Attn: Atheists & Skeptics - What's wrong with answersingenesis.com?
Jim Spaza
What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
www.answersingenesis.com ???
Please be courteous and specific.
Jon.
Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
unless it complies with the Bible.
Anyone else?
Jon.
aa #703
Peter A. Stavrakoglou
news:1118439035....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
If the Bible holds truth as it claims and the majority of Christians believe
then the truth has already been found.
osprey
You don't know that. It is only what you want to believe. There are
many scientist who believe in God and also place a great deal of faith
in science. There is absolutely no reason what so ever that the two
can't work together. What you are saying is showing your own bias.
Maybe it is you who may not have any interest in the truth unless it
complies with your ideology.
Somehow though, I predict you will somehow disagree and will not look
deep within yourself to see that it is very likely that you are too
biased to give an objective opinion.
Chris Hayes
Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation stories
which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out
the site is run by people who don't care about the truth. There are no
"answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science book.
John Baker
But of course, believing doesn't make it so.
>
osprey
I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book. And in
regards to these "contradictions" I would like to point you to actually
argue these "contradictions" with a qualified theologist, for I have
seen the most stern atheist try and the theologist quickly put the
argument to rest. However, atheist for what ever strange reason wish to
cling to these arguments, more likely due to wishful thinking knowing
they are not really sure about their own arguments.
I am not an expert with the bible, therefore I will not make the claim.
However, I would like to see you take your argument to a qualified
expert and I would like to have front row seats.
Jon.
osprey wrote:
> Jon. wrote:
> > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> > > www.answersingenesis.com ???
> > >
> > > Please be courteous and specific.
> >
> > Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
> >
> > The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
> > is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
> > Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
> > the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
> > unless it complies with the Bible.
>
> You don't know that. It is only what you want to believe.
I read it on their home page. Their priority is not science and the
scientific method, but upholding the authority of the Bible. Yet they
present themselves as scientific. That is wrong.
> There are
> many scientist who believe in God and also place a great deal of faith
> in science.
True, to a certain extent. However, very very few scientists who work
in the fields of biology, paleontology, earth sciences and other areas
covered by AIG would agree with AIG's approach.
There are a lot of ways of believing in gods. Most of them are less
dogmatic and more sensible than AIG's. All of the theist scientists I
know(including the one I'm married to) would reject AIG's approach.
> There is absolutely no reason what so ever that the two
> can't work together.
Yes, there is. Religion claims revealed truth that cannot be
questioned. Science is about asking questions. They are fundamentally
incompatible. I don't pretend to understand scientists who profess
religious faith, but I do know that they all keep it out of the lab.
> What you are saying is showing your own bias.
> Maybe it is you who may not have any interest in the truth unless it
> complies with your ideology.
On the contrary, I have spent years searching for truths, and I will
not stop. It is when you stop searching for truths that you fall into
falsehood.
> Somehow though, I predict you will somehow disagree and will not look
> deep within yourself to see that it is very likely that you are too
> biased to give an objective opinion.
Is there such a thing as an objective opinion? Sounds like an oxymoron
to me.
Jon.
aa #703
Chris Hayes
osprey wrote:
> Jon. wrote:
> > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> > > www.answersingenesis.com ???
> > >
> > > Please be courteous and specific.
> >
> > Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
> >
> > The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
> > is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
> > Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
> > the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
> > unless it complies with the Bible.
>
> You don't know that. It is only what you want to believe. There are
> many scientist who believe in God and also place a great deal of faith
> in science. There is absolutely no reason what so ever that the two
> can't work together. What you are saying is showing your own bias.
> Maybe it is you who may not have any interest in the truth unless it
> complies with your ideology.
>
Puh-lease. A scientist can believe in God, but it's a matter of
*faith.* To treat that site as serious science is to miss the point of
both religion *and* science. The Bible is, at best, a collection of
allegorical tales that one chooses to believe in. You cannot possibly
treat a literal reading of Genesis seriously since there are two
creation stories which contradict each other.
> Somehow though, I predict you will somehow disagree and will not look
> deep within yourself to see that it is very likely that you are too
> biased to give an objective opinion.
And you aren't? There is *no such thing* as an objective opinion.
It's all based on personal experience and knowledge (which for everyone
is limited). You're biased as is everyone. Get over yourself.
Jon.
Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:
> "Jon." <jd_w...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118439035....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >
> > Jim Spaza wrote:
> >> This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
> >>
> >> What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> >> www.answersingenesis.com ???
> >>
> >> Please be courteous and specific.
> >
> > Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
> >
> > The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
> > is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
> > Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
> > the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
> > unless it complies with the Bible.
> >
> > Anyone else?
>
> If the Bible holds truth
You are starting by assuming the point you seek to prove, making your
argument circular and therefore invalid.
> as it claims
It would not be logical to base conclusions regarding the accuracy of
statements in the bible by referring to statements in the bible.
> and the majority of Christians believe
Truth is not subject to democracy. The number of people who believe
something is irrelevant to its truth. If this were not so, then the
earth would be flat, the sun would go around it, and Britney Spears
would be a good singer.
> then the truth has already been found.
It is when we believe we have found truth, and stop looking, that we
fall into falsehood.
Jon.
aa #703
Jon.
osprey wrote:
> Chris Hayes wrote:
> > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> > > www.answersingenesis.com ???
> > >
> > > Please be courteous and specific.
> >
> > Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation stories
> > which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out
> > the site is run by people who don't care about the truth. There are no
> > "answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science book.
>
> I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book.
And that would be the *next* problem with Answers In Genesis.
Jon.
aa #703
Chris Hayes
osprey wrote:
> Chris Hayes wrote:
> > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
> > >
> > > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> > > www.answersingenesis.com ???
> > >
> > > Please be courteous and specific.
> >
> > Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation stories
> > which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out
> > the site is run by people who don't care about the truth. There are no
> > "answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science book.
>
> I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book.
Except for the creation "scientists" who have their methodologies ass
backwards: trying to "prove" that Genesis is true and disregarding the
facts that we've learned since the book was written millenia ago.
> And in
> regards to these "contradictions" I would like to point you to actually
> argue these "contradictions" with a qualified theologist, for I have
> seen the most stern atheist try and the theologist quickly put the
> argument to rest. However, atheist for what ever strange reason wish to
> cling to these arguments, more likely due to wishful thinking knowing
> they are not really sure about their own arguments.
Uh huh. Most atheists simply leave because the theologist who argues
it is saying the earth is flat. The words in the Bible IRT a literal
reading of Genesis have two stories which *can't* both be true. Now,
if you want to disregard one of them, then you're simply picking what
you like and throwing parts of the Bible out you don't like. It's a
God of your own creation. At least the literalists got a leg to stand
on: they think the Bible is true because it says so. Doesn't make
sense from the standpoint of most people, but there it is.
> I am not an expert with the bible, therefore I will not make the claim.
> However, I would like to see you take your argument to a qualified
> expert and I would like to have front row seats.
Define "expert." They may engage in word plays and jargon to cloud the
issue. It's all bullshit and bluster that diregards common sense. I'm
not in the business of arguing with Flat Earthers either.
Ian Mathers
"osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
news:1118440272.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> However, I would like to see you take your argument to a qualified
> expert and I would like to have front row seats.
An expert on what, exactly? Pretty much anyone who reads the bible can
claim to be an expert. There's no proveable fact in there, just a
collection of stories, passed down generation to generation, some of which
date as far back as Babylon. Maybe an expert on mythology, but that's
really all you'd be talking to. Anyone who takes the bible as anything more
than a collection of myths, legends and superstitions is deluding themselves
and has an over-inflated sense of their own self-worth.
TheNewsGuy(Mike)
>
>..There are
> many scientist who believe in God
Absolutely. It is the blind, mindless, belief in the dogma of the
organized religious extremists that is the problem. Religion should be
a personal thing. When it is used to elect politicians and when the
president of the most powerful nation is controlled by it - we are in
BIG trouble, and so is their country!!!
--
Seinfeld Lists
http://wave.prohosting.com/tnguym
LOST - ScreenSnaps & Sawyer's Nicknames
http://tinyurl.com/a2r2r
Ian Mathers
> in science. There is absolutely no reason what so ever that the two
> can't work together. What you are saying is showing your own bias.
There's every reason the two can't work together. Science is all about
asking (sometimes difficult) questions and finding the answers to those
questions through constant observation. It's about facts that can be backed
up by study and quantifiable information. Religions in general demand that
you take what they say on blind faith and if you ask questions, you're
automatically branded a heretic and doomed to hell or whatever. The Bible
says the earth was created in 6 days and that 6 billion people somehow came
from a breeding stock of 2 in a rediculously short period of time. The fact
that the species itself is about 150,000 years old and that the planet is...
well... ancient kind of flies in the face of what any devout fundy would
tell you.
Religion and reality are incompatible, and really shouldn't be mixed.
That's really the long and the short of it.
osprey
I never claimed that Genesis has all the answers; however, I am saying
that I think theology and science can work in cooperation and not
always attacking each other.
Just as I can't "prove" to you that God exist, you can't "prove" to me
that God doesn't exist.
osprey
Ian Mathers wrote:
> "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118440272.4...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > However, I would like to see you take your argument to a qualified
> > expert and I would like to have front row seats.
>
> An expert on what, exactly? Pretty much anyone who reads the bible can
> claim to be an expert. There's no proveable fact in there,
Not true, in fact many archeologist are discovering more area's that
the bible describes..example: Sodam and Gomorrah (not sure on the
spelling but you should be smart enough to figure it out)
just a
> collection of stories, passed down generation to generation, some of which
> date as far back as Babylon. Maybe an expert on mythology, but that's
> really all you'd be talking to. Anyone who takes the bible as anything more
> than a collection of myths, legends and superstitions is deluding themselves
> and has an over-inflated sense of their own self-worth.
Maybe that is what you need to believe, but many will disagree. You
have your right to believe what you want, we don't know what happens
after we die. But rest assure, if you are wrong, you will know it and
only you will deal with it.
Jon.
osprey wrote:
> Jon. wrote:
> > osprey wrote:
> > > Chris Hayes wrote:
> > > > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > > > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
> > > > >
> > > > > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> > > > > www.answersingenesis.com ???
> > > > >
> > > > > Please be courteous and specific.
> > > >
> > > > Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation stories
> > > > which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out
> > > > the site is run by people who don't care about the truth. There are no
> > > > "answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science book.
> > >
> > > I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book.
> >
> > And that would be the *next* problem with Answers In Genesis.
>
> I never claimed that Genesis has all the answers;
It does make that claim, though. Or at least, answers to all the
questions it raises. And the original topic of this thread was "What's
wrong with answersingenesis.com?" I consider my comment to be
appropriate to the topic.
Jon.
aa #703
Chris Hayes
If you want to be fundamentalist about it, sure. The fact is that many
people treat religion as a source of hope. The fact of the matter is,
we don't know why we're here or what the point of life is. If a person
gets inspiration in a personal god and doesn't shove it down other
people's throat, then I'd have no problem that. It's when religious
people assume that what they believe is 100% true and try to force it
on others that I do have a problem. Do not make the mistake of making
philosophical judgements and assuming they're scientific. They're not.
tal...@gmail.com
positions by forcing the other person to prove a negative. Science
cannot disprove the existence of Santa or that black cats bring bad
luck either. Thus on that basis, science should cooperate with the
theory that black cats bring bad luck and that Santa brings presents.
That's actually the fallacy that's at the basis of this thread: the
fact that counter-proof is not given, or cannot logically be given
doesn't mean that the claim is automatically true. If such reasoning
were valid, then logically, numerous other claims would also be true
including ones that even you will find absurd.
Chris Hayes
Both deal with *different* subjects. They don't have to conflict, but
they inevitably will when somebody wants to pass their theology off as
"science."
> Just as I can't "prove" to you that God exist, you can't "prove" to me
> that God doesn't exist.
Nobody has to prove God doesn't exist. Burden of proof always goes on
the positive claimant.
osprey
Chris Hayes wrote:
> osprey wrote:
> > Jon. wrote:
> > > osprey wrote:
> > > > Chris Hayes wrote:
> > > > > Jim Spaza wrote:
> > > > > > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> > > > > > www.answersingenesis.com ???
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please be courteous and specific.
> > > > >
> > > > > Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation stories
> > > > > which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out
> > > > > the site is run by people who don't care about the truth. There are no
> > > > > "answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science book.
> > > >
> > > > I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book.
> > >
> > > And that would be the *next* problem with Answers In Genesis.
> >
> > I never claimed that Genesis has all the answers; however, I am saying
> > that I think theology and science can work in cooperation and not
> > always attacking each other.
>
> Both deal with *different* subjects. They don't have to conflict, but
> they inevitably will when somebody wants to pass their theology off as
> "science."
I don't recall anyone trying to pass off theology as science
>
> > Just as I can't "prove" to you that God exist, you can't "prove" to me
> > that God doesn't exist.
>
> Nobody has to prove God doesn't exist. Burden of proof always goes on
> the positive claimant.
Well, I am going to be straight up and call this one as I see it.
That's a cop out and just an excuse to evade any type of "burden of
proof".
Let me ask you something.
Do you think there is something else after death? Such as a spiritual
place, or possibly reincarnation?
I don't know what happens after death; however, I do think it is highly
possible that we do have a "spirit" that does live on. When I think of
spirit, I think the spirit is a mass of energy. We know that our bodies
consist of energy, and we also know with science energy never dies.
I am not going to get into too much of a philosophical debate, you
choose to think what you want and believe. I am just asking your
opinion.
Rudy Benner
"Jim Spaza" <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118438404....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
PLONK
John Baker
No offense intended, Jim, but I'm assuming from this that you're
probably a fundamentalist Christian who very likely accepts the Bible
(or most of it) as literally true and who has little or no knowledge
or understanding of science. After all, you wouldn't even be asking
this question otherwise. Always assuming, of course, that you're not
merely a troll.
It's tough to know where to start, because in fact there's nothing
*right* with AIG. First of all, it isn't a Christian apologetic site.
It's a creationist site, the avowed purpose of which is to debunk
evolution and promote the YEC agenda. The tone is arrogant, the claims
are specious, the "science" is bogus, the arguments are fallacious and
the goal is obvious.
AIG resorts to distortion, misrepresentation and outright lies to
promote the creationist agenda. Even the site name is a sham. They
aren't there to provide any real answers. Their aim is to gain
converts to young-earth creationism even if they have to lie their
asses off to do it. And they do. Lie their asses off, that is. :-)
I suggest you visit this site for starters. You might find the tone a
bit condescending at times, but it's no worse than the disdain for
"evolutionists" we so often find on creationist sites, so grin and
bear it.
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/default.htm
Here you'll find detailed examinations and refutations of many of
AIG's bogus claims, plus you'll discover that the *real* theories of
evolution, the *scientific* ones, bear no resemblance to AIG's silly
strawman version. You'll also discover that, contrary to AIG's
insinuations, the Big Bang and abiogenesis are *not* part of the ToE
For more detailed explanations of modern evolutionary theory, the
evidence supporting it and what it does and does not attempt to
explain, and to see why the evidence points to evolution and an
unimaginably old Earth, go here;
Some of the information on this site, and other sites it may lead you
to, may be a bit technical for someone with little or no scientific
background. If you don't understand something, ask. More than likely
someone will be happy to help you.
Above all, understand that the information you'll find on these sites
is based on actual observations. It's real-world stuff. The
conclusions you'll find there were painstakingly formulated and
rigorously tested by a great many highly qualified people. They have
withstood the test of time and survived every attempt to prove them
false. They are in most cases as close to proven as it's possible to
be in science. Don't let your religious beliefs blind you to that
fact.
Cary Kittrell
> On 10 Jun 2005 14:20:04 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Forgive the top post, but I couldn't snip anything.
A very nicely written response, and full in the spirit Jim asked
for, I think. Well done.
-- cary
p.s: the graphic at the Aussie site alone is worth the ticket.
p.p.s: Jack Sarfatti AGAIN? Is there nowhere to hide from this boy?
John Baker
Well, that was at least specific. LOL
And, to be honest, probably what Spaza actually deserves.
>
Ian Mathers
> Not true, in fact many archeologist are discovering more area's that
> the bible describes..example: Sodam and Gomorrah (not sure on the
> spelling but you should be smart enough to figure it out)
Sure they are. Evidence of towns and other physical locations mentioned in
teh bible may indeed exist. Human civilization goes back a long way. Like
I said, some of the stories in the old testament might go as far back as
ancient Babylon or even earlier. I'm not discounting that Sodom and
Gomorrah may have once existed as real, physical places. It's the whole
"fire and brimstone destroyed teh cities because they were a bunch of
sinners" and people getting turned into pillars of salt side of things that
has a ring of myth and legend to it.
What'd interest me would be finding out the sort of real-world event that
led our ancient ancestors to come up with some of those stories in the first
place. Like Noah's flood. It's pretty clear that a flood that covered the
entire planet never happened. If it had, northern europe would be full of
stories about it, Aztec and Mayan mythology would be full of stories about
it, as would native american legends and stories out of Asia and Africa too.
Fact that the stories are so localized points to a more mundane event like,
say, the flooding of the Black Sea as a result of the deterioration of the
very thin piece of land that once separated it from the Mediterranean, or
something like that.
*That's* the kind of stuff we should be looking at. The real source of
these stories, not "God was angry and so he sent 40 days of rain and flooded
the world, killing off every human and animal on the surface except for one
lucky wanker who built a boat for his family." That sort of thing was fine
back in the day when we didn't know how lightning worked and thought it was
the punishment dished out by an angry deity. But to say, in this day and
age, that the world was created in a manner of days at the whim of a god is
just plain immature. I think the real stuff is just so much more
interesting than the stories that arose from the events.
Ian Mathers
> possible that we do have a "spirit" that does live on. When I think of
> spirit, I think the spirit is a mass of energy. We know that our bodies
> consist of energy, and we also know with science energy never dies.
> I am not going to get into too much of a philosophical debate, you
> choose to think what you want and believe. I am just asking your
> opinion.
It's also possible that we're just the sum total of our parts,
soul/personality included, and when the chemical and electrical processes
going on in out brains stop when we die, it's just as likely that the soul,
being the result of those processes, will simply stop as well. The physical
stuff breaks down and rots, bringing nourishment to a new generation of
living things, and the enerty just dissipates.
What's this thread doing on rec.photo.digital anyway?
J Forbes
>
> Chris Hayes wrote:
>
>>
snip
>>>I never claimed that Genesis has all the answers; however, I am saying
>>>that I think theology and science can work in cooperation and not
>>>always attacking each other.
>>
>>Both deal with *different* subjects. They don't have to conflict, but
>>they inevitably will when somebody wants to pass their theology off as
>>"science."
>
>
> I don't recall anyone trying to pass off theology as science
...how about answersingenesis.com? they seem to be trying pretty hard.
>>>Just as I can't "prove" to you that God exist, you can't "prove" to me
>>>that God doesn't exist.
>>
>>Nobody has to prove God doesn't exist. Burden of proof always goes on
>>the positive claimant.
>
>
> Well, I am going to be straight up and call this one as I see it.
> That's a cop out and just an excuse to evade any type of "burden of
> proof".
No, it's not a cop out. It's just the way logical argument works.
> Let me ask you something.
>
> Do you think there is something else after death? Such as a spiritual
> place, or possibly reincarnation?
>
> I don't know what happens after death; however, I do think it is highly
> possible that we do have a "spirit" that does live on. When I think of
> spirit, I think the spirit is a mass of energy. We know that our bodies
> consist of energy, and we also know with science energy never dies.
> I am not going to get into too much of a philosophical debate, you
> choose to think what you want and believe. I am just asking your
> opinion.
Tell me...if there is a part of me that "lives on" after death, what
would that part of me do now while I'm alive? what is it capable of
after death? if this mysterious thing is indeed capable of processes
such as thought, memory, and vision, do I use it to do these things
while I'm alive? and if so, why do I have a brain and eyes, which
would be redundant?
have you thought about this? I have.
--
Jim
Visit the Selectric Typewriter Museum!
http://www.selectric.org
Paul Fedorenko
news:h19ka11t4c81i44nh...@4ax.com...
> No, it is a reasonable and expected position for everything except
> religion and a god. If I claim I was kidnapped by space aliens would
> you take my word or expect me to prove it?
Well... Michael Shermer of "Skeptic" magazine once believed that he was
kidnapped by aliens. Turned out it was the result of dehydration, sleep
deprivation and the funky mix of vitamins and dietary supplements he was
taking while trying to complete some bike race. The aliens ended up being
the medical staff trying to get him into a support trailer so he could get
rested and rehydrated... So... um... I'd expect you to prove it. <grin>
Niels van der Linden
osprey
Ian Mathers wrote:
> "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118442049....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Not true, in fact many archeologist are discovering more area's that
> > the bible describes..example: Sodam and Gomorrah (not sure on the
> > spelling but you should be smart enough to figure it out)
>
> Sure they are. Evidence of towns and other physical locations mentioned in
> teh bible may indeed exist. Human civilization goes back a long way. Like
> I said, some of the stories in the old testament might go as far back as
> ancient Babylon or even earlier. I'm not discounting that Sodom and
> Gomorrah may have once existed as real, physical places. It's the whole
> "fire and brimstone destroyed teh cities because they were a bunch of
> sinners" and people getting turned into pillars of salt side of things that
> has a ring of myth and legend to it.
There is evidence that the city was destroyed by fire. What caused it
is unknown.
We know that in the beginning of the existence of man, especially in
the Egyptian area, most believed that it was God or God's responsible
for everything. This would explain much of the writings in the bible.
It wasn't until later during the Greek period that man started to
question and find other logical explanations.
True, the bible is a collection of stories and history. True, it was
written by man.
Was it written by men guided by a spiritual God?
We don't know.
But just because we don't know, that doesn't mean we should toss out
the possibility.
>
> What'd interest me would be finding out the sort of real-world event that
> led our ancient ancestors to come up with some of those stories in the first
> place. Like Noah's flood.
There is evidence of a flood. During that time period, it probably
appeared as the whole world being flooded.
It's pretty clear that a flood that covered the
> entire planet never happened. If it had, northern europe would be full of
> stories about it, Aztec and Mayan mythology would be full of stories about
> it,
There are many civilizations that talk of a great flood.
as would native american legends and stories out of Asia and Africa
too.
> Fact that the stories are so localized points to a more mundane event like,
> say, the flooding of the Black Sea as a result of the deterioration of the
> very thin piece of land that once separated it from the Mediterranean, or
> something like that.
>
> *That's* the kind of stuff we should be looking at. The real source of
> these stories, not "God was angry and so he sent 40 days of rain and flooded
> the world, killing off every human and animal on the surface except for one
> lucky wanker who built a boat for his family."
Sure, I agree we must look for the real source. But just because you
can't prove or disprove God, doesn't mean you should toss out the
possibility that it was an event guided by a spiritual force.
That sort of thing was fine
> back in the day when we didn't know how lightning worked and thought it was
> the punishment dished out by an angry deity. But to say, in this day and
> age, that the world was created in a manner of days at the whim of a god is
> just plain immature. I think the real stuff is just so much more
> interesting than the stories that arose from the events.
Who is to say God isn't real?
The truth is, you don't know, I don't know..we don't know.
Niels van der Linden
> we don't know why we're here or what the point of life is.
The current knowledge is that
1. We know *how* we got here
2. This tells us there is no point in life (since it isn't planned), and
that one can only create a point for oneself
3. The assumption that _there would be a point in life_ is negated as an
egocentrical one (just like: humans are special, earth is center, I am
right, my people are the best, my country is the best, etc)
osprey
Niels van der Linden wrote:
> > The fact of the matter is,
> > we don't know why we're here or what the point of life is.
>
> The current knowledge is that
>
> 1. We know *how* we got here
O.k., here is one for you.
We know that it takes one sperm and one egg to begin the process of a
new life.
Exactly, how did the very first sperm and first egg come into existence
to begin that process?
>
> 2. This tells us there is no point in life
Then why are you living if there is no point?
Niels van der Linden
>>have your right to believe what you want, we don't know what happens
>>after we die. But rest assure, if you are wrong, you will know it and
>>only you will deal with it.
>
> including consciousness. Since consciousness is tied directly to the
> physical body the indication is that nothing survives.
Yes, but that's a scary thought, that children over 18 need security
blankets for.
Elf M. Sternberg
> Both deal with *different* subjects. They don't have to conflict, but
> they inevitably will when somebody wants to pass their theology off as
> "science."
I beg to differ. The Bible makes claims about the real world.
It makes claims about the shape of the world, the origin of the world,
and the nature of the world. It makes claims about history. If any of
these claims is false, then it is rational to claim that the Bible may
be false in its entirety-- and there is no way to refute this claim.
Elf
osprey
Niels van der Linden wrote:
Hmm, interesting but a sad outlook.
Let me ask you a few questions.
Generation after generation provides documented research done by those
who investigate people who have had "near death experiences", spiritual
experiences, ghost, and the list goes on.
Keep in mind, no one has actually been able to discredit many of these
encounters and only theories are given to explain them.
So are you saying that there is nothing after death?
Niels van der Linden
> place, or possibly reincarnation?
No, that's just wishful thinking.
> I don't know what happens after death; however, I do think it is highly
> possible that we do have a "spirit" that does live on. When I think of
> spirit, I think the spirit is a mass of energy. We know that our bodies
> consist of energy, and we also know with science energy never dies.
> I am not going to get into too much of a philosophical debate, you
> choose to think what you want and believe. I am just asking your
> opinion.
Did you know the conscious is basically subconscious, which is like ripples
in a pond? And that we actually have a major problem having any (if any)
control over our subconscious? And that the subconscious is basically status
+ input = output? Just before you (think you) decide to do something, there
already is activity building up. Al sensory input gets tossed into the
subconscious and might lead to actions.
The evolution from sponge to mammal (0 to complex nervous system) doesn't
have an *insert-soul-please-moment*; it's just a gradually increasing
consciousness (ultimately to *self*consciousness). Ever seen an ant wander
off purpously for some alone-time? Nope; it's just your typical
*must-find-food* syndrome (or whatever kind of ant it is). Ever seen a
news-coverage *without* human violence? Nope; it's just your typical
*caveman-subconscious* on the loose.
Niels
Steve Knight
>What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>www.answersingenesis.com ???
>
>Please be courteous and specific.
I'm going to pinch a loaf on your new white carpet.
I want you to tell me what could possibly be wrong with that.
Please be courteous and specific.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
John Baker
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
>In article <mq2ka15vl68g8j7fh...@4ax.com> John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> writes:
>> On 10 Jun 2005 14:20:04 -0700, "Jim Spaza" <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Forgive the top post, but I couldn't snip anything.
>
>A very nicely written response, and full in the spirit Jim asked
>for, I think. Well done.
Thanks, Cary. I cheerfully admit to being an unrepentant smartass
prone to one-line zingers, and I almost gave in to temptation yet
again, but after a moment's consideration, I decided that Jim's
question deserved a serious response.
His reply, if any, will determine whether I was right or wrong.
>
>-- cary
>
>p.s: the graphic at the Aussie site alone is worth the ticket.
It is indeed. :-)
>
>p.p.s: Jack Sarfatti AGAIN? Is there nowhere to hide from this boy?
I'm beginning to think not.
655321
>
> Jim Spaza wrote:
>> This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>>
>> What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>> www.answersingenesis.com ???
>>
>> Please be courteous and specific.
>
> Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
>
> The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
> is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
> Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
> the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
> unless it complies with the Bible.
>
> Anyone else?
>
> Jon.
> aa #703
Jon,
I'll vouch for the guy, in that he apparently actually sticks around to
argue. At least this was demonstrated in an earlier thread.
--
GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825 -- Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com
I am not famous, I am notorious. And if I am rich, it is because I have
taken my wages in people.
- Quentin Crisp
osprey
Niels van der Linden wrote:
> > Do you think there is something else after death? Such as a spiritual
> > place, or possibly reincarnation?
>
> No, that's just wishful thinking.
So are you saying these things are not possible?
Are you saying for fact that after death there is nothing?
Maybe you are the one who has wishful thinking, but why one would wish
there is nothing after death I will never understand.
>
> > I don't know what happens after death; however, I do think it is highly
> > possible that we do have a "spirit" that does live on. When I think of
> > spirit, I think the spirit is a mass of energy. We know that our bodies
> > consist of energy, and we also know with science energy never dies.
> > I am not going to get into too much of a philosophical debate, you
> > choose to think what you want and believe. I am just asking your
> > opinion.
>
> Did you know the conscious is basically subconscious, which is like ripples
> in a pond? And that we actually have a major problem having any (if any)
> control over our subconscious? And that the subconscious is basically status
> + input = output? Just before you (think you) decide to do something, there
> already is activity building up. Al sensory input gets tossed into the
> subconscious and might lead to actions.
>
> The evolution from sponge to mammal
Can you prove that evolution began from a sponge?
How did a sponge produce the first sperm and egg to start the human
race?
655321
> This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>
> What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> www.answersingenesis.com ???
>
> Please be courteous and specific.
Jim, I believe I told you that this inquiry would generate some action.
655321
That depends, I guess. The guy really isn't a troll, in that he
actuallly sticks around and argues.
His arguments are flawed by his faith, but he argues nonetheless.
And not in the stupid, threatening way that Earl does.
bob young
"Jon." wrote:
> Jim Spaza wrote:
> > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
> >
> > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> > www.answersingenesis.com ???
> >
> > Please be courteous and specific.
>
> Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
>
> The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
> is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
> Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
> the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
> unless it complies with the Bible.
>
> Anyone else?
>
> Jon.
> aa #703
Christians don't believe that there are contradictions in the bible.
Why? Because its not written in the bible that there are any.
[With acknowledgments to Andrew W.]
Genesis, 32:30
"And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God
face to face, and my life is preserved."
Gospel of John, 1:18
"No man hath seen God at any time."
bob
humanist Brit.
Hong kong
Somewriter
>
>
>Jon. wrote:
>> Jim Spaza wrote:
>> > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>> >
>> > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>> > www.answersingenesis.com ???
>> >
>> > Please be courteous and specific.
>>
>> Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
>>
>> The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
>> is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
>> Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
>> the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
>> unless it complies with the Bible.
>
>You don't know that. It is only what you want to believe.
The same can be said of those whom allege there's a god.
Somewriter
>
>
>Niels van der Linden wrote:
>> > The fact of the matter is,
>> > we don't know why we're here or what the point of life is.
>>
>> The current knowledge is that
>>
>> 1. We know *how* we got here
>
>O.k., here is one for you.
>
>We know that it takes one sperm and one egg to begin the process of a
>new life.
The same could be said of cell regeneration.
John Baker
<Dipthot...@Yahoo.Yahoo.Com.Com> wrote:
>On 2005-06-10 16:37:39 -0700, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> said:
>
>> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 17:40:32 -0400, "Rudy Benner"
>> <newsg...@rudybenner.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> "Jim Spaza" <spa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1118438404....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>> This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>>>>
>>>> What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>>>> www.answersingenesis.com ???
>>>>
>>>> Please be courteous and specific.
>>>>
>>>
>>> PLONK
>>
>> Well, that was at least specific. LOL
>>
>> And, to be honest, probably what Spaza actually deserves.
>
>That depends, I guess. The guy really isn't a troll, in that he
>actuallly sticks around and argues.
>
>His arguments are flawed by his faith, but he argues nonetheless.
>
>And not in the stupid, threatening way that Earl does.
Good for him. A lot of them don't.
I did give him a serious answer to his question regarding AIG, and a
couple of links to where he can get the real story. I'm waiting to see
how he responds.
Somewriter
>
>
>Chris Hayes wrote:
>> Jim Spaza wrote:
>> > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>> >
>> > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>> > www.answersingenesis.com ???
>> >
>> > Please be courteous and specific.
>>
>> Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation stories
>> which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out
>> the site is run by people who don't care about the truth. There are no
>> "answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science book.
>
>I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book. And in
>regards to these "contradictions" I would like to point you to actually
>argue these "contradictions" with a qualified theologist, for I have
>seen the most stern atheist try...
I believe in an ominipotent being, deity or all encompassing energy --
but I don't ascribe to Chritianity. In fact, I've pretty much written
off all organised religions that encourage mindlessness, like yours.
chibiabos
osprey <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
> Chris Hayes wrote:
> > Nobody has to prove God doesn't exist. Burden of proof always goes on
> > the positive claimant.
>
> Well, I am going to be straight up and call this one as I see it.
> That's a cop out and just an excuse to evade any type of "burden of
> proof".
Very well. I make the claim that an invisible dragon lives in my
basement. Your job is to prove it doesn't.
You might also want to take a look at the basic premise of modern
criminal justice; it's the prosecutor's job to prove guilt, not the
accused to prove innocence.
-chib
--
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
Sarcastic Middle-aged Atheists with a Sense of Humor
Niels van der Linden
>> > place, or possibly reincarnation?
>>
>> No, that's just wishful thinking.
>
> So are you saying these things are not possible?
> Are you saying for fact that after death there is nothing?
> Maybe you are the one who has wishful thinking, but why one would wish
> there is nothing after death I will never understand.
..and it doesn't occur to you that *I'm not doing the wishful thinking*!!!
OH YOUR GOD
> So are you saying these things are not possible?
I'm saying the current knowledge is that nothing leads us to believe as
such.
> Are you saying for fact that after death there is nothing?
I'm saying the current consensus on the working hypothesis is so. There is a
reason science uses the term hypothesis, with the added *working* as an
extra disclaimer.
>> > I don't know what happens after death; however, I do think it is highly
>> > possible that we do have a "spirit" that does live on. When I think of
>> > spirit, I think the spirit is a mass of energy. We know that our bodies
>> > consist of energy, and we also know with science energy never dies.
>> > I am not going to get into too much of a philosophical debate, you
>> > choose to think what you want and believe. I am just asking your
>> > opinion.
>>
>> Did you know the conscious is basically subconscious, which is like
>> ripples
>> in a pond? And that we actually have a major problem having any (if any)
>> control over our subconscious? And that the subconscious is basically
>> status
>> + input = output? Just before you (think you) decide to do something,
>> there
>> already is activity building up. Al sensory input gets tossed into the
>> subconscious and might lead to actions.
>>
>> The evolution from sponge to mammal
>
> Can you prove that evolution began from a sponge?
> How did a sponge produce the first sperm and egg to start the human
> race?
Ask something less stupid.
OR!
Take a look at David Attenborough's Life On Earth, and specifically episode
6 - The invasion of the land. It gives a perfect illustration of how eggs of
frogs adapted (read: evolved) to lesser and lesser moist conditions.
turk
What you really mean is that no one has been able to prove these things.
Scientists haven't been able to discredit unicorns, invisible teapots
orbiting Mars or blue leprechauns in my back yard, either. However, I'll
error on the side of caution on those as well. In fact, if you can prove
the supernatural, James Randi has $1 million waiting for you
(http://www.randi.org/research/index.html). You claim there is a "God".
You prove it.
Its ridiculous to assume scientists are going to waste valuable time trying
to "discredit" things that never had a shred of evidence whatsoever to begin
with. Last I checked, they hadn't bothered to "discredit" Zeus, Osiris,
Mithra or Bacchus either, so by your infantile logic, all of those gods, and
infinite others, must exist as well.
turk
--
My last vestige of "hands off religion" respect disappeared in the smoke and
choking dust of September 11th 2001, followed by the "National Day of
Prayer," when prelates and pastors did their tremulous Martin Luther King
impersonations and urged people of mutually incompatible faiths to hold
hands, united in homage to the very force that caused the problem in the
first place.
-- Richard Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain (2004)
Niels van der Linden
>>
>> Jon.
>> aa #703
>
> Christians don't believe that there are contradictions in the bible.
>
> Why? Because its not written in the bible that there are any.
>
> [With acknowledgments to Andrew W.]
>
>
> Genesis, 32:30
> "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God
> face to face, and my life is preserved."
>
>
> Gospel of John, 1:18
> "No man hath seen God at any time."
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
Somehow the term *internally consistent* or *credible* seem inappropriate
for the Bible as a reference for ANYTHING.
Niels van der Linden
> who investigate people who have had "near death experiences", spiritual
> experiences, ghost, and the list goes on.
*Anecdotal evidence*
One of the simplest fallacies is to rely on anecdotal evidence. For example:
"There's abundant proof that God exists and is still performing miracles
today. Just last week I read about a girl who was dying of cancer. Her whole
family went to church and prayed for her, and she was cured."
It's quite valid to use personal experience to illustrate a point; but such
anecdotes don't actually prove anything to anyone. Your friend may say he
met Elvis in the supermarket, but those who haven't had the same experience
will require more than your friend's anecdotal evidence to convince them.
Anecdotal evidence can seem very compelling, especially if the audience
wants to believe it. This is part of the explanation for urban legends;
stories which are verifiably false have been known to circulate as anecdotes
for years.
- http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html
> Keep in mind, no one has actually been able to discredit many of these
> encounters and only theories are given to explain them.
> So are you saying that there is nothing after death?
Take vision, for example. You don't realize it, but there actually isn't a
miniture cinema in your head. You receive some electrical signal from your
optical sensors and somehow that's transformed into a vision. Studies have
shown that vision also largely works in two directions: actual vision and
memory. There is a magician tricks where he talks to the audience while he
throws up a coin a couple of times. He 'accidentally' drops it on the floor.
Bends down, picks it up, throws it one more time, catches it and closes his
hands. Hands open: no coin. .. The magician actually shuffed the coin under
his shoe, did *not* throw it up that last time, although making the movement
with his hand. And here comes the funny part: a (largish) portion of the
crowd *swears* seeying it being tossed the last time.
Now, back to your near-death-lights-and-flashes: this can be explained with
a multitude of phenomena. Ever been in a near car-accident with adrenaline
pumping like crazy? Ever been on drugs? Ever dreamt a dream? Ever seen a
television-signal break down? Ever been convinced of an invisible sky-pixie?
Frank ess
> This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>
> What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> www.answersingenesis.com ???
>
> Please be courteous and specific.
shut up, please, now.
Chris Hayes
osprey wrote:
> Chris Hayes wrote:
> > osprey wrote:
> > > Jon. wrote:
> > > > osprey wrote:
> > > > > > Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation stories
> > > > > > which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out
> > > > > > the site is run by people who don't care about the truth. There are no
> > > > > > "answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science book.
> > > > >
> > > > > I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book.
> > > >
> > > > And that would be the *next* problem with Answers In Genesis.
> > >
> > > I never claimed that Genesis has all the answers; however, I am saying
> > > that I think theology and science can work in cooperation and not
> > > always attacking each other.
> >
> > Both deal with *different* subjects. They don't have to conflict, but
> > they inevitably will when somebody wants to pass their theology off as
> > "science."
>
> I don't recall anyone trying to pass off theology as science
>
The website this thread is about does.
> >
> > > Just as I can't "prove" to you that God exist, you can't "prove" to me
> > > that God doesn't exist.
> >
> > Nobody has to prove God doesn't exist. Burden of proof always goes on
> > the positive claimant.
>
> Well, I am going to be straight up and call this one as I see it.
> That's a cop out and just an excuse to evade any type of "burden of
> proof".
>
Nope. Prove you're not a child molester.
> Let me ask you something.
>
> Do you think there is something else after death? Such as a spiritual
> place, or possibly reincarnation?
>
I don't know.
> I don't know what happens after death; however, I do think it is highly
> possible that we do have a "spirit" that does live on. When I think of
> spirit, I think the spirit is a mass of energy. We know that our bodies
> consist of energy, and we also know with science energy never dies.
> I am not going to get into too much of a philosophical debate, you
> choose to think what you want and believe. I am just asking your
> opinion.
As far as I can understand it, spirit =! energy in the physical sense.
Spirit, if it exists, is a metaphysical thing.
Chris Hayes
Niels van der Linden wrote:
> > The fact of the matter is,
> > we don't know why we're here or what the point of life is.
>
> The current knowledge is that
>
> 1. We know *how* we got here
>
And?
> 2. This tells us there is no point in life (since it isn't planned), and
> that one can only create a point for oneself
>
No, actually it doesn't. It just tells us *how* it came about, not
*why* things are.
> 3. The assumption that _there would be a point in life_ is negated as an
> egocentrical one (just like: humans are special, earth is center, I am
> right, my people are the best, my country is the best, etc)
Not necessarily. If you want to be a total nihilist, that's your
choice.
Chris Hayes
Elf M. Sternberg wrote:
> "Chris Hayes" <hay...@fadmail.com> writes:
>
> > Both deal with *different* subjects. They don't have to conflict, but
> > they inevitably will when somebody wants to pass their theology off as
> > "science."
>
> I beg to differ. The Bible makes claims about the real world.
> It makes claims about the shape of the world, the origin of the world,
> and the nature of the world. It makes claims about history. If any of
> these claims is false, then it is rational to claim that the Bible may
> be false in its entirety-- and there is no way to refute this claim.
>
Except that Christianity is not the only theistic religion. I'm no fan
of the Bible, but theology (which is outside the Bible) borders on
philosophy.
Olrik
> "Jon." <jd_w...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118439035....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>>Jim Spaza wrote:
>>
>>>This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>>>
>>>What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>>>www.answersingenesis.com ???
>>>
>>>Please be courteous and specific.
>>
>>Will you be around to debate points or are you just a troll?
>>
>>The first thing (of many) that I can see that's wrong with the website
>>is the subtitle on the banner on the home page: "Upholding the
>>Authority of the Bible from the Very First Verse." This indicates that
>>the "scientists" involved in the site have no interest in finding truth
>>unless it complies with the Bible.
>>
>>Anyone else?
>>
>>Jon.
>>aa #703
>
>
> If the Bible holds truth as it claims and the majority of Christians believe
> then the truth has already been found.
But only for Christians. The "truth" of the Christians is not the same
as the "truth" for Muslims, Hindus, etc.
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
osprey
Niels van der Linden wrote:
> >> > Do you think there is something else after death? Such as a spiritual
> >> > place, or possibly reincarnation?
> >>
> >> No, that's just wishful thinking.
> >
> > So are you saying these things are not possible?
> > Are you saying for fact that after death there is nothing?
> > Maybe you are the one who has wishful thinking, but why one would wish
> > there is nothing after death I will never understand.
>
> ..and it doesn't occur to you that *I'm not doing the wishful thinking*!!!
> OH YOUR GOD
How about some answers to the questions I asked?
>
> > So are you saying these things are not possible?
>
> I'm saying the current knowledge is that nothing leads us to believe as
> such.
So you are not willing to commit to a simple yes or a no. I figured
you wouldn't, most atheist don't.
So you can't answer it. Hint: I already knew you couldn't, no one has
answered it.
>
> OR!
<snip>
Instead you passing the buck you could actually support the theories
you believe so much in.
Already, I see you can't.
Denis Loubet
>
>
> Niels van der Linden wrote:
>> > we don't know why we're here or what the point of life is.
>>
>> The current knowledge is that
>>
>> 1. We know *how* we got here
>
>
> We know that it takes one sperm and one egg to begin the process of a
> new life.
> to begin that process?
>
>
>
>>
>> 2. This tells us there is no point in life
>
Does the existence of a creator lend purpose? If so, and nothing created the
god character, then the god character is pointless, and by association so
are we. You've just moved the pointlessness back one step.
--
Denis Loubet
dlo...@io.com
http://www.io.com/~dloubet
kathryn
>>
>> > Not true, in fact many archeologist are discovering more area's that
>> > the bible describes..example: Sodam and Gomorrah (not sure on the
>> > spelling but you should be smart enough to figure it out)
>>
>> Sure they are. Evidence of towns and other physical locations mentioned
>> in
>> teh bible may indeed exist. Human civilization goes back a long way.
>> Like
>> I said, some of the stories in the old testament might go as far back as
>> ancient Babylon or even earlier. I'm not discounting that Sodom and
>> Gomorrah may have once existed as real, physical places. It's the whole
>> "fire and brimstone destroyed teh cities because they were a bunch of
>> sinners" and people getting turned into pillars of salt side of things
>> that
>> has a ring of myth and legend to it.
>
> There is evidence that the city was destroyed by fire. What caused it
> is unknown.
> We know that in the beginning of the existence of man, especially in
> the Egyptian area, most believed that it was God or God's responsible
> for everything. This would explain much of the writings in the bible.
> It wasn't until later during the Greek period that man started to
> question and find other logical explanations.
> True, the bible is a collection of stories and history. True, it was
> written by man.
> Was it written by men guided by a spiritual God?
> We don't know.
> But just because we don't know, that doesn't mean we should toss out
> the possibility.
>
>>
>> What'd interest me would be finding out the sort of real-world event that
>> led our ancient ancestors to come up with some of those stories in the
>> first
>> place. Like Noah's flood.
>
> There is evidence of a flood. During that time period, it probably
> appeared as the whole world being flooded.
>
> It's pretty clear that a flood that covered the
>> entire planet never happened. If it had, northern europe would be full
>> of
>> stories about it, Aztec and Mayan mythology would be full of stories
>> about
>> it,
>
> There are many civilizations that talk of a great flood.
>
Wow you don't say?
It's almost like people live near to things like rivers which might have
broken their banks for a serious flooding ooh every what? 40 years? 100
years?
The Chief Instigator
>osprey wrote:
>> ..There are
>> many scientist who believe in God
>Absolutely. It is the blind, mindless, belief in the dogma of the organized
>religious extremists that is the problem. Religion should be a personal
>thing. When it is used to elect politicians and when the president of the
>most powerful nation is controlled by it - we are in BIG trouble, and so is
>their country!!!
Couldn't have put it better myself - and I'm not going to let any American
Taliban take my rights away without making some of the thugs in Washington
feel pain.
--
Patrick "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
chiefinstigator.us.tt/aeros.php (soon to be TCI's 2005-06 Houston Aeros)
LAST GAME: Chicago 5, Houston 3 (April 26)
NEXT GAME: Date/opponent/site TBA in August 2005
The Chief Instigator
>osprey wrote:
>> Chris Hayes wrote:
>> > Jim Spaza wrote:
>> > > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>> > > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>> > > www.answersingenesis.com ???
>> > > Please be courteous and specific.
>> > Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation stories
>> > which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out
>> > the site is run by people who don't care about the truth. There are no
>> > "answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science book.
>> I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book.
>And that would be the *next* problem with Answers In Genesis.
That will get you "ignored" by Bobby Heishman (osprey) if you express it the
right way.
The Chief Instigator
>osprey wrote:
>> Jon. wrote:
>> > osprey wrote:
>> > > Chris Hayes wrote:
>> > > > Jim Spaza wrote:
>> > > > > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>> > > > > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>> > > > > www.answersingenesis.com ???
>> > > > > Please be courteous and specific.
>> > > > Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation
>> > > > stories which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to
>> > > > figure out the site is run by people who don't care about the truth.
>> > > > There are no "answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science
>> > > > book.
>> > > I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book.
>> > And that would be the *next* problem with Answers In Genesis.
>> I never claimed that Genesis has all the answers; however, I am saying
>> that I think theology and science can work in cooperation and not
>> always attacking each other.
>Both deal with *different* subjects. They don't have to conflict, but
>they inevitably will when somebody wants to pass their theology off as
>"science."
Bobby's not much for actually learning from history.
>> Just as I can't "prove" to you that God exist, you can't "prove" to me
>> that God doesn't exist.
>Nobody has to prove God doesn't exist. Burden of proof always goes on
>the positive claimant.
You're dealing with someone who went to the trouble of looking for people with
a name similar to mine who had criminal records - and after finding one who's
doing time in a prison in Illinois, he went around proclaiming that he had
proved that "Patrick L. Humphrey" had been convicted. He just "forgot" to
mention that the one doing time wasn't me - despite the fact that my
namesake's middle name was one I've never had. That should give you an idea
of the mentality you're trying to reason with...
Phÿltêr
news:1118438404....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>
> What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> www.answersingenesis.com ???
>
> Please be courteous and specific.
>
This is a joke question, right? What's right with it would be a better
question, considering it's all bullshit.
--
Phÿltêr
AA#1938
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
Remove "s" to respond
Pastor Ferdinna
Jim Spaza wrote:
> This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>
> What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> www.answersingenesis.com ???
>
> Please be courteous and specific.
Jim, if you are reading this, which I doubt, where's your contribution
to the debate?
tal...@gmail.com
known in the history of mankind. How do you know Zeus does not exist?
Or Wodan? Or Allah for that matter? Practically any person who argues
in favour of supernatural phenomena does so with their own god and
religion as a starting point. It is certainly not that strange to
consider a higher order or intelligence, that is either placed outside
of this universe or consists of it. But these discussions are almost
always within the context where another person's god is right around
the corner.
To reject Christianity or the concept of a monotheistic god does not
equal rejecting the concept of an afterlife or the concept of a higher
entity. Conversely, accepting the concept of a creator of life on earth
or the universe or even an afterlife does not lead to the inescapable
conclusion that it is the Christian god that must exist.
The question: "but what if..." is a very flawed one, because the one
asking the question is the one who has tossed out hundreds of gods and
afterlives. It always interests me how Christians can be puzzled why
I'm not afraid of their god or afraid of burning in their Hell. Yet
when I ask them why they are not afraid of the Islamic god or the
Islamic Hell, they easily dismiss that religion's validity. It is
interesting how much proof they demand when someone dismisses their own
religion's validity.
Personally, I find that humans are a bit full of themselves. True
modesty would encourage us to believe that we are no more deserving of
any animal on this planet to receive eternal rewards. One can easily
observe from egocentric people that their view of themselves often
differs from reality. Religion is no more than extending an egocentric
view to the entire group of humanity... at least the ones who believe
in it.
It's too easy to just explain everything away with vague
interpretations. Whenever someone is miraculously saved, it's their
god's work. Here, explain the role of god in the story below:
societopia.net
<tal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1118479226.8...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
...
> It's too easy to just explain everything away with vague
> interpretations. Whenever someone is miraculously saved, it's their
> god's work. Here, explain the role of god in the story below:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/08/girl.killed.ap/index.html
It is the same human pattern. People cause a murder by their abuse of the
environment. Then they pretend to their shock as to why God had allowed a
6-year old girl to die crossing the road. They do not ask: why do we invent
machines that are capable of killing people and the environment, in our
quest for convenience and ever satisfying communications. No they blame it
on God.
["Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the
Garden'?"] Genesis 3:1
It is a similar behavior to the first deception that caused man to think of
his will as separate from God's will. Adam had everything available to
him, yet the serpent managed to get him to question God's motives:
["You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God
knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like
God, knowing good and evil."] Genesis 3:4-5
God bless you,
www.soceitopia.net
societopia.net
> interpretations. Whenever someone is miraculously saved, it's their
> god's work. Here, explain the role of god in the story below:
>
> http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/06/08/girl.killed.ap/index.html
It is the same human pattern. People cause a murder by their abuse of the
environment. Then they pretend to their shock as to why God had allowed a
6-year old girl to die crossing the road. They do not ask: why do we invent
machines that are capable of killing people and the environment, in our
quest for convenience and ever satisfying communications. No they blame it
on God.
["Did God really say, 'You must not eat from any tree in the
Garden'?"] Genesis 3:1
It is a similar behavior to the first deception that caused man to think of
his will as separate from God's will. Adam had everything available to
him, yet the serpent managed to get him to question God's motives:
["You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. "For God
knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like
God, knowing good and evil."] Genesis 3:4-5
God bless you,
www.societopia.net
Richard Smol
> This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>
> What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> www.answersingenesis.com ???
>
> Please be courteous and specific.
>
Well, to paraphrase Soul Coughing: "So far I have not found
the science".
RS
tal...@gmail.com
explained by the will of their god, regardless of whether the event is
good, bad, or just seemingly random. Instead of quoting from your own
holy book, you could just as well have quoted from the Quran or from
the Torah. If you have an almost endless supply of quotes, you can pick
any set of quotes that seems to make your point. That is one of the
many reasons religious explanations should be kept out of scientific
research. Should we attribute the failure of an experiment to black
cats in the vicinity?
I'm not sure what you mean with your "No they blame it on God"
statement. I did not blame anything on your god. I'm saying that any
random event can be stated in the will or lack or will of an invisible
entity. That fact alone should makes the relevancy of that entity's
existence hard to defend.
Regards,
Talence
osprey
Attila wrote:
> On 10 Jun 2005 21:56:33 -0700, "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> in
> alt.abortion with message-id
> <1118465793.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >>
> >> > So are you saying these things are not possible?
> >>
> >> I'm saying the current knowledge is that nothing leads us to believe as
> >> such.
> >
> >So you are not willing to commit to a simple yes or a no. I figured
> >you wouldn't, most atheist don't.
> >
>
> You do like your simplistic questions don't you?
It doesn't take a genius to answer the question. But either you guys
like to play stupid or you are stupid.
In your case, I suspect both are applicable.
Somewriter
Your god is a figment of your wishful imagination.
Somewriter
wrote:
>
>FORGER "Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:deola1hv9415v29h2...@4ax.com...
>> Your god is a figament of your wishful imagination.
>
>I can't...
Well, believe it.
tal...@gmail.com
is a typical example to illustrate the kind of fallacy you're using.
Search for that example in Google and you'll find a lot of
explanations. I believe it's called "loaded question".
A more funny example:
"If I were to ask you for sex, would your answer be the same as the
answer to this
question?"
A simple yes/no answer please.
What you are trying to claim or prove lies outside the scope of logic,
that is why you have to resort to fallacies. We're not making this up.
Rules of logic and correct reasining stem from ancient Greek times long
before Jesus was allegedly born. It is known that religion is based on
the circular fallacy "god is true because it's in the bible / the bible
is true because it's the word of god".
Do you agree that it is wrong to use fallacies? If you do accept
fallacies as correct reasoning, then logic dictates that you should
accept the same argumentation in others areas, where you may currently
dismiss such claims as transparant hoaxes. Can you prove that there is
not a single Nigerian businessman with 20 million dollars to give to
you?
The problem you are facing is not people being stupid, but people
trying to be logically consistent. No matter how much you want to
believe it, fallacies are not logical proof. Your proof rests on
emotion and wishful thinking. People can believe a lot of things
without having logical proof and it makes them feel better. Why do you
need logical proof for your claim? Do you also accept logical proof to
be superior to emotional proof?
Regards,
Talence
osprey
tale...@gmail.com wrote:
> osprey, you're not getting it: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet"
Sorry but I don't play into stupid games, I am discussing another topic
and I asked a very simple question. A question that is obviously too
much to handle. So when decide to be mature and actually discuss the
issue without resorting to childish tactics, let me know.
You talk about being logical. Well, mature people act logical and don't
resort to childish tactics
Don Kresch
<spa...@yahoo.com> let us all know that:
[off-topic groups removed]
>This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>
>What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>www.answersingenesis.com ???
The fact that it advocates a myth (creationism, god, etc) in
place of reality. And then proceeds to act as if the myth were the
only truth.
Don
Don Kresch
<noneed...@mail.com> let us all know that:
>
>
>Chris Hayes wrote:
>> Jim Spaza wrote:
>> > This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>> >
>> > What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
>> > www.answersingenesis.com ???
>> >
>> > Please be courteous and specific.
>>
>> Considering that the Book of Genesis has two different creation stories
>> which contradict each other, it wouldn't take a genius to figure out
>> the site is run by people who don't care about the truth. There are no
>> "answers in Genesis", for the Bible is not a science book.
>
>I don't recall anyone EVER saying the Bible was a science book.
I recall that being said by many fundies.
> And in
>regards to these "contradictions" I would like to point you to actually
>argue these "contradictions" with a qualified theologist,
Oh, so you just want a "theologist" to do the rationalizing of
the contradictions. But rationalizing the contradictions doesn't make
them not be there.
Don
Somewriter
wrote:
>"Somewriter" <sappy...@poetic.com> wrote in message
>news:deola1hv9415v29h2...@4ax.com...
>> On 11 Jun 2005 05:56:49 -0700, "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Attila wrote:
>>>> On 10 Jun 2005 21:56:33 -0700, "osprey" <noneed...@mail.com> in
>>>> alt.abortion with message-id
>>>> <1118465793.1...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > So are you saying these things are not possible?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> I'm saying the current knowledge is that nothing leads us to believe
>>>> >> as
>>>> >> such.
>>>> >
>>>> >So you are not willing to commit to a simple yes or a no. I figured
>>>> >you wouldn't, most atheist don't.
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> You do like your simplistic questions don't you?
>>>
>>>It doesn't take a genius to answer the question. But either you guys
>>>like to play stupid or you are stupid.
>>
>> Your god is a figament of your wishful imagination.
>
>I can't...
well, believe it.
MarkA
> This challenge was issued by GlennGlenn (655321) -- aa#825.
>
> What is wrong with the Christian apologetic website
> www.answersingenesis.com ???
>
> Please be courteous and specific.
All of the arguments against the theory of evolution are, basically,
arguments from ignorance. "I don't see how such-and-such could have
happened naturally, therefore some supernatural thing must have done it."
Such an argument assumes that we know everything that nature is and is not
capable of, which clearly we do not. Every day, scientists discover a
natural process capable of producing unexpected results.
The Young Earth Creationists are not interested in learning the "truth"
about anything using the tools of science. They want to defend their
mythology against the intrusion of scientific, rational inquiry.
--
MarkA
(still caught in the maze of twisty little passages, all different)
Somewriter
>On Sat, 11 Jun 2005 10:11:00 -0400, osprey wrote
>(in message <1118499060....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
>
>>> osprey, you're not getting it: "Have you stopped beating your wife yet"
>>
>> Sorry but I don't play into stupid games, I am discussing another topic
>
>LMAO, little did you know, but Osprey has been charged with beating his wife
>and thretening her with a gun. You hit a nerve. :D
No way.
Douglas Berry
drained his beer, leaned back in the alt.atheism beanbag and drunkenly
proclaimed the following
>Not true, in fact many archeologist are discovering more area's that
>the bible describes..example: Sodam and Gomorrah (not sure on the
>spelling but you should be smart enough to figure it out)
Mount Olympus is a real place. I've stood on its lower slopes. Does
that mean the Greek stories of Zues, Hera, et al are factual? Does
the rack that there is a bloody great rock at Gilbralter mean that
Heracles put it there?
Sodom and Gomorah sat on top of a fault line in an area known for hot
springs. It's not inocnceviable that a massive earthquake destroyed
both towns.
alt.abortion, alt.military, and rec.photo.digital snipped.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
tal...@gmail.com
trying to turn the discussion in your favour by accusing your
adversaries of being childish and not playing fair. Quite likely,
rather than conceding logical failure in your arguments, you will find
emotional reasoning to leave the discussion and still claim victory.
You yourself already pointed out on the 10th of June that you are not
qualified to discuss logical contradictions in the bible, so that is an
indicator that you feel unable to provide more convincing arguments.
I can imagine that you are puzzled why people would choose to believe
there is no afterlife. Why would someone choose not to believe that
they can have an eternity of blissful life (that's more than 1 million
years)? It just doesn't make sense. Why don't you believe in Allah or
Wodan? It doesn't make sense to you.
But there is more: accepting your religion's claim would mean not only
accepting the cool stuff (heaven) but also accepting the dark side
(hell). According to current statistics, about 1/3 of the world's
population subscribes to some branch of the Christian faith. If we
assume each of them goes to a heaven, that means that 2/3 go to a hell
and suffer a fate far worse than death. It is in the interest of
mankind that religions are false: it is much better (in my opinion) for
everyone to just die than for the majority of people to be tortured
forever.
The fairest afterlife IMO is one that is open to all people. However,
such a belief is not useful for building a religion on and it certainly
cannot be monetized. My hypothesis is that if there were such a thing
as a true religion, it would be a very unpopular one... but that's a
topic for another time :-)
Somewriter
Brian Henderson
wrote:
>But only for Christians. The "truth" of the Christians is not the same
>as the "truth" for Muslims, Hindus, etc.
Then "truth" has no meaning whatsoever. If "truth" is not "truth" for
all, then what's the point?