Excavating the Empty Tomb

Excavating the Empty TombIf you are looking for truth, reason, logic and solid information about Christianity and the Bible, then stick around. The author is an ex-Christian atheist (TruthSurge) with many thoughts and ideas to share.

Hold off judgment until you've watched more because it very well may be that the full impact is not achieved until more evidence has been placed upon the table.

Was the author of the gospel we attribute to Mark writing history or fiction? Did Mark rely upon Greek mythology to help him sculpt his own mini-epic?

Were there literary precedents for a missing hero turned deity before and during Mark's time? Could he have borrowed this motif for his own story?

Did the gospel writers record actual history or... did they CREATE history by using Old Testament stories and phrases as source material for events and sayings in Jesus life?

The reliability of the gospels continues to plummet as we examine the phenomenon of deliberate embellishment and add-ons to the original stories.

Watch the full documentary now (playlist - 2 hours, 36 minutes)

Ratings: 8.81/10 from 16 users.

More great documentaries

314 Comments / User Reviews

  1. Mercenarry ForHire

    If you can Imagine it, at some level its real.

  2. Christian Tintin Johansson

    No, it's not that simple.

    You can imagine anything, but anything is still not a possibility...no matter how much you wish for it to be so. A living world made of chocolate is not physically possible, birds made of chocolate could never fly because it is a physical impossibility.

    Everything in the bible is probably either made up or taken from older religions. Probably I say because without hard proof you can't really know.

    But there is also not a single evidence that it would be true, unless you ask a christian person...then all in it is true and fairytales about flying angels, walking on water, making wine out of water, healing with touch are total possibilities. I don't believe in fairytales no matter what I wish would be real.

    People should wake up and understand that religion of all sorts is just holding mankind back.

  3. erikhellman

    I can imagine a pig-elephant-ponysaurus. That doesn't make it real, on ANY level. Sorry, but that's not true.

  4. Charles Lozada

    Missionary for hire,
    explain what you wrote. you mean like: name it, claim it theology? or bipolar illness?

  5. magarac

    So what they basically are saying is that jesus didn´t really resurrect?

    That just cant be true, because that would imply that the bible is not always right and that would just be blasphemy.
    Or just imagine that the makers of that documentary were to be right
    then what else could be untrue in the bible......No no no, i don´t like where this is heading.

  6. dewflirt

    You must have seen a picture of mine :) I'm no expert but I have heard Achems Razor say many times that everything is possible, might not be in this reality/now but your pig-elephant-ponysaurus is lolloping around somewhere.

  7. mostafa eweda

    bible was corrupted


    what is real ? is my reality your reality? we think we are so educated and so advanced with our tricolour tooth paste and atomic bombs and our heads so far up our own a**s ,that scuse the pun but we cant see the light. We just cant live it alone ,why just dont leave people believe what they want to be believe ? Has any one actually thought for a minute that those other people we find strange and weird because of their religious or spiritual orientation look at us the same way ? You may have all the knowledge of the world but without a spark of spirituality you will never know its secrets.

  9. Bane33

    be fair, all three versions monothesiastic bibles are corrupted and plagerised versions of each other and older far more ancient texts. We need to see past this religion verse religion battle. we are all people, put aside race, and especially the oppression that is all religion. its sufocating humanity.

  10. John Jacquard

    religion equals money which is the root of corruption

  11. r cajavus

    i love these crazy orthodox atheist that treat bible as it is true and try to debunk it - i know orthodox christian, roman-catholic and muslim priests (hodja) and spoke with them intensly, and no serious priest claims bible, quran or tora stories are truth, they say these are old myths writen down to easily explain complex metaphores to "ignorant" masses. Of course when they are confronted with ignorant mass they just say "bible is truth" and thats saves thousand discussions like these, like did jesus ressurect - no he did not, but he said that if we live our lives good we might - of course we will not, but its a much better seller than saying "LIVE YOUR LIFE GOOD TO LIVE YOUR LIFE GOOD" - many people just cant comprehend this.

    Oh yes, im budhist, bye sheeps.

  12. Matt Coates

    it was never any good

  13. Me.

    looking for proof of something that requires faith denies faith, and without faith, gawd is nothing. each side of the theological debate, in debating it, weakens the foundation of that faith.
    if you'll excuse the phrase -- about damn time.
    if you need to have faith in something, why can't it simply be yourself?
    inside of you is where the whole power-through-christ/bhudda/mohammed/joe pesci/my dq blizzard comes from anyway...get rid of the crutch and walk on your own

  14. Dean Edgington

    You don’t like where this is heading? It looks like I'm going to have to be the one to tell you. We (i.e. humanity) headed in this direction a long time ago and what is more, we actually arrived at the place we headed for: a state free from the shackles of the Abrahamic legacy.

    What else could be untrue in the bible? Many many things. Look it up. Let me add a couple of questions of my own. What could be bad about bible morality? What could be absurd about bible stories?

  15. Dean Edgington

    "The reliability of the gospels continues to plummet". Something of an understatement. The veracity of the gospels (and for that matter any religious book) hit rock bottom a long long time ago...

  16. aguasilver

    Sure hope all you guys are right.

    You must be 100% secure in your opinions to be so certain that you are right.

    Which beggars the question, why waste your precious (one and only) life trying to refute something you are 100% certain is myth?

  17. SFXkilla

    Well said Me. I was born into a christen family and when I finaly shook loose the chains of religion and I was able to see the greatness of human spirit I was proud to be human instead of ashamed to be a sinful wicked frail copy of a being that makes bets on our imortal souls with satan.

  18. Dean Edgington

    BTW: Mr mostafa eweda commented above that the "bible was corrupted". Did your blasphemy detector pick that up? Maybe you could reply by saying his Koran is the work of the devil.

    Then maybe you could have a massive but really really boring, pointless and irrelevant debate about whether god allows you to eat pork or not, or drink wine or not, or mutilate the genitals of infant boys or not, or allow women the same rights as men (oh, actually you probably both think women are somehow unequal – ahh common ground in oppression, the way of the true believer).

  19. SFXkilla

    (....wishing really hard......)
    nothing. Shame on you Merc

  20. Dean Edgington

    Well said both of you. You saw the light and it was good ;-)

  21. bschafer0

    Great presentation.
    Clearest elucidation of why to construe the bible as merely a man made creation. Besides promoting questionable ethic the bibles 's demand in the believe in Jeusus for salvation uber alus is the poison rotting many minds which should give their piety to reality as established by reason and corroborating evidence.
    There is beauty and awe in the universe with out the superfluous need of fairy tales and superstition. This is enough to have a loving and spiritual propensity for humanity and all of creation around us.

  22. John

    This is a great documentary -- very well done. Presents verifiable evidence in side by side panels where the viewers can see for themselves. The doc even tells where you can check to see that the evidence is indeed valid. This is not a slick Hollywood, highly refined doc, but nonetheless the makers did a really good job. Very interesting, very informative, and well worth watching.

  23. tomregit

    "Oh yes, im budhist, bye sheeps."

    And this is what Buddhism taught you? You can't even spell Buddhist.

  24. tomregit

    Dean, Dean, Dean, get a sense of humor. Can't you tell he's joking? Re-read his post and listen for the snickering.

  25. tomregit

    Now you're wasting my time with foolish questions.

  26. Xercès Des Stèles

    omg , how about, why spend your life spending so much time and effort trying to put fingers in your ears and sing, when you can just refuse to approach the subject from a scientific and logical stand point?

  27. Xercès Des Stèles

    wow the narrator brought a point so strong ! he says: ''believing jesus rose from the dead is like believing in santa claus just because your parents told you, but at least you know your parents...'' BOOOM

    argument of the devil! (strong argument) people you don't know tell you lies so they can manipulate you. just, fact. mom and dad just want you to be happy, others want you to be happy WHILE they own you.

  28. Guest

    The story of the resurection could have nothing to do with the resurection from death, it could have to do with dematerialization. Science is telling us right now that reality is not what we think it is. Perhaps some ancient people knew how to defy this reality but most people did not comprehend that possibility.
    I am just starting the doc and already the first few phrases are catching my attention.

  29. aguasilver

    Not wasting anyone's time, except maybe my own, the 'question' is there for everyone to answer, glad you have made your decision, but sad you waste you only life with this sort of dénouement.

  30. SFXkilla

    lol Az "dematerialization" I think we still have some options to look at first ; )

  31. Izzieinabubble

    "Oh yes, im budhist, bye sheeps."

    That's not very zen-like, is it! XD

  32. Rich E.

    i have a degree in comparative religion and archaeology, and while im happy to see such documentaries as this being published, and the truth becoming more widely known, i dislike the mocking and sarcastic tone of these newer efforts; at times they are silly and belittling.

    if we want to help free those trapped under the veil of religious superstition then keep the tone professional and sober. when you mock and laugh at the audience you wish to persuade to better thinking, you make them deaf to your message and all of your good intentions and work are diminished in affect.

    i've peer reviewed Macdonald's publications and they are sound in research and logic as well as professional in tone. these movies shouldn't be about atheists patting themselves on the back for knowing the truth but about tactfully reaching out to those still chained to ancient superstitions.

  33. harry nutzack

    aguasilver, research to satisfy ones curiosity is often more than reward enough. if someone claimed to have discovered the "philosophers stone" (which everybody post 18th century is fairly well assured doesnt exist) and made a video to show his proof, wouldn't it peak your curiosity enough to watch? i've watched lame videos that claim to show irrefutable proof that we actually occupy the inside surface of a hollow earth, though im rooted enough in reality to realize the impossibility of the claim. ive watched "secret apollo mission" vids, though i know the absolute impossibility of secretly launching a saturn 5 rocket. i even watched that one on here that claimed st germain is going to pay off everybodies mortgage, as absolutely lame as every concept it offered up obviously was. though i find the christ myth to be obvious superstition, im a huge fan of homer. the concept of the vid "grabbed" me. ive also watched televangelists for an insight into their propaganda/sales techniques (as well as some SERIOUS laughs in many cases). is this more a waste of "our one and only precious life" than watching american idol? everybody needs a hobby, and one rarely gains insight by ignoring new concepts or info. curiosity often gets the better of me when it comes to bronze age "sky daddies", whether abrahamic, norse, roman, or greek. vids like this offer an insight into a time none of us can experience, and shows the connectivity between many myths and their origins. an insight into humanity, and the human mind is rarely a waste of time

  34. BlackDog Aura

    my God is a big smile both on my face and in my mind. For everyone i meet.

  35. Loren light

    Without the resurrection, Christianity is bullshit.

  36. BlackDog Aura

    maybe i think the bible means that we are all dead now (in spirit) and when we die we raise from the dead and wake up in spirit so this guy's pretty confused.
    (BIG SMILE)....

  37. harry nutzack

    rich, you're idea sounds great, in practice, at least when dealing with biblethumpus americanus, it tends to fall flat.

  38. robertallen1

    Even with it.

  39. robertallen1

    I like your post, despite its misspellings--and you're right, religion is inhibiting.

  40. robertallen1

    This makes the priest hypocrites.

  41. ZarathustraSpeaks

    If one wants to believe something that is not scientifically based, then it is by definition irrefutable with scientific evidence. It seems to me many atheist spend a ridiculous amount of time and frustration trying to prove something they already know is impossible to prove or disprove. Lets assume it were possible to convince every person on the planet that any God or spiritual being exist. Do you really think this would eliminate bigotry, hatred, ignorance, "ethnic cleansing", border disputes, murders and wars? These are all traits of being human, not of being a Christian, Muslim, Atheist or any other belief. Some of the most heinous war crimes in history have been commited by leaders not driven by religion as much as their own human defects. (albeit God has been invoked to stoke the fires to the masses by many of them) Was the closest time the world has ever been to a nuclear holocaust created by Russia's need for missles in Cuba? If so, how did religion or faith create that crisis. Leaders can talk about the "godless commies" as a tool to make the people hate them but only blind ignorance can draw them in. In the end, I think the basic human need to "have value" translates into "being on the right side of whatever" which always creates polarization on issues. This is the same reason why Democrats and Republicans try so hard to tow the "party line" rather than simply doing what they really think is best for all.

  42. aguasilver

    Your choice Harry, spend your life wisely or watching lame videos.

  43. aguasilver

    Errr, that's the whole point, whew! it was the resurrection that kinda sealed the deal, and allows believers to have that 'right hand of God' comms system believers use!

  44. Molly

    what a self-righteous ass - just worry about your own life

  45. over the edge

    you are right that science cannot disprove god. but the burden of proof is not on those who do not believe a claim. and if it were possible to prove a god you are right again these bad things would still exist because many holy books condone these bad things. and if there was 100% proof that a god doesn't exist these things would still exist. but the justification and ability to convince others to follow would be greatly diminished. i find it odd that you had to go back to the Cuban missile crisis to find a conflict that does not have some religious backing. i have heard these arguments before but your reasoning is equal to saying why end cancer because people are going to die of something else anyway. i have quoted Steven Weinberg many times but once again i say "With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil—that takes religion"

  46. PaulGloor

    If even loosely based on fact, there is only one way he could have 'risen from the dead'. Given medical technology of the time, they would not have known the difference between a coma and death.

  47. aguasilver

    So selfishness is cool huh?

    I'm not worried about my own life, I do care about others, but I accept that everyone is entitled to choose their own destination in life and death, just as I am entitled to hold a mirror to their words and actions.

    Or does tolerance only work one way... your way?

  48. dewflirt

    I started watching and then gave up. I think this will end in the usual discussion, God botherers are nutters and science is God! Let's climb the Eiffel Tower, drop the Bible and the Origin of Species from the top. First to land, wins! :)

  49. magarac

    Sorry for wasting your time. I am not in the least christian nor do i belive in any kind of religion. I dont even know anyone who actually is christian. But boy did i sound like one;)

  50. over the edge

    i agree that the same or similar discussions will probably happen here. i wish they wouldn't and believe it or not one of my greatest desires is to not have to have these discussions over and over. but history has shown that if these belief systems and claims are not challenged the religious will not stop at having their god but they will try to force it upon others and into areas that it is not welcome. i do not believe that i will be able to change anybodies mind here. but i might help somebody already on the way away from religion. also i want the religious to realize that they will be challenged when they either make claims they cannot back up or try to enter an arena they haven't earned a spot in. and maybe just maybe if enough evidence and challenges are put up by enough people they will keep their beliefs out of areas that they are not wanted.

  51. lakhotason

    I didn't care for it either but for a different reason. If the narrator wishes to present his "case" as a court case then surely there should be a defense.

  52. robertallen1

    Hear! Hear! And even listen.

    Have you read "The Creationists" by Ronald Numbers. I just finished it and it was fascinating.

  53. over the edge

    no i have not but i will keep an eye open for it thanks for the suggestion

  54. dewflirt

    Your absolutely right but it is so tiresome sometimes. I probably wouldn't mind half as much but it gets so personal. Not sure the way to achieve a religion free world is to call people names or insult their intelligence. I might just be bored with the repetitive nature of the arguments :)

  55. dewflirt

    Why would he do that, he's been on both sides of the fence. Maybe he thinks that is qualification enough to set himself up as judge, jury and executioner. You should just trust him to know best Lak :)

  56. Guest

    I'm betting on 'The Origin,' since it'll be employing a "750,000th generation" rocket-booster, or perhaps some type of wormhole technology.
    ( But I DO LOVE a good story! :)

  57. Guest

    I saw that, and started to comment that its sarcasm was too gentle.

  58. robertallen1

    Make sure you get the expanded edition of 2005 rather than the original of 1995. It's long, but worth the time to read.

    Also, I'm reading a book on Kitzmiller v. Dover School District. Are you familiar with the case?

  59. lakhotason

    But it would have made it more interesting instead of being dull as dishwater.

  60. Veronika C

    loved it! thank you for posting.

  61. CapnCanard

    Nice, now I will read "The Homeric Epics and the Gospel of Mark" by Dennis Ronald McDonald. (similarly, I would recommend D.M. Murdock's book "The Christ Conspiracy", written under the pen name 'Acharya S'.) This doc is a little different take but has some good points as well. I believe that the Christ story has always seemed a little weak, and it makes demands that are impossible to follow. That alone makes me think that the christian story is highly suspect, or just a ruse to cover some lies. Especially since the celebration of Christmas conveniently falls on the traditional European celebration of the Solstice. 'A time when the Sun dies andstands still for three days( Derived from the Latin sol, "Sun," and stitium, "stoppage," as the Sun appears to stand still on the first day of winter as well as the 22nd, 23rd and 24th) and is born again(on the 25th) and continues to grow until the summer solstice when it reaches the height of it's "power". Eventually the winter solstice comes again and the metaphoric death and rebirth of the sun. I would say the take away is to not believe everything you are told and to question those in power when strange things start to happen. i.e. those in power are likely to lie, mislead, and decieve in order to remain in power. That is standard operating procedure for those in power!

  62. dewflirt

    Rocket booster V hand of God, the odds are still even!

  63. dewflirt

    We could throw this off the Eiffel Tower while we're there :)

  64. harry nutzack

    thanks for your permission. why is it a choice between the 2? just because i find little of value offered up in the examples ive stated, doesnt mean they MUST be completely devoid of usable knowledge, even if that knowledge is just the "train of persuasion" the producers use in their propaganda effort. i wasnt born an atheist, the mindset came by comparing stances and positions, and finding that which dovetailed with my perception of reality. i wasnt raised by atheists, and my family heritage on both sides is decidedly "sky daddy friendly". mythology shows both methods of explaining an "incomprehensible universe" by primitives (which offers up little usable in the real world), and the methods used by those same primitives to control and motivate the "unwashed masses" toward the societal goals of the rulers. religion and politics have comingled since the dawn of man, and continue to do so to this day. one cant understand one without the other, and to ignore both puts one in potential peril, as evidenced by the old folks i used to see during the summer whose shirtsleeved arms displayed tattooed numbers from hitler's camps, by such incidents as "jonestown" and "waco", by the yugoslavian civil war, and by the current influence of evangelicals on the political process in my country, as but a few glaring examples. insight into midsets other than your own is rarely "a waste of time", and the history of such mindsets help in the detection of the "bullshit factor" in the methods used to sway minds toward an end.

  65. harry nutzack

    the only choice of "destination" in death boils down to being devoured by insects that burrow, carrion, or reduction to a small pile of ashes

  66. ZarathustraSpeaks

    What Steven Weinberg says is true but what difference does it make whether a person who claims religion screws you over or a "non believer" screws you over? Your still screwed. When people interpret anything(vegans, abortionist, right to lifers or the tennants of faith) they are making the choice as to what is right and what is wrong. If they condemn abortion rights but support capital punishment they are making that judgement based on what they believe. Only the existence of a "devine law" made known to all beyond doubt could give this certainty. Because some religious groups say they know how others should live and want to codify it with draconian laws does not indite anyone who chooses to believe something different that what scientific evidence can prove.

  67. over the edge

    you stated "what difference does it make whether a person who claims religion screws you over or a "non believer" screws you over". to the person getting screwed over nothing. but atheism does not provide the justification to screw others over while the big three monotheistic holy books do. the rest of your post confuses science with atheism they are two separate things and neither try to dictate morals or behavior to anyone or claim any moral teachings.

  68. ZarathustraSpeaks

    I completely agree science and Atheism are often confused as when those that reject faith in anything that cannot be supported by science try to use this to as a basis for their own authority in judging anyone of faith. Why would you need a "justification to screw people over" in the first place unless you have some type of BELIEF SYSTEM. You dont need to justify anything in the world unless some standard exist. Where does "do no harm to others" arise from. Ive seen my cat terrorize a mouse for amusement. What makes a human different? Maybe because we have intelligence? Lets hope none of the aliens that show up here are not more intelligent so they will be morally justified in dissecting us for kicks. In the end I believe we are are "in the dark" about our purpose if any. Some of us just choose to hope for more.

    "The belief in a supernatural source of evil is not necessary; men alone are quite capable of every wickedness." Joseph Conrad

  69. lakhotason

    Hold on there a minute. Of course Christmas is convenient, the day was chosen because it was convenient. That was the point of choosing that day. It isn't the day of Christ's birth but rather the day Christians celebrate the birth. It has nothing to do with that "Zeitgeist" version.

    The point is that I see you doing precisely the same thing as Christians do, and that doesn't do your argument any favors.

  70. jayzeah

    Xmas has nothing to do with the birth of Christ lak, second the narrator use the catholic bible as a reference, bad news from start, i laffed and ate popcorn watching this nonsense, Zeitgeist tried but was shot down, people need to stop trying to do so much to deny what i believe, like making dumb movies like this that he did no home work, this was the funniest movie, and to make it worst, by a dumb atheist

  71. norlavine

    Science and atheism are as linked in opinion as science and 'anything else' is.

  72. CapnCanard

    Lakhotason, you gotta quit defending those failed theologies. I don't believe in your god. The day was chosen because it was a traditional celebration of light. The Christians stole the idea to usurp the existing theology. Do you disagree that the Christians would usurp existing practices? The Xmas ideas are really very old. FYI, some of my friends and I had long debates about this back in the early 1980s. Most of religion is a series of beliefs and precepts meant to usurp the power of the people(the social group) and once they have power of belief then they can control the people to do most anything. And RELIGION is about control above all else. This is as basic as it gets, Those who fail to understand are thee hopeless TRUE BELIEVERS.

  73. lakhotason

    My God you say. Where in anything I've written do I profess a belief in God?

  74. lakhotason

    The point I'm pursuing is not whether there is a God or not, rather that you and the Christians are both using the same pretzel logic.

    The Zeitgeistists contend that Christmas is a metaphor for Christ's death and resurrection and they are correct, as far as it goes. But they have cause and effect reversed.

    First of all, the sun does not "hang" in the sky at the Winter Solstice nor more than it "hangs" in the sky at the Summer Solstice. If it hangs in winter then it should hang in summer. If you wish to call that an appearance then the appearance should be the same at both Solstices.

    Of course Christianity used the changing of the seasons as a metaphor. But not let us forget why metaphors are used. Zietgeitests contend the metaphor is the basis for Christianity without noticing that Christians are using this metaphor as only a teaching point. Pretzel logic by the Zeitgeitists. They are the ones who created all this "mythology" concerning the solstice, not the Christians.

  75. CapnCanard

    First of all, that's is exceedingly bland...

  76. John

    The only "pretzel" logic I see here is yours lakhotason. First of all, either you simply don't understand what the Zeitgeist film is really pointing out, or you are deliberately twisting it around in your mind to support your own opinions. I think people would be happy to have a friendly argument with you if you would only make an honest, logical, evidenced based case, instead of projecting your conditioned thinking and reactive emotions into poorly made false arguments. And, btw, while Zeitgeist made it a public discussion, they certainly didn't invent the religion part of their film. Long before Zeitgeist it has been well established within academia (history, classical studies, philosophy, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, and etc.) that Jesus was indeed based on earlier mythological figures, stories and beliefs (scholars don't often publish these findings to the public because they know they will be viciously attacked by christians). As well, the makers of Excavating the Empty Tomb are hardly the first scholars to notice that Mark has many clear parallels with ancient Homeric texts.

  77. Glen Grehan

    I doubt the existence of christ but this is a terrible effort to prove that. tentative links to Homer's Odysseus. Co-relation does not imply causation

  78. robertallen1

    Scholars are virtually unanimous as to his existence, although he was not known by the name he is known by today. Look up Jesus-Lucian on Wikipedia.

  79. robertallen1

    This documentary is boring. Why not just put it in book form so it will go quicker?

  80. John Christopher McDonald

    A++++ Fantastic. Great bedtime story kind of doc, atheist style.

  81. norlavine

    In my opinion, anything 'man-made' is just that. Our little realm of physical laws ticks over and over regardless of our intervention or circumspection.
    There possibly is a 'creator', but I don't think any imaginative concepts that have come from the mind of a human being are capable of describing, let alone defining it. x

  82. John Christopher McDonald

    Yes. But honestly, the religion section looks like the sleep aid section. I love it. haha

  83. jayzeah

    first of all john all of the resources used in zeitgeist have claimed to have talked to ALIENS, im not joking and as of proof that jesus lived, look up the names Pliny the younger, thallus, mara bar serapion and josephus

  84. lakhotason

    Nothing proves my point more than what you've written. I once again must point out that I'm not speaking of what scholars publish and do not publish.

    Poorly made false argument? Then why did you not address the argument? This guy making this film is anything but a scholar or he would understand that Christianity came along BEFORE the Gospels were written. In fact the Gospels were written long after Paul's writings. And it is Paul's writings that provide the structure and dogma to Christianity, not the Gospels. Once again you've got cause and effect reversed.

    Do you think Homer is the inventor of using irony as a writing device? Do you know what historicity is? Or literary criticism? You need to avoid getting your information from "Zeitgeist" or any source that only presents one side of a subject. It shows.

  85. lakhotason

    The truth usually is.

  86. Kateye70

    I enjoyed this documentary. I thought it did a good job of presenting the premise. Since so many of us are not biblical (or any other type) of scholar, and can't compare the Old English bibles to the current ones, much less ancient Greek to ancient Hebrew texts, it was interesting to see how word translation makes such a difference in how a given passage is interpreted.

    I do know that the Palestine of 2,000 years ago was a lot more cosmopolitan than most of us give it credit for--it was a trade-route crossroads--and influences from all over the Eurasian continent must have been rife there. I don't think it's a coincidence that 3 major religions have come from that region.

  87. Bobbie W Baker

    Do you know what an archetype is? Because he is showing that the book of Mark is literature through showing outside influence which should have no place in a telling of facts in history. Not that they are identical stories.

  88. Bobbie W Baker

    That Jesus is nothing to do with the Christ of the new testament... I'm pretty sure David Hasselhoff exists which does not prove King David existed

  89. Bobbie W Baker

    This documentary is going in depth, that is why it takes longer. Instead of giving you an answer without any idea how it was reached you are actually hearing the parallels in great detail further confirming them to be unlikely coincidence.

  90. lakhotason

    Yes in depth. Instead of being knee-deep in bullsh^t you're up to your neck in it.

  91. robertallen1

    Did you even bother to consult the source to which I referred you?

    Your last sentence is too idiotic to comment on except in this way.

  92. robertallen1

    It's still boring. I could have read what he had to say in a more shorter period of time.

  93. robertallen1

    Did you even bother consulting the source I mentioned?

    Your last sentence is too idiotic to comment on except in this way.

  94. Thomas Paul

    This particular documentary is the worst documentary I've ever seen. But I'm not really surprised that people still wish to deny the resurrection of Jesus of Nazarath, whom I don't hesistate calling "The Lord Jesus Christ".

    I don't have time to waste and so I'll be brief.

    If any of you are sincerely seeking to know the truth, please check the sources. Firstly, the Word of God, the Bible - particularly, the Gospels themselves about the Life and Teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Secondly, if you can't do this, please watch good debates and/or presentations by Good and True Christian Scholars, those who are truly scholars, not charlatans, who don't know what they're talking about.

    Finally, and most importantly, if you truly desire to know the truth about God - call out to Him.

    He WILL answer.

  95. robertallen1

    From your post, you're obviously the one who does not know what he's talking about and your assertion that the bible is the "Word of God" and shackling of scholarship to religion shows you up for the pathetic ignoramus that you are.

    You're the charlatan masquerading as someone in the know, not the narrator of the documentary, as boring as he and it is. At least, he presents evidence, while you offer expostulation based on what you've read in a book which you know nothing about.

    An fine education--now, that's true resurrection--and it sure beats the greasy kids' stuff that you're trying to peddle.

  96. Achems_Razor

    @Thomas Paul:

    "The Word of God, the bible"?? most everyone knows the bibles are the words of man, even most of the religee's themselves, at least the ones with some smarts.

    "Good debates"?? about your deities? they are all biased!

    The life and teachings about your deity? they are all written after the fact by mere mortals, If there even was such a fact that is.

    "call out to him, her, it/God"?? which one out of the 28,000,000 him, her, it, gods since recorded history? And any and all types of gods only exist in fleeting thoughts of the mind, (NOT REAL!!)

    Funny religee's.

  97. tomregit

    In fact I and many non-believers have checked the "source". I recieved religious instruction during my formative years and have read the bible and other religious texts. Many atheists, myself included, are quite familiar with the bible and religion in general.
    I'm just not drinking the Kool Aid.

  98. Esayas Wb

    Self contradicting dogmatic presentation (of yourself):

    1) In the beginning you argued that only the first 8-chapters of Mark were the true parts of the gospel, Mark's original writing. Indeed you claimed that the rest of Mark's chapters were added by numerous fiction writers, just to discredit the idea of the resurrection.

    2) However, as you continued to the Homer-Mark saga, taking lots of parallels between Jesus and Odysseus, you leaned on the very last chapters of Mark, which you disregarded to have been Mark's original writings to vilify the "authenticity" of the Mark's writing as a whole.

    How do you make it up?

  99. jayzeah

    Uummm kay lets lay down knowledge, because i see you ALL didn't pay attention to my post earlier, first out robertallen1, there is a major difference between the writings of mark and homer,Homers text in Hebrew (which i can read and write) doesn't come close to Marks, word for word, hmm how do i know that, simple, LOOK UP "Ivan Panin" the Russian mathematician , Harvard Grad, who discovered the 7th Parallel that that is known as the combination lock on the bible. 43.000 pages in 50 YEARS he wrote on this subject, So much to Homer, Point!!! AAAnd Homer was only at best 6 years older than Jesus, but that he was BLIND his poetry came out later, when Jesus was dead, Duuuuhhhh
    Ummm razor , its not the word of man because man hasn't built a super computer to generate such a text, LOOK AGAIN AT Ivan Panin,We dont want to go there.
    all of the resources used in zeitgeist have claimed to have talked to ALIENS, im not joking ,and as of proof that Jesus lived, look up the names Pliny the younger, thallus, mara bar serapion and josephus, the year and the written documents that STILL EXIST to this day you can read,
    As far as X-mas someone mention that pagan garbage, the year was 354 AD made into law by the roman bishop Lyburius, Duuuuhhhhh
    In the end there are some smart atheist on this planet, I say do you, but dont come to me with dum S%/T

  100. robertallen1

    I never commented on the narrators parallels between Mark and the Odyssey.

    It's hard to tell what you're getting at because your writing is far from coherent, but if you're positing that Homer and Jesus were only six years apart, you don't know what you're talking about. There is a 600-700-year gap between the two and an almost 900-year gap between the Odyssey and the New Testament.

    And your ability to comprehend is as deficient as your ability to write coherently. I don't recall Achem ever having stated that the historical Jesus never existed; he's simply too well educated--but let him speak for himself.

    Ivan Panin was simply a quack and for those who have never heard of him, he is known for having "discovered" numeric patterns in the Greek and Hebrew Bibles and concluded from these that the Bible is divinely inspired. The description speaks for itself.

    You and Panin are good for each other, but not for the well-informed.

  101. Achems_Razor


    You are saying again that your gods put pen to paper and wrote all the bibles?

    All the bibles, all the religious texts, dead sea scrolls, all the Vedas etc: etc: everything that is written are all man made, everything comes from the mind of man, no ifs and no butts!

    And yes I do question if your deity Jesus even existed, just the latest in a long line of deities, you mention Josephus, it is well know his writings on your deity was a forgery, look it up.

  102. lakhotason

    Your reasoning is as bad as the Zeitgeitists and the narrator of this doc.

  103. robertallen1

    Are you saying that Jesus, the man, never existed or Jesus, the deity never existed? For the former, please see wikipedia: Lucian-Jesus.

    I would appreciate a clarification.

  104. lakhotason

    You inadvertently brought up a a very important point by mentioning the "deity Jesus". Jesus never proclaimed divinity, although, to be fair, there is some disagreement on this.

    Concerning Josephus we must also be fair. There are two references to Jesus and one reference to John the Baptist. Only one reference to Jesus was altered and considered to be incorrect. The other reference to Jesus and the reference to John the Baptist are considered to be authentic.

  105. Achems_Razor

    Yes, I do question the existence of the historical Jesus.

    Wiki?...Lucian of Samosata (115 AD)?? a well known Greek satirist and travelling lecturer has citations, but Jesus is not mentioned by name in any of his citations, completely poor circumstantial evidence.

  106. robertallen1

    You're right. He is not mentioned by name, probably because he was not called Jesus Christ until much later and probably because the movement and the crucifiction were not the DeMille spectacles so many ignorantly believe they were. By the way, crucifiction was a small, private ceremony, much like lethal injection.

    While I am not a biblical scholar, I do side with the majority of more informed and non-theistic scholars that the person written about in the New Testament physically existed--but that's as far as I go.

  107. lakhotason

    I completely agree with that RobertAllen. There is an historical figure and I believe that Paul is responsible for the distortion of that figure into what Christianity worships today. Whether one believes that distortion as a divinity is another matter.

    My problem with this doc and its ilk, Zeitgeist in particular, is that they use the same tactics as the Christians. Almost all biblical scholars, both secular and Christian, dismiss the junk that Zeitgeist throws out, yet the disbelievers quote Zeitgeist much in the same way as believers quote the New Testament.

    But specifically with this doc, the narrator seems to believe that the tie-in to Homer can only lead to one conclusion and the non-believers jump right on that bandwagon. There are other "conclusions" that can be reached. How about Jesus had read Homer and thought, "Hey, that's a good idea." Its just as reasonable, maybe more so.*

    Now your approach to religion is straightforward and honest without having to rely on the crap that these docs spew. I have no problem with your disbelief.

    *Actually one should draw no conclusion at all.

  108. robertallen1

    While I acknowledge the relative popularity of the Iliad and the Odyssey at the time of which "Mark" was supposed to be writing; as we know nothing about the author(s) of Mark, especially their level of education, the downright plagiarism espoused by the documentary is open to question and, quite frankly, I don't completely buy into the purported parallels between Mark and the Odyssey which in some cases I find strained. On the other hand, I think we should keep in mind that this type of literature (read the epic) was the primary type available at the time and that if there was any influence at all, it was probably based on a number of works, most of them probably lost to antiquity.

    As to whether Jesus read the Odyssey, he certainly could not have done so in the original Greek, for considering what has been written about his background (however unreliable) and the backgrounds of his contemporaries and those around him, he didn't know the language. Also, for whatever it's worth, I've encountered Jesus portrayed as everything except an omnivorous reader or a scholar.

    I would appreciate your thoughts.

  109. lakhotason

    You're right, we have no evidence that Jesus could read Greek. That's my point. I was saying that all things being equal why not draw that conclusion instead of the presented conclusion. Both are equally bordering on absurd. Drawing any conclusion from this "documentary" is also bordering on the absurd.

    My thrust is that those who do are behaving in a way contrary to reason, just as the Christians are behaving in a way contrary to reason. I see no difference.

    On a related note, if one were to do as Jefferson and toss out the virgin birth, the rising from the grave, and the various miracles, a different Jesus emerges. And that Jesus is the epitome of what Zeitgeist's goals are. The irony of Zeitgeist attempting to discredit the man Jesus seems overwhelming to me.

  110. Vlatko


    Zeitgeist-ers didn't invent their junk. They just wrapped it up nicely.

    The idea that the story of Jesus had mythological parallels can be traced as far back as Celsus (c180 CE), however the actual modern scholarship on the idea goes only back to Volney and Dupuis (18ht and 19th century).

  111. lakhotason

    I happen to disagree Vlatko. Regardless of what you say about this and that, I can counter wikipedia with wikipedia, that's easy. What I'm saying is their reasoning is the the same as Christian reasoning. That's not so easy. Let's discuss that.

  112. tomregit

    Your ability to communicate coherently in English is so poor that your qualification to translate into Hebrew is quite suspect. I hope you're more fluent in Hebrew.

    The mention of verbatim texts in the doc. concerned the writers of the gospels similarity to each other, not to the Homeric text. The comparison to Homer concerned the copying of and embellishment of his story. Homer and the Nazarene god fraud were not contemporaries. There are almost 1000 years separating them. Your understanding of the doc, assuming you actually watched it, is deeply flawed.

    I have no strong opinion on whether christ is a historical figure since none of the writings concerning him were written by eyewitnesses. Looking to Pliny for verification is meaningless. He only wrote on how to deal with christians, not about christ. The writings of Thallus (who also lived after "the crucifiction" were lost and we have only parts of them repeated by Sextus Africanus some 200 years later. Bar Serapion, who would not have been a contemporary, does not even specifically mention Jesus, only a "wise king". See Achem's post concerning Josephus. Ivan Panin and the bible code??? I won't say anything about that nutter.

  113. robertallen1

    You forgot Lucian, my favorite.

    By the way one value of Pliny the Elder (the younger was a drag) is that he codified just about all the science known in the ancient world. Shame he had to perish at Pompeii.

  114. robertallen1

    @Tomregit, Achems_Razor, Iakhotason and the rest of the whole sick crew:

    Do me a favor and watch "Is There Evidence for God 1/15/12" on YouTube. I would appreciate your take.

  115. lakhotason

    Why should I watch that. It will have nothing to do with my take on Christianity. Why cannot you understand it is not christianity that is the problem, it is the the lack of reason that's gonna do us in.

  116. lakhotason

    The Elder perished at Pompeii, not the Younger. All we know comes from the Younger.

  117. robertallen1


    Please trust me on this (and I don't mean faith, but rather reliance). I think you'll find it worth the 59 minutes. If you don't find it so, then call me out.

  118. lakhotason

    Ok I will because you asked me to. Fair enough.

  119. robertallen1

    I thought I had written it to read that the elder had perished at Pompeii. I also see that I accidentally typed Pliny the Elder when I meant Pliny the Younger, sorry. One of the things I link at the Natural History is that in general it is so down-to-earth and so beautifully material--I didn't say it was correct.

  120. robertallen1

    Again, if you find it a waste of time, please horsewhip me--but at least my intentions were in the right place.

  121. tomregit

    Without an actual link I'm not sure that I watched what you suggested. What I watched was a debate from Warrington, U.K. moderated by Nicky Campbell and I found it completely unenlightening. As I suspected during the opening, nothing new was be brought to the fore and both sides remained convinced of their correctness.

    The believers were some of the most irrational people you could hold a conversation with. They stubbornly held fast to outlandish, illogical, mutually contradictory ideas with no shred of evidence and had no ability to present any valid reason for those beliefs. Achems, lakhotason, I don't recommend it.

    Edit: Also Robert you say you doubt jesus could read Greek. This is a red herring that has no bearing on the documentary or the stories written about him. Jesus never wrote the bible so his supposed country bumpkin education has nothing to do with what was written all those years later.

  122. Chiron999

    1 am not a christian . The bibe was writen and re written over the centuries to exert political influence and power over the masess at the time . RThis did not mean Christ did not exzist . He was a avatar , a divine being placed on earth to teach us about love and forgiveness . Sad the real story was never told and the bibical fabrications are used to strentthen the ' case " for athism "

  123. robertallen1

    What makes you think Christ was devine, the Bible which you say was written and re-written over the centuries, etc.?

  124. robertallen1

    I also found nothing new in it. What can you expect out of a show such as this? I guess I liked several of the participants from the atheistic side, especially David Aaronovitch and Peter Atkins. I always find it amazing that the modern day atheists are in general so much better informed and eloquent than their theistic counterparts although the minister-scientist ran a close second..

    My comment on Jesus' ability to read Greek was in response to a quip from Iakhotoson a few posts back and was not meant to have a bearing on the documentary.

  125. lakhotason

    What I'm meaning to say it is not the parallels it is the conclusions drawn from the parallels. I remember (I think) Zeitgeist making some sort of case about Jesus and his 12 disciples and somehow that number 12 was to have a hidden meaning. This is without ever stopping to consider that Jesus had 12 disciples simply because that's how many disciples he had.

    Here's a good illustration of having "facts" lead you down the wrong path.

    I have a brother. He and I were born on the same day. We have the same father and we have the same mother. We both came from the same egg from the same mother. We look identical in every way. In fact our parents cannot tell us apart.

    Now I just bet that 99 out of a 100 people are going to conclude we are twins. We may very well be twins but what is to say we are not two brothers from a set of triplets? The "facts" given led 99 out of a 100 people to reach the wrong conclusion.

    This is what I mean by Zeitgeist junk. They are taking a set of "facts" and saying there is only one conclusion that can be reached. This is not reasoning.

  126. Vlatko


    Each conclusion drawn from those parallels will be naked conclusion without any substantial evidence, yours included.

    12 apostles you say. Well after Judas died, they were 11. "God" knows why they didn't want to stay as 11 apostles. So, one day they decided to be 12 again. Matthew replaced Judas by drawing of lot. Somehow the number 12 was important to them.

    You gave a good example, but twins are more likely to happen. Following your logic you could be brothers from triplets, quadruplets, quintuplets, sextuplets... up to nonuplets (the human record). I don't know why you confine the argument to triplets.

    There are many possible conclusions that could be derived from your example, but one is most likely to be (twins), although the others are not excluded.

    It is the same with the conclusions from the parallels.

  127. lakhotason

    I confined my argument to triplets for brevity's sake. Now as for the disciples the number 12 could or could not have meaning. What I'm saying is that to conclude that the number 12 does have hidden meaning simply because Judas was replaced is not reasonable. It is just as likely that Peter said to James, "It would be a good idea to replace Judas". Nothing more.

    And you just provided another example by questioning why I confined my argument to triplets. Why would you do that? What has that to do with my argument? Why did I use humans instead of monkeys? Why did I use brother instead of sister? This is precisely what I'm talking about.

    There was a comedian (I forget his name) that based his entire act on drawing conclusions from disparate facts. My favorite was 24 cans of beer in a case. 24 hours in a day. Therefore one should drink a can of beer every hour. We both know that's absurd. Yet this is the type of (non) reasoning Zeitgeist and its ilk use.

  128. Vlatko


    As I've said Zeitgeist didn't invent anything. Those parallels were drawn centuries ago.

    I didn't say 12 has hidden meaning. Only that was important to them, which obviously was. We can only speculate why. Would you agree?

    "And you just provided another example by questioning why I confined my argument to triplets."

    No I didn't. I was only showing to you that you fall into the Zeitgeist category too, by picking one answer. Why choosing triplets where there is possibility for quadruplets. Anyhow if you really want to choose, twins is the simplest answer.

  129. lakhotason

    Why are you so hung up on my using triplets? What has using triplets instead of using quadruplets etc have anything whatsoever to do with me falling into a Zeitgeist category? That makes no sense at all. I was simply using an example as a teaching point. How in God's name can you conclude that by using triplets there is some "nefarious" purpose behind it? That's really baffling.

    Look at my example again. Did I not say that I could very well be a twin followed by what is to keep me from being a triplet. The point was though I may very well be a twin you should not draw that conclusion from the facts presented. There are other conclusions that can be reached also. You should draw NO conclusions from those facts other that the facts themselves. Using triplets as an example was to illustrate that point, something I also pointed out in my example.

    And your drawing some kind of inference from that example is really not being reasonable

  130. Guest

    is there under record more than triplets as identical babies?
    Just a question...i see your point.

  131. Vlatko


    Don't get mad.

    "How in God's name can you conclude that by using triplets there is some "nefarious" purpose behind it?"

    I'm asking you the same question. How in God's name can you conclude that by using TWINS there is some "nefarious" purpose behind it?

    "And your drawing some kind of inference from that example is really not being reasonable."

    OK leave the example aside. If I say to you that they've chosen to be 12 apostles because of blah, blah... mythology... blah, blah, you would probably say, NO that is not true. The number is just a number. But how do you know? Isn't that only your opinion, without NO real evidence, thus similar to Zeitgeist reasoning and its ilk.

  132. Vlatko


    That is what I exactly say. Ask @Lak about the number 12.

  133. Guest

    I do agree with you on this.

  134. lakhotason

    I said there are other equally valid reasons why they could have chosen 12. What I did say if you will read it again was "the number 12 COULD or COULD NOT have meaning". I never said it didn't have meaning. How can you conclude I said it had no meaning when I specifically made clear that it could have meaning.

    Now for your twins example, I never made a statement that could even be construed that way. I once again remind you that I said "I could very well be a twin". Somehow, some way you've got it into your head that I'm saying something that I have not said. Every example you've given back at me is not anything I've written.

    My use of the twins/triplet was only to demonstrate how facts can mislead you. That you should be very careful of drawing conclusions. You must first consider that there can be other conclusions, equally as valid, drawn from the same facts. I'm saying that Zeitgeist is making that very fundamental mistake of drawing conclusions without considering that there are other conclusions. Their conclusions can very well be right or they can very well be wrong. I'm making no judgements and have made no judgements on that. I'm saying only that their reasoning is flawed and if you go down through my comments you will see that I have stated that and only that. Don't sidetrack the debate by saying I've ever said otherwise.

  135. lakhotason

    PS. Never mad.

  136. Guest

    In the comment thread under Zeitgeist The Movie, you write to Jessica:
    "You speak of free will yet on the very nexus of free will you chose to equivocate. Either you believe in God or you do not. Anything otherwise is "gaming the system"."

    Kinda goes against what you are saying here.


  137. Vlatko


    I never said that number 12 has hidden meaning, but you previously concluded that I've said that, without any basis.

    "I once again remind you that I said "I could very well be a twin".

    Yes but in full context this is how it appears: "Now I just bet that 99 out of a 100 people are going to conclude we are twins. We may very well be twins but what is to say we are not two brothers from a set of triplets? The "facts" given led 99 out of a 100 people to reach the wrong conclusion."

    You're aiming that 99% of the people would be wrong by choosing the most reasonable and probable answer, which means you're from a set of triplets.

    "I'm saying that Zeitgeist is making that very fundamental mistake of drawing conclusions without considering that there are other conclusions."

    Zeitgeist conclusion is just one of many, and holds the same validity (or invalidity if you like) as any other conclusion, since there is no real evidence for any of the conclusions, thus their conclusion has the same weight as any other on that subject, I repeat - including yours.

    Are we discussing semantics now? It is obvious that you don't agree with what Zeitgeist said in the first movie. You can say that you just don't like their reasoning, but if you disagree with their reasoning, probably you'll disagree with their conclusions too.

  138. lakhotason

    Doesn't even pertain to this debate. I see no relationship at all.

  139. lakhotason

    Right. You are saying exactly what I've been saying all along. There is no real evidence for their conclusions therefore they are not reasoned conclusions. Gee, that wasn't hard.

    And again. I never gave any conclusions on that subject so how can you say my conclusions are just opinion.

    Once again you are saying something I never wrote. I never said you held the number 12 to have hidden meaning. You've really got to stop doing that.

    Where did I ever say I disagreed with what Zeitgeist said in the first movie? And again there's that thing you keep doing.

    If you point out something I wrote then I will respond but this is taking too much time and effort responding to things I never wrote. Stay with what I say.

  140. lakhotason

    Az, once again look at what I said. 12 COULD or COULD NOT have hidden meaning. Where are you and Vlatko coming up with I only said it could not have hidden meaning.

    But as far as numbers go , I'll let you pick any reasonable number and I'll build a case around it. That's easy.

  141. tomregit

    OK, now I see why you made the Greek comment. I also agree concerning the minister-scientist; it would have been better if he played a larger part. He is someone I could disagree with, yet respect his well informed opinion.

  142. Vlatko


    Come on, you just play games with words, nothing else.

    Here is the summary of what you essentially say, without beating around the bush: They don't have reasoned conclusions, but I didn't say I disagree with them.

    So what is the case? You disagree with them, you don't, what is it? Please state your thoughts clearly so we can talk without wordplay.

  143. Vlatko


    "I never said you held the number 12 to have hidden meaning. You've really got to stop doing that."

    Yes you did. YOU really got to STOP doing that.

    I said: "12 apostles you say. Well after Judas died, they were 11. "God" knows why they didn't want to stay as 11 apostles. So, one day they decided to be 12 again. Matthew replaced Judas by drawing of lot. Somehow the number 12 was important to them."

    You said: "What I'm saying is that to conclude that the number 12 does have hidden meaning simply because Judas was replaced is not reasonable. It is just as likely that Peter said to James, "It would be a good idea to replace Judas".

    I said: I didn't say 12 has hidden meaning. Only that was important to them, which obviously was. We can only speculate why. Would you agree?

  144. robertallen1

    I really don't understand why this back and forth about the supposed metaphysical significance (hidden meanings) of certain numbers. Numerology is not worth anyone's time, but if you're that interested try Underwood Dudley's "Numerology" and you'll learn all about crank mathematics FROM A MATHEMATICIAN.

    But here a few things to ponder:

    1. One number is no better or more significant than another.

    2. Small numbers appear more often than large numbers--so seeing 12 so much of the time is hardly anything to write home about, especially as it is a multiple of 2, 3, 4 and 6.

    3. Prime numbers are special, but in a mathematical sense only, as they form the basis of the whole number system and by extension the fractions.

    4. 0 and 1 have properties not shared by any of the other numbers, being additive and multiplicative identites, respectively.

    You see, nothing metaphysical about any of that.

    There is a whole discpline in mathematics called number theory (theory being used in its scientific sense) and anything outside it is complete and utter crap.

  145. lakhotason

    How many times does the number 3 appear or 7 or 1. The Bible is full of numbers appearing again and again.

  146. robertallen1

    Some of these people (and I forgot to mention the biblical scholar and the evolutionary biologist), including the minister-scientist, you would just love to get by themselves or in a small group over some sinkers and cow and spend hours in discussion. Don't you agree.

    I'm glad that you mention the concept of respect because that's what it's all about. It's not so much accord or discord, but rather what's behind it.

    Have you been to the site Jesus Police?

  147. lakhotason

    Ok where did I say that you said 12 had hidden meaning. I did not say you concluded it. I said to conclude. I was agreeing with you. Talk about semantics.

    And what of all the others that I've pointed out. In each of my replies, Ive spent most of my time not on the subject but in pointing out things I did not say. Just go back and look.

  148. lakhotason

    That is precisely what I'm saying. And there is no word game there. And it isn't beating around the bush. For when I make the statement that they have drawn unreasonable conclusions what I believe is immaterial. They are either making unreasonable conclusions or not regardless of what I believe.

    I really wanted to keep our beliefs out of the debate because they do not have any bearing. But I will tell you. Of course Christianity is eaten up with metaphor and symbolism. A person with one good eye and half a brain can see that. And yes I do believe the number 12 is very significant. And I'll go along with the Greek thing too.

    But having said that, I don't necessarily agree with Zeitgeists conclusions simply because they are not reasoned. They could be right or they could be wrong but one thing is sure, they are not reasoned. And that is the only thing I've said in this debate and that's not wordplay.

    If you go way down the comments you'll see that the real problem I find with unreasoned conclusions is that to use them in an argument with a believer means, for all intents and purposes, one would be doing the exact thing the believer is doing. Not using reason. That's why I have a problem with Zeitgeist .

    Now if it is possible, you can review every debate I've ever had with a Christian on this site and you'll find that I do not use anything from Zeitgeist. And another thing I never do is debate the divinity, but rather I'll most often use Christ's teachings to counter certain beliefs. Sounds odd but it works. At the least they will listen.

    As far as Zeitgeist, I believe they're after the wrong scoundrel. It isn't Jesus that made a mess of Christianity, it is Paul. Hell, Jesus could be Zeitgeists strongest ally if they would just take time to think about it.

  149. noconman

    To debate over what was written by men, about another man is pointless. Pure hearsay. I believe Jesus was a truely good man. If he were anymore the "son of god" than you or I are, Don't you suppose he might have penned a few books himself, as to avoid the confusion? I rather doubt he approved of religion, due to the way people fight over who knows the truth. The truth can be found in all religions if you simply look at the morals, ethics, virtues and core beliefs. They all pray to the same God, while pointing fingers at each other. No, I don't think Jesus would like what I see either. You are, your every action and your every word. Gaurd them, so that you don't follow men who are looking for glory. Never doubt the spirit inside you that knows right from wrong. All religions are right in many ways, and all religions are wrong in many ways. That's why they argue.

  150. Vlatko


    OK where did I say that you said 12 had hidden meaning. I did not say you concluded it. I said to conclude. I was agreeing with you. Talk about semantics.

    Jesus Christ... You were agreeing with me. Wow. Why didn't you say that in the first place. You waited till the last moment, regardless of the fact that I was objecting.

    "And what of all the others that I've pointed out?"

    Which "others" @Lak. I've already explained the "others". Scroll down.

  151. dewflirt

    This has been one of the funniest arguments/agreements ever :)

  152. Guest

    try with e

  153. Guest

    sorry @Vlatko i changed a word in my comment you had approved and it sent it back...won't do that again. That link is kind of neat, especially if you click on the words in blue. A good learning tool.

  154. Achems_Razor

    Az, I fixed it for you, your welcome.

  155. a b

    What exactly is your reason for holding a mirror to their words and actions?

  156. Ryan Hill

    A fantastic aspect of our Bible is that it has a built in authentication system. I have a challenge for those that would like to make the word of God into nothing more than fiction by man alone. The Word of God is beyond a reasonable doubt breathed by GOD!

    I would also like to preface that the original Greek text is used as it is the language the New Testament was scribed. For further study of the Heptadic structure of the Bible read more from Ivan Panin from early 1900's.
    I would like for you to create a genealogy (from fiction in English if you like, such a test in Greek would be beyond even a super computer so I'll do you a favor and let you try in English) like a family tree and I'm going to give you some rules or patterns from which you'll create your genealogy.

    1.) The total of words in your genealogy needs to be divisible by 7 evenly. 2.) the total of letters you use needs to be divisible by 7 evenly. 3.) The number of vowels and (both should be true) the number of consonants must also be divisible by 7 evenly. 4.) The number of words that begin with a vowel must be divisible by 7 evenly and the number of consonants must be divisible by 7 evenly ( again both should be true). 5.) The number of words that occur more than once must be divisible by 7 evenly. 6.) The number of words that occur more than once must be divisible by 7 evenly. 7.) The number of words that occur in more than one form must be divisible by 7 evenly. 8.) The number of words that occur in only one form must be divisible by 7 evenly. 9.) The number of nouns must be divisible by 7 evenly. 10.) Only 7 words shall not be nouns.
    Shall I keep going? I think I will...
    11.) The number of names shall be divisible by 7 evenly. 12.) Only 7 other kinds of nouns are permitted. 13.) The number of male names shall be divisible by 7 evenly. 14.) The number of generations shall be divisible by 7 evenly.

    Now you must be wondering how this is even possible. What I described is just a few of the patterns found in the original Greek writings of Matthew 1:1-11 (IN GREEK!)

    Honestly I feel sorry for anyone who believes God's word is not divine, put your faith in Jesus not deceiving spirits!

  157. robertallen1

    "The Word of God is beyond a reasonable doubt breathed by God!" What an ignorant expostulation compounded by your reference to Panin the quack (yes, I know all about him, so please don't try the snow job) and your lack of historical knowledge and further compounded by your tedious numerology which shows nothing but an ignorance of basic mathematics.

    I feel so sorry for someone as wilfully and pathetically ignorant as you that I have used ignorant in various forms four times in the post.

  158. over the edge

    just a couple of notes on your claim. these patterns that are claimed to be found arise from a bible published in 1881 known as the Westcott and Hort text not the original bible. also it was proposed by ivan panin who not only derived these patterns from the 1881 version but also in conjunction with his own reconstructions of the original using his pattern techniques. wow the man who claims a pattern in a text also wrote the text spooky.

  159. robertallen1

    I'm surprised at you. "The original Bible?" What's that?

    But you're right about Panin--and this type of quackery makes me see red, for it's amazing how many people stubbornly buy into it, thus intensifying their wilful ignorance and working a disgusting abrogation of the intellect.

  160. over the edge

    you are right i misspoke

  161. aguasilver

    Same reason I look in the 'mirror' myself, to see what needs changing, or at least to get folk to re-examine what they think and do.

    When we get to not being capable of change, we start dying.

    I was 42 before I looked in the mirror and realised that I was who I had become, not who I wanted or should be, so it's never too late to look at life and change.

    19 years later, I am still changing daily, but (in my case) now based with my feet set firmly upon the Rock.

  162. dewflirt

    Wow, bet you couldn't write that post in CHINESE !

  163. Achems_Razor

    @Ryan Hill:

    What has numerology have to do with anything that is written in a book, except maybe a book written about numerology.

    You are postulating hidden meanings in your man made books about your deities or wanna be deities.

    Numerology is passe in the scientific circles, more in the realm of pseudomathematics, it is as paranormal as speaking in tongues, astrology, and other similar divinatory arts.

    You can read numbers into almost anything and make it as if it has meaning to further your your agenda.

  164. Darren Malin

    they is no god. The bible is just a story book.

  165. Guest

    If you look at the word GOD as a verb and not as a noun. Then you will perhaps see that the word GOD is something to do come, it has never been identified properly, in order words the world has been pregnant of it's signification and we have named "it" prematurely.
    The word GOD will not vanish or be annihilated until evey single individuals are gone.... OR it will have to be re-invented, re-formulate, inaugurate in a new paradigm.
    Science (1.The intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural.) has to transcend the physical research and it is doing that, and when science accepts to research the incorporeal as much as the corporeal. The word GOD will be transormed and renamed appropriately.
    All the past definition of GOD were mistaken in saying GOD is a noun. GOD is not a...to be or not to be, god is to do or not to do, god is the action of i (any 1i)

    This is an opinion i have, an opinion that has the potential and personal permission to change every seconds of my life.
    edit: and by the way who is science but every single one of us because there is no need of a degree to think.

  166. neil gillespie

    The Holy Bible is the word of God? Let me ask you, in the tenth commandment when it says about not coveting nothing from thy neighbor, including, among other things, his wife, ox or donkey. So i must ask does that sound like the words of god, or the words of the middle eastern herds men of the time period?

  167. robertallen1

    Good point, just one of the many logical cleft sticks religees get themselves into when they assert that the Bible is the word of god!

  168. WiseGapist

    Because so many people are actually st*pid enough to BELIEVE the myth and it damages the society I have to live in...
    Because religious institutions are a societal cancer that should be ridiculed at every opportunity...
    Because the less people refute, the more idi*ts that could go either way choose the path of religion and then we all lose for not just calling b*llsh*t when we saw it.^
    Taking 10mins every now and again to set a 'religio' straight is less of a waste of my precious life than watching this doc ;)

  169. David

    The miracle of Jesus wasn't the loaves and fishes, not walking on water, raising the dead or curing the blind. In a time when people were being slaughtered all across the Roman Empire for an afternoon's entertainment Jesus was willing to die to teach compassion. I don't know about you but I'm personally glad that lesson was learned and wonder if I would have been willing to do the same. I need no further 'miracle' and it doesn't even matter if he was fictional or not (that would actually make it a greater miracle), the human sacrifices have stopped.

  170. aguasilver

    Well WiseGapist I doubt you will win many 'deconverts' calling them stupid, but they do say that the true man shows in what he says, so that at least is good.

    Now reverse your statement (taking out the 'stupid' comment) and you will see the believers point of challenging your 'highly intelligent' viewpoint.

    Everything you point at religion about is just as applicable to your position.


  171. John

    There is a mountain of evidence that demonstrates the high probability of this films premise. Long before Zeitgeist and other recent docs, it has been well established within academia (history, classical studies, philosophy, linguistics, anthropology, archaeology, and etc.) that Jesus was indeed based on earlier mythological figures, stories and beliefs (scholars don't often publish these findings to the public because they know they will be viciously attacked by christians).

  172. John

    The makers of Excavating the Empty Tomb are hardly the first scholars to notice that Mark has many clear parallels with ancient Homeric texts. This is an old, well established, and well supported perspective within academia. That so many Americans are hell bent on believing their childhood myths at any and all cost, even in the face of logic, reason, facts, and evidence, is a sad testament to American society and the US education system. The US is the only industrialized nation where the majority of the people literally believe in ghosts, gods, demons, hell, and that after they die and their body rots, one day -- one day soon -- they will rise up out of the grave (their rotted corpse will spontaneously rejuvenate) and go live up in the sky in heaven where all the other spontaneously rejuvenated corpses of "christians" live -- and live happily ever after.

  173. robertallen1

    Not only ancient Homeric texts, but ancient Babylonian and Sumerian texts as well.

    Just out of curiosity, where did you get your information about the US?

  174. WiseGapist

    Would you care to explain how any of my points against religious people are just as applicable to my position?

    The true man does indeed show through what he says, my truth being that I am so tired of Christians being incapable of rational argument that I do not even seek to engage them in an attempt to convert. I call them stupid in general (never in direct argument) because their best source of truth and reason is quoting scripture. It is stupid to accept one book as the foundation for all truth, closed to any new information...

    Can you call a person stupid for performing a singular stupid action, or must the entirety of their behaviour be stupid to constitute using the word? Either way, to be specific, I use it in the sense of their stubborn belief in the Bible being stupid rather than the entirety of their behaviour.

    Also, why are you using a Hebrew word, we're speaking English. It's as bad as using outdated Latin terms that have an equally accurate English equivalent just to try and sound knowledgeable. :P

    ???? ???????? ?? ???

  175. ProudinUS

    Good morning and God Bless you all, each..and..every..one..of.. you! I would like to read a verse out of my personal Bible and see if this pertains to you.

    HillBilly 42: 1-69
    1. Though shalt not runnith thy neck with prissy grammer.
    2. Though shalt not gang up on a dude with religious veiws...that's weak...ith
    3. If oneith talkith sh!t about anothers country....expectith el back---o.
    4. Ifa thou keepa rantin' quotesa like 'sheeple' and 'the new change' Thy trailer holiness will refer to you as ....well,someone who likes to watch people f*ck sheep...agers
    5. Ifa youa donta agree....don'ta pussyiafoot around and just confront it and getith over with. You may be surprisedith how much more respect real men and women will show to a person who doesn't agree with you on all subjects. One time you think their acting acordingly....the next your callin them a worthless m*ron. That's real life.

    I would like to close in prayer by congradulating my new grammer professor, Brother WiseGapist on his newly found Christianity.

    Dear Lord BiscuitsnGravin please talk and instillith inside WiseGapist mind the importance of how one should use the term 'stupid'. Lord he's already reeked his homeland and ran away....so please help him control his over use of that big hole he's/she's got bellow his nostrils and above his chin...thankyou and a-f**kin'-men

  176. Dan Hill

    It's interesting that the Nazis were anti God as well. Stalin and communist Russia were also non believers. The Jews had nothing left but their belief in God, their Jewish history to console them. Had they been Christians the case would have been the same. When people say that religion needs to be abolished in order for world peace to be realized, I offer Nazi Germany and communist Russia as what that world would possibly look like. Had they humble themselves to a power greater than themselves maybe they couldn't have found it in their hearts to have murder so many innocents; but they (man) was the sum of all things... They were god. I choose to believe in the God of the book.

  177. Epicurus

    its more interesting that the nazis were catholic and on their belt buckles it said "GOT MITT UNS" which translates to God With Us
    Russia was a country that was run by a worship of the state. worship of anything is a problem.

  178. robertallen1

    I am sick and tired of this argument that a belief in a higher being somehow keeps people in check. Once again, Hitler (who, by the way, characterized himself as a Protestant although his mother was a staunch Catholic), Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Slobadan Milosevic, Ghadalfi--and the list goes on--would have committed their atrocities with or without a belief in a supreme being. Need I mention the Inquisition, a Catholic invention, the Crusades, another Catholic invention--again, the list goes on.

    What you choose to believe is your business, but don't be so dishonest as to try go get others endorse your beliefs by grossly distorting history.

    In short, you don't know what you're talking about.

  179. Dan Hill

    Given our brief existence on this planet it seems that humans will eventually bring about their own extinction unless something intervenes... in short

  180. robertallen1

    Well, it's certainly not your fairy-tale god.

  181. robertallen1

    "Well, the New Testament speaks for itself concerning truth." Of course it's going to speak for itself. That doesn't prove anything and quite frankly your statement is as moronic as your little catecism.

  182. WiseGapist

    So is this what it's come to, you picking another argument in a separate doc to plague me with your hick English and lack of debating ability? Obviously me ceasing our last chat because it was circular and neither informative nor interesting for anybody else has sent you here for more.^

    By 'prissy' you mean 'correct' instead of the incomprehensible sh*t that you feel forms something resembling a point...

    ". If oneith talkith sh!t about anothers country....expectith el back" - this is a different doc, that was in the last argument you struck up boasting pro-US, nationalist garbage... You even started arguing at a fellow American for saying he was ashamed of US foreign policy ffs.

    You're a troll dude. You have the argumentative style Idiocracy's court room. I happily accept the position as your grammar/enlightenment professor, though I'm afraid to say you'll need to repeat Rational Thought 101 next term, as the paper you turned in had no references and was written in crayon.

  183. norlavine

    Excuse me for butting in....
    The US churns itself out like self perpetuating butter.
    I live 8000 miles away from any US soil and yet my bread is buttered daily with information that I cannot avoid, as I live in a big city.x

  184. Douglas Gilbert

    I would double check your information. much of the nazi army were catholic and the communist party was run by jews. If you require evidence to support my claims just ask away.

  185. robertallen1

    I don't see how this ties into my comment or the one I was responding to.

  186. robertallen1

    And what prompted belief in racial superiority? Belief in a higher being.

  187. ProudinUS

    Yes WiseGapist, that's what I ignorantly resorted to. Pathetic isn't it? Pathetic how a person can reach a point where they have to let others look through a world that was given to them or that I made....but am I the bad one? Am I the evil one?...am I the one who should be silent all the time?...am I the one with double mirrors? I have much to learn in this world. As you can see..... I have much I need to vent out.

    Would you like to still discuss the topic of 'God' ? Or shall I let this one go? I promise to use rational thought. If you promise to answer my questions without leaving me in a whirlwind. That wouldn't be hard to do with me...haha. Anyway, my offer still stands and I wouldn't blame you if you decline. Goodday

  188. she

    First off, a true atheistic state would be one where people choose to be atheist. What could that possibly look like? Oh, Sweden...one of the best countries on Earth. Forcing people to give up their religion to worship the state is not true atheism.

  189. robertallen1

    True. And look at all the cultures which have been found to exist perfectly well without belief in a higher being. Also, I'd like to hear these same people rtry to argue that the Egyptian and Sumerian cultures existed for 3,000 years a piece because of their belief in a higher being.

    By the way, I like your pen name. Did you take it from the H. Ryder Haggard novel?

  190. WiseGapist

    Of course mate, tbh I am happy to drop our argument as I think we both made our points, but I f*cking love discussion of any issue, especially ones where there is a lot to say (my big mouth :P)... So, if there is any question you want to throw at me concerning my being an atheist/agnostic and your agreement/disagreement with it then go ahead and we'll keep it as tactful as possible, though it might be a struggle as we both speak our minds slightly too much I think. ;)

  191. norlavine

    You asked 'John' where he got his information about the US:
    'The US is the only industrialized nation where the majority of the people literally believe in ghosts, gods, demons, hell' etc etc'.
    I didn't see how your question tied in to his comment, because the answer is obvious. Smarmy types who ask questions that they know the answer to (especially the obvious) are time wasters - and thus create circular and most likely meaningless discussion.
    Don't bother to start up your pseudo intellectual gobbledegook with me because: you may have read more books that contain obsolete or useless information than me - but that's about all. x

  192. robertallen1

    Excuse me, lady, but he made a statement and I merely asked him where he got his information. I didn't indicate whether I agreed or disagreed with him.

    So don't start with your anti-intellectual crap. It hasn't worked in the past and it's not going to work now and also please learn to read or is that to pseudo-intellectual for you?

  193. norlavine

    OK, fair enough. The information he got was possibly from every form of media coverage this modern age has to offer about all of the subjects mentioned. There are also bookstores, word of mouth, the postal system. According to my sources of information, the USA could be renamed 'Ghostbuster's Central'. I'm off into the cruel world, have a good day/night. x

  194. robertallen1

    It is not my proudest boast as an American citizen that creationism started in the United States. So maybe his statement is correct. However, because he put forth the statement, it's up to him to support it, probably doesn't cut it.

  195. Manu Hashidate

    What TruthSerge has said here is a message that needs to go out to all those peoples who've been so phucked-over mentally by religion, and especially Christianity! I have friends from Spain, Portugal and Brazil who return and repeat that society is so stuffy, oppressed and boring back home, all thanks to Catholicism! The non-historic bible is the historic basis for founding Israel, and the conflicts that brings. Kony's and other cargo-cults are born out of it - what an awful book!

    RE: Excavating the Empty Tomb... when I first heard of the 'long Mark', the hugely expanded Luke, and that the gospels are all rewrites of Mark - I was impressed, if not blown away!

    The Sainacticus bible was on display at the end of my street during an exhibition called 'Sacred' so, I popped in to take a look. Believe you me, one could not pretend to know what you're really gawking at in terms of the dominance of mankind's consciousness by that very document through history... but there it was... the oldest complete, heavily insured, copy.

    The on-line version is far more workable, I promise!

  196. mb265674

    Actually you need to separate Jesus, aka the samaritan prophet, from the most known Christ of his time, James the Just.

    Jesus was executed by the Romans, the troops of Pilate, as he was beheaded on mount Gerizim.

    Josephus: Antiquities of the Jews - Book XVIII, CHAPTER 4.

    "1. BUT the nation of the Samaritans did not escape without tumults. The man who excited them to it was one who thought lying a thing of little consequence, and who contrived every thing so that the multitude might be pleased; so he bid them to get together upon Mount Gerizzim, which is by them looked upon as the most holy of all mountains, and assured them, that when they were come thither, he would show them those sacred vessels which were laid under that place, because Moses put them there (12) So they came thither armed, and thought the discourse of the man probable; and as they abode at a certain village, which was called Tirathaba, they got the rest together to them, and desired to go up the mountain in a great multitude together; but Pilate prevented their going up, by seizing upon file roads with a great band of horsemen and foot-men, who fell upon those that were gotten together in the village; and when it came to an action, some of them they slew, and others of them they put to flight, and took a great many alive, the principal of which, and also the most potent of those that fled away, Pilate ordered to be slain."

    This is the only thing Josephus himself writes about Jesus. In the beginning of the fourth century a christian interpolation was added , the so-called "Testimonium Flavianum". Those few lines has nothing to do with Josephus, they are most likley added by Eusebius of Caesarea or someone in his vicinity.

    The Christ himself, James the Just, was executed about year 62 m.t. when the jewish high priest accused him with heresy. The high priest here took advantage of a gap between roman procurators to get rid of a great rival. James was then stoned and buried in the sand, which was the usual punishment for this crime. A few years later the christians tried to burn Rome as punishment for the death of James. His death is also the cause of the jewish wars which raged from 66 m.t. to 73 m.t., when Masada fell.

    The story that would become the saga of the resurrection of the Christ took place about year 26 m.t. when Paul attacked James on the top of the temple.

    When these stories, and many more like the ones mention in the video above, later on merged together in the pagan world pagan christianity was created. It has a few likenesses with the jewish mother religion but is in most senses a truly pagan religion.

    If you ask whether Jesus Christ was executed by the romans or the jews the correct answer therefor must be yes. Jesus was executed by the romans and the Christ was executed by the jews.

    (M.t. means modern time, the Christ was most likely born about the year 30 before modern time.)

  197. Manu Hashidate

    I often say that that the argument between alternative versions of the Christ story evaporate entirely once it's realised he never walked this earth, as a man, and that his story is recycled 'Joseph' and many others such as Mithras. Xmas, Easter et cetera are Pagan celebration, as is the cross!

    But I got started here 'cause mb265674 mentions "...the most known Christ of his time, James the Just" - i.e. using 'Christ' as a TITLE. If Tony Bushby's credible research is to be considered, 'Jesus Christ' - name or title actually drives from 'Hesus Krishna' as decreed at Nicea by Constantine et al over 300 years after the time of the alleged sandalled one. How then, can 'Christ' be a TITLE in the era to which you refer?

    mb265674... Your spelling, punctuation and grammar are superb throughout, 'cept you don't capitalise 'samaritans', 'romans' or 'jews', even though you've capitalised most other proper nouns! That's curious!

  198. PLsmscientist

    The nothing getting nowhere. Interesting debate but I have to argue 2 points. Mr. Dawkins is not so impartial and scientific correct as he would like to be. As science requires us to be open to new theories that sometimes contradict previous statements, he seems to be fixed at the idea that Darwin can only be 100% right. Now, we do not want to deny evolution, but that mankind is a product of one branch of evolution is for me doubtful. Also I find that he is becoming somewhat intollerant. It’s just part of the human behaviour that if you think to have knowledge or power you may be invicible. He also states in an indirect way that because there are individulas who have phd’s and are from the Royal institute they must be fully credible. Let’s also add the fact that both scientist are somewhat optimistic regarding the future of humanity. It may be true that we are living in an extraordinary moment of the history where science has contributed a lots, but the reality is that out of 6 bilions people, at least 5,5 bilions are complet idiots and ignorant. Therefore religion, poltical power, manipulation has never been so strong like today. So the scientific voice is not getting louder at all. This will never change until the day will come where a great event (and it could be a dramatic event) will start to change the views of idiots into thinking beings. Till then I support such debats.

  199. citalotus8

    And the award for the most accepted crazy people on earth go to (drum roll...) Religious crackpots that believe in GOD when they themselves are racist,judgemental,egotistical warmongers that believe only their religion is correct and everyone else is going to HELL! I truly feel bad for these people.

  200. Sheila Goraluk

    absolutely no mention of the Nag Hammadi Library records on this matter, or rather the fact that they do not present any sort of resurrection from the dead scenario in any of the books mentioning Jesus/Yeshua/Joshua [there are no"J"s in Hebrew or Aramaic the languages of the majority of the bible. Just had to mention that but I will watch the rest of these fictional gospels being treated as anything other than good church propaganda.

    Note: for those not well educated in Biblical research and archaeology the Nag Hammadi Library is proven to be older than any of the 4 so-called canonical Gospels and the Gospel of Thomas is by most reputable scholars and experts taken to be the Source of the sayings of Jesus .

  201. melissa

    I just wonder, if there is no God and no Jesus, then why do people spend so much time trying to disprove the existence of either? I have listened and I have watched, I will not debate, because His words are not debatable. You are entitled to your belief, but does this position, Atheist or Agnostic, make you secure? Do you feel lonely with your dependence on nothing except what Science and trust in only yourself? Who do you turn too when you, the collective you, are in turmoil? I don't know the answer to these questions, hopefully someone will answer, honestly. Thanks!

  202. robertallen1

    "His words are not debatable"--such a signal justification for downright ignorance.

    Neither atheism, agnosticism nor self-dependence engenders the fictitious, puerile security which you seem to be positing--and that's the beauty of them.

  203. Achems_Razor


    Who's words are not debatable? your fictitious gods made up by man in all the man made books/bibles? And what gods do you chose out of the millions?

    Your gods did not put pen to paper, if all you are looking for is security you are looking in the wrong place, you have to help yourself and yes, trust science, medicine and common sense, go to a doctor when you have to not some preacher to pray for you to cure your ills.

  204. PickMyName

    @robertallen1, according to most bibles, Jesus was crucified between two theives, not in any sort of private ceremony. And when the Romans crucified 20,000 Dionysians who refused to become Christians, I doubt there were many private cermonies....
    It's pretty neat that you slipped that in without anyone noticing, though.

  205. robertallen1

    What are you talking about?

  206. PickMyName

    robertallen1, you wrote; "You're right. He is not mentioned by name, probably because he was not called Jesus Christ until much later and probably because the movement and the crucifiction were not the DeMille spectacles so many ignorantly believe they were. By the way, crucifiction was a small, private ceremony, much like lethal injection."

    My understanding is that crucifictions were done en masse, and I presented evidence of that, whereas you claim that crucifiction was a small, private ceremony. So I was simply wondering what evidence you have of that claim. The Dionysians were crucified a couple hundred years after Christ, so it's possible the Romans may have changed tactics....

    By the way, it sure was easier to read these comments when the "Reply" was directly underneath the comment one is replying to; that's neither your fault nor mine.

  207. robertallen1

    I wrote to Bart Ehrman (if you don't know who he is, see the article on him in Wikipedia) regarding my statement about crucifixion. Dr. Ehrman wrote back that to the best of his knowledge, crucifixion was a small public ceremony. Unfortunately Wikipedia is silent on the issue, but I will do further research.

    Incidentally, what the Bible says on the matter is irrelevant.

  208. Warren

    Who do you turn to when you're in turmoil? Do you turn to God, friends, family, a co-worker, just someone to talk to? It doesn't really matter as long as you conquer your turmoil, correct? My friends and family are what I turn to. I don't need a ruler, someone to praise, follow, or even sacrifice everything that I am. I don't need that God.

  209. Ruthie Thomas

    Oh ye of little (or no) faith................................I truly wish Documentaries had a thumbs and thumbs down instead of or maybe added to like and reply. It would make the comment section meaningful. Please consider, please ?

  210. xX_Tubol_Xx

    They should at least make this documentary as simple as possible to understand, Nosebleeding words... make it as simple as the Bible then! Goodluck, Nevertheless folks Jesus wants us to walk by faith not by sight.

  211. robertallen1

    Just how do you know what Jesus wants and, for that matter, who cares?

    Nosebleeding words? Why don't you get an education so you can understand them?


  212. levi mcclain

    I would like to see you actually debate some of these guys (not the guy with the home made youtube videos) but the ones with credentials.This video is a sad attempt to dis-credit the bible. I hope people watching don't believe this B.S. as for most of the arguments you will find reasonable explanations. There are non-biblical historic writing of jesus and his disiples (Do your homework). Jesus is arguably the most writen and spoke of person in history!

  213. robertallen1

    What this documentary is is a successful attempt to discredit those like you who don't know what they're talking about.

    By the way, what do you mean by non-biblical HISTORIC writings? If you mean contemporary accounts, there are none.

    P.S. Who does the pronoun "you" refer to in the first line of your post?

  214. levi mcclain

    Are you a historian? Yes there are "contemporary" accounts. "You" is referred to the maker of the video.

  215. Kateye70

    Just curious, what are those contemporary accounts?--not from decades or centuries later; contemporary would mean 'at the time of.' I've never actually heard of any.

  216. robertallen1

    Name one. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about.

  217. Skoal Man

    //Are you a historian? Yes there are "contemporary" accounts. "You" is referred to the maker of the video.//

    Are there contemporary accounts outside of the Christian tradition that corroborates the story? Name just one please.

  218. robertallen1

    If he names one contemporary account, I will be happy.

  219. Brian

    Look up the accounts of Josephus and other historians of old. Crucifixion wasnt like the lethal injection in many cases, it was like the ultimate hanging. In one instance during a battle, the opposing army would crucify on steaks (single poles) or X or T shaped sticks/poles. This was the most terrible way to die and served as an example, surrender submit or else be crucified.

    Those who crucified were terrible, they would often be below them a pile of blood, feces and sweat. There are accouts that those crucified would pee on crowds below mocking them. They were 15 ft in the air like modern movies show usually just a few feet of the ground enough to where someone could come spit on them or smack them, pull out their beard. It was horrific, truly I couldnt think of much worst ways of dying, it just has been so glamourized we its become common ground. This was THE ULTIMATE horrific means to die to serve a point. This was not a lethal injection, the Romans and (pagan armies who developed it which was later adopted by the Romans) used it on political prisoners for obvious reasons to demoralize all who would rebel. It was not a private lethal injection, in was a Public Humiliation. Feel free to message me back I can send you some links to go to look into it. By all means, if you witnessed it today you'd puke.

  220. robertallen1

    And just which historians are these (Josephus is not the best source)? I did not mean to imply that crucifixtion was painless like lethal injection, but rather that it was not a huge DeMille spectacle.

  221. Shane Fletcher

    but there is so many solar references to jesus it isnt funny what this man hasnt pointed out is the 12 men who were in the odyssey and the 12 disciples have one thing in common they are in the number 12 12 is the number of zodiac signs that is why they are in so many zodiac driven myths ..do u know where the 12 pearly gates come from ? it comes from Egyptian myths of the afterlife ...Horus the sun god makes his way through 12 gates of hell and twelve gates of heaven ..which equals 24 hours Genesis 37 verse 9-10 talks about the dream of Joseph as if he was the 12th star seeing the 11 others bowing down to him and the sodiac signs are children of sun and moon. jesus is supposed to come back through the golden eastern gate of the temple mount do ur own homework and stop listening to men who own the religious industrial complex

  222. robertallen1

    What mathematical ignorance. Have you ever heard of the law of small numbers, i.e., they appear more frequently than large ones. So one can make similar meaningless and crank cases for 3, 5 and 7.

  223. tavery4

    In is well known that in the ANE, as well as within other cultures throughout the world, but we'll stick with the ANE, that numbers carried special significance. Just off the top of your head, how many instances can you think of where the usage of the number "40" is prevelent? Go thru just the TNKH, and count the number of times "40" occurs. If the law of small numbers were to apply, other small numbers would also show up just as often, in random ways. We are talking about prime numbers here. 40, 12, 7, and 3 are the most common numbers used in Judaism aswell the ANE. This isn't by accident. The numbers carried meaning in these ancient cultures. That's why they were used over and over again.

  224. tavery4

    This misinformation is an unfortunate byproduct of "Zeitgeist: The Movie". A poorly researched documentary. While Horus is called the "sun god" (aswell as the god of war and protection), there is no links along that line to the Jesus narrative. 12 has not always been the number of the zodiac. At times there were 13 signs attributed. 2nd century BCE astronomer, Ptolemy, mentions a 13th sign, Ophiuchus. The whole "Jesus is a sun god" idea is just a weak attempt to prove that Jesus as a person was not real. There is plenty of quality evidence to cause doubt on it's own without this type of baseless controvesy. Don't confuse the English pronouncinations of "sun" and "son". They did not speak English. "Sun" in Koine Greek is "eleos." "Son" is the word "huios", which clearly is not spoken in a manner so as to confuse the two words. The writers of the Gospels clearly borrowed from Hellinistic sources, as this video series discusess, as well as older Judaic/Israelite soruces. The notion that Jesus was just another "sun god" is not supported by any real evidence.

  225. robertallen1

    You're statement about 40 and 12 are an indication of your deep-seated mathematical ignorance; they are not prime. Furthermore you know nothing about the law of small numbers. You're a mathematical ignoramus who doesn't know what he's talking about and probably never will.

  226. joe

    A lot of "human" time was spent to put this documentary together. Unfortunately, the bible is NOT like any other literature that can be read and understand using human philosophy, I hope you will pray for the meaning of what God wrote for better understanding and clarification. The bible cannot be interpreted like `work of history`. I pray God will grant you spiritual understanding of His writing.Despite all the work done, the fact remains - Jesus Christ is the son God, he died and rose again. He is coming back. Accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and saviour before it is too late.

  227. Achems_Razor

    "What God wrote"? your god/gods did not write anything. The bibles and any other "books" about your invisible gods are all man made, period. Your big JC is also just a man made deity among a long list of other invisible deities who died and rose again, and none are coming back (the rapture) and to top it off you are preaching and offering veiled threats, read the "comment policy" Of course will negate all I've said if you can "PROVE" your claims, if not, what I have said will hold true.

  228. robertallen1

    Before you post any further, I suggest you read the comment policy on proselytizing.

  229. Mercenarry ForHire

    I'm sorry, right right.

  230. Jburns1

    I find it very comforting to know I can live my life as I see fit, without guilt and shame. Does that mean I don't have morals, dreams, aspirations? NO - quite the contrary - I know whatever I leave behind is up to me. There is no gentle/angry old man in the sky who is coming down to save me, if I want to be saved I have to figure out what to do next on my own.

  231. Jeff B

    Or, maybe, Jesus Christ was real and the rest of your examples were fiction or myth...and folks of the First Century would have been able to draw this conclusion from the text of Mark...the rest of the gospels would have supplied the missing details...God called both Jew and Greek to follow HIs Son...ancient Greek literature would have appealed to the gentile world...and God was calling them to join HIs fold....

  232. robertallen1

    Just what are you talking about?

  233. Jeff B

    No one can come to Jesus Christ EXCEPT by faith...when you step out in faith, the Bible and its events become real and fall into place...I cannot exhume the body of Christ and present it to you for observation because it is not here on this earth...your own re-telling of Mark Chapter 16 points that out...typical of a closet drama...its ending indicates that there is MORE to the story...or in Hollywood terms...there would be sequels to Mark...the Bible is God's Word to us...give it a try...

  234. robertallen1

    Faith is no more than ignorance and stupidity combined to manufacture a pseudovirtue. Promoting it is the mark of subintelligence. Without proof (evidence), your claim is fraudulent, such as the bible being the word of god (I assume you mean yours). Before you post any further, I suggest that you read the TDF policy against proselytizing.

  235. Jeff B

    I am not proselytizing...that is an ancient rite practiced by Jews and Muslims...that same rite is one's introduction to the flesh...and the flesh has been against God from almost the beginning. I try and live according to the Spirit...and not the works of the flesh...The Bible was written by those who were eye witnesses either to Jesus or to acts done by his followers...churches through the ages have also proclaimed this same Jesus from the Bible through faith...I have a difficult time believing that all of these churches...all over the world have somehow been duped and are worshipping a myth...the first step in any journey is taken by faith or by believing...I am not attempting to proselytize anyone...I am simply stating what I believe to be true...

  236. robertallen1

    " . . . the flesh has been against God from almost the beginning." After you have identified which god this is, how about adding some intelligibility to this statement.
    "I true and live according to the Spirit . . . " First of all what is this "spirit" and where's your proof that it even exists--the faith crap.
    Like almost all religees, you are completely ignorant of the history of the set of books comprising the bible and the cultures from which these works emanated--and THERE ARE NO ACTUAL EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS!!!

    "I have a difficult time believing that all of these churches...all over the world have somehow been duped and are worshipping a myth." And this is proof? It doesn't even make it to kindergarten.

    " . . . . the first step in any journey is taken by faith or by believing" No, the first step in any journey is examining the evidence or lack thereof. Any other approach is a sign of mental debilitation.

    " . . . the Bible is God's Word to us...GIVE IT A TRY..." [emphasis added] you damn well are proselytizing. But we're going to let the moderators decide.

  237. robertallen1

    Will you please examine Jeff B's last two posts. The conclusion of his first seems to violate the TDF policy against proselytizing. If you agree, I feel that Jeff B should be issued a warning.

  238. Achems_Razor

    It seems that you are trying to push your brand of religion on the posters, please stick only to the doc. and not push your bibles and your gods on the posters, any more of that type of posts will be deleted, thanks.

  239. independentamerican31

    @Jeff B. face it, the bible is false. No one believes you can live in a fish for 2 weeks or live 400 plus years or manage to fit 2 of the 2 million species of animal on a boat. Then miraculously put em back where they came from. I'm sure you base the decisions you make in life/finances based on facts and rationale, why abandon that with faith?

  240. LIFE Church

    Folks like yourself pose examples such as you posted here as some of your best arguments yet you'd rather believe in way more far-fetched theories like Darwinism & Dark Matter. Any marine biologist will tell you that although it's highly improbable, it's not impossible for someone to survive in an air breathing mammal such as a whale. They come up for air less often than a human would need to if the person was diving but not inside of them. But their frequency of surfacing is based on how long the thorax air cavity maintains supply of oxygen. Having a human being using up oxygen inside of one would just cause the mammal to surface in quicker sucsession. As for the "2 million species" claim.. you're obviously not lacking in theological knowledge but in biology & anthropology as well. Christians believe in "Creation Science" & it's "Evolution" that scientific evidence debunks again and again... not "God's Word." Any well studied believer will acknowledge that the christian faith & the bible agrees with "mutations" and not "evolution." All of the excavated archaeological findings ever prove mutations but NOT evolution. Evolution by definition is the eventual & gradual change of one species into an entirely different species over a large spanse of time. Theologically & scientific evidence has only been able to identify 26 different "species" of animal... but thousands of mutations. Evolution would require an entirely new DNA code for the converted species without sharing it's original program in the helix. All darwinism has shown is what we already know & believe... and that is mutations of species; the theory comes in when Darwin speculates the period before the mutation. Noah had a pair of each species.. continental rearrangement post flood, climate change, and migration led to the species adapting to their new native environments. For example, we have MANY different "types" of dog breed today... many of which man mixed dna codes together forming hybrids... but all dogs are traced back to the basic "wolf." So believe in Green Little Men, UFO'S and even time travel if you wish, while you nit-pick for some flaw in God's Word that just isn't there. The Original Holy Cannon of the Bible is 66 combined books, with 40 different writers, spread over 4 continents & a span of 3400 years... no phones, fax, text, email, internet... yet it all comes together like a jigsaw puzzle as if each writer knew what the box top looked like to the overall puzzle... yet not one single, qualified contradiction found among it's pages. Many atheists revere it for it's historical accuracy especially in regard to geography and geneology even if nothing else. It's a marvelous book.. and it IS the inspired Word of the Creator.. the God of Israel and the Earth!

  241. Sally Brown

    The god of the old and new testament is
    the god of human sacrifice. The bible is the only book that needs to be burned for all eternity so humans and animals can live,in a world, without psychopathic murderers.

  242. CW

    You are making assumptions "Independentamerican31", that these events were established by regular human ability, which is not the case. God is not human, far from it. All the same, you have your say, we have ours, but at least educate yourself to the subject in which you choose to debunk. Its your choice not to believe, its ours to believe. we will all see how that turns out in the end.
    To God be the Glory.

  243. chuckym

    Thanks CW, my bro in Christ!
    None of these people doing this doc were believers. You can't taste the truth of the Lord and believe His Word and then decide to change your mind and not believe! Let God be true and every man a liar

  244. chuckym

    You'll never know pal because faith is the substance of things that are not seen and you think faith is BS! Talk about lost!

  245. chuckym

    Right on Floppy! The KJV comes from the original Textus Receptus. which means received text. The year was 1611

  246. jbjs40

    The point many believers miss is that Almost ALL Atheists started out Theists. They believed. Through careful study of the Bible using rationalization and gathering and analyzing the word the truth reveals itself to many if they approach every word with an open and sponge like mindset. Asking questions about certain details about God reveals through the response of believers the truth as well. The fantasy is a lot easier to swallow for believers than the bare and naked truth which if you really read your Bible is exposed for all to see. The truth is very hard to take and many believers either become angry and defensive and then they become less compassionate and more disrespectful and even become hateful and lastly, for the most simpled minded believers, they become dangerous to society.

  247. jbjs40

    Many today in America, USA say that this country is based on Christianity. Please research that statement and read the founding fathers statements about that subject. Today many so called Christian values are being forced and enforced on the general public. There are many good morals in this religion but not all. In some cases horrible. This is why this MUST be debated, not everyone believes and not everyone is a Christian in this country. our laws NEED to be based on compassion and understanding and knowledge. When our laws become religiously based we may have some compassionate ones but understanding and knowledge and respect for others will be thrown under the bus. This is a fight for justice for ALL.

  248. jbjs40

    Our hope in the future lies with the ability to provide a viable education to the masses. Not only for those who can afford it. there are so many lost geniuses out there that have had to work rather than learn, losing the opportunity to better themselves. Imagine if we could be 100% literate, 100% educated, 100% free of money constraints. we would develop a much better world as an entire human race without borders. Sadly this will never happen with Religion in the mix.

  249. Eddie Morris

    why do people say it was a whale when the bible says a large fish.

  250. Dkennedy

    "Almost all atheists started out theists..." no, not really.

    Possibly a large percentage of atheists started out in believing families, often ones that attended church on sundays and gave little thought to religion otherwise - and usually avoided discussing it. Maybe some of those atheists gave actual deliberate thought to their new found lack of belief.. others just attended to their lack of belief in the same manner as those same believers attended to their belief.. it just went by the wayside without any real endeavor to find an answer, or an endeavor that was already weighted against belief from the start.

    I started as an atheist - was one for 25 years, a very belligerent one that argued with every person I came across about the subject. I'm now Christian -

    It's a two way street.

    Often the reason someone becomes atheist isn't because they found no reason for belief in scripture -- it's instead based on conversations with faulty believers, since everyone is faulty to begin with. Few have all the answers.. actually I'd say generally no one does.

    Your description of a person becoming angry or frustrated when you confront them on specific scriptural ideas is essentially you, someone who has given a certain passage a lot of thought, using it as a snare, against usually one of these basically sunday church goers who doesn't give the subject deep thought.

    It seems that atheists feel if they argue against a person who isn't a bible scholar or even just the average person about a subject and they don't have a suitable answer.. they've beaten religion lol. It doesn't work that way - to me it's like arguing quantum mechanics with the average joe on the street - and since he can't explain how it works - quantum mechanics has been proven wrong.

    Yes, if you corner someone on any belief and they don't have answers, they tend to become angry and disrespectful. It could be over anything - even cornering an atheist on his lack of belief, they become quite angry and disrespectful as well - it's human nature. They become vicious and spiteful hurling insults.. often right out of the gate.

    But that's hardly a way to judge truth. That's a journey you generally take alone.

    I learned the mistake I was making is judging a religion by it's followers..

    Brilliant men have been believers through out history - and also brilliant men now. If you are standing in the opinion that it's stupid to believe, well, far greater men have thought the opposite. As I stated, it's a path you generally walk alone.

    I argued against religion right up until I believed.. now I don't argue it so much, I don't really see that much of a point, because I've found you can't really convince anyone of anything. I do find statements that just aren't true annoying though, like giving the impression that nearly all atheists were theists. You'll find huge segments of society that don't give much thought to the important matters and get offended when you even bring them up. They hate talking religion, they hate talking politics, they hate talking about much of anything but sports, or some nonsense on tv.. or what they did today. That's, I would say, a majority of people. I think it's rather sad.

    Anyway though, it's a free country and everyone is free to believe what they wish.

  251. Dkennedy

    You know what is an incredible example of evolution? The butterfly. Boy, that evolution did some tricks there! I mean, i would figure it started out as this egg.. that over millions of years evolved into a caterpillar.. then later on a few million years later it acquired enough of those fabulous mutations to change into a pupa.. and then a few million years later got some more of those mutations and changed into a butterfly!

    Well, that's what I figure.. how do you think it happened?

    Ok, I'm being completely facetious. It's a farce.

    The entire life cycle of the butterfly was clearly in place from the start. It isn't evolving a fifth stage - and it isn't perfecting it's current path.. it is a butterfly and always was. But, of course, if you'd like to show how you believe it came about - I'm all ears.

    While you are at it, there's this one breed of birds that has this instinct to put it's beak against it's eggs to check their temperature nearly continuously. See, if the egg is a few degrees too hot or a few degrees too cold, the chick dies. Another marvel of evolution.. because you see, without that instinct the bird would have never lived to gain the instinct.

    Speaking of chicken and egg scenarios, isn't it amazing how we evolved an immune system..without an immune system? I mean, previous to having one we would die from the disease before evolving it... but, you know, one lucky group of mutations and some animal gained some primitive form of one I guess . Or maybe just our entire network of organs.. and the nervous system, and the blood vessels. They all needed to be there at once, not one at a time, but I guess we evolved by way of mutation each individual organ in a primitive state - and each one stacked on mutations as they went along.. correct? Also, I love how we have male and female sexual reproduction, which one came about first? Was it male.. or female? I guess it must have been a lucky mutation that made a asexual life form divide up into some primitive male and female like halves.. and from there it become more and more complex. And isn't it awesome how we breath oxygen.. and put out carbon dioxide - and plants do the opposite? So, let me get this straight - first there were primitive life forms - like bacterial globs - and they were the kind to breathe either without oxygen at all.. or they breathed "bound" oxygen.. (as I recall there's a bit of debate on that whole anoxic / anaerobic thing..but anyway) and then sunlight hits the water and bam - oxygen all over the place, well, luckily some bacteria globule things did some quick mutating and profited from this oxygen rich environment (rather than just totally dying immediately since oxygen is toxic to them) But the algae and what not.. they breath carbon dioxide.. so we gotta have both in there doing their thing - So we got our algae and bacteria globules, some breathing oxygen some breathing CO2..Gotta get that balance right.. but evolution is great at that - things love to fill up those niches! And soon we got fish and they crawl up on the land.. luckily we got some mossey stuff up there on the land for them to eat.. else I guess they'd starve, but wait - these plants were clearly primitive versions - because the ones we have evolved life cycles of expecting to be eaten and such (see this spreads their seeds) it's also how they evolved that ability to be so tasty! But true, that all comes later down the road I imagine..so, the first animals on the land were eating some bad tasting plants I guess, but what choice did they have, I mean really? Those other mutations waited for some fully formed mammals. Boy, getting a whole ecosystem to evolve in perfect unison can be tricky, but mutation is our guy and he can get it done. Glad that's the case, cause heck if we lose one species the whole ecosystem is at risk of falling apart, heck we get concerned about losing the bees - cause how are the plants going to pollinate? well, I guess the bees and the plants that pollinate all co-evolved.. Funny how every animal is interconnected and dependent on each other - one goes and it starts a mass of extinctions... well, not when you got evolution around - it just quickly adapts new mutations to deal with the changes! Well, in a few million years anyway!

    So, my point is - not sure why anyone would have trouble with evolution, it's pretty easy to see how it all happened. Not that tricky when you get down to it. I'm sure evolution can deal with issues like the fact that there isn't a point between a fin and a primitive leg that it's anything but a bad fin and a bad leg. I'm sure evolution can deal with the fact that according to science we've had, what? six ice ages that would have wiped the majority of species out.. such a shame with all those 10's of millions of years of evolvin just to have some freak weather start you back at go. I mean, if they didn't quick get some of those mutations and adapt to avoid the ice age, in a few million years - which of course they did! I mean... afterall, we're here, so it must be the case.

    Those people that don't buy evolution.. what's wrong with them, it all makes perfect sense when you think about it!

    It's just like all the other stuff science has figured out that makes perfect sense - like, our earth use to have all of it's land mass bunched over on one side --- one big thick land mass, I mean, I haven't ever seen anything in nature act that way, have all the land all asymmetrical like that - but, that's what they tell me was the case! Not sure what happened to knock them all apart 250 million years ago - maybe a big rock hit it square in the middle? Why not? Big rocks do amazing stuff after all, they took out the dinosaurs, well, most of em - but not all of em. Also a big rock made the moon just by smacking the earth on the side --- some proto earth putty flew into space at just the right speed to get caught in our gravitation.. and sort of stuck together and dried that way!

    I tell ya, the stuff we learn from science. Incredible!

    Ohhh.. I was gonna talk about saturn's rings.. or the fact that the sun is getting colder.. and just how hotter it would have been back when life formed 4 billion years ago..about 30% hotter... but I guess I've discussed enough of science's discoveries for one day.

  252. over the edge

    My first piece of advice is to get your scientific information from scientific sources. You obviously are getting your information from uninformed places. your questions and statements betray you because no scientist educated in the relevant fields would state evolution does things in the way you protray.
    i am not going to type out the wall of text necessary to address your full statement. So i ask to ask your best question and i will address it. Then if you wish i will move onto other questions in your post one at a time. Does that sound fair?

  253. Dkennedy

    I'll give you three.

    Do you find it credible that through mutation and natural selection over millions of years a butterfly would develop the life cycle it displays?

    Do you find it credible that the earth would have began with all of it's land mass on one side of the earth and it then split apart as portrayed by pangea?

    Do you have a solution for the faint sun paradox - or do you simply side with the idea that throughout 4 billion years of life forming on the earth the relative temperature stayed the same even as the luminosity of the sun changed greatly?

    Actually - and one more: Can you conceive of an evolutionary path where a fin of a fish mutates to form a leg over millions of years and does not go through a period where the resulting mutation is neither a benefit as a fin nor a benefit as a leg? Evolution does not keep that which isn't useful for survival.. and definitely not over millions of years.

  254. over the edge

    you ask

    "Do you find it credible that through mutation and natural selection over
    millions of years a butterfly would develop the life cycle it displays?"

    Yes i do. To be more clear nobody claims it happened as you claim in your first post. The order Lepidoptera that the butterfly is part of has other organisms that also display many of the characteristics that are associated with the butterfly. Nowhere can i find a recent claim that the butterfly is the origin of these characteristics. The fossil record in this case is rather thin and I make no claim to know all the details leading to the butterflies we have today. But evolution itself has been observed tested and found reliable and in line with the evidence we do have.

    "Do you find it credible that the earth would have began with all of it's land mass on one side of the earth and it then split apart as portrayed by pangea?" who claims that all the mass was on one side? the ocean floor is more dense than the continental crust. as for continental drift that can be measured today. Geology easily confirms that certain areas used to be together. I honestly do not understand how someone could deny something with so much evidence.

    "Do you have a solution for the faint sun paradox - or do you simply side with the idea that throughout 4 billion years of life forming on the earth the relative temperature stayed the same even as the luminosity of the sun changed greatly?" i do not have the knowledge concerning the sun or global climate to answer in detail. But please show me where science claims "the earth the relative temperature stayed the same" as i do not think you are correct.

    "Actually - and one more: Can you conceive of an evolutionary path where a fin of a fish mutates to form a leg over millions of years and does not go through a period where the resulting mutation is neither a benefit as a fin nor a benefit as a leg? Evolution does not keep that which isn't useful for survival.. and definitely not over millions of years."
    Yes i can. Firstly look at whales (not fish i know) they have the remnants of hind legs. Next look at at fur seals where their hind flippers can swivel and the seal can still walk on them (although clumsily). Then look at true seals. Their hind limbs are fused to the pelvis and make walking impossible (but better swimmers). both examples have benefits and short comings. We as humans have multiple vestigial structures.

  255. matt

    Yes, yes, and yes (and yes again). All of these are addressed in most science textbooks.

    Also. Evolution does keep what's "unuseful for survival" See, e.g., male nipples and peacock feathers.

  256. matt

    What personal tragedy led you to belief?

  257. Dkennedy

    No tragedy - unless you consider logic a tragedy :)

  258. matt

    Your attempts at logic are tragic. Is that what you meant? Go ahead, what's the logic that leads to belief in god/gods?

  259. Dkennedy

    Personal experience's over several months of my life 17 years ago. It's not something I have the interest in delving into - not in this format and definitely not with someone so antagonistic towards the subject matter.
    Why do I say antagonistic? Well, the general rudeness for sure - but more than just that, look at it this way - What would make you believe? Don't just pass over the sentence.. think about it. If you consider that and find there's very little.. then I guess we see why you don't.
    For you, a personal experience would probably just lead you to believe you were hallucinating - or even if you didn't reach that conclusion in the immediate, you would probably further down the line.
    If it was a medical miracle - you'd assume a misdiagnosis by the doctor,

    If you saw something that fit into the supernatural arena on a video - then you'd assume it was faked, or that there was something about science we don't fully understand.
    What is supernatural? Even a supernatural act would have some sort of physical law -- when we portray magic, doesn't it have physical qualties? So, even what would be seen as "supernatural" would, for the atheist, get categorized as just a part of the material world once it was documented. This is somewhat what occurred with quantum physics. Everything around us is "supernatural", the word itself is nonsensical - since, as I stated, if it occurs in the world, then it will be "natural".
    In our existence we see abslutlely incredible things every day- but since we document them we consider them mundane. Simply "understanding" gravity does not explain it. Simply "understanding" nuclear fission does not explain it - etc.
    When I was an atheist I saw nothing in the world that was evidence of a creator, once I believed - I looked around and realized there's nothing that isn't evidence.

  260. matt

    What would make me believe?--Evidence (of which there is none).

    Yes... I rely on logical inferences rather than complex irrational solutions-- "I don't understand, so it must have been god."

    Your "logical" conclusion is "god is real because...the world's amazing." I presume even you can see why that's ridiculous.

  261. Dkennedy

    Your answer towards butterflies.. was that there are other organisms that are similar and that " evolution itself has been observed tested and found reliable and in line with the evidence we do have."

    Pointing out that other organisms in the family exhibit the same qualities doesn't help the case. Arguing from the authority of evolutionary consensus doesn't explain anything either.

    On Pangea, you state "who claims that all the mass was on one side?" If you join all the land mass into one - then assuredly given what they've described about plate tectonics, all the land mass would be on one side. Stating that ocean crust is more dense (of course) is irrelevant to the question in one sense, and in another is the point. Continental crust is thinner - weighs less, if it was positioned all on one side - then there would be a considerable amount of mass difference between sides. This sort of asymmetry is not something I've witnessed in nature, although I will state that there is a way to solve this issue - all the land mass was joined together, but it didn't cause this asymetry. - the entire globe at one point had continental crust. But, again I'll point out that you end with "I honestly do not understand how someone could deny something with so much evidence." another example, just like the butterfly, of you not giving an argument - just arguing from the authority of the consensus of current opinion.

    As far as the faint sun paradox - the view is that the sun would have been 30-40% colder 4 billion years ago, when life began. A situation that would not allow life. Science has found that the general conditions we have currently would have to have been more or less constant, disregarding the periodic ice age. One escape for the faint sun paradox that scientists use is that the atmosphere was thicker 4 billion years ago and green house gases were increased, as the sun increased in luminosity the atmosphere burned away and green house gases diminished - leaving the overall weather somewhat constant for the entire time. I think the theory seems a little too convenient. But, you just pleaded ignorance on this one - so we'll disregard it.

    As far as whales.. this doesn't really speak to the process at all. Pointing out that an animal has a hind limb doesn't give any explanation for the formation of it. In whales, just like humans, it seems that the forming of the limb is switched on by a gene we share - the funny named sonic hedgehog gene. Locating a switch that seems to tell a mammal to produce legs does not give any real insight into the process. Also, pointing out that a seal can walk on it's flippers doesn't give any insight into how fins become legs either.... when I see that a seal can pivot it's fins to walk on them, I see that they have fins they can walk on... that's all. Any other interpretation is reading into it - it just shows to me that they are dual purpose.. lots of things are.

    As far as vestigial structures - there have been about 100 throughout our past that science has deemed vestigial. Over time many have been found to not be vestigial at all. You can deem male nipples as vestigial, I say we would look awfully silly without them... but, it's hard to know whether that is a perspective due to culture. The appendix was found to be vestigial.. then it wasn't. Tonsils were seen to be unnecesarry - although I don't think "vestigial" - but the same idea applies, we snip off all sorts of things that we feel are left overs or not needed in one way or another.. then find there was a reason. If there's a reason - then it is simply a similarity, and if it's a similarity - well, it's as convincing to point to hands and feet and say they are proof of evolution - similar design is similar, but not necessarily proof of common ancestry. Science tells all sorts of stories about what they consider design flaws as well, it was only recently that they found that having the cones and rods behind our blood vessels in our eyes, once thought a flaw, is actually a feature.

    The overall point - no one should believe anything with blind faith.. whether it's science - or relgiion. In these examples you've stated a lot of "science says so" or just stated no knowledge of the issue. Neither are very convincing.

  262. Dkennedy

    Yes. there are. Many of whom secular.

    First, if you check into this subject - even wikipedia states:

    According to New Testament scholar James Dunn, nearly all modern scholars consider the baptism of Jesus and his crucifixion to be historically certain. He states that these "two facts in the life of Jesus command almost universal assent" and "rank so high on the 'almost impossible to doubt or deny' scale of historical facts" that they are often the starting points for the study of the historical Jesus.

    Honestly, scholars accept this much pretty much across the board.

    As far as your requested contemporary accounts, all you would have to do is a simple google search -- but here:

    Reporting on Emperor Nero's decision to blame the Christians for the fire that
    had destroyed Rome in A.D. 64, the Roman historian Tacitus wrote:

    "Nero fastened the guilt . . . on a class hated for their abominations, called
    Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin,
    suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of . . .
    Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the
    moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but
    even in Rome. . . ."

    So.. this confirms a person that Christians got their namesake from suffered "the extreme penalty" during Tiberius reign by the hands of Pontius Pilatus.

    Tacitus was the historian.. and obviously not a christian one from his tone.

    You'll also notice the statement about a "mischievious superstition" that broke out in Judea. Historians assume this to be speaking of the belief that christ rose from the dead.. and the fact that this belief spread throughout the region.


    Some question the writings of Josephus and whether the Jewish historian's words were later altered, although most christans scholars have troulble understanding what motive they would have had to edit it at that time..

    Josephus was born in 37 AD, which would have been still contemporaneus to Jesus, since the apostles and those who witnessed Christ's death would all still be alive for many decades later..

    The work that was written by Josephus states:

    "About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a
    man. For he . . . wrought surprising feats. . . . He was the Christ. When Pilate
    . . .condemned him to be crucified, those who had . . . come to love him did not
    give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared . . . restored to
    life. . . . And the tribe of Christians . . . has . . . not disappeared "

    The claim is that this was edited from former text in the 3rd or 4th century.. though I'm unsure the reasons for the claim.

    Next - other holy books confirm his existence - such as the Babylonian Talmud, the date would be between 70-200 AD.

    "On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the
    execution took place, a herald . . . cried, "He is going forth to be stoned
    because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy."

    Lucian who was born in 125 AD wrote of this persistent belief of Christians - it is not completely contemporaneous, but shows that the people of that time believed that christ had lived and died as stated biblically

    "The Christians . . . worship a man to this day--the distinguished personage who
    introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . [It] was
    impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from
    the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worship the
    crucified sage, and live after his laws"
    The tone is one antagonistic and clearly not Christian.. he was a satirist after all.
    The places where we find evidence of Christ living and dying as the Bible states are from historians - those tasked with recording the events as they had occurred.
    Combine this with the historical record of the bible itself, which historians have matched up and shown as accurate - there is evidence both from Christian and secular sources - both contemporary and also those living just after.

  263. Dkennedy

    History - especially in early times - was written after the fact, my friend.

    Tacitus writings in 64 ad would be while those who had witnessed Christ's life would still be alive and well - there are two dates considered as the year of Christs birth - either 4 bc, or the date when herod took the census 10 years later. Christ would have died either 29 AD or 39 AD. That brings him within twenty five years of Tacitis writtings. To me, it seems odd that you wouldn't accept the hisorical writings about Hitler if it had been written in the 1960's.

  264. Dkennedy

    And that isn't an answer --- so, what would qualify as "evidence" for you?
    You say "evidence" would convince you -- and I'm interested in what form of evidence would be conclusive for you? If you fall back on simply the idea that "evidence" would convince you, you are using it as effectively a scapegoat and not acknowledging the fact that if we were to define what would qualify as "evidence" to you, it would likely be a completely unrealistic standard. Yes, I know, I know, "overwhelming claims" etc. etc. - I'm not asking for a cliche as a reply, I'm asking for examples.

  265. Achems_Razor

    What would qualify as "evidence" would be empirical evidence, prima facie evidence, contemporaneous evidence, that your deities existed, or even existed as plain men, (little carbon units,) that existed as long as a flicker of a neutrino colliding with a hydrogen atom according to the time scale of the universe, never mind making all that we see by speaking it. Yes, no room for the "gods of the gaps" here. Nor "quantum woo."

  266. Dkennedy

    Also, let me point out that yes, in a basic sense you could say that is the argument, there is a god "because the world is amazing" - that is, if you want to be belittling - it would be like saying to someone that believed in gravity "sure, you believe in gravity cause stuff is stuck to the earth" or some other way of describing it in it's most primitive way.. I would state it a lot differently, I just didn't care to get into a 2000 word essay on all we have learned through science, especially considering it will be quite boring.. I figured we can jump past all that and you just get the point.

    And yes, we have learned a lot from science, we have learned these things by experiment and documentation. First, don't think that I believe we haven't, after all - I'm talking to you on the internet, whch is, yes, "amazing". But here's the thing, there is what science CAN do and what science CAN'T. This is always hard for me to describe, but simply put you cannot truly understand a system from inside that system. It would be like a sentient AI trying to understand it's existence from inside the computer - without being able to escape the confines of the computer it can't fully grasp what it is. Inside the computer this AI could point out interactions, depending on what this AI had access to, it could possibly describe chunks of data being moved from one point to another - it might be able to define how internet protocol addresses seem to function, but without access to the outside realm - if it was stuck inside that system - it could never define WHY IP addresses exist. It could endlessly study them and learn about the existence of subnet masks and all the other features etc, but the "why" would be a mystery. If someone told this AI that they believed it's understanding of IP addresses never answers the question of "why" they exist, the AI might respond "Well, they exist to transmit information from one network address to another" --- the other AI .. I suppose the "spiritual" AI, would say "but that doesn't answer the question! Where did it come from.. I mean, IP addresses seem logical - almost..... designed.. like a mind made them, I mean, they follow strict rules and behave in a very exact way!" the other AI would insist that there's no reason at all to make that assumption, and simply because IP addresses give the IMPRESSION of design.. doesn't by any means imply there is an actual designer.

    The periodic table of elements and it's incredible structure. Human consciousness and the manner that the brain operates. All of the forces and the way they work together. The DNA molecule and the language of RNA and DNA transcription - it isn't simply "amazing", it's so incredibly complex that we have spent thousands of years developing our knowledge on how it all functions. We still haven't documented and experimented enough to even scratch the surface of many aspects of the world.
    From inside the computer - the program can never find "evidence" of a designer... not if they have no access to the outside world. In our world it is the same... there is no "evidence" except every thing around you. If you feel there is no necessity for intelligence to actually define all of the aspects of the universe... then that's what you believe. I see that as much harder to believe than in a god. If we were to "create" the world we see around us, were we to somehow have the ability, materials etc - it would be an immense undertaking - and most likely 100's of thousands of attempts would simply not function at all. But, in your view - it just happened.

    One AI would never be able to convince the other one that there are humans on the other side of the screen either.. but the argument I'm making is a little bit more in depth than "the world's amazing".

  267. Dkennedy

    And again.. incapable of providing an example of what that "evidence" would be that would convince you.

  268. over the edge

    First off an apology. I am sorry for giving you too much credit. I thought you actually had a basic grasp of evolutionary theory. That mistake was mine. Quote mining me and misrepresenting me is dishonest and frankly annoying. But i will ask you to back up some of your claims.
    - where was I "Arguing from the authority"? please be specific
    - please show me proof that "sun would have been 30-40% colder 4 billion years ago, when life began. A situation that would not allow life."
    - again please address "who claims that all the mass was on one side" and changing it from "mass" to "land mass" without admitting the mistake is dishonest
    - as for vestigial structures/ Where did i make the specific claims you are addressing? Either you are building a strawman or talking to yourself.
    - while we are on the subject please explain "it was only recently that they found that having the cones and rods
    behind our blood vessels in our eyes, once thought a flaw, is actually a
    feature." I addressed your questions and admitted my shortcomings. Can you do the same?

    Now the theory of evolution does not have all the answers. Yes there are holes.But the evidence we do have is overwhelming. So I will ask what is your alternative? And please present your repeatable. observable and documented evidence for this alternative. if you provide this evidence I will provide the evidence (repeated, observed and documented) for decent with modification leading to speciation. That is all evolution claims. While there are areas that the evidence is not complete the evidence we do have overwhelms any alternative.

  269. matt

    How about we just go with the classical definition: An accumulation of information that would logically indicate that a claim is true.

  270. over the edge

    let me summarize your comment for you.
    There are things I/we do not understand. Therefore god.

  271. matt

    First paragraph: Made no sense, you rambled. People sticking to the Earth indicates a gravitational force. The Earth being "amazing" does not indicate that the christian god (or any god) made the universe.

    Apparently you didn't want to spend "2,000 words" saying something that made sense...so you just went on for 600 or so words instead...

    Second Paragraph: We actually do describe things from outside of our system. Physicists have written extensively about the BIg Bang (the event that brought about the system in which we exist). You're stuck on this linear time concept of "what happened before--there must always be a before" when the concept of time did not even exist prior to the creation of the universe.

    Regardless--even if a system could not describe an outside system..that in no way indicates that a god (especially the Christian one) made the system. Or if they did make the system that it was purposeful...or that they care.

    Third paragraph: Same dumb argument that the religious have been using for a hundred years--"the fact that this complex thing exists is evidence that it was created". Science has shown over and over again how these processes work and the rules they follow. No divine being is necessary to explain the evolutionary process.

    It's not a miracle that "things around us exist with the supplies they need"--Organisms evolved to run on the resources available to them. Millions of organisms did fail-that's part of the evolutionary process.

    Under your logic, every hand one dealt in poker is given deliberately from the dealer...because a random collection of cards is highly improbable. What you don't realize is every hand is just as improbable as a royal flush.

    You think your argument is deep--but it's just sad and ignorant. You claim you were an atheist (although I get the impression that you were lying in an attempt to gain credibility). But if you actually were, it's just because no one bothered to indoctrinate you--you'd have fallen for anything if you actually believe the crap you're saying.

  272. Achems_Razor

    "Gish Gallop" a favorite ploy from the religee's!

  273. Dkennedy

    At this point... I'd think a LOL is in order. Now "quote mining " is using your words to express what I'm referring to, - I think if someone wants the full context, they have the ability to scroll up.

    You asked where are you "arguing from the authority"? Well, rather than arguing from the authority of a specific person you are arguing from the authority of the body of evidence of evolution as a whole, without actually citing any information. To simply state that (and no these are not exact quotes, they are examples and the quotes are still necessary) "evolution has sufficiently proven" or "there is a body of evidence that proves" or "scientists have shown that", these type of lines carry no real weight - and they aren't discussing facts or really arguing anything except the authority of "they" that have "proven" it. The lines such as the ones I quoted ("But evolution itself has been observed tested and found reliable and in line with the evidence we do have") and things such as this show nothing really. As far as what you did state, it was that others in their family order have similar characteristics.. that's about all you stated there. Pointing out that others in the order have similar characteristics shows that.... others in the order have similar characteristics - it does nothing to really address the evolutionary process, these others with similar characteristics would have the same issues that need explaining.

    *sigh* -- I really need to show proof of what cosmologists are in general agreement on when it comes to the life of our sun? You have the internet..but fine - I guess wikipedia would be most appropriate here:


    From there scroll to the section on it's life cycle. It will state it's 4.57 billion years old, but you know that. On the right side in the same region you'll see a graph showing the luminosity of it from that point 4.57 billion years ago to it's present luminosity - I think from there you can see where they get 30-40% less luminous.

    By the way, I've never even been on this page - but, even the wikipedia page states the faint sun paradox - although they describe it as 25% less luminous - Scrolling further down the page it states:

    Theoretical models of the Sun's development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth's surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop. However, the geological record demonstrates that the Earth has remained at a fairly constant temperature throughout its history, and that the young Earth was somewhat warmer than it is today. The consensus among scientists is that the young Earth's atmosphere contained much larger quantities of greenhouse gases (such as carbon dioxide, methane and/or ammonia) than are present today, which trapped enough heat to compensate for the smaller amount of solar energy reaching the planet.


    It also states the same theoretical 'solution' to the issue as I stated. My question was simply doesn't is seem a little too convenient for them to theorize that since the point of the earth's formation it has maintained relatively the same temperature - disregarding ice ages. I don't know if wikipedia is sufficient to show you, that yes, this really is a thing - and yes, scientists express these ideas. I've basically just stated what I said and then wikipedia saying the same thing - do I need to quote other sources before we have valid grounds to speak on something so generally.. basic?

    No, it truly was not a mistake for me to state that the "mass" was on one side - I was speaking of all of the mass of the land. It was your incorrect assumption that I meant all of the mass of the earth - the issue of the unevenness of the mass that results from this is another issue altogether, I was speaking simply on the idea of whether it seems reasonable that a planet would form with all of the land mass on one side of the planet. Hopefully, also you can understand that when I say "side" - a sphere has no "sides".. but it's the easiest way to describe what I'm saying.

    As far as vestigial organs - you stated."we as humans have multiple vestigial organs" (I'm sorry, now you'll say I'm "quote mining again"... anyway, that was what you stated and I was pointing out that in general "vestigial" is a biased word - it implies that it is, well, a "vestige" from when we were at some other step in the evolutionary process. The term is ripe with the assumptions of evolution. The manner of proving something is "vestigial" is to claim that it serves no purpose now. If we are wrong, and the given body part does serve a purpose, then that makes it not vestigial and instead just a body part that we have in common, which could imply common design as much as evolution. It's the portrayal of the part being not useful, which is all opinion - or I could say 'science of the gaps' that implies there's no function to these parts.

    When I spoke of the cones and rods of our eyes being behind the blood vessels, I was simply giving an example of something that those in the evolutionary community had cited as a flaw in our bodies in the same way that they cite vestigial organs as being functionless leftovers. I was pointing out that recent research shows that this actually makes our eyes more effective - and pointing out that science cites many things as being signs of the evolutionary process (supposed "flaws" in our structure or "vestigial" organs) and it turns out that they are incorrect and are putting their bias into these observations. That was my point... I thought it was clear the first time, but it's pretty clear it wasn't.

    You stated that evolution has " repeatable. observable and documented evidence" actually, that is precisely what it doesn't have. It cannot "repeat" evolution in the lab - it cannot "observe" evolution occurring - and as far as documentation, it only documents similarities and makes assumptions based on those similarities.
    What do I propose as an alternative? Analyzing the data without the built in assumption of evolution... is that so difficult? There was a time when science felt that if you couldn't actually demonstrate something it was not science - evolution has turned into nothing more than story telling --- things like "we evolved emotions because it brought increased survival".. "clearly we evolved larger brains due to the increased caloric intake from having fire to cook food"... etc --- what I'm doing here is giving examples of what you read in science every single day -- nothing more than stories masquerading as science, and calling it science has basically destroyed the scientific method.

  274. Dkennedy

    "We actually do describe things from outside of our system. Physicists have written extensively about the BIg Bang"

    Speculating can be useful - but it's still speculating. I don't really think I need to go further into that if you don't see the difference - it's not true observation. We cannot go further back than the big bang because the math itself that we would use to describe it breaks down.

    It's not a miracle that "things around us exist with the supplies they need"-
    Interesting... I never even said this :)
    As far as poker and your talk about random.. I'd just point out that a universe created by any sort of random chance process would never work. Very simple way to look at it - it would take chance 10 billion tries to successfuly count to 10. Seriously, to do something a 5 year old could do without difficulty - but would take chance 10 billion tries.
    Your strange argument about poker is suggesting that all the laws of physics and everything you see is accidentally perfect. That isn't a royal flush - the odds of a royal flush are absolutely nothing in comparison. It's piles and piles of impossibilities on top of each other.. I guess you must be one of those that believes there's an infinite number of universes where the math didn't work.. we just "lucked" out.
    Yes, I definitely was an atheist. I definitely cornered Christians and asked them ridiculous questions like "if a child was born on an island and had never heard of Christ or the bible.. and then died - what would happen to his soul?"
    I recall a person handing out bibles on the street next to a community college - I took one and threw it away.. in my mind it was "to keep it out of the hands of evil"... yes, definitely I was very atheist --
    I wrote papers in college discussing the idea that the historical Jesus didn't exist. I referenced mainly articles from things like "the humanist" magazine etc. As I recall I quoted Thomas Jefferson in that final paper saying that there was truth about Christ but it was like "diamonds in dunghills." as Jefferson said. It's not an exact quote - I'm just pointing out things that should in some way verify my point that yes, I was atheist for 25 years. My grandma use to always say "when you're dead you're dead"... I've gone to church twice in my life - I don't believe in organized religion (after all, Christ believed you should pray in private.. so the whole thing makes little sense to me).
    So, believe it or not -- yep, I was atheist til 25. I'm now 42.

  275. Dkennedy

    Nope, then you didn't understand the comment at all, because the absolute basic meaning is that what we DO understand illustrates God, not what we don't.

    Understanding electromagnetism - DNA - or anything else you really care to discuss does not in any way make it less mystical. It didn't for scientists throughout the ages - it didn't for Einstein, and no, I'm not going into an argument stating Einstein was a believer in God (I know, I know.. he was a deist - or similar, that's really not the point) Einstein, Feynman, Hawkings - whether they are religious or complete atheist, the more we know, the more we understand, the more amazed they are. Your childish insult or misunderstanding of what I was stating is simply not the case. Understanding never makes things less amazing.. it makes them more so.

    Watch any of the truly great scientists at work -- watch their enthusiasm. Think of Carl Sagan stating "billions upon billions" - and like I said, it's irrelelevant whether they were believers or not, some are some aren't - the true point is that learning things for them by no means made the subject matter less interesting or amazing.

  276. Dkennedy

    And in what form could that possibly take for you personally? Hypothetically?

  277. matt

    The math arguments wrong...it's been proven wrong. Honestly. everything you say is just...dumb.

  278. matt

    Any form. A scintilla of evidence would be more than what currently exists.

  279. Dkennedy

    Powerful arguments! And what math agrument? That it takes random 10 billion tries to count to 10? Actually, you're right - on the average it could take random chance 5 billion tries... or it could get it the first time, it's just the odds are 10 billion to 1.

  280. matt

    Except that has exactly nothing to do with evolution. You're taking things that have already happened and saying "that was an improbable result so I couldn't have happened". Under that awful logic, no one could win the lottery or be born (millions of sperm, very little chance to be the one that turned into a human).

    The fact that your family tree developed in a way so that you exist had much smaller odds than 10 billion to 1...but there you are.

  281. over the edge

    I will try again. When you ask "Do you find it credible that through mutation and natural selection over
    millions of years a butterfly would develop the life cycle it displays?" My example attempted to point out that the butterfly didn't have to develop any of these qualities. They were most likely inherited. And before you ask. Bo i cannot show how every trait developed. That by no means disproves evolution. There is evidence everywhere showing decent with modification leading to speciation . No not every species is documented and that will most likely never happen.

    You go on to state "You stated that evolution has " repeatable. observable and documented
    evidence" actually, that is precisely what it doesn't have. It cannot "repeat" evolution in the lab - it cannot "observe" evolution occurring and as far as documentation," you are completely wrong there. Look up the long term e-coli evolution experiment. It is 100% observed , documented and repeated proof for decent with modification leading to a new species. That is all evolution claims.

    your exact claim was " "sun would have been 30-40% colder 4 billion years ago, when life began. A situation that would not allow life." see the part at the end? that is the part that i disagreed with. And your own article agrees with me not you.

    As for "land Mass" you are right i misread your comment. But all the land forming together is just as likely (maybe more so depending on how it formed) as any other configuration.

    I have heard that the blood vessels running behind the lens are a flaw . and the placement of the cones and rods are not optimal. But as it is your claim please show me where it has been scientifically proven to be an advantage.

    Finally. i noticed you never provided an alternative explanation. Do you have one? care to share? I know from your past posts you are a Christian. As this doc concerns religion and i assume your position concerning the development is in line with your beliefs. Why not compare evidence for our positions? does that sound fair?

  282. Dkennedy

    Incorrect analogy on your part. There are millions of sperm - in that case the odds are extremely in favor of one of the darn things making it in -- but ONLY one. The more sperm, the more the odds increase to the point of being inevitable - if that sperm hadn't have made it a different one would have - that's what statistics tell us, but that isn't the case with taking a vast number of mathematically verging on impossible factors and then multiplying them together - you are not increasing your odds, you are decreasing them dramatically with each factor, it's essentially the exact opposite statistically.
    More to your analogy would be one far more fragile sperm in an environment trillions of times less hospitable (still an understatement).
    Lottery winners occur statistically EXACTLY at the number statistics would predict - I'm positive of it without even checking. See, as you flip a coin you can get a streak of heads -- but in the long run there's a slimmer and slimmer divergence from 50/50 -- and the larger the number the less until it's completely negligible - statistics work - every time.
    You are relying on pretend infinities.
    Another strange analogy is your family tree one, my family tree could have developed millions of different ways - but they wouldn't have been improbable. Developing in the manner that it did is not going against any odds - the same is not true for the universe and all the laws of physics developing as they are, any divergence and there would be nothing.
    As I said, you're relying on pretend infinities, even with the assumption that "well, it happened this way cause here we are talking about it" (no, I'm not quoting - I'm stating the typical argument) It's the equivalent of trillions of coin tosses landing on heads - and if I stood and watched a trillion coin tosses landing on heads, were I to have the time, I'm sure you wouldn't be so willing to say there was no manipulation of the results.

  283. matt

    Your statistics are wrong, but even if they were not, they don't discredit evolution in the least.

    And even if they did discredit evolution, presuming that the answer is the Christian god is laughable.

  284. matt

    In no way do these things indicate the existence of a god.

    If I find a dollar in my wallet, and I don't know who put it there, the logical solution isn't Santa clause.

  285. Dkennedy

    In a certain sense I have a feeling we will just disagree and life will go on. I say that as I consider my response about the butterflies and that it's largely going to be the same.
    The butterfly certainly DID have to develop these qualities. Breaking it into a varietly of similar organisms doesn't change that - saying that, to me, is like sleight of hand, or another way of putting it is "hand waving", or even moving the goal post. If those other organisms showed any sort of logical progression from A > B > C -- then that would be one thing, yet they really don't, they are each just as intricate on their own particular paths with nothing really leading up to what they currently are. They are just as much of an issue to explain as the original butterfly. No real steps leading up, which is why evolution has basically abandoned it's "tree of life" vision of things and now sees almost nothing but individual lines - 10's of thousands of them, because no direct lineage is really being revealed - only varieties.
    Here's an example... If we saw an organism that moves through the first two stages of a butterfy's life - and has distinct qualities that show it to be the ancestor, but has developed certain features of it's own in it's own lineage, yet clearly seems to be a step toward the butterfly, that would be one thing. Then if we see another organism that goes through some form of the first three stages of the butterfly's life.. but then has diverged - and also has qualties that imply it's an ancestor, that would imply evolution as described. But what seeing is entirely different, we're seeing varieties of insects, each with certain similarities - but nothing that appears like a progression, more like individual mysteries.
    It's hard to describe the difference between what the two results in the species would appear as.. but I'm trying.
    Here.. I think I found a way of describing it: If you see thousands of species, each with their own characteristics but also similar characteristics, then the conflict is you are portraying an ancestral split - at what stage? And if that ancestral split occurred and became 1000's of variants evolving on their own, they all evolved the same features ....... how?
    Let's say I have a protype car.... all it has is a body and 4 wheels.. -- it's the "ancestor" car. Varieties of it shoot off and evolve into their own car models --- the consipuous part becomes when you see that they all have a horn, 4 doors, two headlights --- but also have their own individual characteristics. They evolved seperately... but in most ways, evolved the same? I'm simply stating this neither matches what I'd predict from mutation and natural selection..(including other things like the founder effect, genetic drift helps.. but still doesn't seem right for various reasons) and also I can't imagine a model where one could get this type of result.
    Those instead would be varieties of cars. The type that were designed.. and then varied ... they don't reflect any type of split and evolve theory -- the only thing that would even SLIGHTLY fit, is if everything co-evolved simultaneously.
    So, anyway -- that's only the beginning of my response to the first question. :)

  286. Dkennedy

    Ok, part 2 of my comment... sorry this is so lengthy, it's just for what I'm trying to describe.. I don't know a way to say it short.
    I guess, the shortest version would be -- the models of darwinian evolution and the mechanisms described wouldn't produce the results we see - not even in a highly rigged computer model, not from my viewpoint. That's the short version.
    Describing what I MEAN by that is highly more intricate.
    The butterfly has a life cycle that does not function correctly without every step of the chain. It cannot be a "partial" life cycle - with it doing SOME of what it does and not others. This is the main issue. Trying to project some sort of steps where it could reach that would, to me, be nonsensical. I don't really even know where you would begin.. and we sure don't have any fossils or ancestors that back up the theory. Did it at one point go through all it's life cycle stages.. but come out as a caterpillar still? Then later evolved the mutations to allow it to come out with wings? That would be nonsense, why even go through a pupa stage without changing form? So, you see, there's a level of foresight involved - and evolution has none. It won't logically mutate a pupa stage without also having in place the mechanics of what it is going to change into - so you are talking an entire wealth of mutation that gets put on hold until the entire process is ready for production.
    It would be like having a car that changes into a plane - but not undergoing any of it until all the specifics are worked out..... and that's a LOT of specifics. Practically every aspect of the caterpillar changes when it changes to a butterfly - nearly every aspect.
    If you think it seems reasonable, then you do. I simply do not. I do not see a logical path from A to B without planning... which is something evolution simply does not do.
    But the butterfly is only one of thousands of examples. The real point is what my short version expressed, the darwinian model and the mechanisms as described could not logically produce the results we see.

  287. Dkennedy

    If you see a dollar in your pocket.. you don't assume dust randomly mutated in your wallet and formed one either.
    It's a matter of using logic to find what could produce the results you see. That, right there, is the root of scientific inquiry - and also things like forensics. It starts with a hypothetical cause that could produce the result you see.
    Which returns me to where I began. You look at the world and you find it logical that all the laws of physics and human life and cosciousness came from nothing by random chance, even random chance came from.. random chance I guess? I do not see that as a logical conclusion, though I once did. Even thermodynamics tells us that everything goes from order to chaos, not the reverse (If you are familar with this argument about the 2nd law of thermodynamics, this is where you could then get into an argument with me about closed systems versus open ones - and I'd reply that everything is a closed system depending on how far you stretch your view)
    You believe in a universe that creates itself from nothing, I feel scientifically a mind would have to be involved. I didn't come to this conclusion based on scripture - or based on hallucination, but simply from giving it a lot of consideration..
    But we disagree...

  288. matt

    Except the scientific theory has spoken--and promulgated evolution.

    You presumably already know your thermodynamic argument is fruitless.

    The logical conclusion has never been and never will be the existence of god...especially the christian one.

  289. Dkennedy

    Now.. the next statement you made " Look up the long term e-coli evolution experiment. "
    I'm very familiar with the e-coli experiment. You seem to be going on the idea that I don't think mutations can happen. Also you seem to be thinking that simply showing that a mutation occurs means it's capable of producing all the forms of life we see given enough time. The two are not even related.
    Leski in over 30 years of experiments and 60,000 generations of bacteria has produced about 10-20 mutations that could theoretically be put into the "beneficial" category from what I recall. They were not destructive or neutral to our knowledge anyway (although.. deciding whether a mutation is beneficial in the long term is relative -- for all things there's some type of trade off, and he's seen this with some mutations that appeared beneficial but had other negative side effects).
    These 10-20 mutations over 60,000 generations would be the equivalent of many million years of human evolution. The e-coli mutation in particular, though it had a decidedly major effect in that environment, was the equivalent of flipping a switch rather than fundamental change - it duplicated a transport gene, though the change wasn't novel - yes, the results were dramatic. E Coli has the capability of using citric acid already.. what it lacked was the ability to transport it into the cell when oxygen is present.
    The point being, the change did not produce anything new - it had all the structure to do it, it simply duplicated an existing gene.
    I could go much further.. and talk about the fact that there are bacteria that change based on environment this way, more akin to the seasonal change in beak sizes of darwins finches... but whatever we make of it, this mutation, or the 10 to 20 that appeared beneficial over the 30 years are in no way examples that reflect the wholesale changes that have to have occurred in evolution -- sequential or not you couldn't get from simple cells to humans with this type of change... not even with 100's of millions of years.

  290. Dkennedy

    As for my last statement about bacteria - in the 60's we found bacteria that could switch from digesting glucose and being unable to digest lactose to the opposite, depending on which was in the environment. Essentially they found it flips a switch -- a repressor gene - to keep from producing the protein to digest the one that isn't present.
    Idea being, in this case it could always do both - it just repressed the one that wasn't needed.

  291. Dkennedy

    I don't know that any of my arguments are "fruitless", you haven't disputed any, nor does anyone else really. Like most you state "you're wrong", or "that's just stupid" and stand on nothing much other than scientific consensus.

  292. Dkennedy

    Now.. as far as the Sun, no, the article I quoted does not disagree with the idea that 30% colder sun wouldn't allow life -- it says specifically:
    "Theoretical models of the Sun's development suggest that 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago, during the Archean period, the Sun was only about 75% as bright as it is today. Such a weak star would not have been able to sustain liquid water on the Earth's surface, and thus life should not have been able to develop."
    See that part at the end? So, a cooler sun would not support life - which is what I claimed. The part that agrees with you is that scientists feel that since the geological record shows a constant temperature for nearly the entire 4 billion years, something which would appear to disagree with the cooler sun, they assume massive green house gases that have been burning off for 4 billion years.
    My original question is whether that seems plausible? Whether it seems awfully coincidental to you that the temperature of earth has been practically uniform for 4 billion years even as the sun has changed rather dramatically in temperature - I suppose you are saying it makes perfect sense to you.

  293. matt

    You could take a science class, or simply google the rebuttal to your ridiculous creationist talk points.

    Ii stand "on nothing other than scientific consensus". Haha --that's the best rebuttal I've ever heard ever.

  294. Dkennedy

    "But all the land forming together is just as likely (maybe more so depending on how it formed) as any other configuration."

    Do we have any other planet we have observed that shows this configuration is likely? Do we have anything in nature that exhibits this asymetrical formation?

    As far as the blood vessels behind the lens not being a flaw:

    Here's the summary of an article from New Scientist - which of course had to give it a positive evolution spin... but I figured it was a less biased source than taking an article from the numerous christian websites that speak on the subject

    "IT LOOKS wrong, but the strange, "backwards" structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision.

    Certain cells act as optical fibres, and rather than being just a workaround to make up for the eye's peculiarities, they help filter and focus light, making images clearer and keeping colours sharp."
    Or in the actual peer reviewed paper where the research is docmented:

    "Retinal Glial Cells Enhance Human Vision Acuity"
    The publication is on aps physics (aps(dot)org) I'm use to disqus not allowing links... but maybe that's a site thing and not a disqus thing -- anyway, I'm sure a simple search for the title will pull it up.

  295. Dkennedy

    Let me point out -- these very long posts I'm making, I do them from work (and really shouldn't.. but yes, we are very slow currently - so I can get away with it). That's also why I've chopped these replies into multiple parts.

    Now.. for the last piece - you said:

    "Finally. i noticed you never provided an alternative explanation. Do you have one? care to share? I know from your past posts you are a Christian. As this doc concerns religion and i assume your position concerning the development is in line with your beliefs. Why not compare evidence for our positions? does that sound fair?"
    You guys love throwing around the term "burden of proof" (as in atheists and evolution supporters) so, this time the "burden of proof" is on you. I'm not pushing a theory on how all species came to be, I'm voicing concerns about your scientific consensus. I'm voicing concerns about you theory / hypothesis / dogma / belief that has had such unrivaled success.
    You see, no competing view is necessary for criticism,. Atheists are always quite fond of demonstrating that --- correct? If you state that winged monkeys are pulling the sun across the sky, it doesn't at all mean I have to prove what is making the sun move through the sky - it's on you to show me proof of the winged monkeys.
    Well, I see no winged monkeys - I don't see lenski's 10 to 20 beneficial mutations (and far far more neutral or detrimental) as being evidence of a process that brings bacteria out of the soup and onto land and then has them start teaching calculus. I don't see a mechanism for doing that in 500 million years or 500 trillion for that matter.

  296. Dkennedy

    You do realize that throughout history science has had consensus on a whole host of issues - they were wrong.
    It' a delusion to think that they were wrong all that time but now things have changed - ego has told you that science was wrong then, but they aren't wrong any more.
    It's a definite that there are dramatic, world changing errors in science right this very second. How do we know? Probabiliity, statistics. They always have been. Which huge world changing thing are they wrong about? We aren't sure --- but there are ones out there, and just simply living on the idea that everything science tells you is correct, when it never has been the case, is as gullible as believing any other nonsense.

  297. matt

    Science has been wrong in the past, and it has given up those false beliefs. Science is continuously looking for better answers. Creationism (which never was science) was replaced by evolution--and if a better theory exists, science will accept it. Hundreds of years of science has done nothing but strengthen and improve evolutionary theory.

    Regardless, science is right more than it is wrong--it's silly to say that "phrenology was wrong, so evolution probably is too".

    Even if evolution wasn't a strong theory, the answer would not be Jesus. It's one thing to try to (attempt) to poke wholes in a theory, it's another to try to replace that theory with something infinitely more ridiculous and implausible.

  298. over the edge

    as you do not feel like having a debate open to both of our perspectives (and that is your right). and you want to discuss several areas at once (i suspect why ). and that is your right also. I have decided to stick to my original proposal discuss one thing at a time.

    i tried to allow you to pick. But you ignored my request . so i will pick.

    The long term e-coli experiment IS an observed repeated and documented example of the claims of evolution. decent with modification leading to a new species is all the theory claims. Deny it all you want but it is. you state "These 10-20 mutations over 60,000 generations would be the equivalent of many million years of human evolution" show me where science claims that?

    " the change did not produce anything new - it had all the structure to do it, it simply duplicated an existing gene." wrong. If You are correct why then if the experiment is redone using e coli before the 22500 generation (i think typing from memory) the E-coli does not start processing the citric acid? If the gene already existed why does the experiment fail if that mutation isn't included (the mutation at 22500)? Please show me the scientific papers showing that is not a new species? as all the ones i have read claim it is. as per your request we have to stick to scientific claims.

  299. Dkennedy

    Your last comment discussed several questions I asked, I responded to each in seperate comments. If you prefer sticking to one.. no problem.

    Your statement: The long term e-coli experiment IS an observed repeated and documented example of the claims of evolution. decent with modification leading to a new species is all the theory claims.

    Interesting. so when is it "a new species"? Is every mutation a new species? Of course not. How about 5.. 10? Actually, even better yet, define the word: species. Though there is a definition, it's extremely vague, because at it's root it just means a "type".. or a "kind". At what threshhold does it get considered a seperate kind?

    Me and you will have no issue with the observed fact that mutations, both good and bad occur, and yes, that would be a "modification" of some type.. unavoidably. But even genetic change from parent to child is a "modification". Where we disagree is that this is a new "species" or more particularly that this bacteria with enough "modifications" will become something other than bacteria. We have not "observed" that, and though you might want to project it to eventually leading to that, it is not something we can assume will.

    Many changes occur genetically that are not indicative of species forming new species of the type evolution entails. Phenotype changes such as changes in hair color, eye color. Seasonal adaptation that all animals do (such as that observed with darwin's finches - which again are just variants). Also, of course there can be mutations.. most will be either neutral or destructive - but occasionally the mistake can be helpful, I would say usually inadvertently. An example: If a given disease needed a specific gene to attack -- and a mutation deleted this gene, this could effectively be a boon for the organism - but it was still a loss, a mistake.


    My statement: These 10-20 mutations over 60,000 generations would be the equivalent of many million years of human evolution

    Your question: show me where science claims that?

    It's not even so much a matter of science - it's a matter of math. 60,000 generations X either 20-25 years (the normal definition of a human "generation") = 1.2 million to 1.5 million years. The reason I state "many" millions of years is because there is no situation for homo sapiens that would have such an increased rate of breeding like you have with bacteria in a test tube, it would logically be a dramatically longer period of time than simply 60,000 human generations

    And my point was that over such period of time 10-20 positive mutations would not, at that rate, give you wholesale species change like we have.

    My statement: " the change did not produce anything new - it had all the structure to do it, it simply duplicated an existing gene."

    Your Statement: Wrong. If You are correct why then if the experiment is redone using e coli before the 22500 generation (i think typing from memory) the E-coli does not start processing the citric acid?

    It fails because it doesn't possess the duplicated protein transporter gene.

    From the plain old wiki article "The researchers also found that all Cit+ clones sequenced had in their genomes a duplication mutation of 2933 base pairs that involved the gene for the citrate transporter protein used in anaerobic growth on citrate, citT. The duplication is tandem, resulting in two copies that are head-to-tail with respect to each other. This duplication immediately conferred the Cit+ trait by creating a new regulatory module in which the normally silent citT gene is placed under the control of a promoter for an adjacent gene called rnk. The new promoter activates expression of the citrate transporter when oxygen is present."

    The interesting part would actually be the part at the end.. it states that the duplication of the transporter gene triggered a normally silent citT gene that placed the new duplicated gene under it's control.

    It's pretty technical - and I'm not going to admit I understand it perfectly, as I'm not a microbiologist - but I've seen it explained in other places as well - such as :

    As Behe put it - also quoting Lenski " wild E. coli already has a number of enzymes that normally use citrate and can digest it (it's not some exotic chemical the bacterium has never seen before). However, the wild bacterium lacks an enzyme called a "citrate permease" which can transport citrate from outside the cell through the cell's membrane into its interior. So all the bacterium needed to do to use citrate was to find a way to get it into the cell. The rest of the machinery for its metabolism was already there. As Lenski put it, "The only known barrier to aerobic growth on citrate is its inability to transport citrate under oxic conditions."

    Me again -- not Behe:

    Not only was the abilitiy to digest citrate present -- all the machinery to do so - but it had a regulatory gene (citT) that was used in environments without oxygen (it would be "switched on" in these environments) and then it would transport the citrate to be digested. In this case the mutation duplicated the transport gene (think of it.. I suppose.. like a conveyer) and then switched on the regulatory gene citT to turn on that conveyor. The REALLY interesting part.. was that in conjunction with this the normal genes for digesting citrate were damaged.. resulting in this duplication. It was actually a deleterious, a damaging mutation, that caused the cell to develop... well, a work around - duplicating the gene that was damaged to replace it and then switching on the option to digest citrate in oxygen environments.

    Back to the summary of this from the article

    ". the machinery for both transporting and metabolizing citrate was already present in these bacteria. But a series of knockout mutations broke the regulation of pre-existing citrate transport mechanisms, causing over-expression of a citrate transport gene, allowing citrate to be transported under both oxic and anaerobic conditions. If this is the case, then clearly this example of Darwinian "evolution" entails the loss of a molecular function, not the gain of a new one. And there was no wholesale acquisition of the ability to metabolize or, as Venema put it, "use" citrate"

    And the article DOES include some caveats:

    "we don't really yet understand the precise molecular mechanisms that caused these E. coli to be able to uptake citrate under oxic conditions"

    There is yet some mystery to the some of the changes that occurred, but damaging one gene in an improper environment for the bacteria and it duplicating the damaged gene as a defense, though the benefits were clear, does not exactly sound like developing novel new features or any example of the power of evolution to create new species, it does sound like a built in defense mechanism against the damage of mutation - that in this particular case helped the bacteria survive. This type of ability or tool is pretty common in DNA, there's a lot of function devoted to preserving DNA exactly how it is, and back up plans for if mutations do occur. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for evolution either, the organism fights as hard as it can to prevent evolution (mutations) from occurring, because the organism KNOWS that mutations are not beneficial.


  300. Dkennedy

    "Creationism (which never was science) was replaced by evolution"
    Religion isn't "replaced" by science. Creationism hasn't been replaced either.. nor can it be really. It is fundamentally impossible to prove either a God or no god..
    Whether evolution theory is "improving" is another topic - I would say there are tons of theories that in the hope of preserving them only get bigger and bigger problems. For example, I believe things like "dark matter" and "dark energy" are anomalies showing problems in cosmology.. we end up adding more of these anomalies because the theory at the root is incorrect. Evolution is running into lots of issues, many swept under the rug - and others that surface but are spun as being a postitive even though it runs counter to the theory as a whole. Theories keep going by the thrust of their own weight.. the more entrenched the community gets in the assumption of the theory the more it will persist even after there are distinct questions that counter it.
    As far as youri claim that it wouldn't be "jesus" that it would be replaced with - no, it would be replaced with God possibly - and how could you possibly say it wouldn't? Simply because you don't believe... so there - that means it can't be? Well.. that's pretty scientific.

  301. over the edge

    there it is. Behe and the word kind. I will admit that i read nothing after his name was mentioned. He is dishonest and his ideas were beaten to death in court. He admitted his definition of science would include astrology. It is completely unfair to exclude competing ideas from the discussion then bring them up a few posts later. What you. I or Behe think is irrelevant. It is a new species according to science.

  302. matt

    There is no material objection to evolution. God is less feasible than a"liens put us here."

  303. Dkennedy

    Really? So me and you or Behe are not qualified to say what the word species means..
    So you have truly taken the unquestioning faith in the consensus of science to a new level, now the average peasants aren't even equipped to define a word. What other words are outside of our scope and only under the peer view of the science elite?
    That, sir, is a dodge and a cop out.
    As far as the statement "it's completely unfair to exclude competing ideas from the discussion then bring them up a few posts later".... I don't even know what you're speaking of.

  304. Dkennedy

    You're very good at making subjective statements such as this - but not as good as saying why. I could definitely imagine your argument versus a Christian god, I've heard those types of arguments, but why exactly would a creator of some kind be "less feasible than aliens"? Out of a singularity, from what we've gathered, all that exists spewed forth, and it went to forming suns, black holes and planets. On, as far as we know, one of those planets a vast plethora of life came about - including us.. why exactly is an intelligent source of this unreasonable to you?

  305. over the edge

    you ask. "Really? So me and you or Behe are not qualified to say what the word species means.." In a word no. you are asking science to back up what it claims and that is fair. But changing the claims made or the definitions used to explain the claims is a strawman.

    as for " "it's completely unfair to exclude competing ideas from the discussion then bring them up a few posts later"." I asked for an argument for your alternative to evolution. you stated (paraphrasing) that you wanted to stick to science and my burden of proof. then you bring up Behe (a creationist/ ID supporter) and used the word "kind" in a context i have only seen used by creationists/ID supporters.So you get to bring up alternatives and use their arguments when advantageous but i can't. And that is fair? respond if you wish but i am done

  306. matt

    My statement was objective.

    You're not even saying anything anymore, you're just rambling for a couple of paragraphs.

  307. matt

    Unreasonable because it's unnecessary--completely and totally.

    If I put milk in my fridge, and then later--when I look again--there is still milk in my fridge, then I know where that milk came from. I shouldn't assume that the milk disappears and is then replaced by an imaginary friend.

  308. Dkennedy

    Seems to me a very odd perspective. I was answering a question about Lenski's experiments which you had basically restricted our conversation to.I gave you two different articles speaking on the subject, one which would be considered entirely neutral - and yes, a statement by Behe. Both, honestly, were in agreement. You then had an allergic reaction because I mentioned Behe and used it as an excuse to jettison the entire conversation.

    First, this speaks to a problem I see often - you don't appear to judge information based on the information presented and also if the information matches with other sources, you instead judge based entirely on source. I take in information and judge it on it's value when combined with information from other sources, especially if I can find the same info (though sometimes framed differently) from someone in the opposite camp. It's a great way to find an objective truth. If you find an atheist and a christian stating the same thing - then this gives weight to the argument because they're likely to be opposed to the other's view of the implications.

    Also, please explain how you can argue against a given theory without effectively walking into other explanations. I spoke of the issue with calling every mutation a new species - or even a small group of mutations, if you want to prove that evolution brings about new species from mutations the first most fundamental thing we need to know is "what is a species?" Otherwise we have stated a goal with no idea when we've reached it.

  309. over the edge

    No, You limited the conversation to science. So if your objections are not scientifically proven and peer reviewed then they are useless. If you wish to broaden the discussion to creationism and ID then that is fine. At that point i will accept your arguments and attempt a counter. but until you do i will abstain. Unless you break the ninth commandment again and misrepresent the conversation

  310. Andrea

    Do atheists ever proselytize?

  311. Andrea

    Do atheists ever proselytize? Ever???

  312. dewflirt

    Never! We just talk to ourselves very loudly ;)

  313. James Johnson

    No one can come to Jesus Christ EXCEPT by faith
    And yet these three remain faith hope and love and the greatest of these is love. Love surpasses the requirement of faith. By your own bible it declares this.
    I cannot accept the fact that a person can live a life of love and compassion and kindness, yet will burn in hell. Any god who calls himself a god of love would never condone this atrocity, rejecting a man/woman after gods own heart just because they are not a believer? Disgustingly stupid.
    Paul said " I say this...Not the lord." So your statement that the bible is gods word is also a lie exposed by your own bible.
    Live and let live. It is fine that you have faith. But it is like your penis. It is fine that you have one, but as soon as you whip it out and wave it in front of people's faces it then becomes inappropriate.

  314. Richard D. Roberts

    There is no god, and there is no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. I win.

Leave a comment / review: