being weeded out by the stronger, that's as obvious as the impossibilities and outlandish "facts", so called, stated by Darwin.

Me, 15.12.2009, 7:41pm #

read this

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

I find that Creationism is hard to believe. Like the Bible said, if God created humans out of dirt, how is that possible? Unless the "dirt" was eukaryotic cells, we can't be made out of dirt, if we were we'll just be piles on the ground.

unite, 05.01.2010, 3:19pm #

Alright I would just like to point out something. You guys obviously have no friends, no girlfriends, no wives, no social interaction with anyone outside of your little web blogs. i logged on to answer some questions on christianity. I am sure it will do no good seeing the comments that you all have posted on here. Anyway leave the RHF guy alone. You made your point. I almost feel like you miss him because now you have no one to make fun of or redicule. Do yourselves a favor and find something else to jack off too. There are people that you can pay to have sex with you cus I know damn well no one would voluntarily screw you guys. This is particularly pointed towards the guys making fun of RHF. I apologize to the rest of you for having to read this. And so you know, I will not be logging in to blog again so whatever you say I will never actually see. I just hope its creative and not making fun of peoples IQ's and stuff like that. Let me tell you it makes you a real big man to make fun of someone's intelligence when you are sitting behind a computer and hiding. Anyway Im done. have a good life fellas.

Doesntmatter, 08.01.2010, 11:18pm #

You are bastards and cowards because you say nothing about Islam preached by and practiced by a peadophile.

Expose the bullshit preached by islam, if you bastards have the guts!

devsony, 16.01.2010, 11:31am #

I appreciate the even mannered rebuttal but evolution is chance. Natural selection is a force that impacts all living things. But you could be the strongest genetic lizard on the rock and chance could kill you thereby diluting the pool. A limb could fall on you, a bird could randomly pick you out of your three brothers etc...

The strongest genes give you the best chance of survival, they do not gaurantee it. There is no scietifc explanation for the addition of information into a genome. Mutation never adds simply changes.
And if natural selection provides an advantage for a species, ie big beak/little beak, for a certain aspect of survival when the stress is removed the species reverts to its normal diversity.

The species doesn't change just the surviving members of that species. During the big beak/little beak studies the overall population went down during the drought. And its true that natural selection favored one manifestation over the other but when conditions returned to normal so did the variation within the species. The disadvantaged beak wasn't suddenly removed from the genepool it was just suppressed due to the climatic conditions.
There is no scietific evidence to support spontaneous creation of life from inert materials.
Life is altogather different from anything else in the universe. I am truly sorry if you refuse to see it for the miracle it is.
For life to exist the entire universe has to be so delicately balanced that to assume anything other than intelligence at work is untenable.
And regardless of your opinion of a deity where did the material come from that exploded in the big bang?
We say God created it and you mock us for it all the while you have no explanation yourself. You say we have no explanation YET. So until you do have an explantion outside of a creator you should probably reserve your scorn as you can't prove we're wrong and you can't prove you're right. We can respectfully disagree and even argue but as a Christian I see the wonders of he universe, the beauty of the physics and forces, and cannot believe that this is the result of an uncontrolled explosion.
And I'm sorry but your explanation of social evolution was too flawed on many levels to address here. Natural selection is survival of the fittest, Christian (and most other religeons) values are the opposite. Blessed are the meek, take of the widows and elderly. Ina natural selection scenario if the individual drains more resources than it provides it should be eliminated. And then you arrive eugenics and the final solution.
I respectfully disagree with the evolutionist posting above and ask only that you consider without bias what I have said.
And to the people using gay as epithet. You don't know if they are Christian or not. I am a Christian and I feel great compassion for the gay community. I don;t agree with their lifestyle choice but as God loves them I try as well. We have all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. It would be hypocritical to condemn them and not myself.
God Bless you

Seraph, 02.02.2010, 5:58pm #

A Jihad Jehover W knocked on my door recently. Asked me a question. "do you think we were designed". My gut feeling is no. Evolution makes too much sense. I will not be converted so stop trying. I will only believe is GOD when I see him/her. Stop preaching people its unhealthy

Realist, 09.04.2010, 8:01am #

In the beginning, and talking about theologians, we must infer that everyone has separate ideas and opinions. Granted, everyone's mind is unique in the way that thoughts are processed, and so on. Most Christian theologians have similar ideas and conclusions in most instances. The way that they place emphasis on different things can differ by the way that they personally feel is true to themselves or the people that they are surrounded by. There is also a lot written in the Bible, making it possible to focus on certain things and take them out of context, than rather look at the picture as a whole. The important thing is to read the Bible for yourself and make inquiries for yourself. Pray to God and ask for guidance and He will help you if you really have faith that He will be there for you. Now, with that being said, I must say that Martin Luther, who began the Protestant Reformation, had no intention of starting an external reformation that would place the beginning of the Lutheran faith, or eventually even the Baptist faith. Luther only wanted to inwardly reform the Roman Catholic Church. The Catholic leaders were keeping everything in Latin so that common man could not understand God's Word for themselves. They taught that true knowledge of God comes only from the Holy Father (another name for the Papal Authority = Pope) and cannot be felt within a common man. They taught that indulgences were necessary to release family members from Purgatory (Catholicism teaches of a place in-between Heaven and Hell) and the whole time they only wanted to use it to their personal gain. One, common citizens had to pay to perform indulgences and so the Catholic leaders were gaining monetary profit from it. Two, it gave the leaders more power to say what they wanted the people to understand, making it possible for them to use their followers to their own gain. Now, Martin Luther said that this was wrong. He believed that faith (sola fide = Latin for faith alone) must come from the scriptures of God and "sola scriptura" (scripture alone). This means that common man must read the Bible himself and without the knowledge of the Latin language, nor the resources to read it in their own language, this became impossible for the common man and was totally unheard of. They had to rely on the Pope. They had to rely on the "modern revelations" and teachings that their church authorities taught, while posessing no real background thought on the matter, because they could not read scripture at all. Martin Luther felt that scripture taught that the common, unlearned men who had strong faith in Christ could understand just as well as church authorities and spoke his mind on it. Here are a couple verses from the Bible that say that anyone who trusts in the Lord can understand His ways: "Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; in all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make your paths straight."
This is from Proverbs 3:5-6. Others that profess this are from James 1:5 and Matt. 11:28-30: "If any of you lacks wisdom, he should ask God, who gives generously to all without finding fault, and it will be given to him." (and) "Come to me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy and my burden is light." None of these verses say that you can only gain knowledge or understanding from an authority of a church, but from God and His Word alone or "sola scriptura". This was impossible for the people of Luther's time to accomplish: there was no Bible written in the common languages! With this in mind, the Pope could speak his own will and not God's upon the people and they had to rely on it and trust that the teachings of guidance only by the papal authority and indulgences were based on the truth of God. They had no other options! Luther's reformation gave them a Bible to read: he gave them the power to read and believe for themselves, he gave them the possiblity of having hope, and he gave them liberty. His work was never finished and he was still pursuing the task of reforming the Catholic faith when he died. He, of course was not the first theologian to attempt all of this and he was not the last to carry on the work of reformation, but he was the man noted on his success and his voice for the common man (here I must also add that anyone who disagreed with the Roman Catholic Church was in danger of death by burning at the stake or the hangman's noose, so many people who disagreed did not attempt to reform). Luther was not a prophet, he was not a seer or a pope; he was a common man who wanted to grow up to become a Catholic priest and a man of God and he felt that those being taught by his fellow priests were not getting the fullness of God's Word and he took a risk. He made it possible for common man to interpret. With all of this history being said, I must add that men are men. We are sinful, we make mistakes, and we are accountable, but our faith in God and in Jesus Christ is a cleanser and a healer, and only through Him that is Holy and His Word, may we be saved. My favorite verse that is most comforting to me and that corresponds to this is, of course John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life." These words pack such a healthy and hopeful message to me and I wish that all may understand how it feels to read those words. Faith in Christ alone, guided by the scripture alone, which was written by man from the inspiration and mouth of God is what makes these words sound so comforting. And to know what is God's Word and what is not is based upon common understanding and cross referencing throughout the Bible. If you want to understand something, look at it in the way that is spoken throughout the Bible by its true context. Do not break it down and try to say it contradicts another passage unless you really understand the context that it was written. This can be hard. I do not understand all of the Bible and I do not always do these things, but they are good habits to get into. Always look to your Bible for guidance. God wouldn't lead you astray with His own mouth and He doesn't speak in such a complicated manner so that you cannot understand; he speaks in a way that makes you contemplate and ponder and get to know and understand His Word better. It's a learning tool! Most of what Jesus spoke in parable fashion ended up being spoken of in more common terms later on in scripture. There are no contradictions in The Word, but, again, there are those who put their own ideas into their theology based on what they believe should be stressed for you to live a devoted Christian life and what concerns their time. God is God. He never changes according to time and circumstance and neither does His True Word. So saying that 100 theologians will come up with entirely different ideas is not true. If they understand God's Word and the rules of understanding by context and cross examination they cannot be entirely different. Man is sinful and can still use their own thoughts to create doctrine. All they have to do is change something to fit their benefit. Mainstream Christian religions, while having small differences, do not totally disagree on issues. Mostly they are not too far off from their fellow mainstream denominations, they just have small things that focus on stressing one thing and not another or understanding one thing one way and not another. God wants you to read His Word and to ponder it and understand it, so He makes it so that you have to think about it and work hard to understand it so that you can create a basis for your faith, but not so much that you are totally confused if you are thinking correctly about it. Man creates the differences in beliefs, not God. The most important thing is your relationship with Christ and your faith. Sola fide. Understand the word for yourself and worship in the way that you feel corresponds with that. Don't go just with what you like. Sola scriptura. Sola fide.

Tom, 19.08.2010, 7:45am #

'I believe that compassion towards those that disagree with you is important. While stating where you stand within the issue, you should do so lovingly and let the disagreer come to you to see how you believe and not bash the other's beliefs.'

There you have it. This is simply not possible, when talking about personal beliefs.

Belief is highly emotional. You cannot argue with scientific facts there...people don't wanna hear about it.

It's the same as explaining the chances of divorce to newlyweds.

They don't wanna hear about it. Whatever you are going to say just won't be real for them. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

This is maybe oversimplifying, but not everyone is eager to know everything.

Such a discussion will not be based on reason. It will be filled with emotions.

So at the end, everybody, we all love the traditions that are part of our culture, we all love the stories and the heart warming reunions.

This will never be taken away from us, no matter the discoveries that might follow in the future...

jp, 23.08.2010, 1:26pm #

Please see my blog and reply.

Aaron, 14.09.2010, 7:55am #

Numerous,
You have been charged, and been found guilty of using assumptive language.
You say things that you assume are true.
This is poor logic skills.


Secret, you say:
why did the bible ever stop being composed? why didn't god simply continue sending telepathic signals down for people to continuously add to the bible? no new material in years! hmmm... isn't it time for an update, god?
secret, 08.01.2010, 10:21pm #

My response: Why tamper with success? The Bible is the most purchased book in the world and has been translated to every written language. If a single author had written the Bible, he would be a trillionaire by the end of the year.

Superboy, 11.04.2011, 8:15pm #

Nognog,
I notice that you like to offend. You call Creationists "dumbfuck (offense) sheeple (excellent word. The Bible calls us all sheep, and Jesus is our shepherd. Thus, with using this word, you are actually agreeing with the Bible) with low IQ's (My IQ, I just tested at IQTest.com, is 143. 140 and above is considered genius. What is your IQ, By the way? Do you even know what IQ stands for?) that aren't capable of processing anything that doesn't come from father Chester the Molester's (I have no idea who 'chester the molester' is, probably something you made up) mouth or one of the numerous versions of the bible. A book, not of divinity, but written and created by mortal men who can't even be identified. (Moses wrote the first five books of the Bible, So where does the good book stand on the scientific proof in radio-carbon dating of geological formations and skeletal remains of bipedal hominids. (I cannot believe that you are bringing this up. As Apologetix song Monkey Scheme goes:
Java Man was the skull of a gibbon
Nebraska Man was the tooth of a pig and
the Pitdown Man was a low down sham
They built that man from an orangutan
Ramapithics wasn't complete he's a fragment of jaw and a couple of teeth
additional skeletons show us today that he isn't our relative- only an ape
Australapithicus alias Lucy the fossil of this was just vague and confusing
the wonderful knee bone they're proud to possess
was 200 feet deeper- a mile from the rest
Neanderthal Man was prob'ly deficient
in Vitamin D of it might've been rickets
but he had religion and musical instruments
fire and tools and from you he's no different
All of your so called missing links are really hoaxes. The skeletal remains of your half man half monkey are either all man or all monkey.)
BTW, if the bible is gods word alone, why so many differences, versions, and interpretations? (I like the way "me" put it. If you translate text from an ancient language, there are so many ways that it could possibly be translated. You can test this for yourself at babelfish.com. Translate something from English to Greek and back again. I'll bet you it's different. Besides, if we stayed with one of the original English translations, the King James Version, it would be difficult to read all the thees and thous. Language changes over time. We just say you instead of thou.) Just curious. Put 100 theologians in the same room and you get 100 different theories." The Bible clearly states that there is only one God, one way to heaven, and only one true faith.

Superboy, 18.04.2011, 7:27pm #

interesting website, see my website?

[email protected], 03.02.2013, 12:15pm #