Peanut Butter = Evolution is a lie

[joshh]

Kirk Cameron=

I used to like this guy till I found out just how fucked up his head is.

[Need4Speed1299]

Check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSwh0X3ph-w&feature=fvw

[mar1t1me]

Check this out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sSwh0X3ph-w&feature=fvw

What I just saw was some quotes from scientists who, when they could not explain something using current technology, did what cavemen did: create gods.

Isaac Asimov once said: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

It would do scientists well to keep that in mind.

[ck_taft325is]

Pretty simple, really.....

.....you see, there's genetic code in both sperm and egg, and the combination of the two, if all goes well, produces healthy, fully formed offspring. Coupled with responsible, loving parents who emphasize desirable behavioral traits while avoiding reinforcing undesirable behavioral traits, the combination yields children of above average intelligence and good temperament.

Dude......take some credit! An "intelligent creator" didn't raise her. You did. In the hands of lousy parents, she would not be the same child. If you were to suddenly die, the "intelligent creator" will not lift a finger to make life better for her. If the "intelligent creator" existed, we wouldn't need to buy insurance!

When I see my children and how they conduct themselves in public-their thoughtfulness and awareness, I know where it came from. It came from the high expectations of parents who don't sell their kids short and instead help them learn to think for themselves and behave in ways that are likely to help them make something of themselves.

Lots of lousy religious parents out there who teach their kids things that will damn them to a lifetime of ignorance and fear.

You said in other quotes (of which I'm far to lazy this early in the AM to find and multi quote 'em) that we cannot Prove empirically that God exists. To even mention the notion of empirical proof is to claim (inadvertantly or otherwise) that you can empirically prove he does not. Can you?

Furthermore, I see a strong "urge" if you will, to attempt to throw believer's faith in their face without offering an alternative. While you claim science, as Markseven has said, there's no empirical proof that you're correct either. Nor does science disprove God. If the agenda of a scientist(s) is to disprove God, he is being un-scientific and therefore a bigot on his own "crusade". You must understand something: there is a monumental gap between "Faith" and "Religion". I am not trying to claim that all bad things done by those with "Faith" are acts of "Religion" but that acts of "Religion" are the most profound, devastating acts of man. To take every and any oppurtunity to throw those atrocities at the feet of God while claiming he doesn't exist is a bit naive, bigoted and religious of you.

A few questions for you since I've, against my vow to avoid it, have thrown myself into this little fire fight:

1. It seems from what I've read of your posts that you genuinely don't believe God exists. What do you believe?
2. Why?
3. Is man advertently Good or Bad? (Nature vs. Nuture need not apply)

Let me be clear, I'm not here to convert anyone. Much less someone who "knows" there's no God. I've recommended it before, but on this topic Timothy Keller's book "The Reason for God" is very informative and thought provoking for believers and unbelievers alike. I would gladly challange you to read it in exchange for reading any work of literature you'd propose. Discussions would be ensured so, unless your aim in posting is to simply point and make fun, demean and insult those of Faith, I think it would be beneficial for each of us to gain understanding of where the other is coming from by exposing each another to what shapes and provokes our thoughts. Let me know. We can even make another sub-forum for it.. ;)

Are you blaming it on the milkman?

Another whopper from Lee. Never ceases to amaze me. I'll be honest, I'd punch you in your snide face if you said that to me as the equivelant of a stranger. You've no place. It's disrespectful and rude.

But the whole dog and pony show is childishly ridiculous! Why the silly need for mystery? Why the faith? If God is omnipotent, why can't he/she/it reveal itself to the world in an instant. Do not tell me "oh he will someday". That same line of crap has been feed to generations. War, hunger, disease, abuse....it could all end tomorrow....or is God a sadist?

To me, the existence of the devil is just a convenient (too convenient) way to explain all the naturally occurring bad things that happen. It becomes easy to say either A: It was God's will you got a tumor, or B: the devil gave you the tumor. Either way, if Mr. Omnipotent wants you to have a fuckin' tumor, then that's what you're getting.

And if you are miraculously healed, then A: God wanted you healed, or B: the devil lost a battle of spiritual warfare because God used your illness to beat him.

So either way, it's easy to explain. Only one thing. Apparently, no matter how worthy you may be, or how intensely you are prayed for, even if the whole world joins in, God just can't pull off healing an amputee. His omnipotence ends at severed body parts. Not to worry-you will certainly receive your perfect body when you go to Heaven. So wait it out on Earth with the rest of us. Only, uhh, don't think about rushing things by killing yourself just to get to Heaven faster! It won't work-you'll go straight to Hell-no pass go, no collecting 72 Virgins. Oh wait.....wrong invisible man in the sky..... crap......

;)

Not sure what you're really getting at. That God must prove himself, under the context of him being a creator and us created by him, to us? You've yet to see a miracle, so they must not exist? That doesn't track right.

I would say the explosion of Mars Hill Church could be used as an example of a miracle. They've grown exponentially per year in the least Churched state in America. Not only that, but on a very hard line of "The Bible is what we follow and we strive to live our lives according to the teachings and principles of Christ" in a city all about liberal universial post modernism. Every walk of life comes together corporately at Mars Hill and takes great strides to bettering the communities we live in. Depending on what you stand point is on man (good or bad by nature) this is a great feat considering.

Consider my above challange and questions. I'd be interested to read what has shaped your worldview regardless of whether or not you read Mr. Keller's book. Same goes to z31 and so on.

[briansjacobs]

You said in other quotes (of which I'm far to lazy this early in the AM to find and multi quote 'em) that we cannot Prove empirically that God exists. To even mention the notion of empirical proof is to claim (inadvertantly or otherwise) that you can empirically prove he does not. Can you?

Furthermore, I see a strong "urge" if you will, to attempt to throw believer's faith in their face without offering an alternative. While you claim science, as Markseven has said, there's no empirical proof that you're correct either. Nor does science disprove God. If the agenda of a scientist(s) is to disprove God, he is being un-scientific and therefore a bigot on his own "crusade". You must understand something: there is a monumental gap between "Faith" and "Religion". I am not trying to claim that all bad things done by those with "Faith" are acts of "Religion" but that acts of "Religion" are the most profound, devastating acts of man. To take every and any oppurtunity to throw those atrocities at the feet of God while claiming he doesn't exist is a bit naive, bigoted and religious of you.

A few questions for you since I've, against my vow to avoid it, have thrown myself into this little fire fight:

1. It seems from what I've read of your posts that you genuinely don't believe God exists. What do you believe?
2. Why?
3. Is man advertently Good or Bad? (Nature vs. Nuture need not apply)

Let me be clear, I'm not here to convert anyone. Much less someone who "knows" there's no God. I've recommended it before, but on this topic Timothy Keller's book "The Reason for God" is very informative and thought provoking for believers and unbelievers alike. I would gladly challange you to read it in exchange for reading any work of literature you'd propose. Discussions would be ensured so, unless your aim in posting is to simply point and make fun, demean and insult those of Faith, I think it would be beneficial for each of us to gain understanding of where the other is coming from by exposing each another to what shapes and provokes our thoughts. Let me know. We can even make another sub-forum for it.. ;)




Another whopper from Lee. Never ceases to amaze me. I'll be honest, I'd punch you in your snide face if you said that to me as the equivelant of a stranger. You've no place. It's disrespectful and rude.



Not sure what you're really getting at. That God must prove himself, under the context of him being a creator and us created by him, to us? You've yet to see a miracle, so they must not exist? That doesn't track right.

I would say the explosion of Mars Hill Church could be used as an example of a miracle. They've grown exponentially per year in the least Churched state in America. Not only that, but on a very hard line of "The Bible is what we follow and we strive to live our lives according to the teachings and principles of Christ" in a city all about liberal universial post modernism. Every walk of life comes together corporately at Mars Hill and takes great strides to bettering the communities we live in. Depending on what you stand point is on man (good or bad by nature) this is a great feat considering.

Consider my above challange and questions. I'd be interested to read what has shaped your worldview regardless of whether or not you read Mr. Keller's book. Same goes to z31 and so on.

It is impossible to prove a negative. meaning you can not prove something does not exist, can only prove that something does exist. Science can come up with theories and submit research to why it would make sense for this theory to work.

The only reasoning to believe in God is that if it is here somebody must have made it, like a building.

because you can not see evolution first hand does not mean it did not happen as we have proof of evolution to a degree, we are just missing a few links in the chain. Where creation has no chain at all, just an end, and an unsubstaniated guess at a begining with no substance in the middle to link the two together.

I could be wrong, there may be a creator, when science comes up with a good theory on a creator that can be explained with more than just "hocus pocus" I will be the first in line to accept.

And I think you took it a little to far on lee's milkman comment, I am pretty sure the Christ that you try to emulate would not have taken a violent stance on what to the rest of us was just a joke. granted those silly canadians are not a funny people, I still recognize the attempt at humor.

[ck_taft325is]

Actually, in debate if one disagree's it falls on them to prove their stand point just as much as it is the other parties to prove theirs.

There's less "hocus pocus" than you claim there is. The very statement and use of the word "hocus pocus" shows your ignorance on the matter. Substituting your own view point for those of any type of reasonable, respectful debate is telling.

As for Evolution, as many a people have said and you've chosen to over look, they are not mutually exclusive. I am not arrogant enough to say that I know how it all took place whereas certain sects of science have chosen to take up the "crusade" to discredit a belief system that if followed, enriches peoples lives, takes care of the needy and strives to find the middle ground between a vast majority of people. While they take the hard ground that the two cannot exist and belief in any diety is archaic and base therefore making believers of weaker or less intelligence? Again, I challange that. Because of my personal beliefs and faith? No. Because it's wrong. Blatantly wrong.

To state that the only reasoning is that God is man-made is laughable at best. Who would write the Bible? Who would write man in such a realistic, condescending light? We fail perfect in everyway. I implore you to look beyond man's failings in terms of God and maybe, just maybe be open to the possibility that you can come to respect those of faith without belittling and insulting them. As I've said before, I'm not here to change your mind all in all. You'll choose to believe what you believe and live your life accordingly. But, do not turn and claim supremecy while you simultainiously avoid the discussion by refusing to engage in the most basic forms of respect. It only makes you look bad and furthers the attitude that we have no commonality. We all take things on Faith. Demonizing a belief system without a full understanding is the same as a "Christian" saying they don't believe science because certain scientists have made great strides in their crusade to abolish what they view as all the failings of the world (Religion to clarify).

How does one explain terminal cancer patients instantly being healed? Statistically, there's far more evidence to the fact that it cannot and does not happen. But the evidences are to the contrary in the elite few. Are these just random anomolies? They are un-explainable by the medical and scientific fields. By your logic, they must not exist then.

Lee's "attempt at humor" would be fine if they where close in anyway, shape or form. A stranger saying anything about a man's wife's fidelity is bad form. I am not Christ and make no claims to be such. For an unbeliever you sure do like to stand back and insist you know what and how a Christian should emulate Christ. So, I'll respond. Christ made a whip of cords and drove out men from the temple. He called Religious leaders of the time a "brood of vipers". The propogated image of Christ being a limp wristed meek teacher has been incorrect for ages. Wrong is wrong. Lee's comment? Out of line regardless if he tries to veil a jab in "humor". And yes, I stand by my comment. Had Lee made a statement concerning my wife's fidelity, I very likely would have punched him in the face.

[briansjacobs]

Actually, in debate if one disagree's it falls on them to prove their stand point just as much as it is the other parties to prove theirs.

There's less "hocus pocus" than you claim there is. The very statement and use of the word shows your ignorance on the matter. Substituting your own view point for those of any type of reasonable, respectful debate is telling.

As for Evolution, as many a people have said and you've chosen to over look, they are not mutually exclusive. I am not arrogant enough to say that I know how it all took place whereas certain sects of science have chosen to take up the "crusade" to discredit a belief system that if followed, enriches peoples lives, takes care of the needy and strives to find the middle ground between a vast majority of people. While they take the hard ground that the two cannot exist and belief in any diety is archaic and base therefore making believers of weaker or less intelligence? Again, I challange that. Because of my personal beliefs and faith? No. Because it's wrong. Blatantly wrong.

To state that the only reasoning is that God is man-made is laughable at best. Who would write the Bible? Who would write man in such a realistic, condescending light? We fail perfect in everyway. I implore you to look beyond man's failings in terms of God and maybe, just maybe be open to the possibility that you can come to respect those of faith without belittling and insulting them. As I've said before, I'm not here to change your mind all in all. You'll choose to believe what you believe and live your life accordingly. But, do not turn and claim supremecy while you simultainiously avoid the discussion by refusing to engage in the most basic forms of respect. It only makes you look bad and furthers the attitude that we have no commonality. We all take things on Faith. Demonizing a belief system without a full understanding is the same as a "Christian" saying they don't believe science because certain scientists have made great strides in their crusade to abolish what they view as all the failings of the world (Religion to clarify).

How does one explain terminal cancer patients instantly being healed? Statistically, there's far more evidence to the fact that it cannot and does not happen. But the evidences are to the contrary in the elite few. Are these just random anomolies? They are un-explainable by the medical and scientific fields. By your logic, they must not exist then.

Lee's "attempt at humor" would be fine if they where close in anyway, shape or form. A stranger saying anything about a man's wife's fidelity is bad form. I am not Christ and make no claims to be such. For an unbeliever you sure do like to stand back and insist you know what and how a Christian should emulate Christ. So, I'll respond. Christ made a whip of cords and drove out men from the temple. He called Religious leaders of the time a "brood of vipers". The propogated image of Christ being a limp wristed meek teacher has been incorrect for ages. Wrong is wrong. Lee's comment? Out of line regardless if he tries to veil a jab in "humor". And yes, I stand by my comment. Had Lee made a statement concerning my wife's fidelity, I very likely would have punched him in the face.

1. the rules of debate does not change the law of science that a negative can not be proven.
2. call it what you will, but to say in one day God created ______ sounds like Hocus Pocus to many of us. No insult intended, substitue any word you like
3. I think you look at science as many christians before you have, a threat to your beliefs. It is not intended to be an attack on you. Science is a quest for inrichment just as religion is. Some people study the bible as if it has all the worlds answers, others look to the world and beyond for answers. If it disproves your beliefs it is not the intention, but the question is if it disproves your belief will you believe it?
4. good question? who wrote it and most importantly why?
5. please tell where I was disrecpectful to you
6. alot of people are quick to say that anything that can not be explained are a mirracle from god.
7. I am fairly secure in my wifes fidelity or lack there of, I would hope that you would be also.

[briansjacobs]

Galileo the father of modern science was put on house arrest for the remainder of his life for his publications which disproved many parts of the bible, he was luck he lived!

[mar1t1me]

You said in other quotes (of which I'm far to lazy this early in the AM to find and multi quote 'em) that we cannot Prove empirically that God exists. To even mention the notion of empirical proof is to claim (inadvertantly or otherwise) that you can empirically prove he does not. Can you?

Just a couple of thoughts. First, it is impossible to prove something does not exist. All one can do is look for evidence of its existence. For example, I have never seen a baby pigeon, however since we understand that on this planet adult animals are always preceded by immature versions of the same animal, they must exist.

There are multitudes of beliefs humans used to cling to, but no longer do because they seem "ridiculous". Add to those ideas the number of gods we humans have invented for ourselves and it starts to look like we humans are still in our intellectual infancy. We still fight-are willing to kill others-because we believe we are right and that our god's righteousness will guarantee victory.

Furthermore, I see a strong "urge" if you will, to attempt to throw believer's faith in their face without offering an alternative.

Scientific inquiry is always preferable to superstition. How about this for an alternative: stop using an invisible god as a stopgap for what is, in reality, a gap in understanding. Make it OK to say "I don't know". Those 3 words can be a door to further understanding, unlike faith, which all too often advocates the closing of those doors.

While you claim science, as Markseven has said, there's no empirical proof that you're correct either. Nor does science disprove God. If the agenda of a scientist(s) is to disprove God, he is being un-scientific and therefore a bigot on his own "crusade". You must understand something: there is a monumental gap between "Faith" and "Religion". I am not trying to claim that all bad things done by those with "Faith" are acts of "Religion" but that acts of "Religion" are the most profound, devastating acts of man. To take every and any oppurtunity to throw those atrocities at the feet of God while claiming he doesn't exist is a bit naive, bigoted and religious of you.

Good points to be sure. A good scientist will not attempt to prove gods don't exist any more than he/she will attempt to prove the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

A few questions for you since I've, against my vow to avoid it, have thrown myself into this little fire fight:

1. It seems from what I've read of your posts that you genuinely don't believe God exists. What do you believe?
2. Why?
3. Is man advertently Good or Bad? (Nature vs. Nuture need not apply)

1+2. There is insufficient data to support the existence of god(s), and I believe that the superstitious clingings of humans to such myths may well be what keeps us from ever reaching our true potential. As long as we view others through a lens of religion, pre-conceived notions will run rampant over reality. One need look no farther than the recent anti-Muslim hysteria to see that the actions of a few can so easily be used by people who believe their god is the real one to tar and feather an entire group-regardless of the merit of the claims.

3. Man is what he is made by his parents and his social environment. He is generally neither inherently good, nor inherently bad, but he is an animal, and is known to behave as such when civilized society breaks down as during a disaster.

I've recommended it before, but on this topic Timothy Keller's book "The Reason for God" is very informative and thought provoking for believers and unbelievers alike.

I'll check it out.

As far as the Mars Hill phenomenon.....I see that as evidence of animal herd behavior. We do it a lot. The shows we watch, the music to which we listen, the drugs we take-both legally and not-the vitamin supplement du jour that promises to extend life or make us smarter, and yes, the churches we attend. People flock to places they think have the answers to the questions no one can answer. I have yet to find anyone who can answer this question: why can't the omnipotent creator of the universe heal an amputee? He can apparently heal all manner of things no one can see, but just can't pull off the obvious stuff? If he can't heal them, he isn't omnipotent. And if he isn't omnipotent......then what?

[dubsport87]

who says he can't heal an amputee? Just because you haven't seen something doesn't mean it's not possible.

[z31maniac]

who says he can't heal an amputee?

Because it has never happened in recorded history, ever.

[dubsport87]

Luke 22:49-51
When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

[briansjacobs]

did he heal him, or did he regenerate a new ear?

[mar1t1me]

Luke 22:49-51
When Jesus' followers saw what was going to happen, they said, "Lord, should we strike with our swords?" And one of them struck the servant of the high priest, cutting off his right ear. But Jesus answered, "No more of this!" And he touched the man's ear and healed him.

Healed.....I would think that were Jesus really God, he could have picked up the ear, spat some holy spittle onto it to "cleanse" it, stuck on the side of the man's head and commanded it to stay. Who knows? Maybe that's exactly what happened, but everyone was too grossed out by the details and said "no no no-you can't put all that in there-just say he was, uhhhh, healed"!

But since the Bible and other "holy books" cannot be downloaded in their pure form from Heaven or where ever, and have to come through fallible, imperfect man who has admittedly used the Bible et. al., as a "power tools" for centuries, writing and rewriting them to his advantage, we really don't know what the hell happened, do we?

I'm with Carlin on this one: look at the world as it is. Results like these do not belong on the resume of a supreme being. Results like these look more like the work of an office temp with a bad attitude.

[joshh]

I'll believe in god when he walks out from behind a bush and shakes my hand...then proves he's God.

Evolution on the other hand has been more than proven...just not entirely in man.