------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

quote:

---

Carbon exists in the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, a gas. It can either be present as stable carbon 12 or unstable carbon 14. Carbon 14 is formed from carbon 12 in the atmosphere by the action of cosmic rays. A steady state results in which the rate of decomposition of carbon 14 is matched by the rate of formation of new C-14 by cosmic rays. The result is that carbon 14 is present as a constant percentage of the total carbon in the atmosphere, although it does change slightly depending upon the amount of cosmic radiation reaching the atmosphere. However, a correction can be made on the basis of carbon 14 readings on items whose age is known from archeological records

---

Very good. OK- now suppose hypothetically that the world were very different- that there was a canopy of water, so to speak, in the atmoshere that helped keep cosmic rays out (redirection by refraction)

OK- it would also help keep oxygen in, so when we find pockets of trapped air, like say- in fossilized tree sap turned to amber- it should have a higher oxygen content (which it does).

As you stated- radiation from the sun is what helps keep the supply of Carbon 14 in the atmosphere, thus getting into plants when they make oxygen, and into bunnies whem they eat the plants, and into pythons when they eat the bunnies.

With less solar activities getting through this canopy, there would be less Carbon 14. OK- Hypothetically speaking, a hypothetical God decides to throw a snowball at the earth- breaking that canopy, causing people to live not as long (as we are now subject to more solar activity), flooding the world for, oh lets say hypothetically speaking, 40 days and 40 nights- plus the time for the caps to freeze and soak up the water.

OK- AFTER that- no more canopy, no more protection, more carbon-14 being produced.

Then along come Joe Blow, Ph.D. Wow- this fossil almost has very little carbon 14 in it! Ha Ha! That proves the world is very old, much older than people think, that proves that there's no possible way those religious creeps can be right! Yay, I don't only have to held accountable to no one but Me!

Assuming there's some truth to my hypothetical scenario, Joe Blow is heralded as a true "scientist" while the real truth remains hidden from him.

Funny how that works.

But hey- you've no reason to believe my hypothetical situation- but I also see no reason to believe that radiotion levels have always been as constant as they currently are. Archealogical info only goes so far back.

------------------
Shikata gai na!

If you have no idea how you got here... and where you are going when you are dead... then I do.

And I would feel much more comfortable if I were you if I did know. The fact that we as humans have not evolved our ability to concieve any better is quite depressing when looking at it as an evolving process. We are thus at a standstill. Learning and creating things to help our mind is only releiveing the burden, allowing for more conceptual thought on particular ideas. The fact that we are now of a civil society allows for this also. The farmer allows for the banker to use his mind more thouroghly on that of which is relative to banking.

But, to think that I am more intelligent than a man who thought of the idea of gravity, or that of , the world being round ... is insane. What about the man who named all creatures and took care of them and knew them... uhh, ya. I might know how to type... but I sure as hell no nothing about birds and squirrels other than they shit and eat for free.

My body may have adapted as my mind has... thus I have been created to adapt. Where as creation proves that of God, or a higher being... whatever.

The law behind physics and the 'big bang' theory also support this view. It is all mathematical, and was created as that.
Just ask Steven hawking or if we could... Albert Einstein, Dawin. Whom... before they became so popular detested the creational theory untill they were proved wrong by their own theorys... E=MC2... The Black Hole... Evolution vs. Adaptation.

------------------
keep it 'free'.
down go the agitators.

http://www.beatculture.com/

quote:

---

About the whole flood thing, the bible states that the Ark was *I think, correct me if I'm wrong please* some 400 cubits in length, which translates as more than 300 feet. Wood can only be used as a medium in a water bound craft until about 250ft. in length, as the structure cannot support itself and is completely unseaworthy.

---

Whenever they say something can't be done (well, frequently anyway)- someone finds a way to do it.

quote:

---

now suppose hypothetically that the world were very different- that there was a canopy of water, so to speak, in the atmoshere that helped keep cosmic rays out

---

The creationist assertion that the Flood waters were produced by the condensation of this vapor canopy presents yet another problem. Whenever water vapor condenses to form liquid water, heat is released. And the condensation of enough water vapor to produce a global Flood would have released an enormous amount of heat energy. As Arthur Strahler points out, "Calculations show that the heat liberated by a canopy such as that described by Morris would raise the atmospheric temperature to over 6,400 degrees F, boiling the ocean and the Ark." (Strahler, 1987, p. 197)

So the physical possibility of such a canopy can only be upheld by supernatural forces, which, of course, preclude it from objective scientific study or merit.

By the way, we are asked to make this leap of faith about a water canopy that defies physics in order to get the 4.4 billion cubic kilometers of water needed to cover the entire Earth.

There is, of course, one last thing to consider. Where did all that water go if, indeed, it was ever here in the first place? Had it evaporated, it would still be a part of the hydro-ecological cycle, yet we can confirm through observation and testing that it absolutely is not.

I understand your theory, but it is founded on principals that are completely outside physical laws. Saying, "suppose hypothetically that the world were very different" is like saying suppose, hypothetically, that kangaroos once had wings - That would explain how they got to Australia from Mt. Ararat. Except that there's no evidence that kangaroos ever had wings, nor that they could have made such a long journey if they did. So any hypotheticals presented should at least have some supporting evidence and should fit into the known physical laws of nature.

quote:

---

But hey- you've no reason to believe my hypothetical situation- but I also see no reason to believe that radiotion levels have always been as constant as they currently are. Archealogical info only goes so far back.

---

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

quote:

---

Whenever they say something can't be done (well, frequently anyway)- someone finds a way to do it.

Lame arguement.

---

HattoriHanzo, you are correct. The longest wood boats that have been able to navigate the oceans have been about 250 feet long. The longest wooden boats successfully built are about 300 feet, but are unable to sail the high seas without breaking up, even though they were reinforced as you describe with iron and steel. These boats were constructed in the late 1800's utilizing technology, craftsmanship and knowledge that Noah, a simple man by the Bible's description, did not possess. Further, one wonders where Noah, again a man of simple means per the Bible, acquired all the resources necessary for such a huge construction (remember, this is a boat one and one-half times the length of a football field!), but that is a small problem compared to the rest.

Noah's boat, at an estimated 450 feet long per creationists account of Genesis, simply put, can't be real.

Meanwhile, Noah's boat's dimensions have trouble fitting all the animals aboard, which is where we get the "kinds" notion of creationists. A notion, by the way, that still has not been clearly defined by them. (This is why I asked about whether he took only 2 of each "kind" or 7 of each clean "kind" and 2 of each unclean "kind". If it's 7, the boat just got a LOT more crowded, making it even more impossible to fit them all!!)

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

quote:

---

Noah's boat, at an estimated 450 feet long per creationists account of Genesis, simply put, can't be real.

Meanwhile, Noah's boat's dimensions have trouble fitting all the animals aboard, which is where we get the "kinds" notion of creationists. A notion, by the way that still has not been clearly defined by them. (This is why I asked about whether he took only 2 of each "kind" or 7 of each clean "kind" and 2 of each unclean "kind". If it's 7, the boat just got a LOT more crowded!!)

---

Well, if you had to build a boat to fit two of every unclean kind, it would be a big job wouldn't it?

Re: clean/unclean-

Leviticus 11:4-"`There are some that only chew the cud or only have a split hoof, but you must not eat them. The camel, though it chews the cud, does not have a split hoof; it is ceremonially unclean for you.

God did not say "takes every species," He said "take every kind." What is a kind? Well, on my comuter desk, I have a pile of floppy disks. They are all IBM formatted. If I had a couple of Mac disks, would it still be a disk? Yes. The same applies to dogs, for example. We have German Shepards, Blue Healers, Labs, etc. Noah did not have to take every specific speices. He didn't, thank God. The boat wou;d've sunk.

How do you have a boat 450 long that is made of wood? I doesn't have to go anywhere, does it? It just has to float. You claim that the boat would probably break apart, and I agree with you. However, I remember reading something about there being a wide shaft in the middle of the boat, allowing it to rest in the water a little deeper. I'll look it up.

Now I have a tough question for you, Buckster. How does matter stay together? Let me explain. Matter is made up of atoms. Atoms are made up of protons, neutrons, and electrons. The protons and neutrons are in the neucleous of the atom. the electrons are orbiting the neucleous at various energy levels, allowing compounds and such. Protons are positivly charged, the electrons are negative, and the neutrons are neutral.

It doesn't have to go anywhere, but it has to survive the cataclysmic deluge described by the creationists. Without land-locked areas like bays everything the ark had to deal with was like the open sea - big waves, etc. Enough rain that the entire world was flooded in just 40 days was one HELL of a storm!! There's not a wooden ship anything near that size in recorded history that would be able to survive such conditions.

Further, no historical records of that time period, from the Egyptians, Phoenicians, Greeks or anybody else, mentions any such event (they could, after all, hardly have missed it). Historical records from such ancient civilizations as the Chinese or the inhabitants of the Indus Valley show no period of time where these civilizations were suddenly wiped out by a global flood, to be slowly repopulated later. There is simply no evidence whatever, from archeology, geology or history, which indicate a worldwide flood that wiped out all but eight people.

Now then, you infer that Noah didn't have to make room for a pair of lions, a pair of tigers, a pair of leopards, etc, on his boat--all he needed was a pair of "cat-kinds". Then did this one pair of cats evolve into the different cats we know today? I will use the same argument for each "kind".

And I nearly forgot... What was Joseph's father's name?
------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

quote:

---

Assuming that evolution is correct(which is only for this topic, I personally don't believe in it...), then where did the earliest part, the earliest thing, be it a molecule, an atom or just a spec of dust. [b]Where did it come from?[b/].

---

quote:

---

Yet another thing, assuming that evolution is true, then how did so many species of the same thing(ie dogs; German Shephards, collies, ect) form and yet there is only one type of human?

---

quote:

---

Finally, if evolution is correct, then how come it can not be reproduced in a labratory situation.

---

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

Drug resistant bacteria and poisonproof cockroaches have all evolved due to our overuse of certain chemicals.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

quote:

---

Why don't the electrons go directly to the neucleous and bond with the protons there, making a neutral charge?

---

What is Joseph's father's name?

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

quote:

---

cen·trif·u·gal (sn-trfy-gl, -trf-)
adj.

Moving or directed away from a center or axis.
Operated by means of centrifugal force.
Physiology. Transmitting nerve impulses away from the central nervous system; efferent.
Botany. Developing or progressing outward from a center or axis, as in a flower cluster in which the oldest flowers are in the center and the youngest flowers are near the edge.
Tending or directed away from centralization, as of authority: “The division of Europe into two warring blocs, each ultimately dependent on a superpower patron, is subject to ever-increasing centrifugal stress” (Scott Sullivan).

---

quote:

---

cen·trip·e·tal (sn-trp-tl)
adj.

Moving or directed toward a center or axis.
Operated by means of centripetal force.
Physiology. Transmitting nerve impulses toward the central nervous system; afferent.
Botany. Developing or progressing inward toward the center or axis, as in the head of a sunflower, in which the oldest flowers are near the edge and the youngest flowers are in the center.
Tending or directed toward centralization: the centripetal effects of a homogeneous population.

---

Another stop at britannica.com helped clear the cobwebs a little. If I understand it corrctly (and I'm not sure I do ), centripetal force is the force produced on the object to hold the object from flying off in the direction of the tangent produced just prior to the string breaking, while centrifugal force is the force produced on the object in motion that causes it's outward momentum. Clear as mud!

I stand corrected (I think... )Thanks for bringing it up though. I am fascinated by the concept and will study it more!!

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

quote:

---

wouldn't there be thousands, if not millions of those "missing links"

---

An interesting page about it can be found at: http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Hangar/2437/archie.htm (Ross, don't bother to go there, as it obviously has an evolutionary slant to it, and you wouldn't want to get muddled up with any actual facts...)

Eusthenopteron is another fossil that shows marvelous intermediate characteristics between lobe-finned fishes and amphibians. The transitional fossils between amphibians and reptiles are so various and intermediate that it is difficult to define where one group ends and another begins.

It should be noted also that fossilization is an extremely rare process. Virtually all of the bones that have ever existed have turned to dust. Many transitional fossils have however been found, including many human ancestors at different stages spanning the last 4 millions years.

So basically, the rotational force is inward, rather than outward, as would be suggested by a so called "centrifugal" force. It's essentially an issue of semantics to non-physicists, but to physicits it's a very important distinction.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

------------------
Shikata gai na!

Might I note that Ross549 has yet do deal with the topic of the name of Joseph's father. What do you have to say to that, Ross549?

Might I note that Ross549 has yet do deal with the topic of how Noah built a wooden boat bigger than anyone else in history and kept it afloat. What do you have to say to that, Ross549?

Might I note that Ross549 has yet do deal with the topic of how his father and mother have the same grandparents, the way Joseph and Mary do. What do you have to say to that, Ross549?

Might I note that Ross549 has yet do deal with the topic of whether Judas hanged himself or flung himself on the ground and burst open. What do you have to say to that, Ross549?

Shall I go on?

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

quote:

---

These boats were constructed in the late 1800's utilizing technology, craftsmanship and knowledge that Noah, a simple man by the Bible's description, did not possess.

---

We should not jump to conclusions about what technology existed or didn't exist.

Who made the Sphynx and how did they do it? (It seems to be pre-Egyptian, or so I've heard). Who made Stone Hedge and how did they do it?

There's a lot about ancient history we simply do not know.

Ever read a book called The Bible Code? The author of that book admittedly denies the existance of God, but he points out that there are earie patterns in the hebrew text of the Bible that seem to have not been able to have been made by men. I'm not sure I buy his all his arguements, but the codes found in the Bible are not new to just him- he just used a computer to dig deeper.

There is no evidence to suggest that Noah had the capability to build a wooden boat 450 feet long that would endure the stresses of the biblical flood. Based on the fact that we, today, do not have the technology to build such a boat, I, Buckster, do not believe that Noah, a man who lived about 4000 years ago, did either.

The bible code. I have not yet read it, though I have read some things about it.

Here's something I ganked from a web site at:
http://cyberbuzz.gatech.edu/kaboom/mail-archives/Eyring-L/9708/0212.html

quote:

---

The key to the code is the idea of equidistant letter sequences (ELS), whereby you search for a name or phrase in the Hebrew text of the Bible by skipping an unspecified by fixed number of letters. For example, you might print out every tenth letter and hope that something significant appears. Or every 11th letter. And so on, until you find something. All spaces between words are ignored.

To see how this scam works, let us examine Drosnin's most outrageous claim-that the Bible predicted the assassination of Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin. The computer found that if you skip every 4,772 letters, the name Yitzhak Rabin is embedded in the biblical text. In other words, there is a 'yod', the first letter of Yitzhak, followed 4,772 letters later by the second letter of his name, and so on. This means that if you print out the letters of the Hebrew Pentateuch (using the Koren edition) in rows 4,772 letters wide, the name Yitzhak Rabin will appear in a vertical column. Of course, no piece of paper is wide enough to print out 4,772 letters that are visible to the human eye. So Drosnin provides a detail--a rectangular matrix of 38 by 18 letters--containing the region where Rabin's name. The matrix is designed to create the false impression that this is the shape of a standard portion of the Bible.

The circled letters, from the top down, spell out Yitzhak Rabin. The horizontal rows give the ordinary text of the Bible (Hebrew reads from right to left)

First, ELS codes can be found everywhere. In any sufficiently long text, in any alphabetic language, one can always find hidden messages by the ELS method. To illustrate, on several occasions (for example, as quoted in 'Newsweek,' June 9, 1997) Drosnin has asserted, "When my critics find a message about the assassination of a prime minister encrypted in Moby Dick I will believe them." I took up the challenge and asked Professor Brendan McKay, a mathematician at the Australian National University, to search 'Moby Dick' for such encrypted messages. He found 13 "predicted" assassinations of public figures, several of them prime ministers or presidents or their equivalents. See the two sample charts, below, which are reproduced with Professor McKay's kind permission.

---

Go here to see the word searches in Moby Dick that "predicted" The assassinations of Kennedy, Lincoln, Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Yitzhak Rabin, the death of Lady Di, and MORE!! Be amazed! Tell your friends! Step right up!! http://cs.anu.edu.au/people/bdm/dilugim/moby.html

Other problems with the method are detailed on the first page cited, but I thought this was the most fun bit of it. I've seen a lot of similar reviews of the work (it's been done with War and Peace too), so I can't say I've put much thought into it at this point.

The thing is, how shall we prove that it is God himself talking to us, and not just a random occurance? Is the author of Moby Dick talking to us also? Spooky!!

Here's an exerpt from another page titled:
Why I'm No Longer Researching the Codes
It's at: http://www.prophezine.com/tcode/disclaim.html

quote:

---

Then when Dr. James D. Price found negative codes in the Bible this further disproved the validity of the codes (Satan is Eloah (God), Satan is YHWH, Jehovah is a liar, Jehovah is dead, there is no Jehovah, Yeshua is not God, there is no truth, there is no evil, there is no goodness, there is no redemption, there is no Messiah, etc.). Dr. Price also found that for every noun in the Torah he could produce a negative code for that noun, i.e., there is an __, and there is not an __. He also found about 6,000 words in just Isaiah 53 alone. The purpose of his posting that information was to show that just about any message you wanted to produce could be found in that short passage--or any other passage. This is when I closed down Tcode and gave up code research until further notice.

---

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

------------------
Ditch Intel, GO with Winner

I'm still here I just about fell out of my chair when Resedit posted a thank you message! I keep looking over my shoulder... Hehehehehe...

I've been waiting for the next volly from the creationists (don't worry... it's coming )

Till then, I've been reading a lot. Currently in the middle of "Abusing Science - The case against creationism" by Philip Kitcher. Fascinating book - you can guess what it's about!! (That reminds me, I think It's about time to get another book case...)

Dr. Kitcher, a philosopher of science at the University of Vermont, concentrates this effort on the way misinformation is being disseminated by the moral majority and the ICR to the masses; the methods and the madness! These guys have more twists and turns in their diatribes than a mile long strand of DNA tied in knots does!!

I'm enjoying it very much!!

------------------
Cum grano salis

It allows us each to live in a world where our views are tolerant of each other.
It doesn't conflict with known scientific principals or physical laws of nature.
It doesn't rely on a literal interpretation of a bible written by ancient people with ancient understanding of the physical world that doesn't fit modern knowlege.
It doesn't require supernatural forces to keep it together.
It doesn't founder under questioning.
It doesn't need far-out hypothetical situations to justify it's possibility.
It allows the public school system to teach my child evolutionary theories just as historians, geologists, physicists, archeologists and biologists have found them to be.

I like it, and can find no reason to attack it!! Now all you have to do is convince the creationists...

I'll be waiting...

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

Right On My intellectual brothers!!!

Actually the "deity as evolutionary architect" is the basis of Neo-Paganism (what I subscribe to) If you have some spare time read Anne rice's "Mnemnoch the Devil" In it Lucifer describes the Creation as an evolutionary experiment by God "Just to see what happens". Sure it's Goth-tinged pulp fiction, but Ms. Rice does an awful lot of research for her books. The story she postulates is really good.

"Science and Creationism" edited by Ashley Montagu. It includes 20 essays on the subject by Isaac Asimov, Kenneth Boulding, Stephen Gould and several others. INcluded is the full text of Judge William R. Overton's landmark 1982 U.S. District Court decision, which struck down the Arkansas law permitting the teaching of "creation science" alongside evolution in public schools.

"Science Confronts Creationism" edited by Laurie R. Godfrey, PH.D., Harvard University. She teaches anthropology at the University of Massachusetts. This book is a complilation of 15 authors, each reviewing from their expertise, a particular aspect of the creationist's assertions and the falacies or downright lies they are based on.

You'll find many more works at any book store or library (other than the religious-based book stores ). Happy reading!

quote:

---

So, if there are no humans, just cockroaches, cats, ameobas, etc... would there be a God still?

---

Well, let's expand on that for a moment. I there were no humans, would the universe still exist? Would the stars still shine, the galaxies still turn, and the universe still expand? Does reality depend on our perception of that reality?
Being somewhat pragmatic, I'd say no. Reality may seem to change as our perception of reality changes, but reality itself remains constant. Only we ourselves change. So then, there either is a god, or there isn't. If there is, then he would exist whether we percieved him or not. If he is a figment of our collective imagination, then he doesn't exist. Not now, or after were all dead. Our perception is irrelevent.
One last thought. If all other humans, except you, were to die suddenly, would you cease to exist? Or would your own self-perception keep you existing?

------------------
Cum grano salis

So---three engineers are arguing about which is better, mechanical, electrical, or civil engineering---and the mechanical engineer says, "God must've been a mechanical engineer because---look at the joints in the human body."
And the second says, "No, God must've been an electrical engineer: look at the nervous system."
And the third said: "God had to be a civil engineer, cause who else would've run a waste disposal pipeline right through a great recreational area?"

Anyway, this whole discussion has opened my eyes. I'm not saying I have changed my beliefs (I'm a Christian), but it certainly has made me question a lot of things that I have been taught over the years. Now I don't know how the earth was created, how the whole flood thing works, or even who Joseph's father was, but I do fundamentally believe there is a God. I also believe that God is above all human logic and science.

Now, other people may not believe this, but you at least have to be open to the theory that if God is above human science, then it is certainly possible that the world could have been created in 6 days. I personally beleive in the metaphor interpretaion of this passage (God is not constrained to the time limits of man, so who knows how long a day is to God), but I am still open to the idea that God could have created a mature world and imbedded its history. If God created a mature man, Adam, then he certainly could have created a complete universe with the appearance of history.
Aw crap, I just shot a hole in my own theory. Creating an appearance of a past would mean that the past is a lie, which is a sin, and God is without sin. Sorry, I thought I thought this through before I typed.

However, if God is above science, then He at least could have flooded the earth without any human scientific evidence needed. If He can create a universe, surely He can create a deluge of water and then take it all away. The same goes for the size of the boat. How do you know God didn't allow a boat of this size to be kept afloat because he willed it so? I know this sounds like an east cop out answer from a Christian, but I'm not claiming it is the right answer, just a possiblity of divine intervention superseding human science. Notice there are a lot of "ifs" in this paragraph. I am not preaching anything here, merely asking more questions.
And while we're on the subject of the flood, Buck you asked why there aren't records from any other civilazation regarding this worldwide catastrophic event? I would have to say it's because they were all wiped out in the flood! And to the question of if there were only 8 people, how come there weren't any human mutations? Perhaps there were mutations. I like Priest's theory about God using evolution to tweak his creation. Maybe mutations by inbreeding is part of God's plan. Besides, if God created the world with 2 people (Adam and Eve) then there would have certainly been inbreeding from the very start. And mutations from that? Maybe.

Now, I have always beleived the Bible was flawed in some ways. Buck has done an excellent job in proving to me that it is flawed in more ways than I realized. Except on one issue:
Most people I know have a middle name, some have 2. Other people have nicknames. You can pronounce and even spell a name differently in different languages, but it is still the same name. Stating that the Old Testament prophesies use a different name for Jesus (Immanuel) does not mean this is a flaw in the Bible. Your real name is Buck Cash, correct? (at least according to your website) But everyone here calls you Buckster. Which is right? They both are, just as Christ has many names.

This is, of course, a minor point in this whole discussion. But it is the only thing that Buck has said that I disagree with and have a logical way of disproving it. I may not agree with everything he or anyone else has said, but I don't have proof or logic to disprove any of it either.

The only thing I firmly believe is that there is a God. I don't have solid proof of this, this is something I believe on faith. I don't have any answers to any of the questions posed so far. I apologize if by reading my post, some may feel I have wasted their time by not providing any new insight. However, I want to thank everyone who has posted to this entire discussion because it has certainly made me open my eyes and question everything that I was brought up to believe. I have been questioning many parts of my religion recently, but this thread has created a desire in me to seek out the answers to these questions and to open my mind to the many possibilities that are out there. My spiritual quest has begun. Thank you all.

------------------
"Ooo, they have the internet on computers, now!" -Homer Simpson

[This message has been edited by DoubleM (edited 12-12-1999).]

I have made it a point to say that I have in no way discounted the possibility that God exists, and I reitterate that. What I am pointing out thoughout my posts is twofold:

Primarily, that the religious fundamentalist creation "scientists", who claim that true science backs up their claims that the current manifestation of the Bible can be taken literally, are being caught in a lie of epic proportions. (This may be because, as DoubleM put it, "God is above all human logic and science") I think it's terrible that they mislead so many trusting believers with this scam. As I said to Ross, trust in God? Yes, by all means. Trust in these MEN'S flawed interpretations? NEVER!!

Secondarily, that their idea that the Bible is absolutely 100% true because it says so is circular logic and totally dismissable for that sole reason. But there is more and I have attempted to point some of it out, from Matthew's errors to historical evidence of how the Bible itself was created by men who, themselves, didn't believe it as factual, only spiritual. If we find another ancient book in a cave somewhere that espouses the ancient Greek myths and it says it's all true, shall we put the same faith in it simply because it says so?

Not to start anything with you, DoubleM, but (I can't help myself sometimes... )

quote:

---

Buck you asked why there aren't records from any other civilazation regarding this worldwide catastrophic event? I would have to say it's because they were all wiped out in the flood!

---

On the names thing, I would like to note that the name, or even the word "Emmanuel" is used one time, and one time only in the Bible, thus:

quote:

---

[Mat 1:23.16] "Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son, and his name shall be called Emmanuel" (which means, God with us).

---

First, she didn't name him Emmanuel, she named him Jesus.
Second, no one else in the Bible referred to him as Emmanuel, only Jesus.
Third, how many today refer to him as Emmanuel, rather than Jesus? Christ, yes. Saviour, yes. Lord, yes. Emmanuel? Hmmm...
Fourth, remember that Matthew (actually, the writer of Matthew) took Isaiah's prophesy completely out of context in order to establish divine intervention with it, as pointed out in other posts.

My problem with the name is just another example that this lie perpetrated by Matthew (actually, the writer of Matthew) is the case, not that Jesus can't have multiple names, although there is no evidence to suggest He did, other than a reference to where he lived, which was common in those days since no one had a last name: Jesus of Nazereth.

Now then, had my father said "He shall be called Buck" (after his father), and my mother said, "He shall be called John" (after her father), only one would have been right. It's not like the angel said "Jesus" and Isaiah said "Jesuster" (as the nickname Buckster). Emmanuel and Jesus, just like Buck and John, are two distinct names. His name is Jesus as far as I can tell. Mine is Buck (as far as I can tell ) Ask 100 Christians what Jesus' nickname is, and I doubt many will say, "Emmanuel" unless they've been prompted by something like this discussion. (Actually, I doubt ANY will, but I'd like to hedge that bet if I may!!) On the other hand, ask 100 netizens who know me what my nickname is, and you will get 100 answers that are all the same: "Buckster."

As you say, "This is, of course, a minor point in this whole discussion." My responses, similarly, are small points, to be sure, but that's my explaination of why I questioned them at all. (in case anyone was wondering )

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

BTW, an interesting point was made in my NIV study Bible about how Jesus is linked to King David. Regardless of who Joseph's father is, there is a little footnote in Matthew that says:

quote:

---

the son of David A Messianic title found several times in this Gospel...In this genealogy, Matthew shows that, although Jesus is not the physical son of Joseph, he is the legal son and therefore a descendant of David

---

However, I also have a note at Matthew 9:27 where two men called Jesus the son of David.

quote:

---

Son of David A popular Jewish title for the coming Messiah.

---

Of course, this is from Matthew, which we already know to be flawed, but this is what I think my Bible is trying to say. I keep saying my Bible only because it is a study Bible with a lot of side notes in it, which are another person's attempt to understand and help others understand the text.

quote:

---

Nothing in the narrative of Genesis chapters 6-9 prevents the flood from being understood as regional - destroying everything in its wake, but of relatively limited scope and universal only from the standpoint of the writer's geographic knowldege. "Earth" may be defined in the more restricted sense of "land". "All life under the heavens" may mean all life within the range of Noah's perception. Since the purpose of the floodwaters was to destroy sinful mankind and since the writer possibly had in mind only the inhabitants of the ancient Near East, this flood may not have had to be worldwide to destroy them.

---

I see a few minor problems with what your are saying:

quote:

---

This could go a long way towards explaining why Noah didn't have to bring every animal on earth and then drop them all off in their homeland (kangaroos), why other cultures do not have a record of a great flood, and all the other questions regarding the scientific logistics of a worldwide flood. This theory makes the most sense to me.

---

So God said to Noah, "I am going to put an end to all people, for the earth is filled with violence because of them. I am surely going to destroy both them and the earth. Genesis 6:13

The Bible says that the whole earth was to be destroyed, not just part of it. Remember, the first five books are historical narrative revealed to Moses by God.

People have a real problem with the idea of there being a worldwide flood. There is evidence in the Bible indicating that there were large stores of water underground.

Starting in Genesis 2:4b: When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens--
5. and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground,
6. but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground--

Now let's take a giant leap of logic:

1. There was no rain before the flood.
2. The plants before the flood were watered by streams from the earth.

How then can we explain the Flood?

1. Before the Flood, the earth was not as it is now.
2. Before the Flood there was only one continent. (I heard about the single continent theory in school.)
3. There were springs of water underground and a water canopy in the atmosphere.
4. Perhaps there were no mountains before the Flood (my thinking: wouldn't there need to be less water then?), only rolling hills.

Regarding the species on the Ark- there were no species on the ark, only kinds. Dobermans and Rottweilers are the same kind of animal- dogs. Ducks and geese are one kind of animal aquatic birds. Noah only had to take two of every unclean kind and seven of every clean kind. Also, did Noah have to take full-grown animals? Think about that.

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

(sigh...)

Ross... buddy... go back to sleep.

*big sigh*

Well Bucky, it can't be said that you weren't trying your utmost to help people understand.

------------------
Shikata gai na!

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

heh heh...I really feel bad for these guys, they have to go and read ALL of that stuff again!

------------------
Shikata gai na!

Ok, I'll address some of ross549's last post

quote:

---

People have a real problem with the idea of there being a worldwide flood.

---

quote:

---

Now let's take a giant leap of logic:

1. There was no rain before the flood.
2. The plants before the flood were watered by streams from the earth.

---

quote:

---

How then can we explain the Flood?

1. Before the Flood, the earth was not as it is now.
2. Before the Flood there was only one continent. (I heard about the single continent theory in school.)
3. There were springs of water underground and a water canopy in the atmosphere.
4. Perhaps there were no mountains before the Flood (my thinking: wouldn't there need to be less water then?), only rolling hills.

---

So with you're logic, these continents moved in a couple thousand years? Not a chance!
Continents move at about a rate of 1-2 inches a year. You're thinking would have the continents move about a couple miles (I think) a year, which it doesn't

No mountians? so the rocky mountain range, applachain(sp?), everest were formed in a couple thousand years?

quote:

---

Regarding the species on the Ark- there were no species on the ark, only kinds.
Dobermans and Rottweilers are the same kind of animal- dogs. Ducks and geese
are one kind of animal aquatic birds. Noah only had to take two of every
unclean kind and seven of every clean kind. Also, did Noah have to take
full-grown animals? Think about that.

---

Full-grown animals? then why doesn't the bible say noah gathered up babies?

Alright, I'm tired, so I'll wrap it up now with a couple questions for you.

Why do you believe in God?
Why do you believe in bible?

------------------
Ditch Intel, GO with Winner

Let me jump in and make a distinction. Micro-Evolution vs Macro-Evolution.

Micro-evolution is observable everyday and is often referred to as adaptation.

Macro-evolution is what the whole argument is about. One "kind", I guess this would be a genus or family to you biologists changing into another very distinct kind.

Just had to muddy that up a bit, I'll post some more later about the whole flood thing.

Here goes:

quote:

---

Gee, I wonder why?

---

People don't want to be responsible to an all-powerful Creator.

quote:

---

I won't even try to argue that.

---

It's in Genesis. I don't recall the exact verse . . . I'm at work right now, so I don't have my Bible with me.

quote:

---

Yes, the earth was once one big continent, called Pangea.
So with you're logic, these continents moved in a couple thousand years? Not a chance! Continents move at about a rate of 1-2 inches a year. You're thinking would have the continents move about a couple miles (I think) a year, which it doesn't

---

Let's say the Flood waters came partly from underground springs. The Bible says, I don't remember where. If the waters came up in the beginning of the Flood, I think that would push Pangea apart. I don't deny the existence of Pangea. I beleive in it. If it was pushed apart, It would be pushed rapidly, only to slow down later (you know, friction). That would support the movement of the continents today.

quote:

---

No mountians? so the rocky mountain range, applachain(sp?), everest were formed in a couple thousand years?

---

Continental drift. Earthquakes. Figure it out.

quote:

---

How did the two "dogs" transform into other kinds of dogs, evolution? With your thinking, you believe in evolution, but won't admit it. Full-grown animals? then why doesn't the bible say noah gathered up babies?

---

Simple adaptation. For instance, If you take a standard rabbit from Florida and take him to Alaska, he will eventually adapt to his evironment, right? The baby rabbits will have longer fur and a thicker fat layer. That is adaptation. The rabbit's fur may also change color to protect it from the predators. The same is true for dogs, cows, horses, etc. Even we humans have the ability to adapt. Just think, the people in Africa have darker skin to protect them from the sun.

Evolution is the theory of natural selection. That being said, evolution is inherantly racist. Only certain races are considered superior. Consider what Hitler did to the Jews. He did not consider them to be strong enough to be on the planet. Being the evolutionist that he was, he started to kill off the Jewish race (Buckster: he was not killing them in revenge for what they did to Jesus. Jesus need to die to save us from our sins.) The Bible does not make distinctions for Dobermans, Rottwielers, or Terriors. It just says "dogs." It also says "man," not asian, black, indian, or white. That is what is wrong with evolution. It is racial in nature.

quote:

---

Why do you believe in God?

---

That is a valid question. I cannot look at the earth beneath our feet and say it was made by natural selection. Therefore there must be a higher power. However, I do not hold these beleifs as well:

Pantheism- This one is kinda crazy. God is everything, and We are God. I don't think that we have the collective ability to be "God."
Reincarnation- Coming back as something else is crazy too. Who determines what we come back as, whether it be better or worse?
Bhuddism- Budda is dead. I don't want to worship a dead person.
There are many other beleifs that I don't beleive in. I will not go into detail.

I can look at the earth and see that it was made with a design that can be called nothing less than astounding. Take a look at the periodic table. Made did not design the atoms, ad if he did, he would nopt have made them as intricate. Look at the majesty of the Rocky Mountains. Such beauty!! See the fish of the sea. Such colors!! See the sunset. Such beauty! This did not happen by chance. The Bible says "The heavens declare the glory of God, and the skies proclaim the work of His hands." It's true. Everywhere you look, you see the intricacies (sp?) of creation. You cannot deny it. Nobody can.

quote:

---

Why do you believe in bible?

---

I take it by faith, the same way I take the beleif of God on faith. The Bible says- "Faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God." The Bible is the word of God. I beleive that by faith, because there is nothing in this world that can give me greater hope.

Evolutionism and Creationism are both faith systems. Each gives you a seperate worldview. If you beleive in evolution, it changes your whole worldview. You are no longer responsible to God, and then you are free to live your life as you please.

If you beleive in creationism, you beleive in a Holy God who made the heavens and the earth. You also beleive that He made you, and therefore you are subject to His decrees and laws. Therefore, you have a standard for living.

------------------
Cum grano salis

theboredguy replied: "Gee, I wonder why?"

Ross549 answered: "People don't want to be responsible to an all-powerful Creator."

My turn: Ross, don't you read? You missed it entirely! It's not because we don't want to be responsible to an all-powerful creator, it's because it TOTALLY defies logic, physics and nature! Hello? Knock, knock, knock!! Any of this getting through? Did you read ANY of the points that have been raised regarding your biblical flood? Would you care to address them with REAL science? If not, why do you call it creation "Science" and attempt to defend it?

Maybe you don't need to use science, because "The Bible SAYS so." This would be your "no errors, no contradictions" bible, perhaps? Would you care to address the questions I put forth regarding THAT issue?

Ross549:

quote:

---

Simple adaptation. For instance, If you take a standard rabbit from Florida and take him to Alaska, he will eventually adapt to his evironment, right? The baby rabbits will have longer fur and a thicker fat layer. That is adaptation. The rabbit's fur may also change color to protect it from the predators. The same is true for dogs, cows, horses, etc. Even we humans have the ability to adapt. Just think, the people in Africa have darker skin to protect them from the sun.

---

And it all happened in the last few thousand years WITHOUT evolution? (by the way, adaptation is a part of evolution theory)

And you base that on WHAT evidence? I'm sorry, could you repeat that? (Is this thing on?)

AND you can accept this, but cannot accept evolution? WTF????!!!

By the way, I don't know what color you are, but let's just say you're a white guy, k? Now then, if you and the little woman move to Africa and have a child, do you guess that little Ross will be black? If that child mates with another white child IN Africa, will their offspring be black? Can you give me ANY idea how many generations it will take for the first black child to be born, assuming that each generation mates with someone of the same color they are?

Personally, I think it's going to take MORE than 'simple adaptation' for your offspring to be born black, or for them rabbits to go from brown, short-haired hares, to bright white, long-haired polar bunnies.

quote:

---

Evolution is the theory of natural selection. That being said, evolution is inherantly racist. Only certain races are considered superior. Consider what Hitler did to the Jews. He did not consider them to be strong enough to be on the planet. Being the evolutionist that he was, he started to kill off the Jewish race (Buckster: he was not killing them in revenge for what they did to Jesus. Jesus need to die to save us from our sins.) The Bible does not make distinctions for Dobermans, Rottwielers, or Terriors. It just says "dogs." It also says "man," not asian, black, indian, or white. That is what is wrong with evolution. It is racial in nature.

---

2. "That being said..." launches into a diatribe about Hitler and racism that has little to do with the evolution of living organisms other than he and others took a twisted look at it and developed a socio-political basis for extolling the virtues of his own race. This led to extermination of mental patients and minorities. You've attacked evolution on the basis of the distorted views of Adolph Hitler and the eugenics movement.

Well Ross, over the centuries, millions of people have been killed, tortured, imprisoned and enslaved by people calling themselves Christians, acting in the name of Christ. That doesn't make Christ's message invalid.

If you believe that Christ was not responsible for the Spanish Inquisition or the Ku Klux Klan, then you will have to concede that Charles Darwin is not responsible for Adolph Hitler.

And STILL Hitler was a devout Christian who regularly attended church and believed that Christ died for him. Based on your belief system, he's probably sitting in heaven right now with Jesus and the saints.

3. Your view that evolution is racist is totally unfounded. Evolutionists believe that no particular species (and CERTAINLY no particular race!!) is better than any other, as they have all managed to survive through various biological mechanisms. You're thinking like Hitler!

I like the way Carl Sagan put it:

quote:

---

"...the Darwinian insight can be turned upside down and grotesquely misused: Voracious robber barrons may explain their cutthroat practices by an appeal to Social Darwinism; Nazis and other racists may call on "survival of the fittest" to justify genocide. But Darwin did not make John D. Rockefeller or Adolf Hitler. Greed, the Industrial Revolution, the free enterprise system, and corruption of government by the monied are adequate to explain nineteenth-century capitalism. Ethnocentrism, xenophobia, social hierarchies, the long history of anti-Semitism in Germany, the Versailles Treaty, German child-rearing practices, inflation, and the Depression seem adequate to explain Hitler's rise to power. Very likely these or similar events would have transpired with or without Darwin. And modern Darwinism makes it abundantly clear that many less ruthless traits, some not always admired by robber barrons and Fuhrers - altruism, general intelligence, compassion - may be the key to survival." (Sagan, 1995, 260).

---

But how can the Inquisition (and the Witch Hunts) be attributed to anything other than religious zealotry? And which religion was at the heart of this zealotry? Which religion's laws were directly used to bring about the deaths of tens (or hundreds) of thousands of people? From what book did the requirement for the deaths of witches, blasphemers and nonbelievers come?

Maybe we should go to Hitler himself, from his autobiography, "Mein Kampf":

quote:

---

a)"Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord."

b)"My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people."

---

Ross corrected me with this:"(Buckster: he was not killing them in revenge for what they did to Jesus. Jesus need to die to save us from our sins.)"

Well gee whiz, big guy, it sure SEEMS like Hitler took a slightly different view:

quote:

---

The best characterization is provided by the product of this religious education, the Jew himself. His life is only of this world, and his spirit is inwardly as alien to true Christianity as his nature two thousand years previous was to the great founder of the new doctrine. Of course, the latter made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross, while our present-day party Christians debase themselves to begging for Jewish votes at elections and later try to arrange political swindles with atheistic Jewish parties-- and this against their own nation.

---

Oh!! Let's not leave out THIS gem:

quote:

---

Parallel to the training of the body a struggle against the poisoning of the soul must begin. Our whole public life today is like a hothouse for sexual ideas and simulations. Just look at the bill of fare served up in our movies, vaudeville and theaters, and you will hardly be able to deny that this is not the right kind of food, particularly for the youth...

Theater, art, literature, cinema, press, posters, and window displays must be cleansed of all manifestations of our rotting world and placed in the service of a moral, political, and cultural idea.

-Adolf Hitler sounding like the Moral Majority

---

Does he sound more like a devout Christian or a God-less evolutionist to you, Ross?

Are you quite SURE he believes in evolution, or does he think God created man in his image per Genesis when he says:

quote:

---

The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God's will, and actually fulfill God's will, and not let God's word be desecrated.

For God's will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord's creation, the divine will.

---

You go on to espouse the position that evolution is based on faith. You're flat out wrong. We don't believe IN evolution. Truth does not have to be accepted on faith. Scientists do not hold hands every Sunday, singing, "Yes gravity and evolution are real! I will have faith! I will be strong! Amen!" We believe that the facts support the theory of evolution. It doesn't change one's view of God, or the pope would be in serious trouble.

Get this, Ross... You are in a teeny tiny minority that thinks the creation happened just the way the Bible says it did. There are many many Christians as well as other faiths that have no trouble at all accepting the evidence of evolution and reconciling that with their faith in God. Just keep this in mind: With God, ALL things are possible, EVEN evolution!

You think that creationism should be taught in public schools. There is NOTHING to substantiate it. There is no EVIDENCE to support it, unless we throw out all the scientific EVIDENCE that shoots it to Hell!! And what of all the other religions that wish to have their unsupported creation stories taught in public schools? I can hardly wait for my 12 year old to come home with satanist homework, and try to explain that, along with Greek mythology and 30 other unverifiable 'opinions' that are just as real to their advocates as yours are to you.

I also notice that you entirely skip over any difficult questions posed to you as though you never saw them, then you bulldoze your way into your next unsubstantiated claim, whereupon people like myself at least TRY to answer them.

How about trying to stay with us on this discussion Ross? Huh? C'mon, it's not that difficult.

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

quote:

---

Why do you believe in God?

---

When I look at the nature of what exists in the world, it becomes clear to me that if there were no God to create it, the world could not exist at all.

Atheism cannot be proven. It cannot be anything but an unverified assertion. The atheist would have to show that he has control over all potential avenues of knowing that God exists, and that all of them come up empty. No human being could make that claim; our knowledge is always finite. Alternatively, the atheist would have to prove that the idea of God is intrinsically impossible, as it might be if it were logically self-contradictory.

Atheism is contrary to human nature. There is a basic human need for something transcendent. According to an atheist, their is no supreme being. The world is all there is. These conclusions can only lead to meaninglessness, and consequently, despair.

Traditionally, people have justified their values on the basis of religious beliefs. Yet atheists can have values, and can justify them on various grounds. If things are going one way, our values tell us that perhaps they ought to go a different way. But if the universe is governed by chance, then chance occurrences are all we can expect. If there is no God, then the values by which an atheist lives can only be arbitrary. The atheist is after an obligatory moral code without anything that makes it obligatory. To have commandments, they must be commanded in some way, but the atheist’s system does not allow for such a possibility.

Atheism is intrinsically inviable, and cannot be lived out. The atheist as a human being is compelled to live by truth, meaning, and values, yet atheism cannot provide compelling truth, meaning, or values. Atheists can have these things only from outside of atheism.

Similar to atheism, the statement "It is impossible to know if there is a God" becomes just as impossible to demonstrate as the statement "There is no God."

Agnosticism is self-defeating. It obligates its advocates to say that they have knowledge on a subject for which they claim knowledge is impossible.

quote:

---

Similar to atheism, the statement "It is impossible to know if there is a God" becomes just as impossible to demonstrate as the statement "There is no God."

Agnosticism is self-defeating. It obligates its advocates to say that they have knowledge on a subject for which they claim knowledge is impossible

---

------------------
Cum grano salis

quote:

---

When I look at the nature of what exists in the world, it becomes clear to me that if there were no God to create it, the world could not exist at all.

---

I found this statement refreshing. Rather than using facts and dates as arguments for religion, which would have been picked apart by Buckster, ImNotMad used instead his own core faith and intuition. Nobody can argue against those. After that he uses his more than ample grasp of English to spout nonsense.

quote:

---

Atheism cannot be proven. It cannot be anything but an unverified assertion. The atheist would have to show that he has control over all potential avenues of knowing that God exists, and that all of them come up empty. No human being could make that claim; our knowledge is always finite. Alternatively, the atheist would have to prove that the idea of God is intrinsically impossible, as it might be if it were logically self-contradictory.

---

I’m not exactly a card-carrying member of the Atheist of America but I believe what I choose to believe. If I had to put a title on it, I guess I would be an atheist. As an atheist I really don’t think I have to prove anything. Trying to prove this matter one way or another is just futile.

quote:

---

Atheism is contrary to human nature. There is a basic human need for something transcendent. According to an atheist, their is no supreme being. The world is all there is. These conclusions can only lead to meaninglessness, and consequently, despair.

---

Now that is some nerve. Whom do you think you are to dictate human nature. I feel no need to believe in something just so I will not be scared of death. I don’t need some text to tell me what views I should keep of the world.

quote:

---

Traditionally, people have justified their values on the basis of religious beliefs. Yet atheists can have values, and can justify them on various grounds. If things are going one way, our values tell us that perhaps they ought to go a different way. But if the universe is governed by chance, then chance occurrences are all we can expect. If there is no God, then the values by which an atheist lives can only be arbitrary. The atheist is after an obligatory moral code without anything that makes it obligatory. To have commandments, they must be commanded in some way, but the atheist’s system does not allow for such a possibility.
Atheism is intrinsically inviable, and cannot be lived out. The atheist as a human being is compelled to live by truth, meaning, and values, yet atheism cannot provide compelling truth, meaning, or values. Atheists can have these things only from outside of atheism.

---

Do you truly believe that just atheist values are arbitrary? I don’t look to atheism for values nor do I look outside of it. My values are derived from my parents at first then latter by my own basic core instincts. Values within society change with every generation. But they are all grounded with our emotions. The need for me to be liked and respected by my peers and family keeps me from stealing stereos. I believe some people don’t have this self-control so they must have the fear of god to keep them straight, how sad.

Sorry about this but I just hate it when people make blanket statements about other people and try to belittle their beliefs or lack thereof.

In agreement with monkeywood, our values are no less valid, good or worthy simply because we do not fear fire and brimstone, nor because they do not come from God's law, nor because we do not aspire to the promise of heaven in an afterlife. Our basic human values are a product of our society and culture primarily, and are not singularly evil or pointless simply because they are not god-based.

I tend to think that my personal values, those that I employ every day, are somehow more meaningful to me, for I know that I must answer for them in the here and now. I have only until the day I die to leave my legacy and to live the fullest life I can. I have only my mortal lifetime to squeeze in the very best life I can live. I do not have the prospect of an afterlife to finally be happy or fullfilled. I must achieve that now. I can do this by sharing in the love of my family and friends daily, and living my life in ways that are fulfilling to me in my lifetime, not toward the lofty goal of a hereafter.

As an example, I visit my father and grandmother VERY often. Much, much more than my siblings do. I live on the road, out of state most of the time and still manage to visit them at least once a month regardless of where in the country I happen to be hanging my hat. I believe I have only this lifetime to share my love for them. My siblings believe they will have all eternity to visit with them after death, in heaven, therefor they visit once a year at Chrstmas, though they live within 25 miles of them. I feel that my life is fuller for it because I live my life NOW, while their life (to me) is shallower and less fulfilling because they live for what MIGHT be after death.

As another example, I rarely drink, and can't remember the last time I was actually inebriated. I simply don't have time for it in my short lifetime. There is so much more I would like to achieve, I just can't even begin to make room for that kind of stuff. My time is much better spent enjoying the company of my daughter in some shared activity like horseback riding or canoeing or watching "It's a wonderful life."

In short, I put more into my enjoyment of life because I don't believe there is an afterlife to enjoy. Contrary to the arbitrary nature ImNotMad has intimated my existence to be, I believe I must make a conscious effort to live a healthy, respectfull and fullfilling life because of my atheistic views. I could not fathom stealing my neighbor's stereo because my social upbringing tells me it's wrong to do so, because I would not want it done to me which tells me it's the wrong thing to do, and MOSTLY because my life is finite. I would not do anything to risk spending any precious lifetime hours I have sitting in jail. I don't have time for it. These are all good reasons to be a decent human being and no God or belief in God is necessary to come to these conclusions.

As I've said, I don't know if the existence of God is real or not, but I, personally have not seen any convincing evidence of Him, and I'm not taking any chances with the only life I KNOW I have. I do not believe my life is meaningless, nor do I dispair that it will end with finality, and ImNotMad has stated. My life is all that much more meaningful to me because there is no other life for me to contemplate or aspire to. I don't dispair that it will finally end any more than I dispair that my favorite movie will end. It doesn't bother me at all. I accept it as normal.

Because I do not know, I don't begrudge anyone who believes that God does indeed exist, as long as their belief system doesn't spill over into my life and attempt to squash or quell my own views or attempts to make my life a fulfilling and rewarding existence to me. I think that's fair.

I notice also that many religious believers tend to think in terms of nearly everything being a religion, evolution and atheism included. I'd just like to say that calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair color. It's an off-base correlation. Just as bald is the absence of hair rather than a hair color, atheism is the absence of religion or the belief that there is a god rather than a form of religion.

Because atheism is not a religion, I, like Monkeywood, do not feel I need to prove God does not exist. Nor do I feel I need to prove God does not exist to justify my own beliefs in this regard. I'm not looking to convert anyone to my views in the matter. It is a personal choice for each, and there is no PROOF one way or the other. I agree with Monkeywood that any attempt to prove or disprove the actual existence of God is supremely futile and a waste of precious time and thought.

ImNotMad, like anyone else, is entitled to his opinion. But I think the statements made about those outside his own faith were ill conceived.

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

quote:

---

These are all good reasons to be a decent human being and no God or belief in God is necessary to come to these conclusions.

---

By what standard do you judge what makes a decent human being if you do not accept a higher moral authority? What leads you to believe that your standard of decency is any better than the standard of say, a child molester. By your own reasoning, as long as he was raised to molest children than that should be acceptable behavior.

Or if you say the standard is imposed by society then it was decent to own slaves 200 years ago, and to treat/mis-treat them anyway you please.

Without the acknowledgement of a higher moral authority by a society then there are no standards and as the bible speaks of it men will do what is right in their own eyes.

I go back to work for two days and you guys leave evolution and switch to philosophy.

What's up Buckster? I've missed your insightful discourse (even though I still disgaree with a lot of it).

------------------
It rains upon the just and the unjust, but more so upon the just for the unjust have stolen their umbrellas.

quote:

---

By what standard do you judge what makes a decent human being if you do not accept a higher moral authority? What leads you to believe that your standard of decency is any better than the standard of say, a child molester. By your own reasoning, as long as he was raised to molest children than that should be acceptable behavior.

---

And to that I would have to say that, first, I believe that we are all born with some inherent ability to discern that anything which we would not want done to us is also something we should not impose upon others.

Second, society does a pretty good job of molding us to fit acceptable standards for the most part. These standards, I believe, are based primarily on those ideals formulated in my first point.

Third, though we are heavily influenced by those that raised us, at some point we must all confront a society that will or will not tolerate such an upbringing. You pointed to child molesting as an example, so let's examine that a bit.

We know that such atrocities do indeed occur. We further know that if a child is molested and brought up to think this is normal, it can have very profound and detrimental consequences. But at some point, this child must confront society with these urges and suffer the consequences because we, as a society, do not consider that type of behaviour to be acceptable or DECENT. We consider it inDECENT behaviour, and do not tolerate it.

We can also say with certainty that a religious upbringing with 'higher moral authority' such as God does not preclude a person from being a child molester. We read about it quite often, as a matter of fact. It sickens all of us to hear that a child has been molested, but even more so when the molester is a priest, minister or devout follower of some religious foundation.

My conclusion is that your 'higher moral authority' is not doing any better than the alternative.

quote:

---

Or if you say the standard is imposed by society then it was decent to own slaves 200 years ago, and to treat/mis-treat them anyway you please.

---

quote:

---

Without the acknowledgement of a higher moral authority by a society then there are no standards and as the bible speaks of it men will do what is right in their own eyes.

---

I will venture to say that all of these cultures, and I, are governed by morals, but what need is there of a 'higher moral authority' than simple societal norms based on the points I made above concerning what is acceptable to that society?

------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

quote:

---

I'm an agnostic, but the statement that it is impossible to know if there is a god seems ridiculous to me. Of course it is possible to know if there is a god, he could come down here and tell me. I don't believe in god, nor do I believe there is no god. I simply admit that I don't know one way or the other. Given a choice, I'd rather there was a god, but my viewpoint is irrelevent. God either exists, or he doesn't.

---

------------------
The spork does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.

quote:

---

This presumption is based on what evidence? Society has never advocated theft, murder, rape, torture, child molestation, etc., just because God was not involved as a 'higher moral authority.' Indians, Eskimos, African tribes, Australian bushmen, (continue around the world with many, many indigenous peoples...) did just fine before missionaries told them they needed a 'higher moral authority' to show them the right path.

---

Actually there is a long history of cultures advocating precisely those things. One need only look around to see it today. Examine Sudan, China, and many of the smaller third world countries that are embroiled in war.

Also, you are misquoting the Bible.

1. There were two types of slaves allowed under Mosaic law, those made slaves due to crimes or war, and those that became slaves voluntarily.

2.There were very specific laws concerning their treatment and procedures that their greivences could be addressed.

quote:

---

I will venture to say that all of these cultures, and I, are governed by morals, but what need is there of a 'higher moral authority' than simple societal norms based on the points I made above concerning what is acceptable to that society?

---

Because societal norms are subject to the whims of people, in cases of dictatorship, the norms of one person.

Who are you to pass moral judgement on someone else? If there is no higher moral authority then everyone else's morals are just as valid as yours. By your reasoning, Hitler was perfectly fine in doing what he did.

Okay, I know you said that you felt that we are born with an inherent morality of do unto others as you have them do unto you. But if that is true, then it is an extremely strong argument against evolution. There is no advantage that such inherent morality would confer upon the offspring, and it would in fact be detrimental to their survival since they would not seek their own survival, but that of others.

Sorry for the long post, but Buckster is extremely intelligent and thoughtful in his posts and I thought he deserved the same (or at least the best I can do off the top of my head).

------------------
-- Pancor --

quote:

---

Actually there is a long history of cultures advocating precisely those things. One need only look around to see it today. Examine Sudan, China, and many of the smaller third world countries that are embroiled in war.

---

Now then, could you please enlighten me with the names of the societies that, according to you, "advocate theft, murder, rape, torture, child molestation, etc." I would seriously like to research these cultures to see what happened to cause such a thing.

Even in Sudan and China, I don't think you will find that the society, culture or government endorses, encourages or promotes it's citizens to, "theft, murder, rape, torture, child molestation, etc." just because they can do whatever they want because they do not follow God. There are many things going on in those countries that are embroiled in turmoil for socio-political and economic reasons, not just an absence of God.

Further, how many centuries were countries like China peaceful, productive and in general, a light to those that first discovered them? Many, many more than any European or American cultures, as we all know from history.

quote:

---

Also, you are misquoting the Bible.

---

quote:

---

It clearly states how you should treat your slaves given various problems that might arise with them. The Bible quite clearly accepts that slaves are not something against your 'higher moral authority.'

---

quote:

---

2.There were very specific laws concerning their treatment and procedures that their greivences could be addressed.

---

quote:

---

1. There were two types of slaves allowed under Mosaic law, those made slaves due to crimes or war, and those that became slaves voluntarily.

---

Certainly the blacks taken from africa to be sold in the Carolinas were taken in a war between the men who captured them and the tribes that lost them. How is that any different from the slaves taken in war in the bible? Whether the conflict was a nation or a tribe, whether it was futile because spears were up against guns, it is still a war waged for the spoils of the victory - in this case, humans.

quote:

---

Because societal norms are subject to the whims of people, in cases of dictatorship, the norms of one person.

---

quote:

---

Who are you to pass moral judgement on someone else? If there is no higher moral authority then everyone else's morals are just as valid as yours. By your reasoning, Hitler was perfectly fine in doing what he did.

---

First, upon whom did I pass moral judgement?
Second, my morals are based on not beating the living shit out of you because I wouldn't want you to beat the living shit out of me. Not killing your wife because I wouldn't want you killing mine. Not raping your daughter because I wouldn't want you raping mine. Not sodomizing your son because I wouldn't want you sodomizing mine. Not killing your mother because I wouldn't want you killing mine. Not stealing your possessions because I don't want you stealing mine.

Is there something inherently wrong with my thinking? Should I not give you the respect you desire; The respecrt every human desires? And then how can I justify wanting that same respect in return from you and others?

By my reasoning Hitler was certainly NOT perfectly fine in doing what he did. While he may have had much of Gemany convinced, the allies certainly knew that it is wrong to murder countless human beings just as they knew they did not want to be murdered.

And that's the part the good Christian Hitler didn't fathom. With all his Christian religious idealogical teaching and training, he never grasped the most simple concept of human existence, even after his Lord spelled it out for him: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.

It's simple. We learn it as kids, even if we've never heard it stated. If you hit that kid in the back of the head and take his toy, later on he will hit you in the back of the head and take it back! Then some adult will say, "Now you know what it feels like!"

quote:

---

Okay, I know you said that you felt that we are born with an inherent morality of do unto others as you have them do unto you. But if that is true, then it is an extremely strong argument against evolution. There is no advantage that such inherent morality would confer upon the offspring, and it would in fact be detrimental to their survival since they would not seek their own survival, but that of others.

---

quote:

---

The need for me to be liked and respected by my peers and family keeps me from stealing stereos.

---

And now we are full circle, for it is not, as you say, "an extremely strong argument against evolution", but just the opposite: It is another tiny piece of evidence of our beginnings as pack animals. You can't think that Monkeywood was mulling over what a fine day it is to be a pack animal when he wrote the above post, yet look deep into his words and you will find the nature of our being.

We like to be liked, no we NEED to be liked to ensure that we will not be outcast. We know that we must conform or be outcast. We know deep within us that we must strive NOT to be outcast. And that's what keeps our morals in line with the pack.

When someone in the pack breaks rank and starts murdering their own, the pack either kills them or they become an outcast. In society we call that death row or life in prison.

By the way, thank you for the compliment at the end of your last post. I am honored, yet humbled, at your perception of me, and hope that I can maintain the level of intelligence and thoughtfulness that you deserve from your own intelligent and thoughtful dialogue.
------------------
"Jane!! Stop this crazy thing!!" ~ George Jetson

But thanks for the warning. (I guess...?)