Richard Dawkins: The Blind Watchmaker

,    »  -   300 Comments
310
9.06
12345678910
Ratings: 9.06/10 from 72 users.

Storyline

Richard Dawkins - The Blind WatchmakerOne of the earliest efforts from Richard Dawkins in his identification and attack on the rise of creationism with the rising star of the US fundamentalist Christian demographic. In the important documentary, Dawkins shows ways to easily refute some of the more common creationist arguments.

Dawkins begins with the question, "Did everything in Creation fall together by chance or was there an intelligent designer like God?" He then looks at the spreading disaffection with Darwinism and argues that it should not be written off as a worn out declaration of scientific faith.

Whilst this is an aging documentary, it was an important key step in the growing assertion of science as the ONLY paradigm worthy of consideration to a highly developed species.

More great documentaries

300 Comments / User Reviews

  1. sick of the lies

    Dawkins has even admitted that when you come right down to it, there had been be something that started it all in the beginning and he could not rule out a divine being to do so.
    So, why keep going to all the trouble to play off God's existence so readily? Oh, yeah! so he can be the evo science superstar and make a lot of money off you idiots that put your faith believing in evolution and cannot commit to faith in God and accountability in your own lives...Dawkins cannot, has not, and never will disprove the facts found in radioactive particles within granite world wide that have been proven for over 25 years to shatter the evolution model,, in fact I challenge you, Prof. Dawkins to go after those findings publicly and make another million or so and write a book disproving it... good luck Prof...

  2. Tim

    Something tells me that calling people idiots isn't going to help your argument, friend.

  3. I (heart) creationists

    I love the way the first poster refers to something he or other posters likely find complicated and uses it as evidence.

    What you referred to was the hypothesis suggested by Robert Gentry, a physicist (NOT a geologist) who felt that Polonium halos could be used to justify a world created in mere minutes.

    The fact of the matter is that his works have been peer reviewed and many flaws were found in his experiments. Some of his test samples were found to be younger substances other than granite, where there happened to be older rocks underneath. These "halos" were found in some places and not in others which leads to the question of why it would not be a uniform phenomena if it explains the creationist theory.

    I found it very amusing how you also decided to talk about the money involved.
    I'm pretty sure the religious establishment gets more money robbing people/getting preferential tax treatment/selling today's equivalent of indulgences than any evolutionary biologist. At least Richard Dawkins sells his books and allows people to pay for it willingly, unlike what your churchs have done for thousands of years.

    Cheers!

  4. qaro

    Dude stop watching these videos every time i look at an interesting one there is your idiotic "sick of the lies" post.

    OK, if we accept your retarded premise of "evolution is wrong" so what? Your "god" is still a moronic bronze age myth. Astronomy, Physics, Geology, History, and countless other disciplines still show us that your childish superstitions are demonstrably wrong. Go post your nonsense on religious videos where the morons will eat it up and censor any dissenting view.

    Your pseudo science and quote mining are not persuasive to any one. It just makes your position seem even more pathetic.

  5. Patsy

    Religion was created by man in an attempt to fill in the gaps in human knowledge,the majority of these gaps no longer exist and have been replaced by explanations based on observations.These observations are open to all of society to independently research and confirm.The whole point of science is that it is a search for truth,and it is constantly updated as our knowledge and understanding of our amazing universe expands. This knowledge is gained from the labours of people who have dedicated their lives to this search for truth using hard work.The contemporary understanding of the universe tends to be argued against by each generation of creationists and others with religious faith,until the next generation of scientists have then explained their thinking and ideas with scientific observations(read a history book) Imagine what we will know in 200 years!!. Unfortunately most religious people tend to ignore the glaring fact that history shows us that today’s religion is tomorrows folklore and mythology (again,read a history book). People of religious faith argue for something that they want,and have a deep need to be true.Scientists just make observations and state the results of these observations.All religious doctrines and scriptures have proved to be incredibly incorrect about where we came from,so to believe these same teachings on the future,or workings of our universe really is a sign of self delusion(read any religious scripture). There is only one reality that we all share,people do not get to pick and choose what reality they believe to be true. We all live in the same beautiful and magnificent universe, and therefore we all share the same observations,regardless of these observations matching what you would like to be true.
    ps: if anybody feels a need to contradict anything i have just stated then please do so with information and facts that can be verified by consistent observations, as opposed to links to websites of people speaking about their creationist opinions and not observations shared by all of mankind.

  6. An Ape

    The Creationist's Only Argument (All arguments are different versions of this one):

    Complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, complexity, bacterial flagellum, complexity, complexity, complexity, Therefore: God.

  7. Sick of the Lies

    wow, you evolutionist really do get bent when confronted and reminded that there could be something greater than yourself,don't you? ....Patsy- That is a good name,Lee Harvey Oswald called himself one just before he was made a fossil, I guess he can be dug up now and carbon dated to see if there is some evidence now he was a million years old.

  8. Tim

    SoL, I didn't realize that Lee Harvy Oswald was made into a fossil. Perhaps you don't understand what a fossil is. And what part of the theory of evolution says that there is nothing greater than evolutionists?

  9. Patsy

    Dear Sol: If the only response you can manage to my statement is to make pointless remarks about my name and try to reference it to Lee Harvy Oswald then I can only assume that you are unable to respond to anything that I actually spoke about in my statement. And Tim is quite correct in saying that Mr Oswald has not been fossilised, as this process takes millions of years.

  10. Tim

    Maybe SoL knows something about Oswald that we don't know.

  11. Sick of Lies

    Hi everybody!
    Patsy quotes "if anybody feels a need to contradict anything I have just stated then please do so with information and facts that can be verified by consistent observations"....ok,Patsy Fact: Evolution theory cannot and has NOT been verified by " consistent observations" only micro-variations has been observed but never has there been a case where for instance a rock has been observed evolving into a living creature.

    Tim:(which is a biblical name I may add.) As you cannot seem to evolve past my reference to LHO now being a fossil, let me clarify that that it was a light hearted statement, not sometime I believe to be a fact.. only your "assumption" to observe my comment out of context has prompted your response, much as the "consistent observations" that Patsy seems to believe has been going on.

    The finches that Dawrin observed was not "consistent observation" but rather a quick willy nilly thought that the variations where the result of evolution... if that was the case and since the finch is still there on the island, can you say by now they have macro-evolved into something else? No, you cannot, as they are still finches. It is even been a case in point to those of "consistent observations" to claim that abrupt changes in evolution can be seen due to abrupt environmental changes(opps now I opened another can of worms).. this is ridiculous. As with evolutionary thought process I guess you can say when it is really cold outside,when a guy grows a beard, you are observing through consistent observations that the guy is evolving as he is changing to meet the needs to survive in the cold environment, such as it is with "consistent observation". I guess the guy would not be a human anymore as to that ideology being bantered around. No more than you can say that the finches are now not finches. If you wish to have assumption wash over the mind of scientific fact, than it is not science anymore. Science reasoning was not brought about by believing in assumptions, but rather the fact found AFTER assumptions are proven or debunked. To teach evolution as fact is wrong. Forcing people to believe assumptions to be true is wrong and Hitler said himself that "if you tell a lie long enough and often enough it will be thought of as fact. Same can go for most, if not all the religions you see today, however, as to intelligent design, if you look at it just at face value, it is no more different than 'believing' in another theory at disposal of the scientific community if you can muster the thought that it could be true. Faith plays a big part of your thought process whether you are an atheistic or religious zealot mind you. Evolutionists grapple with not believing in a God more than religious people worship a Creator. They are so busy trying to disprove intelligent design that they believe in assumptions,and their own fabricates lies to the point of a knife. So, I reality, you can have your ASSUMPTIONS based on "consistent observations". I will take it to heart that as long as lies are being fabricated people will continue to have faith and believe in them. unless they do there own research and journey into the unknown. Better to see the truth than fool one's self, So keep Darwin in your heart if you must, but you need to really search within yourself and not believe in assumption.

  12. Patsy

    Dear Sol: By your statement "never has there been a case where for instance a rock has been observed evolving into a living creature" you have made it very clear by your own words that you do not actually understand what biological evolution is. Evolution is the study of how living organisms evolve over vast periods of time through natural selection, brought on by competition between organism's for survival and changes needed to adapt to an ever changing environment. Rocks are not living organisms, rocks don't evolve.
    When I used the term "consistent observation" I was describing an observation that can be repeated independently and that will always give the same result 100% of the time.
    When Darwin examined the different species of finches native to different island groups he made the observation that different breeds of the same species had adapted variations to suite their environment.This can still be observed today making it consistent. The fossil record also shows that evolution is not an abrupt process and it can take millions of years to see any recognisable change in a species,and since there have not been any major environmental changes on the Galapagos Islands for millions of years the species of finches living there remain genetically unchanged since Darwin paid them a visit. As an atheist I certainly don't spend time grappling with not believing in a god, as you put it. And I am no more busy trying to disprove intelligent design than I am with such questions as "Is the earth flat? Are we the centre of the universe? is the earth only a few thousand years old? or who designed my pet goldfish?. When Darwin wrote about his ideas of evolution it was a brand new idea in society and therefore considered a theory.'On the Origin of Species' was written 150 years ago and scientific research and society have both progressed considerably since. In the modern age the clear evidence for evolution can be seen in the D.N.A of all living organisms and we now have the technology to see our genetic relationship to other species and the evolutionary path that life on this planet has taken in the last 4 billion years. Paleontology has also uncovered a much richer,older and diverse fossil record over the last 150 years, which is on display in the natural history museums of the world for all to see. You seem to use the word "Assumption" quite a lot, I find this interesting, I also find it interesting that you would use a term such as "Believe in assumptions and their own fabricated lies to the point of a knife", as scientists merely present findings,experiment results and observations for people to examine independently. Scientists never ask for people to have faith or belief in anything, in fact quite the opposite. People are encouraged to question new findings,that's how scientific knowledge and understanding of our universe progresses. I would also be fascinated to learn what "fabricated lies" that you have spotted in 'The Blind Watchmaker' documentary, considering that the ideas and technology used in this 22 year old programme are responsible for modern breakthrough's in scientific understanding such as deciphering the human genome. You also feel that as an atheist "Faith plays a big part of my thought process", I find this mildly amusing as my thought process is based on observation,logic,a modern education and good old fashioned reasoning. Remember, I'm not the one using terms such as God,creation and design. I can assure you that any thoughts my humble homosapien brain processes are not based on any faiths or beliefs.
    As far as I remember words such as belief and faith are quite clearly reserved and used by other forms of teaching, not science.
    In closing,,and as much as it alarms me to have to clarify this point for you, a man growing a beard is not an example of evolution on a genetic level, nor is it a reaction that facial hair tends to have to changes in the weather.
    Maybe you should try exercising some basic logic, it might help you to differentiate between a living organism and a rock.

  13. Tim

    SoL, you make some good points. We can't directly observe evolution in process, as it would take far longer than any of us can live, or far longer than human civilization has even existed. What we can observe are fossil records. These support the theory of evolution, which as you point out is just a theory, not established fact. However, it is the best theory that we have so far. And the claim that abrupt changes in environment can cause evolutionary change doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. No one is claiming that changes in the environment cause changes in the genetic structure of existing organisms. They only change the conditions for survival, altering natural selection to favor organisms that are better suited to the new environment. Your example of the man growing a beard is a straw man, as it is not in any way analogous to evolutionary theory. If it is meant to illustrate the absurdity of the "abrupt environmental change = abrupt evolution" argument, it fails to do so because it is a false analogy. Evolution is supposed to occur across generations, not within an individual. If members of a species living in a cold environment bred hairier offspring over successive generations, each with more hair than the last, then this would be more like evolution.

    As to your comment about Lee Harvey Oswald, I realize it was made in jest, but I don't understand how you make the leap from Patsy to Oswald to fossilization. I understand that you're implying that carbon dating is unreliable. I'm wondering exactly what evidence you've read that carbon dating is so unreliable that it mistakes something that is only a few thousand years old for something that is millions of years old. I might be getting ahead of myself here, but this is usually the argument made by Young Earth Creationists. Just for clarification, is this the position you're taking?

    What does my name being a Biblical name have to do with anything?

    I agree that teaching that evolution is the only possible answer would be wrong, however that is not really the issue. The debate about evolution has become polarized because of the intensity of the conflict. This happens with pretty much any controversial topic; it is reduced to two extremes. What we have to understand is that the issue is very complex. It is not simply an either-or matter. Evolution is just the best explanation we have that is supported by scientific data. There are holes in the theory, and there are some things that seem to contradict it, but that doesn't make it outright false. And it is certainly not a malicious lie as some people believe. Nor is it incompatible with the existence of a Creator. It definitely does conflict with literal interpretations of Genesis, and every other creation story, but that also doesn't make it untrue.

    Then there is the issue of faith. Faith is a word much like love; it encompasses a vast range of concepts, so we have to be careful how we use the word. I agree that we all use faith in our mental processes. Without even the slightest bit of faith, we would distrust everyone and everything. But there are different degrees of faith. Having faith an a scientific theory is nothing like having faith in a supernatural being. One, by definition, must have some way of at least being proven false. You can disprove a scientific theory, but you cannot disprove the existence of a supernatural being; it is, by its very nature, beyond our means of detection, and is purely a matter of faith. This is why Intelligent Design is not considered a scientific theory. Either we have evidence of a creator, and therefore the creator exists, or we have don't have evidence, and therefore the creator is as of yet undetected. There is no possible evidence that would disprove the existence of a creator. I guess the rest of my argument would depend on what kind of creator you believe in though, so I'll let you respond before I go any further.

    Oh, and before I forget, try not to make references to Hitler in any discussion that doesn't involve Nazis. That tactic is called "reductio ad Hitlerum," and people having been using it way too often since at least 1953 when the term was coined. In fact, this is a perfect example of Godwin's law: "As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

    I have to say though, you're one of the few people I've debated with who actually uses punctuation and coherent statements. You have no idea what a relief that is.

  14. Crocoduck

    @SoL

    You just can't be serious? That post is a joke, right? But in case it isn't, here goes. A rock evolving to a living creature? If that's what you think evolution is, no wonder you're a creationist. Darwin's finches have been studied EXTENSIVELY for decades now, and their evolution has been observed and documented thoroughly. (Actually, taxonomically they're not considered finches anymore, but rather as belonging to the family of tanagers.) Macro-evolution is not a separate phenomenon, it just a lot micro-evolution aggregated over a very long time. The point at which we decide to call something a different species is completely arbitrary: There was no magic moment when for instance Homo heidelbergensis suddenly became Homo sapiens! For the same reason, EVERY fossil we've ever found is a transitory fossil from something to something else. Oh, and no one is busy trying to disprove intelligent design. That was done 150 years ago. I strongly suggest you start reading some other books beside that really bad, inconsistent, iron-age one because the ignorance betrayed by your post is just mind-boggling.

  15. Tim

    Ah, I remember that one Mr. Razor. I remember seeing that the first time, and when the woman used the phrase "obvious truth," I could tell that they weren't going to put much effort into proving their point. Anyone who starts out by saying that what they're going to tell you is obviously true is basically saying that anyone who disagrees is obviously an idiot.

    But of course the worst part is that they completely lied about what evolution has to say on the origin of life. I can guarantee that no theory on the origin of life involves zapping matter with energy to produce life. Furthermore, peanut butter is dead organic matter, not inorganic matter, so peanut butter is not exactly the ideal substance to use for testing this theory. It's probably got bacteria in it anyway. If you really wanted to test this theory, you should at least try to get it right. So basically these people are constructing a straw man argument to refute, and then they fail to do that by using evidence that is completely irrelevant.

    I don't know who these people think they're fooling. I hope they're just ignorant and don't actually realize that they're lying, because if they really believe that evolution is a "fairy tale," they shouldn't have to lie to disprove it. If creationism is so obviously true, why not bring out better arguments? Instead they chose the worst argument for creationism I've ever heard.

  16. Tim

    Good points, Crocoduck. I keep hearing the argument that if evolution is correct, there should be all sorts of transitory fossils. Well, there are. Just look at all the transitional species and sub-species of our own genus. What exactly are we supposed to find?

    Maybe finding your namesake would prove it. Wasn't it Kirk Cameron who said that if evolution is correct, we should be finding crocoduck fossils? I wonder where he learned about evolution, because if he's actually waiting for the discovery of a crocoduck, then he has no idea how evolution is supposed to work. But let's assume that the crocoduck is his attempt at humor and he really meant that we should be finding some kind of transition between reptiles and birds. Well we have. So if he's a man of his word, he should concede the point and accept that evolution is at least a good theory.

  17. Achems Razor

    Come on people;

    (LAMASO) Look a little closer at all the videos. it is a parody against creationism.

    Just some humour I thought I would add. WOW! is all I can say.

  18. Tim

    Razor, what are the other videos? I only see the peanut butter one.

  19. Achems Razor

    Tim:

    Wait until the video finishes, use your pointer to bottom of video, will display other videos

  20. Crocoduck

    Tim, that's right, something like Archeopteryx really WAS a crocoduck of a sort! By the way, it's really hard to distinguish parody of creationism from the actual thing! I think there's even a law to describe the phenomenon, Poe's Law I think it's called?

  21. Patsy

    Hahahahahaha,Great video's Achems Razor!! I haven't laughed that much in years,,very entertaining :)
    Peanut butter is clearly the answer..how could I have been so misguided in my fantasy world for so long!!
    I wonder if Mr Sol will be able to find any of his "Fabricated Lies" amongst these clips ;)

  22. Tim

    Wait, are you saying that the peanut butter video is a parody? Because it's definitely not. Chuck Missler is very sincere about his peanut butter argument. That's what's so funny about it. He actually believes it.

  23. Achems Razor

    Tim:

    You are right! It does seem like he believes it. but I do not really know.
    Did you ask him?

    I still class this a parody, for lack of a better word.

    Shall we endeavor to make this small matter into a major philosophical debate that will go down in the annuals of history as the great peanut butter debate of 2009?

    :D

  24. Tim

    LOL. I'm absolutely sure he's not joking about the peanut butter thing. He's a conservative Christian author and an outspoken opponent of evolution and abiogenesis. Parodying creationism would not help his cause. Then again, his sincere efforts aren't helping his cause either. The fact that his peanut butter argument seems like a parody is just a testament to how utterly ridiculous it is.

    Actually, that peanut butter clip is supposed to be part of a larger film called "A Question of Origins." I think it would make a great addition to this website. It could turn out to be the most unintentionally funny thing ever.

  25. Achems Razor

    Tim:

    Thanks for the info. I knew nothing about him.

    I checked the site, a question of origins.

    There are videos, Now of course I have to watch them, Dang!

  26. Sick of Lies

    Hey all,
    I kinda like the "Mr. SOL" acronym, but don't that put me in the center of a solar system? Well, I guess it does since I'm the center of the debate since I had the balls to leave a comment first... Kinda funny huh?

    Thanks to Tim for his compliments on what grammar and punctuation skills I seem to have... ah, to be educated and well ahead of the class- it is such a thrill!

    I see all the arguments for and against anything I may say or read,hear and feel. Most are in gest, others, well...

    I always think it is a hoot to get evolutionist in a tizzy, and watch them stumble in their heads trying to disprove even the slightest inkling that someone is dissing poor dead Darwin. He was an intelligent man, but one whom was haunted in his own faith from tragedy in his life, so his postulation of evolution theory is more of a way to say," I hate you God for taking away my happiness in life." That is my assumption, of course, Pasty... You Evo guys don't have a leg to stand on no more than I would hypothesizing life's origins.

    I had a friend argue with me one day(no,really I did..), he is a hard core Evo atheist, he told me that I will be surprised when I die and nothing happens, just death... I told him not as surprised as he will be when he dies and something does...

    Being said, whether you like my comments or not,I'm still not the one you all need to question, you need to question your own existence with an open mind -not one that has been conditioned by liberal think-speak to what you are being told are facts by those in charge of making sure you think the way they want you to think, like liberal professors, who make money of telling the lies. In it's face -that is anti-religion; only because when you take hope out of the picture, all you have is a lowered existence to that of an animal spun from geological primordial soup and a few other things nobody will ever prove!?

    You can call me what you want, but I was once like all of you, even more so of a hard core evolutionist,until I dug in the rocks on the Paluxy myself, read many books that includes The Origins of Species, I'm a big Hawkins fan, love Star Trek and taught myself through 25 years of personal research that had I been lied to in school and for the most part, even in some churches, too. All I can say is that if you look back before it all began(the universe and everything in it), no one and nothing has answers in the Genesis but that of what intelligent design holds. Einstein was asked on his death bed if he believe in God, and he said,"What do you think I have been chasing all my life?"

    So, you can rant with me all you want, I have my answers and I ain't budgin'. For all you EVOs- all you need to do is actually research the other side and see for yourself and not just in the next few minutes or days, go at it for YEARS,as I have done and then get back to me. Oh, some of you guys look at too many websites,.. get out there in the real world for once ans get some SOL! Merry CHRISTMAS! Oh,

    Hey Vlatko, It would be nice if you get a butt load creation docs on here so my buddies here don't have to look everywhere.. great lil' site you got, kudos

  27. Charles B

    Sick of the Lies: I thought you were most likely a one time hit-and-run poster.

    You made me laugh! :-) You remind me of a little kid that likes to hit the hornets' nest just to watch them buzz out -- I on the other hand always got stung mostly just watching them! I accidentally sat on a Yellow Jacket nest in an old log when I was 11 and got like 25 to 30 stings on my head and face alone. You probably got away with it every time, didn't you?!?

    Did you really go digging around rocks in Paluxy for yourself? I've always wanted to do stuff that (as well as half a dozen other things).

    Your atheist friend's logic is funny. How can you be surprised after death, about nothing after death, if there is nothing after death to be surprised about? LOL ;-)

    P.S. Did you find my apology on the 4 winged dino bird? It's probably not a fake this time, but you were better informed than I was about who might have a dubious motive.

    Charles B.

  28. Sick of Lies,

    Hey Charles
    I got into more trouble than I care to ever discuss, but mostly in the Army. i did get your note of apology, and I commented on it, Again, I thank you. Yep! I rock flip on the Paluxy, and seen the creation evidence at Carl Baug's lil' shack of a museum too. Alot of people would dismiss his findings but you have to really look at the finding and hear what the creationist got in theory and all to appreciate that there is more than evolution can ever explain. You have to get past the "fear" of being preached to, just as you got to get past, sitting hours at a lecture on bug crap differences.. bottom line, you have to do the work and think for yourself to get the answers.

  29. Sick of Lies

    Charles b.

    Oh I'm not a hit and runner, I get on here time to time, with other names however... I just hate being lied to so when i saw this stupid dino-bird doc resurface, I just had to say something. there is a guy named Kent Hovind, he is a really weird guy , but he has this evo-creation stuff down, even more so than Dr. Carl Baugh. Boy, he gets into trouble . He is a super guy however, he loves the gospel and ain't afraid to let you know, all the while hammering the evo theory and putting a well eduction assumption on creation.. he is well worth a look into if you can handle a lil' bible thumpin', even for the evo crowed. To tell the truth after realizing that creation may be very plausible I sat down and reviewed over 30 hours of Hovinds' stuff from start to finish, this guy is a zealot whack job, but what he says did make sense a lot of the time, from there I checked out the Paluxy just to see for myself. The theory's abound about creation as well, too, like young/old eatrh, a canopy or not, platonics, flood, and erosion of land to make it look old, ans of course, fossilization.

  30. Patsy

    Sol: Once again you are unable to respond to anything that I actually speak about and instead make broad remarks of rethoric such as "You Evo guys dont have a leg to stand on" without being able to back it up. If this is the only way that you feel you are able to respond to me, along with making fun of my name and referencing me to Lee Harvy Oswald, then I would kindly appreciate it if you ceased to mention my name.
    ps: You claim to have read many books and be a fan of Professor Hawking, yet from your reading of these books you find it strange how rocks don't evolve into living creatures.
    You have made it very clear that the only books you have read have been published by the likes of Chuck Missler and his peanut butter crew.
    Happy reading.

  31. Charles B

    Sick of the Lies: Cool! I found Dr. Carl Baugh's website. Oh the joy! Too bad Evo-vandles smashed up all the human footprints in Puluxy, being the fair-minded and diligent evidence seekers of unbiased truth that they are! I heard that on the news. What a shame. I hope some have survived for analysis.

    Be sure to post often. I like your style but poor "Alex" got wacked for something, so we mustn't hit the hornet next too much at one time; we have to "pace" ourselves.

    Pasty: I'm sorry I called you boring in the other thread, but you'll have to take it up with SOL about making fun of your name. I do so like Patsy Cline, but I highly suspect you are not her.

  32. Charles B

    Ok. The peanutbutter argument wasn't such a bright idea, but he has a valid point: Life and to have come from non-life at some point in time in order to "evolve" unless you believe that "life" is eternal (apart from God). It looks like with all our intelligence and understanding of even the smallest points of DNA and other such things we could create at least one living thing while you guys think every thing everywhere happened by chance happenstantially.

    The Galopogos Island finches aren't evolving. If they've been reclassified, then they've been reclassified, that's all.

  33. Achems Razor

    Patsy:

    Now you made me laugh.(LOL). on Missler and his peanut butter crew,
    good going.

    Charles B:

    How can scientists possibly create even one living thing when we, our civilization has been around, in the scale of Universe time, like the twinkling of a Neutrino colliding with a Hydrogen Atom.

    Just because scientists cannot create over night, does not mean that life will not find a way over millions of years.

    And another thing, it is human nature to keep on searching for answers
    to the great mysteries of life. But since it is supposedly already written in the works of religions, all they can do is re-iterate their obvious.

  34. Tim

    Wow. A lot of comments while I was gone. I wish I had gotten back sooner, cuz there's just so much to talk about. Unfortunately, we all have so many assumptions, especially about each other, that it seems we'll never find common ground on anything. It reminds me of something Saul Bellow wrote:

    "Every other man spoke a language entirely his own, which he had figured out by private thinking; he had his own ideas and peculiar ways. If you wanted to talk about a glass of water, you had to start back with God creating the heavens and earth; the apple; Abraham; Moses and Jesus; Rome; the Middle Ages; gunpowder; the Revolution; back to Newton; up to Einstein; then war and Lenin and Hitler. After reviewing this and getting it all straight again you could proceed to talk about a glass of water. "I'm fainting, please get me a little water." You were lucky even then to make yourself understood. And this happened over and over and over with everyone you met. You had to translate and translate, explain and explain, back and forth, and it was the punishment of hell itself not to understand or be understood."

  35. Tim

    Anyway, back to the comments.

    SoL: I'm not sure who you think is in a "tizzy" and "[stumbling in our] heads trying to disprove even the slightest inkling that someone is dissing poor dead Darwin." Personally I don't care what you have to say about Darwin. Diss him all you want. I never knew the guy, so I'm not going to be offended if you insult him. If you want to debate his theories, that's fine.

    I think we really need to get past lumping each other into opposing groups. It doesn't help the debate much if we perceive each other as mindless hornets stinging at the slightest intrusion.

    Charles: What happened to Alex? Did he get banned or something? It's hard to imagine that anything he would have said would get him in that much trouble. Couldn't possibly be any worse than anything that's said on the docs about racism. Those comments get downright offensive.

  36. Sick of Lies

    Darwin himself wrote in: "My Life & Letters", Vol. 1:
    "Not one change of species into another is on record... we cannot prove that a single species has been changed."

    Even Hitler had this to say in "Mein Kamf" about fooling people: "In the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the BIG lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes."
    You can take the fossil strata into account for this in some ways, even with religion, it has it's place within this observation. So does the Political climate then as it certainly has been lately.

    Pasty: I love your ASSUMPTION of my bibliography readings, yet it is you that is truly missing the big picture. I do not fall back on the "Goober Group". I fall back on my own thought processes of see the facts,the preponderance of the evidence and/or lack thereof. As a result, I see modern evolutionary thinking full of holes with nothing more than various theory after theory to explain away more various theory after theory- this is not an assumption, and it is right in front of your face, if you decide to actually look at it.

    We can go on and on, and that is just what those in control of your thinking wants you to do- keep you guessing, keep you down, and keep God out of your life...
    Here is what Karl Marx stated: ""I wish to avenge myself against the One who rules above. We must war against all prevailing ideas of religion, of the state, of country, of patriotism. The idea of God is the keynote of a perverted civilization. It must be destroyed." In doing so, he founded Communism. Now look at the USA today... thanks to the atheistic paganistic Marxist Liberal thinking God was put out in the '60s from public schools... Now look for yourself at the studies of the fall of the educational system overall and you will see it started to declined (and still is) when evolution was brainwashed into the classrooms... As a conclusion to the "Blind Watchmaker" debate on my part here, since I started it with the first of these post and gave it aim- When they took the watchmaker out of the schools, nobody learned how to make or read the watch. As a result the moral fortitude to see just that lessened and now seeing there is a need to tell what time it is, we are now running around assuming what time it may or be may not and making up ways to explain time and watches do so....When all you have to do is see that the "Blind Watchmaker" really hasn't left...Do you just CHOOSE to ignore the ticking in the back of your mind or did you really have a choice in the first place? Have you ? have you really? Your time is ticking away.

    This was wrote a few thousand years ago,I suggest you read it over and over and think about it:
    "This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, truce breakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." —2nd Timothy 3:1-5 This is some of the stuff that the public schools don't want our kids to know. They want to let this stuff become commonplace to destroy our free will to know Truth and morality, so they can control.

  37. Crocoduck

    Sol, now I know for sure that you're doing what every creationist troll does: lie, and copy and paste other creationists' lies. First of all, there's no such book as Darwin's "My life and letters, vol. 1", it's called "Life and Letters of Charles Darwin" and was edited by his son Francis. Secondly, the quote you gave exists NOWHERE ELSE but on creationist websites! But even if it did, it would hardly be a good argument, considering everything we've learned and all the evidence we've gathered (especially from molecular biology) since Darwin's time.

    As you brought up morality, I'm really glad that our culture has EVOLVED a lot morally, mostly away from biblical morality. A proud, blaspheming, unholy, high-minded, godless lover of pleasure sound quite good to me...

  38. Patsy

    Sol: Crocoduck is quite correct, you are now starting to print fabricated lies of creationists.
    And I wont even dignify your quoting of Hitler on a thread about biological evolution with an answer.
    Maybe this thread isn't for you, as intelligent people with reason and logic discussing reality seems to be offending your fantasy world.
    Goodbye Sol,,Tell your imaginary friend I said hi.

  39. steve w

    A creationist who quotes Hitler - I`ve seen it all now.....

  40. WTF

    what the fukk is this ? I wanted to see a blind man making clocks

  41. Tim

    It's become apparent that SoL didn't really want to have a rational debate; he just wanted to piss off atheists and evolutionists. You can't have a debate with someone who has that much anger directed against you. As soon as he brought Hitler into the discussion, he basically forfeited. And then when he brought up "atheistic paganistic Marxist liberal thinking," it became obvious that he wasn't interested in anything we had to say at all. He just wanted to attack what he perceives as some left-wing conspiracy, which apparently every atheist and evolutionist is either intentionally participating in or unwittingly deceived by. Because we're all a bunch of evil amoral communists or something.

  42. Reb

    Now, now folks, if you would pay attention to the bible you would know that we are de-volving as we go along. We all know that the bible is true and every verse of scripture was inspired by an all knowing creator god who knows everything about this world and all the animals in it.

    The biblical cockatrices either de-volved into something else or they never existed. They are a cross between a rooster and a serpent and can kill a man with a glance! They are mentioned about 4 or 5 times in the bible. They hatch from a chicken egg. I kid you not for the bible tells me so!

    What about the enormous creatures that sound much like a dinasaur but the bible calls behemoths? Before someone sets me straight and screams they are elephants, read the bibical description. Elephants do not have tails like cedars.

    What happened to the dragons mentioned in the bible. Maybe they de-volved into say a chameleon.

    Now I am not sure if the satyrs in the bible de-volved into 100% human or 100% horse. We do know that a creature half man and half horse did exist for the unerring bible speaks of them twice. Playful little things.

    Now for one no one could doubt and is also mentioned five times in the bible, the great and horrible leviathan the sea monster. His scales are his pride, shut up together as with a close seal. One is so near to another, that no air can come between them. Out of his mouth go burning lamps, and sparks of fire leap out. Out of his nostrils goeth smoke, as out of a seething pot or caldron. His breath kindleth coals, and a flame goeth out of his mouth. Maybe he became a goldfish.

    My personal favorite is the Unicorn and they are mentioned five times.

    The bible also gives us talking snakes that had legs at one time but crawl and, get this, EAT DUST.

    The bible gives us talking jackasses, and no I am not talking about Bush or Obama.

    The bible gives us insects with four legs. huh

    The bible gives us rabbits that chew their cud. okie dokie

    The bible says you can show female cattle striped poles and she will birth striped calves. Aw shit...

    You silly people think evolution is strange and impossible. Go figure.

  43. Tim

    Reb, very interesting points! Where DID all those cockatrices and unicorns go? How do Biblical literalists explain it? Especially the part about making cattle give birth to striped calves. Things must have been very magical 2000 years ago.

  44. Reb

    Tim, you just hit the nail on the head....Magic. Remember moses was learned in all the ways of Egypt and the Pharaoh asked him if he had come back to fool them with his magic? Jesus was taken to Egypt and learned that same magic. All this blather about creationism vs evolution just boggles my mind when people don't have a problem believing there were once fallen angels who produced children with human women and they gave birth to giant babies that ripped open their bellies at birth! Then as they grew to almost 30' tall they ate everything in sight so they started to gobble up one another. Geez, Stephen King couldn't top that story.

    There is never one mention of female angels in the bible, not one time. Jesus said the angels do not marry and I guess not if there are no female ones to marry. If god never intended angels to marry and there seems to be no female angels why the hell did he create these male angels with reproductive organs and pump them full of angel testosterone and angel sperm?! Don't the 'believers' ever read that book or question such lunacy?

    Another all time favorite for me is when moses made the people make little paddles to cover up their poop outside the camp because according to moses, god walks in the midst of the camp at night....

    LOL, I guess yahweh didn't want to step in shit and ruin his nice god crocks from the Gap. Such are the tall tales of the Buy-Bull.

  45. Charles B.

    REB: I'm feeling much better, thank you for your kind words and obvious compassion. I could address nearly every one of your assalts on the Bible, but I actually have a life.

    First of all you exagerage passages and add your own little twist. There is nothing mentioned about babies ripping upon thier mother's womb that I've ever read in the Bible. And yes, there were giants at that time, but you have very much added your own twists for those that do not know the story themselves.

    Yes, as far as I know, Biblically, all angels are male, but that is for God to understand the reason why.

    Unicorns are most likely a King James choice of wording for an animal or breed of animal they weren't quite sure about. Especially in the Old Testament they had to guess at some of the animals mentioned. What is the word in Hebrew, REB? That's what you need to be researching, not the translation. Translations are not inerrent.

    I've heard that of the Line of David, many of his lineage had ocean deep blue eyes. Although the pictures we have of Christ are just that. Some Jews even now have blue eyes. Jesus was Jesus no matter what he looked like physically.

    The striped sheep was a supernatural act of God at the time on behalf of Jacob. Read the story and keep it in context, please. It's not something that was to be repeated but an act of God to rectify an injustice at the time against Jacob. I've notice you fail to mention the context of any of your jabs.

    the serpent eating dust is symbolic of it's closeness to the earth and a curse, and even evolutionists will tell you that snakes used to have legs, but no longer do. Now that you can't deny, or shouldn't if you're an evolutionist, as most snakes still have very small limbs such as on the pythons.

    My rabbits chewed thier cude. Have you ever raised rabbits? Rabits chew their cud in a different way than other animals. When they pass feces that is too soft and not pellet form, they eat it again to finish the digestion process. I've watched them do it. This serves the same function as chewing a cud which other grass eating animals regergitate. Read a rabbit book. Rabits that don't get the chance to do this are far less healthy animals.

    I believe the Behemoth was a dinosaur, yes.

    Dragons my have really existed as a dinosaur at one time, but if not, then they are symbolic and almost always when a dragon is mentioned it is in reference to Satan personally.

    The talking donkey was a supernatural empowerment of God at the time for a specific purpose in an attempt to hault Baalam from cursing Isreal at that time. It happened.

    The cockatrice is a kind of serpent as it's mentioned in the future as having its nature changed in the millennial reign of Christ as that a child could place it's hand on its den without fear. Maybe a cobra.

    When someone tells a lie, the best lie is just shy of the truth to make the lie believeable. This is what Satan has been doing for a long time since the Garden of Eden. He tells 80% truth, and 20% lie and that leads to 100% death.

    Notice every time Satan quotes Scripture he twists it, just like he did when speaking with Eve in the Garden and with Jesus Himself. Very clever for those who do not know the origial meaning of the texts. He spins every quote to mean something other than what the original text meant. Very clever. Watch for the spins.

    REB: Today in church the message was over Revelation chapter 2:1-7. Here this church is commened for hard work, pinpointing evil among them that bring curruption into the church to expell it, and diligence faithful hardwork. Yet with all that, Christ says you are loveless and you are nothing without love.

    You can try and destroy God's character and the Bible, but I KNOW whom I have believed in. God is righteous; God is holy. Just like in the seven churches of Revelation, unrepeantant sin is deadly, no matter if you're an atheist, or a pastor. God is patient, but God is not mocked; as a man sows, so shell he wreap.

    I don't have the time to mess with every twist you put on Scripture just jost one last refute:

    God still heals and God still raises people from the dead. Google for their testimonies. Why doesn't every Christian get healed physically? I don't know, but I've seen many that have been. Personally. There are many recent examples if you want links.

    Death is just part of life. Until the time when death is no longer part of this earthly life, it's just something that will come to all of us one way or another. I for one want to be found in the arms of Jesus when that time comes for me. Where would you like to be?

    Responding to these threads are taking a lot of my time away from my family, so I've given my response, but I most likely will not respond to many more posts from REB.

    God bless you all. Do not be deceived by someone who's obvious only intention is not knowledge but to destoy at any cost not just my testimony but anything that pertains to God and His Word.

    God Bless!

    Charles B.

  46. Reb

    Charles, I did not twist anything and I get sick and tired of christians who can't defend their views with proof and always resort to using 'out of context' when I can read and comprehend the CONTEXT. That is the oldest ploy in the christian world and a cowards way of side stepping the truth. I see you failed to comment on the biblical satyrs and unicorns mean unicorns. You can't pick and choose what you like and then determine the rest was a mistranslation or copy error. Would a just and holy god not inspire the translators and copyist in the same manner he inspired the authors? You are deperately grabbing a straws and getting a bit hysterical in the process.

    There are dozens of books mentioned in the christian bible that were removed. Obviously the bible authors put complete trust in those books or they would never have referred the reader to them, or maybe the holy spirit made a mistake by 'inspiring' them to add those referrals. If you go back and check the oldest bibles and come on up to modern times you will see that books have been taken out, others added and many thought to be destroyed until copies were later found. The books of Enoch once were the most revered books in the bible but the RCC tried it's damnedest to destroy every copy and it was also banned by the church at one time. A complete copy was found in Ethiopia and still the church denied it was authenic until the same copy was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. You will find the full account of the fallen angels and the birthing of the giant offspring there. It also gives a very different account of Noah. He was such a strange looking infant his own father was afraid of him and thought his wife had given birth to a child of a fallen angel. You need to read all the ommitted books that once were declared inspired by god. If you ever read the complete writings of the church fathers such as Eucebius, Tertullian, Justin Martyr, Ignatius, Irenaeus etc. you will have a very rude awakening. For example Eucebius is the one who decided on the four gospels that are contained in the NT. He had about 70-80 'gospels' to choose from and those matched the best without too much redacting so he picked them. No one has a clue who wrote them and he says he chose to call them Matthew, Mark, Luke and John simply due to the fact that those names appeared within the text! He also says he chose only four gospels because there are only four winds/seasons. Some inspiration huh?

    BTW, proving the bible by only using the bible is useless. Also, cockatrice was not just a creature of the future. The OT prophets threaten mankind in the future with creatures already known to them as were the serpents. The description was well known to the ancients and many other mythical tales.

    The bible is NOT what you think it is but you are too far gone to use any reason. I never have to twist the word of god as there are so many versions to choose from all I need to do is find the one with the words that fit the subject the best. Who are you to tell me which version is 100% correct out of the hundreds available and many of them pre-date your queer KJV by hundreds of years. The oldest bible found to date is the Sinai bible housed in the British Museum and you hear very little of it because it tells a very different view of the gospels. Look it up. Changing a word here and there can change the entire meaning of a complete book if done properly. You decide which version god inspired and tells the truth. It might take you a few years to read them all but such is the world of christianity. There were several copies of many OT books found in the Dead Sea Scrolls that obviously were not all copied by the same hand. They were minor differences in words used but that just shows how things can be changed subtly and if not careful the text meaning can be changed drastically. The hundreds of contradictory tales in the OT prove that.

  47. Reb

    One more thing Charles. Rabbits do NOT chew a cud. A cud is regurgitated food from the stomach. They swallow poop and that is not regurgitation.

  48. Tim

    Charles, which translation of the Bible would you say is the most accurate?

  49. steve w

    Charles

    re "God still heals and God still raises people from the dead. Google for their testimonies."

    You can cherry pick all you want from Google, same as you are doing with the bible. Fact is when religious people recover from illness they thank their God; be it "God" , Allah, Zeus or whatever is fashionable or their misfortune to be born and indoctrinated into. They might give a mention to the technology advances in medical care and so forth. The doctors that spent years training in order to "save" them and scientists that spent decades developing medicines etc etc hardly get a mention. Fact is these same people thanking God for their recovery would have been dead with or without a God if they had been born in bronze age times though I expect they would probably have been much happier without all the clear evidence of today to cause them such anxiety.

    I digress. Google "Church Collapse" for a few reports and testimonies. It's good to get a balanced view. It's not all magic and fairy stories out there...

    I too raise rabbits and the cecal pellets they ingest are definately not chewed. Whilst they need to eat these soft poops in order to remain healthy but they certainly never chew it. Maybe you have "special" rabbits lol.

  50. Charles B.

    Reb: You'll have to let me know where the rabbit verse is so I can read what you are talking about. I don't have any of my commentaries or Greek or Hebrew texts with me, but you've obviously got many so you can find the one you think is the most damaging for your argument.

    The Biblical Cannon does not necessarily include all of God's inspired authors. I'm sure Paul wrote more than is included. Hebrews quotes the prophet of Enoch, but I'm not sure if it quotes the Book of Enoch, which like you said could have been written by anyone. I'm not versed in the psudopigraphay as you seem to be.

    How the Cannon was established was by eliminating (to the best of their ability) the fakes and/or dubious writings so that the writing believed to be most authentic could be standardized. Satan back then, just like now, likes to confuse people with loads of useless or partially true staements and spin. Those that put the Cannon of Scripture did so to the best of their ability, and I have faith that God allowed them to get the needed stuff in there that was essential, even if they didn't get all the good and authentic writings. The Torah, the Law and Prophets, and of course the New Testament works which they based their standards on by the ones that had actually seen the Jesus, spent time with Him and then wrote about it.

    I wrote a 100 page paper of ther authorship of the Gospels when I was in college. Interesting that you should mention them. One of the stongest indications for authorship is oral tradition. Now I believe Luke states his authorship in his Gospel, does he not, well at least we know it was a letter to Theopholis.

    Matthew, Mark, Luke and John each have very unique styles. Mark and Luke aren't even disciples. It would be very odd to attribute something so important as a "Gospel" to someone so insignificant as "Mark" unless it was true. Luke also. So the fact that the oral tradition says it's true, let's just assume they knew firsthand that it was so. The book of John was written by the "apostle that Jesus loved" and we know from context that was John. Matthew the Zeolat always says "Kingdom of Heaven" as he avoided using the word "God" as part of his zealousness. Hey! And that's all off the top of my head. Lucky for you I'm the "dumbest" poster on this website, eah, REB?

    As for the "hundreds" of rejected Gospels, well, I wouldn't cannonize I thing YOU wrote should you have lived back then, so thankfully there were wise enough people that compiled the Word of God as we have it now to have done so with cautious and reverent thoughtfulness. And besides all that, I still have faith that God is real and He could have actually "inspired" them a bit which ones to accept, wouldn't ya think?

    Tim: It's best if you use the Hebrew text for the Old Testament and the Greek for the New Testament. Everything else is just a translation of those. I've heard that New American Standard is pretty good. Ultimately, the Bible that you read and understand is the best translation for you. I actually have a New King James.

    To all: Why do I love and respect the Bible so much? People harp and harp and harp about the Bible being nothing more than a book, but look at it from the eyes of faith not the blinded eyes of a disbeliever. If there is a God, and He is good, then how would he communicate with us? By prophets? Yes, that's been done for a long time now. To us individually one-on-one? Yes, that's done too, but the Bible tells us we have to "test the spirits" if they are of God or not, so there's just a lot of evil out there that can mask itself as good. One-on-one is limited to interpretation also. So, what is left? A letter? Ok. I can go for that. The Bible is just God's letters to us; His standard for truth.

    I believe that God is real, that He is good, and that He has communicated to us via the Bible. That is why I hold it in such high esteem.

    Sincerely,

    Charles B.

    Sorry Vlatko for using so much space on your website. It's hard for me not to respond when I do have an answer for something. Peace! I hope you can allow me a little grace as I try to keep it "balanced". :-)

  51. Charles B.

    Steve W.

    P.S. I finally found the rabbit and the cud chewing scripture (Leviticus 11:6). My Bible says "hare" so it was hard to find. LOL. Perhaps it means any grass-eating animal. If you watch a rabbit, it eats grass and chews chews chews, just like a cow would.

    I think the phrases "chews the cud" is an idiomatic expression and a generalization for it also mentions the rock hyrax as a "cud chewer" and camels. I'm not sure if camels regergitate a cud or not, but they might. Anyway, it's a language and idiomatic expression issue, not a scientific one.

    The same applies for Leviticus 11:20 and 11:23 where it's talking about insects crawling on all fours being unclean except for the locusts, etc. Anyone with eyes can count six legs on a bug, but I suspect "all fours" is an idomatic part of the language referring to nearly all creepy things. My translation says: "All flying insects that creep on all fours shall be an abomination to you."

    We do the same thing now! Centipeeds certainly don't even come close to having 100 legs, but that's what the name means. Millipeeds no way have 1,000 legs, but that's what the name means.

    If the Bible listed our modern hyperboly word useage for these creatures, then 1000 years from now, someone like REB could use our idomatic language to "prove" the Bible "wrong" scientifically. Watch for the spins. Remember we're dealing with texts that are conservatively 3,000 plus years old. Language changes with time; have a wise mind when you read such old texts and their expressions. Be intelligent when you read the Word of God.

    God bless! :-)

  52. Reb

    No matter how it is worded CB, this just proves that either this god had shit for brains or had no part in 'inspiring' truth. There are thousands of errors all through the bible and all the silly apologetics man can write or say will never change that fact. When stupid people create a 'god' they will have a stupid god!

  53. yavanna

    Hi Charles

    I will certainly read with interest the stories of resurrections, thanks for the links.

    Oh I`m "Steve W" by the way - I changed my screen-name to reflect other contact and membership details - its been a nickname online for a long long time.

    The chewing the cud thing I suspected was a bible error as they do chew grass and an uneducated naturalist might assume they are were like cows in that regard.

    You seemed to have side stepped my suggestion that you google church collapses however - 754,000 hits last time I looked. On average 10 people dying in each one (Physical collapses on the faithful - not those collapses due to one scandal or another.) My point being why would God drop churches on his faithful flock. Doesnt make much sense to me.

    I wont speak for Reb but I agree with a number of points he has raised, I simply cant understand why in this wonderful enlightened age we live in people persist in beliefs that however useful they may have been in the past for keeping the masses controlled, have no basis for any reality. That the bible translated, mistranslated, re-translated, argued and regurgitated over 2-3 thousand years can still hold any relevance. Some of the stories may teach morals which could be seen as a good code of practice, such as any community never having heard of a religion would in fact ascribe to in any case. To go one step further even piranhas seem quite capable of social interaction without an instruction manual for moral behaviour....

    Is it not a historical fact that for mostly political reasons the new testament was created by the Roman Emperor Constantine, whereby he chose 4 gospels out of 16+? How can you not see this as any different from Rupert Murdoch pumping out his own version of things? At least it can be said that Fox or Sky news puts out information that is current whereas Constantine's book was written 200 years after JHC died.

    Personally I would believe in God if he came and explained everything to me personally. And there is no reason why he cant do that because he can do anything! But no. He decided (after the burning bush trick didnt work so well) the best way to spread the word of his faith was to send his son down to a bunch of bronze age desert nomads. Where because of time and technology that word wouldnt reach the rest of the world for centuries. It didnt reach China for a thousand years. Doesnt strike me as particularly efficient way of doing things.

    If he cant speak to people personally what would be the harm in bringing out a DVD? Yes an element of sarcasm there but I simply cant think of any reason why if a god wanted our love and servitude so much; he wouldnt be prepared to make an appearance or write a new book once in a while. (Why would any god want or need servitude? But that's an argument for another day.)

    I`ve gone off on one again and apologise to Mr V on using up his webspace. Would be happy to continue on forums.

  54. Charles B.

    Yavanna: Wow! To be honest, I though you were talking about moral church splits.

    I just don't know the answer to your question about physical church collapes. Essentially you're asking the question of "Why does bad things happen to good people?" It's a classic question and I have to give a classic answer of "I don't know why."

    The big picture is that death of all kinds entered the world with sin. That set the laws of life and death in motion, and unless God directly intervenes (which He does sometimes), it takes it's natural course. This will not always be so, however, as there is a section in the Bible that talks about all of Creation longing for redemption and eventually, Paul writes that the last enemy to be put fully under God's feet is death.

    I've had close Godly friends die unexpected and sometimes slow deaths from disease. I don't understand why God heals one time, but then not every time. It's controversal, for sure, and a faith-breaker for many.

    Even in the Bible, the contradictions remain: Jacob's beloved wife was healed of her barrenness only to die in Childbirth with her second child. The Apostle Paul was recued by angels from shipwreck, but was allowed to be beheaded by the Roman emperor later. Elisha (not Elijah) himself died of a sickness, but a dead man placed on his bones later in haste to avoid a raiding party from the enemy was raised from the dead.

    We don't have an answer now, Yavanna, but where we don't know the reasons why, we just trust God's heart, and unlike REB, I know that I know, my Redeemer lives, (as Job said), and is good, and I know that I know he loves me and will not forsake me when it comes my time to "pass" into eternity, whether it be from a falling church roof or otherwise. We just have to have a deep heart-felt faith. God bless! :-)

    I would not call the cud chewing rabbit a "Bible error" per se, as much as a an indiomatic expression to fit the times. Those to whom it was written and commanded made no distiction in the grass-eating animal category where we do today. It's not a doctrinal issue, however, but a symantic aned language use issue. In my opinion.

    Do you know that traditionally the Hmong people of Southeast Asia did not distinguish in name the colors of blue and green but thought of them as shades of the same color? Something written to them in idiomatic language would have made the "error" of either calling the sky "green" or the grass "blue" in our understanding of the world.

    I'm unfamiliar with the the Constantine argument for the creation of the Gospels. I believe, however, that they were penned by the authors named and are valid for faith today.

    God does still speak to us one-on-one today via our spirits. Sometimes it's a strong impression, but almost always it's a very "still small voice" inside us. He's gentle, not harsh. An interesting story to prove my point was when Elijah was feeling sorry for himself and ran to escape Jesabell who was going to kill him, he ran to Mr. Horeb. The text says that there was a fire in the dessert, but God's voice was not in the flames. There was an earthquake, but God did not speak in the event. Finally, when all was quiet, God spoke to Elijah in a "still small voice"; calmly quietly and met Elijah's need for understanding. I would argue it's the same way he speaks to us today as well.

    For those who have never heard the "Gospel" for lack of people to tell them, I just place that unresolved and unknown issue into God's hands. I trust Him; and I trust His judgements. But, we for one do not fit that bill, and therefore all of us on this website would fall into a different category where we are responsible for our response to the truth that has been told us. Let's keep the faith.

    Charles B.

    P.S.

    Vlatko, you have my appologies too about server space. People are intense about religion and politics, but very few of us would use the forums. It's just human nature to be vocal about controversal things, but that's what the docs are for, I hope.

    Thank you for your wonderful website. I really like it alot, both for the docs, and the comments. LOL ;-)

    When I get back from vacation, I might want to post in the forums a well penned opinion paper or two for people to examine over maybe human sacrifice and the Bible (with your permission of course).

    With Respect and Thanks,

    Charles B.

  55. Charles B.

    I meant "Mt. Horeb," not Mr. Horeb! LOL. I really hate typos. Sorry.

  56. Reb

    Here is how the four gospels were chosen.

    Irenaeus of Lyons, writing in 170 AD, in support of the proposition that there must be four, no more, no less, gospels partly by analogy with the four regions of the world and the "four universal winds.!!!!!

    Why didn't he just flip a coin? This is how these superstitious quacks decided which books would make the cut and which ones didn't. Who in their right mind would put faith in these nutjobs?

  57. Achems Razor

    Charles B:

    You mentioned Emperor Constantine, look at the fourth link that 1400 years gave. On his ten links.

    What is says there about Emperor Constantine definitely would be considered Blasphemy by Christians. but it is something that makes sense to me.

  58. Charles B.

    REB: Let me study out the Cannonization process of the Bible, but it may take some time, and I can post it on the forum eventually. But the Bible, even if compiled by fools (your opinion) is still truth. If God can use a talking donkey for His purposes, I suppose he can use others with less than perfect intellects and/or motives.

    Give me some time.

  59. Charles B.

    Mr. Razor, I'll try if I have time, but my wife is not so happy spending too much time online. I have "higher powers" to answer to sometimes. Can you paraphrase? If not that's ok.

  60. Achems Razor

    Charles B:

    I believe Constantine was the one who decreed to make Jesus a God instead of just mortal,

    And in effect rewrote the Bible or portions thereof.

    Took Reincarnation out of the Bible which was prevalent at the time.

    There is more, I would have to re-watch again for more info.

    Constantine was a Pagan Emperor.

  61. Reb

    Constantine was a lunatic who killed almost his entire family after he converted to christianity. He even killed his wife and a son he was jealous of. His mental state went on a headlong nose dive. His reported behavior was bizarre indeed. What a surprise! His mother helped convince him to make christianity the ruling religion as she was of the Hellenized christian cult.

  62. Sketch

    Nice shorts, Dawk!

  63. Danny

    This may sound simple, but why would Constantine rewrite the Bible just to make Jesus a god?

    If your source for this information is from Islam (as it sounds like it is), then you should verify the information from other sources also because they have a good reason to make Jesus less than what the Bible says he is.

  64. yavanna

    Danny

    I`m no expert but a simple answer would be to reflect the views of his nutty mother's favourite sect. Mother's boy perhaps?

    My understanding of Jesus and Islam is that he is highly regarded by them as a prophet of sorts. Sounds like you're adding 2 + 2 and getting 9. I`m not defending either religion.

    Charles.

    I do love your eloquent comments. I ask you this. If I tiny insignificant section like "chewing the cud" is not as you say an error but "indiomatic expression to fit the times." or "a symantic and language use issue" how can you not see this from a much more serious view. That the bibles are 750,000 words in total. That probably a large proportion of these words are miss-translated. That quite probably there are entire sections that have been misunderstood etc etc... I can get my head around people believing in a god, to keep it polite maybe they need that "comfort". However believing in a book supposedly the perfect word of god that is so clearly written by men and revised and revised and revised until all is left is a chinese whisper? I cant get my head around that.

    It seems strange to me that people are still arguing about stuff like this in this day and age. If billions of people throughout the ages cant make any sense of their religions (hence there are so many different types, sects, etc.) how can we be expected to make any sense of it now?

    One might have thought that after 2-3000 years of debate the theists would have resolved which one is right? And at least got their instruction manuals in sync.

  65. Patsy

    At the risk of sounding bored,,why are people debating who wrote what and when? Or which version of religious scripture has the most credibility?..All religious scripture is mythology (Yes I said All!!) The bible was written in the bronze age by people who thought the earth was flat,prayed to their imaginary creator in the heavens to make their crops grow,felt that homosexuals should be stoned to death and punished criminals by means of crucifixion!!
    Our ancestors from this time were clearly a race of uncivilised savages, and to live your life by the teachings of these people (Who claimed to get their knowledge from a divine creator who lived in the sky) is pure stupidity.
    Why could these teachings (Which are supposed to be the word of a divine all knowing deity/creator) not mention something useful,,such as the earth being round or that the universe is expanding!!
    Oh I forgot,,its because they were written by a primitive society who actually did not know any of this and who shared a world with unicorns!!!
    And this useful and true knowledge that we know have was giving to us by guess who??? SCIENTISTS!! and not religious scripture!!
    That's right folks,,remember exactly who is responsible for giving you the ability to sit at your pc or laptop and be able to e-mail and communicate with people from different parts of the world, heal you when your sick or give you a heart or liver transplant!!
    And believe it or not atheists get healed and made better from sickness too,,but not from the power of prayer or desperate pleas in conversations with imaginary friends!! But for those who cant comprehend or just face facts there's always FAITH!! now in such flavours as "Divine Strawberry" and "Blessed Virgin Mango"...free from all logic,reason,historically correct information and E numbers!!
    The invisible and the non-existent are starting to look very much alike...

  66. Charles B.

    Yavanna: You can't see the forest for the trees. Ease back a little bit and be logical. The Bible has millions of followers, perhaps even a billion now worldwide. It's been examined thoroghly and is well translated in many forms. As we speak, Bible translators are working world-wide to translate the Bible as accurately as they can in many many languages. Organizations like Wycliffe Bible Translators do this by the dozens ever year.

    So how is Bible translation done? We go back to the Greek and Hewbrew languages that the Bible was penned in. Do you speak any other languages? How would you translate "I love spaghetti!" into another language? It seems simple enough, but "love" in English can mean sexual, brotherly, or family "love" but in this case it actually means "enjoy eating" spaghetti. You try and translate the MEANING if you want it to be understood. If you just say "amore" for Spanish, that may or may not be able to be used for food, but only for a person you love. I don't know.

    I said that to say this: The reason there are many different translations is that the original can be said in several different ways, but the content is still the same. "I love spaghetti" is the same as "I really like eating spaghetti" is the same as "Spaghetti is really enjoyable to eat." All are "different" but they all mean the same thing. NONE of those options are a "mistranslation" in fact. That is why I say any translation that speaks to your heart is most likely ok.

    Pick a passage of the Bible and then get 7 translations side by side (if you can find that many) and you will see that the ideas time and time again are essentially the same. The Bible has not been haphazardly translated, but miticulously given great respect and consideration. Of course the King James is the oldest and has antiquated language.

    As far as a uniform understanding of the meaning for each passage (even with Christians only), how could that be possible? We are all learning new stuff every day. I've learned new ways of looking at old texts I've read several times from Reb even. If God wanted "cookie cutter Christians" then we would no longer be human, but prefabed "faithbots". Are you an Atheist? Has your concept on any single subject in religion chaned in the past 10 years at all? Is there even a trace of "doubt" in your mind? If you said, "yes" then you've answered your own question why there is so many variations in religion. We are all maturing and learning and growing at different levels and paces. If you want to have a Bible that parses every possible meaning for the word from Greek, get the Amplified Bible. It will say something like "I love [like, enjoy, relish] spaghetti." It takes four times as long to read a passage, but if you're worried that someone's opinion is wrong on a particular passage, it's helpful to use that translation and the other possible meanins for the word. NIV translates concept for concept, but New King James is more word for word, which I personally like better.

    Trust me; brilliant minds for centuries have pored over the Bible word by word and phrase by phrase and concept by concept. Find the one you feel most comfortable with.

    I'll have to research the cannonization process and the oldest text phragmetns we have and quotes from early Church historians to answer the "Constantine Alteration" hypothisis above. That's a new one on me, I must admit. I'm still growing too.

  67. yavanna

    Sorry Charles, not only are there so many different interpretations, and many hundreds even thousands of cults / sects, some so close that at first glance they cannot be told apart, that I cannot believe someone so clearly intellectual as yourself cannot see the WOOD for the trees. There is so much difference in beliefs even between individuals that you could quite easily be having this same discussion with another Christian. Take your opinion on your recent Harry Potter comment for instance. You dont see any wrong in it. On the other hand the "Jesus Camp" evangelists say its evil, wrong etc etc - because their reading of the bible is different from yours. This makes it very difficult for people like me to discuss anything with a religious person, notwithstanding the circular speak, the endless quotations of scripture and other irrelevance.

    If I am to be labelled yes then I would probably have to rely on the word Atheist, although I dont like that word - You after all are also an atheist - you dont believe in Zeus right? Zerotheist if that was a word would be more accurate. Although I was baptised (Church of England) I have never followed any religion. One of my earliest memories is being kicked out of Sunday school for asking "difficult questions."
    My best friend at school (we were eleven at the time) was a truly devout Christian and one of the most intelligent people I have ever personally known to date. We had many debates. He was indoctrinated in his faith by his family but after later going to university (away from that influence) he became an atheist. I on the other hand was given freedom to formulate my own beliefs by my parents. If I have ever had any doubts then I have examined those and always come up with a satisfactory conclusion and those are so close to what Patsy is saying above I wont repeat.

    Patsy I totally agree with you. I guess we have to have these discussions like this because religious people dont know how to communicate in any other way and rather than offer evidence these people only have archaic stories to fall back on, that spirits that come talk to them and the miracle word Faith.

  68. Patsy

    Charles B: So God spoke Greek and Hebrew,,very convenient!!
    I don't suppose he would have considered giving his personal word in a form that the entire planet could understand!!
    But hold on,I forgot...we are talking about a very racist deity here after all...

    Yes...God condemns other races to bloody genocide throughout the bible if they don't "worship" him:

    Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. (Numbers 31:15-17)

    Thus saith the LORD of hosts ... Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ***. (1 Samuel 15:2-3)

    Happy shall he be, that taketh and dasheth thy little ones against the stones. (Psalms 137:9)

    Yea, though they bring forth, yet will I slay even the beloved fruit of their womb. (Hosea 9:16)

    Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up. (Hosea 13:16)

    Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes; their houses shall be spoiled, and their wives raped. (Isaiah 13:16)

    Their bows will strike down the young men; they will have no mercy on infants nor will they look with compassion on children. (Isaiah 13:18)

    Now call me old fashioned,or maybe being an atheist I can't see the forest for the trees,,but I don't think that any amount of word juggling or variations in interpretation or translation can alter the clear message behind these words from "God".

    So next time you decide to "Trust the heart of God" or believe that he is good and love's you,,maybe you should pray that you are one of God's preferred ethnic group's or he might get a tad angry!!

    Merry Christmas "Faithbots"...

  69. yavanna

    I`ve changed my mind - I`d rather be labelled as a Realist Charles. This more accurately describes my belief system :)

  70. Reb

    The KJV is NOT the oldest. How absurd to even suggest such a thing. There were dozens and dozens of translations long before the king pervert was even born and they all differ from books contained and word redactions. The KJV is a masonic invention that gives the government leaders 'devine rights' over the sheeple. The Sinai bible is the oldest and the book of Mark ends without jesus acsending anywhere. The only copy of it is in the British Museum. Such utter ignorance is unbelievable.

    Read the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and see how a once mighty empire fell due to vile christianity.

    Patsy, the reason religion is such an issue today is the fact that most wars are caused by division of one lunatic fringe against another. God is always brought into the equation by the leaders who don't believe in a god but use it to inspire the idiots to take up arms against the pagan, infidel,heathen and on and on. The scary part today is these morons have the weapons to completely destroy this earth and all of mankind. Holy war has become the trend of the day far worse than in the past. What the living hell is holy about killing, stealing, raping and utter destruction? You can judge a god by what his people do and that makes the christian god a vicious cheap thug...period.

  71. Tim

    This doc doesn't come up when I search for it anymore. =[

  72. Charles B.

    Patsy: God is multiligual. Get real! He speaks all languages, including Greek and Hebrew. But when He moves on a person to write something, such as a "gospel" message, of couse they use their own language of the time.

    As far as the passages talking about judgement:

    When judgement falls on a nation, and a nation takes themselves outside of God's protection, then then these are the consequences. It broke God's heart to see his beloved people conquered and destroyed, but JUSTICE is the fundamental character of God. Yes, He did send those that did such actions, but it did not bring joy to His heart to see the distruction of His beloved people.

    Love is there for the "lovely" but the wicked receive just as they have sowed; destruction. Just as the whole family of Rahab was saved for her acts of righteousnes, and just as Noah's whole family was spared for his righteousness, then likewise, the children of the wicked also suffer. Without god's protection, distruction natually happen. Not all the Hewbrew babies were killed as then there would be no more of the Jewish nation left. It was happenstantial as the nation went into judgment who lost their lives and their children as vertually all were wicked at that time.

    It is good to remember that God eventually comes in judgment once the time of unreturned mercy is rejected once, twice, a thousand times. I'm very glad you are at least reading the Bible if for no other reason to distort God's righteous character.

    Patsy: If you are a total atheist, fine, but if you hold any form of concept of God, then how should he act? Justly? Let's hope so. Justice involves judgement sometimes, and your actions inveriable also affect your kids as well. Speaking universally, of course.

    REB: I meant the KJV was the oldest commonly used version of the Bible. The Volgate, etc. is of course much older. I didn't know they had recently found an early edtion of Mark. Was it a complete text?

    Many feel that Mark was the first Gospel written as it's so short and probably the very ending twelve verses were an addition later and may have origianlly ended with chapter 16 and verse 8 at the time of the resurrection of Christ only. Even if the ascention was not mentioned, the resurrection was. Which is more divine, the resurrection or the ascention?

    When a story is well known, the author often ends without stating the obviously known ending. For example, if I were to tell of the Bethlehem story to those that KNEW the story 10 or 15 years after it actually happened, I could tell of all the information leading up to the actual birth and end the story with "And Josepth took Mary as his wife." [the entire birth known and assumed]. Everyone one would smile and say, "Yes! That was wonderful! Good job, Charles!" knowing that the birth of the Messiah was the next part of the story as common knowledge. It gives credence to Mark's early pennmenship. He ends with the resurrection as the culmination of the story.

    However, as time progresses and you get further and futher away from the even, people would say, "Well, we need to add the last part of the stroy for the grandkids." or better yet, "We need to tell the story again entirely adding more details that Charles left out."

    This is how the New Testament progressed. That is why that Luke said that "as many have undertaken to record the story. . ." or in words such as that, he too felt the need to add more details to the well know account in his Gospel too. I've amended stories and papers I've written myself later. Mark was a very very young man at the time Jesus. He himself could have been the one to add the ending later on. It's possible. But that's an academic point as we have the other Gospels writing shortly later that give more details. There are many details in the life of Christ found only in the Gospel of John as I believe that was the last Gospel to be penned. Simplicity leads to complexity for clarification sake. The fact that Mark is so simple is a wonderful indication of its early and accurate information.

    You have to remember that when the time the Gospels were being penned, there were many witnesses still living to all the events being told. They knew the story, and eventually as they got older, they included more and more of the "known" details for generations to come.

    God bless! This may be my last post for a while as I have plans from today forward.

    Marry Christmas, Pasty. May you find a blessed hope and peace this year like never before as we choose to celebrate the birth of Christ our Lord. :-)

  73. Charles B.

    Tim: I had to look hard for it too. Wordseach didn't help. I found it under "science."

  74. Reb

    CB, you have got to be kidding! The Sinai bible was found in the mid 1800s and is one of the most complete handwritten bibles in existence. There are two or three other countries who own other parchments of this bible and it shows just how many times and ways the bible has been edited and in many instances complete sentences added or taken away. Even back when this version was written( approx 400AD), it depended on the thoughts and opinions of the authors just what story they told and how. Yes, the complete book of Mark in this bible ends about 10 or 12 verses shorter than the modern bibles so the only answer to that is later translators decided to add more drama. You really need to know the history and characters of your own religion. Just like the coverup of the dead sea scrolls, the complete content of this bible most likely will never see the light of day. How do you tell all three major religions they have killed in the name of a god that doesn't exist?

  75. yavanna

    Charles

    I finally got round to reading the "testimonies" you linked above and quite frankly I`m a bit angry. At you yes but more at myself for having taken you with the slightest amount of seriousness. You have lost any and all respect I might have held for you for wasting my time with these fairy stories. I wont even justify them by mentioning what I think of their "substance."

    Strange how these "resurrections" are only mentioned on creationist websites - yes I did a bit of research. You might try that sometime when you're not preaching by cut and paste. All your "evidence" appears to be spoon-fed to you by people even most Christians regard as loony.

    Do you believe all the BS that Kent Hovind and Co spam their creationist websites with? I tried to read them with an open mind even knowing that your high priest Hovind is a convicted fraudster and liar. You really should watch the video series on YouTube called "Why do people laugh at creationists." He stars in it A LOT!

    Not only a convicted thief he got his "doctorate" by mail order from a mill. You really should acquaint yourself better with those whom make your cause even more of an embarrassment than it is.

    Dont bother replying. Mental ignore engaged.

  76. Vlatko

    Hmmm... True. Have to check that out.

  77. Reb

    yavana, I can't bleieve you even bothered to take a peek. Now you know how deeply deceived he is but he is an adult and long past the point of understanding reason and knowledge.

    If you think those sites were bad you should check out Bob Larson who puts on a show casting out demons. These nuts actually think he is doing gods work. He has been caught several times using the same fakers in many of his meetings in various cities. He has made millions from the sheeple who just love this stuff. Then there is Benny Hinn and any fool who follows this clown deserves to be robbed.

    pt 1

  78. Reb

    Rodney Howard Boone is the, now get this and I kid you not, holy ghost bartender. He heaps up doses of the 'holy ghost' and people stagger like drunks, roll on the floors and howl like dogs. Next time you need a good laugh you can probably find these cons on youtube.

    People like CB have been taught it is a sin and lack of faith to doubt so they are fearful of even reading or watching anything that doesn't back up what they have been taught. People like this have muffled their minds and ability to think for so long you can't tell them from mentally retarded people. They made themselves this way by shunning true knowledge. What a sad waste of life.

    pt 2

  79. Achems Razor

    Thanks for the info, guys:

    I will make it a point not to watch the link, not on xmas eve anyway.

  80. Tim

    Well, all this talk made me want to watch the link even more. Not sure what to make of it though. As far as evidence, it doesn't really convince me. Are there any other sources that corroborate these claims? I realize there probably aren't many objective sources, but if there are any, that would help.

    Also, Merry Christmas and whatever else to everyone!

  81. Charles B.

    Yavanna: I've lost all respect for you also. Did anyone mention Benny Hinn or Larson? I don't even know who Hovind is. No need to respond as you obviously are beyond an intelligent response to your rant. Those are valid testimonies from real people. Good bye.

    Razor: I'm disappointed in your responce. UFO sitings are based on testimony mostly also yet, I didn't dismiss the lot like you've just done with testimonies of another nature. That's very unscientific of you.

    Tim: Research Ian McCormick as he was only a Christian litterally seconds before he died. He now has an international ministry, but the ministry came after the fact, not before. He was hard-core atheist that escaped Hell by seconds. Litterally.

    The others might also have ministries, but what other verifiable proof would you like? You could google their names and see. It's not to the benefit of atheists to document resurrections of peole who then tell of a religious event after death. Why would they even try?

  82. Tim

    Charles: I researched Ian McCormick and read about his experience. Unfortunately it's not something that can be independently verified or checked out in any way. We just have to take his word for it. That's the problem with near-death and afterlife experiences; we have no way of verifying them. Of course, we shouldn't just dismiss them either. But we have to be skeptical.

    There are a lot of people who have claimed to have died and met some kind of God or seen the afterlife. Mellen-Thomas Benedict, for example, claims that he died twice-- once shortly after he was born, and again as an adult from cancer-- and both times he recovered miraculously. He claims that he met God, a being of light, who showed him the entire universe, which was full of alien life, and was constantly being reborn over and over (a lot like the Big Bang/Crunch theory). His experience was that of being one with everything. There was no Heaven or Hell.

    There are several accounts of Tibetans who have been clinically dead and claimed that they met Yama (the god of the underworld) or his servants only to be told that there had been an error and that they had been mistaken for someone with a similar name or someone in another room. Sounds like Yama is having trouble keeping his records in order. One of these people said he got to see Buddha, who was a bright star in the sky.

    And of course, there are Hindu near-death experiences, which feature a variety of supernatural figures (from the Hindu pantheon as well as some random unidentified people) who also seem to have trouble getting the right people to die. Sometimes they find out who was supposed to die, and sure enough, shortly after they come back to life, that other person dies.

    Every near-death experience is heavily influenced by the individual's culture. It is hard to say that any of these experiences are proof of an afterlife because they portray the afterlife in very different ways. Some of them might even be total fabrications. The scientific explanation is that an oxygen-deprived brain undergoes changes that result in hallucinatory experiences during the last moments of activity. Basically, it's like taking a mind-altering drug. The experience seems very real, but it isn't. It's similar to using peyote to enter the spirit world, only no one intentionally has a near-death experience because it's a bit more dangerous.

    Of course, none of this completely rules out the existence of a soul or an afterlife, but these stories are not consistent enough to be considered proof of anything.

  83. Yavanna

    Exactly Reb, I`d be better off discussing Santa with a 4 year old. At least there would be some level of intelligence and a chance of progress.

  84. Yavanna

    There is only one account that sounds even remotely credible - that of the Ukrainian guy. If it had happened it would have been reported as a world wide sensation. It was not. You can only find references to the "story" on creationist websites. Further discussion about these "miracles" lends credence to these delusions which is just what peeps like CB want. They cannot discuss the actual science and reality so everything is swamped by tangential arguments.

  85. Achems Razor

    Merry Xmas! Charles B:

    I said I would not watch your link on Xmas Eve, But since you so succinctly endeavored to present your case. I will make it a point to watch your link at a later date.

  86. Reb

    There was a very popular 'christian' doctor, Richard Eby, who fell from a balcony and split his head open and claimed to have died for a short time and was met by Jesus who told him he would live so he could give his testimony. He claimed that Jesus told him he would not die again on this earth but Jesus would rapture the church in Eby's lifetime. Well, as it always goes, the good doctor kicked the bucket several years ago. Thousands of sheeple believed this joker, who made a fortune from his book. I understand from reports that many of them began to sell property and rid themselves of useless items such as health and life insurance because Eby was an elderly man when he gave the 'words of Jesus' that the rapture was soon to take place.

  87. Reb

    Tim, the ancient Shamans knew how to use herbs to place people in a catatonic state and appear to raise them from the dead, for a price of course. All throughout history people have been mistakenly buried alive. The term 'dead ringer' came from the custom of tying a string to the big toe of the dead and running the string up and out of the ground and tied to a small bell on a stick. If the person was buried alive and woke up if they moved their foot, and I am sure they moved more than a foot, the graveyard keeper would hear the bell and dig them up.

  88. Reb

    You know the bible makes the claim that where two or three are gathered in the name of Jesus they can ask for anything and it will be given. Charles claims that millions or perhaps billions follow the bible teachings. If that is so, why the hell hasn't even a thousand of them joined together and ask for abortion to end, child abuse to end or for war to end? They have no power to do one damn thing in the name of their god and yet try to cram that garbage down the throats of the entire worlds population. These goobers don't live what the bible says any more than my cat does. If christians had the power and backing of an all powerful god, they would turn this world around and everyone would want to know such a god. Look at folks like CB and ask yourself, who wants to live such a brainwashed ignorant existence beating the long dead horse of religion? It is so sad to see someone waste away in the worst form of bondage in the world and they don't even know they have been deceived and trapped. Go figure. It seems to me the 'true believers' aren't doing their duty or they have no faith in what their own bible proclaims.

  89. 1400 Years

    "If a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted to them by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, they must recognize that this is a path they have chosen for themselves; it is NOT the result of scientific investigation and experiment. This kind of pseudo-intellectualism arises from intellectual rebellion and an abandonment of one's original nature. The god that the natural scientist wishes vainly to "prove" with his tools and instruments is, in any event, no god at all in the view of those who worship God."

    Syed Mujtaba Musavi in 'God and His Attributes'

    p.s. The God (capital G) referred to is not Jesus Christ; it refers to God, the Creator of the Christ, a prophet of God (may peace be upon him).

  90. Reb

    Charles, do you personally know those people with the 'valid' testimonies? Of course you don't, so all you have is heresay that you are trying to pass on as proof.

  91. 1400 Years

    "It is true that certain religions, lacking a connection with the principles of revelation, have been influenced in their appearance and growth by the social environment and similar factors. However, it is illogical to ascribe the foundation of all faiths and religious tendencies to material or economic circumstances and demands, to fear of the terrifying forces of nature, to ignorance or to considerations rejected by science.

    Without doubt, one of the factors in the emergence of anti-religious ideas and a phalanx of deniers of God, has been the false teachings, the inadequacies and the intellectual perversions of the followers of some religions. The peculiarities and separate characteristics of each religion must, therefore, be individually examined when studying the reasons that have led men to adhere to that religion."

  92. Charles B.

    Tim: Ian McCormick was in the hospital from the box jelly fish sting where he died. It looks like you could verify his account from that hospital's records. The Buddhist monk testimony was the most interesting for me as he too met "Yama" the lord of the underworld, but everything was turned on its ear. Buddha as well as another very famous Buddhist monk from his country were seen in Hell. He didn't even have a concept of Christianity before his 3 day death. That's not just a near-death experience, but something a little different. God had mercy on him and brought him back, which is contrary to most Christian's understanding of God that once you're gone and you're not a Christian, it's all over for you. A very interesting story if you've not read it.

  93. Charles B.

    Tim: Also, I believe that Satan is real, and the Bible does say that he comes "as an angel of light" which is an odd term if he is always evil in appearance. The near-death experience of a person who meets and angel such as this, quite possibly is meeting a fallen angel sent for deception. I suspect such is the case with the individual who had the angel show him the universe filled with life and talked about reincarnation. The Bible actually tells us that we must "test the spirits to see if they are of God" so that tells me that trickery is even tried on the faithful, how much more the unbelieving? It's the devil's whole purpose to deceive and he does it very well. I like Sid Roth, but before he became a Christian, he had a demonic "councilor" that would tell him secrets about others. Only later did he realize it was a demon and not the being of a higher intelligence he thought was sent to make him rich.

  94. Charles B.

    Mr. Razor: I misunderstood your statement. I thought you were just blowing off the whole thing based on Yavanna's and Reb's post. It seems Reb's sole purpose is to destroy Christianity. Take what he says with a grain of salt at the very least. Sorry for being snippy.

    Reb: You stumped me on Eby. I could argue that he misunderstood what he was told by Jesus as I think the wording was that he would still have names in his appointment book when Jesus returned, meaning "unfinished business." That leaves room for misunderstanding, but Eby really believed that he wouldn't die before the time of the Rapture. That's true. I wonder if his appointment book still has unmet appointments in it still today? But that's really splitting hairs, I admit.

    Also, Reb, I do know one person who died and met Jesus, personally. Her name is Pat. I just got an e-mail from her today in fact.

  95. 1400 Years

    "1. Say: I seek refuge in the Lord of mankind,
    2. The King of mankind,
    3. The God of mankind,
    4. From the evil of the sneaking whisperer,
    5. Who whispers in the hearts of mankind,
    6. Of the jinn and of mankind"

    - Al-Quran, Surah 114 ("Mankind"), verses 1-6

  96. Charles B.

    1400 Years: Looks like you and I both are trying to get used to the new system. Vlatko tries to get us to cut back on the lenth of the comments and we just double or triple post! LOL. :-) But your double post was just a mistake I see.

  97. 1400 Years

    Re our top ass scientist Mr Rigid Dogkins, remember, remember:

    Pseudo-scientific Demagoguery

    "The materialists claim that the establishment of their school of thought in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries was directly connected to the progress of science and that the dialectical method was a fruit plucked from the fertile tree of science.

    They depict every philosophy apart from materialism as a form of idealism, opposed to the scientific method of thought, and insist that their position is a scientific and progressive one. According to them, realism consists in turning away from metaphysical truths; everyone ought to base his worldview on sensory and empirical logic and opt for materialism. But this claim is nothing more than a fanatical illusion based on unproven theories. Views such as these derive directly from a system of thought centered on materialism; within it, everything is defined and delimited with reference to materialism.

    Today it is primarily in a vulgarized form of Marxism that the wares of science have been turned into a tool of deception. Those who supposedly should be mapping out their path in the clear light of knowledge and weighing all matters with profound, logical perception and investigation, in complete freedom from all fanaticism and hasty prejudice - precisely these people have fallen prey to stagnation and blind imitation. They have arrogantly denied all values higher than intellect and reason, and even boast of their ignorant denial.

    Their claim that the coming of science has put out the notion of God is purely rhetorical and has nothing to do with logical method, because even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.

    Materialism is a metaphysical belief, and must, therefore, be proven or disproven according to philosophical method. Precisely for this reason, an acceptance of materialism cannot be made a basis for the denial of metaphysics. To interpret materialism in such a sense is in the final analysis strictly meaningless; it would be a superstitious notion involving the perversion of truth, and to regard it as scientific would, in fact, be treason to science."

  98. Reb

    Achem, yes Popoff is another christian turd making money off the dumb sheep. There are so many of these slimeballs you can't keep up with them.

    Near death experiences are a dime a dozen and only useful to the one who makes the claim. It is another method of fleecing the sheep and has become a popular trend as people like to be assured of the 'hereafter' and pay to read books by these clowns and see them in person. In the 60's and 70's the rapture craze was the thing and the 90's brought fake healers and 'god wants you rich' doctrines. Now we are in the midst of the holy war era and killing for jesus is the way to go.

  99. 1400 Years

    @ Reb, re the '[H]ereafter' being a fallacy:

    Let's take a look at ourselves.

    We live in a particular realm. And in this realm, we live as a particular form ... of creation.

    The purpose of existence in this particular realm is to evolve to achieve perfection - bodily, mental and spiritual - of oneself, of one's society and of the world at large.

    In this process of evolution, we move from realm to realm in which our forms of creation are changed; each time a new creation is formed.

    1.
    Some decades ago, you were one of millions of sperm [cells] swimming in the testicle(s). The testicle(s) was a realm of the sperm, its "universe"; it "enjoyed" itself, perhaps believing that that existence in the testicle was all that there was to it, oblivious to the world beyond its particular realm. And it was a living thing that got all its necessary nutrition to survive within the testicle(s); in short, everything was catered to for it.

    When the sperm was ejaculated, according to a scientific report I read in the past, whereas the gentleman felt pleasure, it was actually agonising for the sperm.

    In other words, when the sperm transferred from its testicular realm, it experienced pain of transference to the next realm.

    I ask you: Would you say that the sperm [cell] is the same as you are now?

  100. 1400 Years

    2.
    In the ovary, the sperm merged with the egg, stuck themselves onto the ovarian wall and became a zygote; a new creation. In the womb, the zygote received all its necessary nutrition and evolved over some nine months, becoming a fully grown, healthy baby. For that baby, that womb, according to scientists, was a most secure place; for the baby, the womb was everything. It was its universe, and it was oblivious to what was beyond its particular realm, hidden from the realm beyond by the ovarian walls and the womb. If it were the times of ultra-sound when that baby was in gestation, there may be videos of it showing it jumping up and down and floating most blissfully with that everything's-paid-for attitude in the womb, thinking that that was all there was to its existence. It did hear sounds from the "outside", from the "beyond", but it probably seemed not to pay too much attention to them. Perhaps, in its bliss and comfort in the womb, it would dismiss the messages from the outside; perhaps it was in denial.

    Then it kind of got stuck, surprised, and it cringed and kicked, and momma popped it out. To both momma and baby, it was a most painful experience. When the baby slept and slept and slept after its birth, after its transference form the realm of the womb to this realm, the relatives explained to its little cousins and siblings that why the baby slept so much was because it had come a looong way "from another world".

    I ask you: Would you say that the zygote and the baby of the womb are the same as what you are now?

  101. 1400 Years

    3.
    Now you and I are now in this particular realm.

    You have evolved from babyhood to adulthood and are evolving towards old age, and while I wish that you may live a long life, you will certainly, certainly die one day, and there may be the pain of that death / transference from this realm ... to the next.

    So when you die, I ask you, where do you think you will go?

    Wait, wait!

  102. 1400 Years

    Think.

    What is the philosophy of existence?

    What is the purpose of this particular life?

    The sperm was a living organism. The baby was a living thing. You are a living being.

    Why don't you notice that you are moving from realm to realm WITHIN / ON this same planet?

    So when you die, why don't you think there could be another creation of you?

    If you have been created the first time, why don't you think you cannot be created again in another form? (And I don't mean into monkeys and blah blah like the Hindus have come to believe in their concept of reincarnation.)

    And you're not going into ether! You remain here on this planet. The Quran says: Have we not made the earth a sufficient place for both the living and the dead?

  103. 1400 Years

    Further:

    "Among His signs is that you see the earth dry and barren; and when We send down rain on it, it stirs to life and swells. Surely Allah Who gives the dead earth life will raise the dead also to life. Indeed, He has power over all things." (41:39)

    "O mankind! If you are in doubt concerning the Resurrection, (consider that) We created you of dust, then of semen, then of a fertilized ovum suspended on the wall of the womb, then of a lump of flesh shaped and unshaped, so that We demonstrate to you Our power. And We keep in the wombs what We please to an appointed term, and afterwards We bring you forth as infants, then We cause you to grow up, that you reach your prime. Among you some die (young) and some are sent back to the feeblest phase of age so that they know nothing after they had knowledge. You sometimes see the earth dry and barren. But when We pour down rain on it, it trembles, and swells, and grows of every pleasant pair. That is so because Allah is the Truth, and He it is Who gives life to the dead, and He is powerful over all things." (22:5-6)

    "Does man think that he will be left to himself uncontrolled (without purpose)? Was he not a drop of fluid which gushed forth? Then he became a clinging clot; then He shaped and fashioned, and made of him a pair, the male and female. Is He then not able to raise the dead to life?" (75:36-40)

    "Look at the prints of Allah’s Mercy: how He gives life to the earth after its death. Lo! He verily is the Reviver of the dead (in the same way), and He is able to do all things." (30:50)

    "Allah has brought you forth from the earth like a plant. And to the earth He will restore you. Then He will bring you back fresh." (71:17-8)

    - Al-Quran al-Hakeem

    I believe it's winter where you live. Do take a look at the vegetation around you again, wait for the spring, and ponder again.

    "77. Hath not man seen that We have created him from a drop of seed? Yet lo! he is an open disputant.
    78. And he hath coined for Us a similitude, and hath forgotten the fact of his creation, saying: Who will revive these bones when they have rotted away?
    79. Say: He will revive them Who produced them at the first, for He is Knower of every creation,
    80. Who hath appointed for you fire from the green tree, and behold! ye kindle from it.
    81. Is not He Who created the heavens and the earth Able to create the like of them? Aye, that He is! for He is the All-Wise Creator,
    82. But His command, when He intendeth a thing, is only that He saith unto it: Be! and it is.
    83. Therefor Glory be to Him in Whose hand is the dominion over all things! Unto Him ye will be brought back."

    Al-Quran 36: 77-83

  104. 1400 Years

    I know the argument out there is that no one has ever returned from the dead to tell us that there is life "out there", but I ask you: Has any sperm gone back into the testicle? Has any baby returned to its womb? The teeming sperms in the testicles would perhaps deny existence beyond; twins and triplets and sextuplets perhaps might have the harbour the same denial.

    Once you've moved on from one realm to another, there's no turning back. You move on and meet old and new loved ones, and evolution of creation continues ... until an appointed time that the entire yet-constantly expanding universe awaits.

    Just don't get flustered with the idea of the Rapture and what-have-you soon as one dies. The next realm is called Barzakh (in Arabic), and it would last for [perhaps] thousands of years. There's no heaven or hell yet. Barzakh is the interim interlude until the earth winds up completely in its spinning, and when it's done, it will "uncoil" in the anti-anti-clockwise direction; and that's when the sun would be rising from the west and setting in the east; hence the meaning of the verse in the Quran: I swear by the Lord of the easts and the wests ...

    So also, this Barzakh realm, will also unravel for you that this nonsense about going straight into paradise into the arms of 72 eager virgins is utter ignorance and malicious propaganda touted by both the media and the foolish "adherents" of the Abrahamic faith.

  105. Tim

    Charles: How can you claim that Christian experiences of the afterlife are legitimate and write off all the rest as Satan's trickery? It seems you can use that argument to get rid of anything that doesn't fit what you believe to be true. I respect you, but you can't just explain away every non-Christian spiritual experience by saying "The devil did it." You usually have better counter-arguments than that! Though I must admit, there probably isn't really anything I can say to convince you that you're wrong, so I guess we'll have to call it a draw. =/

    1400: Man, you do post a lot! I'm pretty sure sperm doesn't have the capacity to feel pain, or anything at all, but I know for certain it cannot contemplate its tiny little world. It's nice to see that you're making an effort to be heard though. Unfortunately, I don't think citing passages from the Qur'an is going to convince anyone who doesn't already believe that it is the word of God as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad.

    I've also been wondering: I know Vlatko says we're not supposed to preach or use the site to try to convert people, but where is the line between citing scripture to make a point and citing scripture to preach to people? All the other guidelines are pretty clear to me except for that one, and I try to follow them, especially the one about not insulting people.

    By the way, has anyone else stopped getting e-mail notifications? Do we only get notified of direct replies to our posts now? I've lost track of all the docs I comment on.

  106. Patsy

    1400 years : "even thousands of scientific experiments could not possibly suffice to demonstrate that no non-material being or factor exists.".......

    ...Nor can scientific experiments disprove the existence of Thor,the tooth fairy,elves,leprechauns or unicorns!!! But what science can prove and demonstrate quite clearly is our reality that we all share and observe, which just happens to contradict and disprove all religious scripture and pseudo history. I am assuming that you must also believe in Juno,Vesta,Vishnu and Siva based on the comparable evidence for their existence and history???

    And please..... "If a person imprisoned in empirical logic desires to accept the reality of the universe only to the extent permitted to them by sensory experience and to deny whatever lies beyond that, they must recognize that this is a path they have chosen for themselves; it is NOT the result of scientific investigation and experiment.

    !!!!!!it is NOT the result of scientific investigation and experiment!!!!!!!!.....This statement is pure ignorance and a paradox!! if you have to ask why then maybe you should re-read it a few times.

    Also,,if you wish to discuss the journey of human sperm or maybe learn about the wonders of sexual reproduction maybe you should start by reading a basic biology book,or any other book of education.

    And if you are going to reply to my comments I would appreciate you speaking in your own words as opposed to cutting and pasting quotes from books written by people who write about such lunacy as "God and his Attributes". I was under the impression that this thread was made for people to have an intelligent discussion and debate about "The Blind Watchmaker" documentary and not to quote religious scripture.

    Reb: It's nice to know that there is somebody else on this thread that reads books other then works of fiction and mythology!! Respect.

    Happy holidays folks.

  107. Tim

    Exactly. When people use science's inability to disprove the supernatural as support for the existence of supernatural beings, they often forget just how many supernatural claims exist in the world. You can't just pick and choose which are valid. And while scientific experiments can't prove that a given supernatural entity does not exist somewhere in the universe or in another realm, they can provide explanations for natural occurrences that are often attributed to these supernatural forces. But people believe what they believe anyway. I think if someone chooses to put their faith in one kind of supernatural force, they shouldn't dismiss others for doing the same with another. I can understand the intense conflict between faith and atheism, but not between faith and faith.

  108. Patsy

    Tim: I agree with you completely. I find the arrogance of people with a religious faith to claim another religious faith is untrue to be quite primitive. And then they attack Atheists for using logic,reason and common sense based on evidence and consistent observation of the world around us!. What most people with a faith in a supernatural deity seem to ignore,or maybe are not aware of, is the fact that every human being is born an Atheist!!
    That's right folks..regardless of what God a person has faith in,nobody is born with faith.
    Children are told by adults what the adults believe to be true and are told that they too are part of this faith and are then indoctrinated into the belief systems and traditions of their religion.Religion is purely an accident of ones birth place (Charles B: do you really think that you would be reading the Christian Bible for guidance if you had been born in Iraq!!) The psychology behind this clan like behaviour has many clear parallels in culture, such as following a specific sports team or patriotism of ones Country or home land.
    I find this sort of indoctrination of children into a religion to be quite irresponsible, especially since children of this age rely on their parents and the adults around them for guidance and a sense of morals. Remember that children of such a young age will believe anything that their parents tell them to be true,including santa claus,the tooth fairy and indeed God!!
    Maybe someday this behaviour will stop and children will be educated about all religions and cultures and the sciences without being indoctrinated into something before they have a chance to understand how the world around them works,and then when they are old enough to comprehend the complexities of life they can deduce their own conclusions based on reason and well educated intelligence.
    It would be amazing to live in a well educated progressive society that didn't hate each other and go to war because they felt that MY IMAGINARY FRIEND IS BETTER THAN YOUR IMAGINARY FRIEND!!!

    Peace y'all.

  109. 1400 Years

    You seem to have a calmer disposition, so I'd ask you: when an explanation is provided for natural occurrences, how does that explanation explain away the Origin, the Originator, the Initiator, the Initiation, the Creator?

    When they were finally able to explain the exact process of the birth of man, did that explain away the act and existence of parents?

  110. Yavanna

    I`ve stopped getting notifications too, but that's not the reason I`ve dropped out of this pulpit driven "discussion." If I want to read scripture or fairy tales I buy a book. If I want to be preached to I go to a church. If people want to believe in the word of people claiming to have died and met whoever that's fine by me. My personal belief based on facts is that uncounted people throughout history have made a very good living out of lying. I`d call most of them priests but I wouldnt force that view down other people's throats. What these guys are doing is tantamount to what JWs do albeit in a virtual way.

  111. Tim

    Like I said, it is impossible to explain away a supernatural being. All you can do is explain processes that said being is supposed to be responsible for, and if it no longer looks like there's anything supernatural going on, people tend to stop believing. People used to think that the sun, moon and stars were supernatural entities, spirits, gods, what-have-you. People used to think that the wind and rain and thunder were all controlled directly or indirectly by forces or beings of supernatural origin. When we develop rational, scientific explanations for these things, what was once considered obvious proof of the supernatural becomes nature itself. Since we can't yet explain exactly how all reality began with any scientific approach, we can't completely rule out the idea of a Creator. But no matter what argument you make for the origins of the universe, there is always the question of what came before, or where the Creator came from. This infinite regress has two common solutions: One is that the Creator created itself; the other is that there is no beginning, and time goes back infinitely, or loops around, and goes back and forth. Neither really make logical sense. It's just something we can't really know yet, but most people would rather not settle for uncertainty.

    Also, we can see parents quite clearly, and the scientific explanation of birth confirms the existence of parents and the roles they play in the perpetuation of the species, whereas the scientific explanation for the origin of the universe doesn't confirm the existence of a Creator.

  112. Tim

    Just posting this so I can subscribe to the comments.

  113. 1400 Years

    Great; then are we agreed that we are limited beings - limited by time and space?

  114. Achems Razor

    I agree with Patsy and Tim:

    If interested in reading scriptures, would refer to some Bibles that are laying around.

    Usually just skim over cut and paste stuff out of Bible and other religious websites.
    Praise this, and praise that, and so on, not interested in.

    Do not wish to be converted to any religions and that is what some religious people seem to be pushing on these threads.
    Christian people are required to try to get converts, not sure about Islam.

    As a matter of fact these threads are so far of the subject that I forgot what the Doc. was about. Have to re-watch it over again.

    And like Tim not sure how the e-mail notification works.
    And was going to ask , no more smiley faces??
    :D

  115. patsy

    1400 years: "When they were finally able to explain the exact process of the birth of man, did that explain away the act and existence of parents?"

    .......You do not seem to be up to date with contemporary scientific knowledge and understanding of human biology. Indeed such questions have long since been answered and explained in great detail in every basic biology school book.
    In your wording of the question you are also implying a supernatural creator/origin which renders your question rethorical.

    If you decide to read some basic science books the law's of physics,chemistry and biology will quite happily explain any such questions that you might have about these processes, without the need for a supernatural creator. After such readings if you still feel a need for a supernatural origin, then this is YOUR OWN PERSONAL need , not sciences or reality's.
    Explanations based on clear evidence and observation are quite sufficient for the rest of us Homosapiens.

    In fact "The Blind Watchmaker" quite clearly explains this question for you in great detail...assuming that you have actually watched it of course??

  116. 1400 Years

    - Disallow religious references; sounds like another case of "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" - the pseudo-scientific arrogance.

    - Cut and paste? Why should it be then that shifty scientific books - what with their new and later and latest editions - should be allowed to be referred to, cited from in educated circles and discussions, but not the Book that has stood the test of time, which is not shifty, and whose verses are only gradually being proved to be veritable?

    You would say scientific stuff is peer reviewed. How honestly is that done? Watch "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" again. Why do you ignore those scientists who claim that they are ostracised and not peer-reviewed. Do they not have Phd too and loads of research and experience in research-methods and the ability to write papers?

    - "Hate and war" have been blamed on religions again lately; a dozen times has it been said that people wage the wars and the hate; the ORIGINAL AND GENUINE teachings of religions are not to blame. But anger and arrogance do not allow the disputants to register this.

    On another thread, I had asked if the use of kitchen knives has been discontinued because PEOPLE have used them to murder wives and husbands; I asked if the use of chairs has been discontinued because people have used chairs to bash other people's heads with.

    When faith in religion is arrogantly dismissed for waging war and encouraging hatred, then certainly the knives and chairs should be dismissed and rejected, and not used.

    - No, Islam does not require one to get converts; it only asks one to CONVEY the message. If the recipient of the message wishes to convert, it's their free will. If any "Muslim" launches a "crusade" to convert, then that person is not following Islam. Hope people on this forum accusing others of arrogance, shed theirs and register this themselves as well.

    Meanwhile, go to Youtube and watch the five-minute video "AMAZING SPEECH BY WAR VETERAN" posted by "ThePhaedrus83"; and tell me which religion you'd wish to blame for the deeds and the philosophy behind the invasions that the veteran is talking about.

  117. 1400 Years

    @ Patsy

    How you have ignored a few bits of my post. You are probably referring to the eggs being fertilised in petri dishes and the IVF etc as the latest in Biology ... well, I ask you:

    WHO AND WHAT was the Origin of the egg?

    DO THE DOCTORS breathe life into it?

    WHO is the initiator?

    I asked, if the process is explained, does it explain away the originator, the initiator?

    But for your sake, I rephrase: If eggs are fertilised in the petri dish and what-have-you, and then IVF-ed, does it explain away the doctor?

    May peace indeed be upon you.

  118. You Name It

    Patsy, totally agree with You. Please, ignore the comments a-la SOL's or 1400 yrs just the way they ignore logic and rational thinking - simply not their prerogatiff! They could not make it with basic understanding of how this world keeps on keeping on for their entire lives - no way they'll get it from good old words of yours and alike!
    P/E/A/C/E

  119. You Name It

    Reading comments sometimes is even more entertaining than the video itself))) the whole debate war is going on here - it's actually interesting to see for example how SOL (and other creationists fellas) attacks each and everyone who thinks different thus rationally!! )) funny how ignorant and stuck up some people may be - why wasting yr time??? let them pray for peanut butter (to SOL: doesn't that guy earn millions in America simply exploiting yr medieval pony of view.?) BTW you and the ones represented in yr face DO prove evolutionists wrong=your cerebrum stopped evolving! )))) at the age of 4 as far as i am concserned
    /=

  120. Reb

    1400, what cosmos did you evolve from?

  121. 1400 Years

    1400 Years writes:

    "I asked, if the process is explained, does it explain away the originator, the initiator?

    But for your sake, I rephrase: If eggs are fertilised in the petri dish and what-have-you, and then IVF-ed, does it explain away the doctor [and I further add:] or the original scientist(s) who "discovered" cloning*?"

    These are supposed to be dismissed as illogical and irrational questions stemming from ignorance. Brilliant!

    And in another post, it has been commented that citing from The Noble Quran is unacceptable, but then I see that it may be considered fine to quote and reference and cite shifty, buddy-reviewed** scientific publications that change their observations and emerge as "latest" editions every few years; this stance when the Noble Quran continues to stand the test of time, continues to beat "modern" science by centuries, all this when not a dot within it has changed over 1431 years. Nothing in "science" has yet been able to disprove what's already in The Book.

    For anything to claim itself to be the Truth, it must stand the test of time.

    And one more thing: Before insulting and accusing others of ignorance and arrogance, look in the mirror first.

    May peace be upon you all.

    I rest my case.

    * By the way, ever thought that Jesus might be one of the first clones in human history? You discover cloning just yesterday, and you think you've outsmarted the Most Original, the Origin of Origins.

    ** Yes, yes, Ben Stein in "Exposed: ..." has some PhDs on record saying they are ostracised because they do not comply with the "mainstream wisdom". What a shame!

  122. Reb

    Charles, you don't know anymore than what someone reports they saw, heard or felt. If you were not there and experienced what they claim, then it is always secondhand information and nothing more. Many people claim to have seen ETs or to have been taken aboard a UFO. You and I cannot say they are right or wrong for we we not there and we did not see or hear it. You pick and choose who and what you believe and leave all other opinions behind as deceptions. That is a very foolish thing to do.

  123. Reb

    Patsy and Achem, thank goodness for a few good untainted minds! 1400 has a hang-up with male sperm and since he follows the muslim holy books, women had little to do with the making of a baby. I suspect his towel is tied a bit to tight. 1400, save your sperm issues, pun intended, for those 70 virgins you think are awaiting your arrival.

    Charles is a religious zealot who has made himself mentally retarded and frankly, both of them are getting to be on the scary side. This is an example of what any religious fanaticism can do to the human mind. After all, this is the 21st century. Anyone can tell CB they used to be dead but jayzuz raised them from the dead and that nitwit will believe it and help spread the lie.

  124. Vlatko

    No worries @Achems Razor. The comment is there.

  125. Reb

    Achem, thanks for the link, it is a very informative and HONEST one the religiously dumbed-down will reject. They love to be deceived and so they are.

    There may be 72 imaginary virgins waiting to be raped but as you stated "what's one or two". The hebrews raped while alive on earth and muslims have to wait until they are dead. Ain't religions good?!!!! What happens when they have used up all 72 virgins? Do these magical virgins remain virgins forever like good old mother mary? Isn't it scary as hell that humans with brains believe all this hogwash and will kill in the name of it? I seem to hear the theme of The Twilight Zone playing in the background when I read posts from 1400 and CB.

  126. Tim

    The explanations for cloning and IVF do not disprove the existence of the doctor or the person who invented the processes, of course. They are physical beings that we can see with our eyes. We know they exist. It is not a matter of faith. You can't compare the natural and the supernatural like this. One is tangible, the other is not. One can easily be proven, the other is beyond proof.

  127. Tim

    Of course.

  128. Tim

    There are numerous problems with the content of that film. I could point out all the inaccuracies and lies if you want.

  129. Tim

    At least we have proof that the Jehovah's Witnesses were founded by false prophets. If making false predictions for at least half a century doesn't prove that you're wrong, I don't know what does. It puzzles me why anyone would join a sect that has such a bad track record for prophecy.

  130. Tim

    The egg comes from a female. This can all be explained scientifically.

    There is no evidence that anyone needs to breathe life into the egg. The sperm does that.

    The initiators are the man and woman, or a doctor if we're talking about IFV or some other non-natural method.

  131. Patsy

    1400 years: "the Noble Quran continues to stand the test of time, continues to beat "modern" science by centuries,"

    Ok then,,lets look at some of the facts in this "Noble" book and the exploits of its prophet.....

    .....The prophet Mohammed married Aisha when she was 6 years old and consummated this marriage when she was 9 years old,he was 54 years old!!
    The thought of an old man becoming aroused by a child is one of the most disturbing thoughts that makes us cringe as it reminds us of pedophilia and the most despicable dangerous people of all.

    Mohammed personally sanctioned the massacre of the Qurayza, a vanquished Jewish tribe. He appointed an "arbiter" who soon rendered this concise verdict....
    The men were to be put to death, the women and children sold into slavery, the spoils to be divided among the Muslim people!!
    Mohammed ratified this judgment stating that it was a decree of God pronounced from above the Seven Heavens. Thus some 600 to 900 men from the Qurayza were lead on Mohammed's order to the Market of Medina. Trenches were dug and the men were beheaded, and their decapitated corpses buried in the trenches while Mohammed watched in attendance...
    Women and children were sold into slavery, a number of them being distributed as gifts among Mohammed’s companions, and Mohammed chose one of the Qurayza women (Rayhana) for himself. The Qurayza’s property and other possessions (including weapons) were also divided up among the Muslim people to support further jihad campaigns!!!

    If this is the "Nobel" book that you feel has "Stood the test of time" then I sincerely hope that you keep your sperm and your message of Peace far away from civilised people that do not share your belief system and set of morals!!

    Also...you are now contemplating the idea that Jesus may have been the first human clone!!
    Maybe you should have a chat with Charles B. and you can discuss the wonders of unicorns and sexual reproduction together..I'm sure if you put your books together you can come up with some enlightening scientific concepts to enrich humanity.

    Peace.

    (Oh, and by the way, when I say Peace I mean Peace from the viewpoint of an educated Atheist, and not the kind of Peace encouraged in your "Nobel" book.)

  132. Achems Razor

    I promised "Charles B" that I would watch his "Sid Roth" "divine healing link"

    Complete Religious spin as usual.

    A lot of spontaneous healing does occur sometimes naturally, nothing to do with any religions.

    I am convinced it has to do with the mind, the individual mindset.

    The mind has been proven to reverse major medical syndromes.
    And you do not have to be religious for that to happen.

    But in fairness to Charles, for religious people to affirm in the positive, the desire to be well or to think you are well, might work, it is not the religion that does it, but the positive affirmation of wellness to the Quantum world.

  133. Reb

    1400 years: “the Noble Quran continues to stand the test of time, continues to beat “modern” science by centuries,”

    LMAO, how do you explain why you people insist on living life in the stone age??? I guess it is what allah expects to keep you humble, managable and dumbed-down.

  134. Patsy

    On the personal recommendation of Charles B,I too have just watched Sid Roth's documentary about divine healing.

    So these people feel that their medical conditions have been healed by divine intervention from a God..Interesting.
    I say interesting in the sense that thousands of people in third world countries die every day from much worse conditions,but for some reason God refuses to answer their prayers,and instead decides to fix a woman's elongated tongue and cure a lady of whiplash!!...Very interesting indeed.

    Lets put divine healing into perspective...

    The most important and respected place of divine healing on the planet would be the sanctuaries of Lourdes in France.
    Father Liam Griffin of the sanctuaries of Lourdes has publicly stated that there have been 66 declared miracles of divine healing in Lourdes.
    Now..approximately 80 thousand people visit Lourdes to pay pilgrimage in the hope of being healed every year.This has been going on for at least 100 years..thats 8 million people.
    So out of 8 million people there are only 66 cases of so called divine healing!!
    In reality this is a terribly low statistic, and the amount of people in hospitals who have serious illnesses go into remission even after medical science can do no more to help them is a much higher statistic.

    And Achems Razor is quite correct in saying that spontaneous healing can occur because of a persons mindset.
    This is a well known and documented medical term called the placebo effect.

    It is a medical fact that our thoughts and emotions directly affect the state of our physical health.This connection is made possible because of chemical messengers called neuropeptides, which help our body's organs communicate directly with the brain, and vice versa.
    When a person is in a positive state of mind their Nk cell count increases.
    NK cells are a type of cytotoxic lymphocyte that constitute a major component of the immune system. NK cells play a major role in the rejection of tumors and cells infected by viruses.
    For example..the NK cells destroy viruses and cancerous cells by releasing small cytoplasmic granules of proteins called perforin and granzyme that cause the target cell to die by apoptosis.

    Unfortunately neither Sid Roth or any of his guests seem to be aware of any of this medical knowledge..but why would they?
    This information is not mentioned in the Bible or any other religious scripture. Instead Mr Roth is busy writing and selling his own book which he feels will enlighten and help people!!

    So....Charles B:
    Now that you are armed with this knowledge of medical facts, maybe you will be able to view Mr Roth's book and documentary/book advertisement and realise what utter nonsense it is!!
    But I somehow doubt that this will happen as it would conflict with your fantasy bubble of divine healing..

    PS: Everything that I have stated is publicly documented medical fact,and everyone is free to independently research such facts for themselves. That includes You Charles B!!
    So I would appreciate some form of intelligence in any response that you might have to me watching your recommended documentary.

  135. Charles B.

    Wow! Take a day off and the whole web explodes. I shant read a word from this website for a whole month or more starting tomorrow, but I have a peace about that. Ultimately, faith is a matter of . . . . faith, and it's more rock solid now than it was even yesterday. God is good and I'm happy to be who I am, except for the hunger to go deeper still.

    Tim: My explination about non-Christian after life experiences wasn't fancy, but sometimes the simplest answer is the most correct. Even the faithful are told to "test" the spirits to see if they are of God. Demonic forces are real and therefore, deception is real and it comes on many levels, both academically and spiritually. Peace. You seem fairminded to me.

    Patsy: Well, I'm not sure if I'd be a Christian or a Muslim if I were born in Iraq. There are some Iraqi Christians. I would hope my heart would still seek out Jesus and the one true God, no matter where I was born given the chance. Besides, how do you know a child is born "atheist"? Children are born full of faith! It's only later that they loose it. When did you loose yours? You seem like such a sour person as a whole.

    1400 Years: I really like you. I love passionate intelligent faith-minded people very much. I wish you would reconsider the claims of Jesus as divine and not just a prophet. Peace, and when I say "Peace," it's not the peace that Pasty can offer which she makes very clear is no peace at all, but the peace of God. May I pray for you tonight? :-)

    Achems Razor: I've liked corresondance with you the most. Be a little more fairminded about the things of faith. You're a very likable person.

    Reb: You think I'M a bit scary? Wow. You really are a poor judge of character in almost every way.

    SOL: It's up to you, my friend, if you care to tollerate these scoffers and mockers any longer, then have at it. I'm about done, even if I wasn't going on vactaion tomorrow.

    Vlatko: You're the best! :-) I've had a lot of fun here and I love the docs. No way I could watch them all.

    Charles B.

  136. Vlatko

    Thanks @Charles B.

    To watch them all you'll need approximately 1800 hours of your precious time or 75 days without sleep an food.

    Or we can put it this way: If you watch one doc per day you will need 900 days, or 2,5 years to watch them all.

  137. Charles B.

    P.S. Patsy: I forgot to mention that I've known lots and lots of people healed miraculously. My mother is one. She had asthma so bad she had to have a machine to breath on. A pastor's wife that lived next door came to visit and prayed Heaven down for her, and it took the doctor 7 to 10 years to fianlly stop asking about my mother's asthema. Yes, it was that bad, and my dad asked her before her healing where she wanted to be burried. It was totally gone from that day the pastor lady prayed for her and forward, and we gave that horrid machine to Goodwill. That's been 20 years ago, and my mother has zero asthema to this day.

    I also personally know people healed of cancer and heart disease personally. Medically documented. I myself had allergies so bad, that I might be in a medical book as the doctor took lots of pictures of me when I was tested, swelling like a baloon. Essentially I was alergic to all living plants with pollen and I prayed and said, "Oh God, heal me or take me!" and I'm rather glad He chose to heal me, 99.9% better. I think the small allergies I have left are to remind me not to forget His healing of the others.

    Why everyone or everything isn't healed, I really don't know. Sometimes you just need to keep asking and sometimes God just says "Not this time."

    Oh, and by the way, if you're the one with an enlarged tongue (debilitatingly so) or whiplash, then certainly you would want healing, wouldn't you? Many many healings go undocumented worldwhide by the hundreds of thousands. Try not to be so vitrolic, and faithless in your assessment of such as I've heard that such negative emotions are one of the most disease-causing emotions you can have.

    Mr. Razor: I think it's more than just a positive mindset that results in healings, but the Bible does say, "A merry heart is good like a medicine" so you're not entirely correct when you say that it doesn't address that issue. But, yes, I agree, a person's mindset plays a HUGE role in healing as well. Salute! I'll miss you the most I think for two months.

  138. Charles B.

    Vlatko:

    Thanks @Charles B.

    To watch them all you’ll need approximately 1800 hours of your precious time or 75 days without sleep an food.

    Or we can put it this way: If you watch one doc per day you will need 900 days, or 2,5 years to watch them all.

    Wow! I was actually thinking about trying, (sorta) but when you put it that way, it's a task too daunting to tackle. I think I'll stick with the nature docs. I do so love David Attenborough's voice. He's my favorite naturalist, I must admit. Good night. I'll see you in March most likely.

    Charles B.

  139. Patsy

    Charles B: Hahahahaha!!!!!!!

    Your only responses to my post are that children are born full of faith,you have lots of "Personal" stories of people being healed by miracles,I am being faithless in my assessments and I am a sour person...
    How thought provoking of you!!

    After I watched your recommended documentary and gave you some clear sensible medical answers you can only respond with personal stories and attack my demeanour!!
    You clearly don't have the mental capacity to actually comment on anything that I said, or speak intelligently about this topic.
    After I have given you sensible intelligent answers to ALL of the "Mysterious" questions posed in this documentary of insane dribble designed to make money from selling books to people of "faith" you say: "sometimes you just need to keep asking" !!!
    You have clearly ignored all of the medical facts that I have spoke about because you either cannot understand what I am talking about or else it's robbing you of your fantasy world about divine healing.

    Goodbye Charles..I hope you enjoy listening to Mr Attenborough's voice..one of the greatest Atheists working in the scientific community today!!

  140. Reb

    Children are NOT born full of faith. That is pure bs from our resident bs artist. Children are born blank slates that parents and society abuse and force onto them the beliefs they want them to have. CBs parents sure did a number on him to the point he is a 'functional' idiot for wily con men known as 'clergy' to use. Most of them would not qualify to flip burgers for a living and they belong to the parasite species who feed off imbeciles who fall for manmade religious doctrines.

    I said from the beginning cb is a girly guy and his speaking words such a 'shant' and loving another mans voice is absolutely repugnant. Grow a pair for heaven sake and get off your sissy knees. You turn my stomach.

    There is no illness that cannot regress or completely disappear. That also has been documented. Sometimes something as simple as change in diet, attitude or location can be the 'cure'. Thousands of mis-diagnosis are given every friggin year and patients recover from illnesses they never had in the first place, you moron. People like cb look for the supernatural in every nook and cranny, and they find it in things most people consider as natural cause. How many completely withered limbs or missing limbs has good old cb cured or seen cured? Everything he has presented is heresay that is not worth a damn and those people make fortunes from writing silly books filled with lies.

  141. Reb

    "A pastor’s wife that lived next door came to visit and prayed Heaven down for her"...........

    aw, shucks ain't that sumthin!!!! i bet they wuz ashoutin and dancin all over the joint.

    Geez, my sister in law suffered from asthma for 25 years, or so she thought. When they sold their home the inspector found a very dangerous type of mold in the corners of their basement that had to be professionally removed. Once it was gone so was her alledged asthma. Glory be to gawd. It was one of them there miracles cb has told us so much about. That thar inspector was an angel sent by jesus. God works in mysterious ways, it just takes him years and years to get around to it, not to mention hundreds of dollars of chemical removal of nasty old mold.

    One morning my grandmother woke up and looked into the mirror and saw her face all sunken in and her cheeks were completely gone. She almost became hysterical until grandpa told her to put her teeth back in. By god! Another healing. They danced around and shouted heaven down that glorious morn.

  142. Tim

    Again with the "sissy" comments, Reb. You're sounding very homophobic. Even if CB were a "girly guy," what does that have to do with his arguments? Or are you just trying to make us atheists look like a-holes? At least have some respect for Vlatko's rules and the spirit of rational debate.

  143. Reb

    Tim, mind your own business....again. You sit in the middle of the fence trying to appear as the all knowing all seeing wise guru. If one has to abide by the rules, all should be held to the same standard. And IMO, cb is a sissy and you are a busybody.

    9. Can I preach in my comments?

    No. TDF is not your personal pulpit. You can quote Scriptures, etc. in your comments if they are pertinent to the documentary – but you absolutely may not use the site as a source for conversions.

  144. 1400 Years

    For free-minded human beings, whose minds are free, whose hearts are open: Youtube: "Human Islam"

  145. Reb

    yavanna, here is the way it is in all religions and the silly nuts can't see the truth.

    My god is the right god. No, my god can whip your god. Our nation worships the true god. No, our nation is the one with the real god. My parents love me and wouldn't lie to me. Your parents are teaching you lies and you are damned. Our holy book is the right one. No, our holy book tells me it is the correct one. Everyone where I live believes in the god of the bible. Oh yeah, well where I live we all believe in the Koran. One of these days you will see my god is the true god. Oh sure, when you are burning in hell you will be the one to see you were wrong.

    In the meantime, let's all fight and kill each other to please our gods and make brownie points we can cash in when we get to heaven. All the gods just love killing and bloodbaths and the religious loonies aim to please those maniac gods. Can you spell S-T-O-O-O-P-I-D? Just think, we live on the planet surrounded by these dullards. geez

  146. Tim

    I watched both of these links. I wish there was something less biased though.

    1400's link wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. That guy was pretty open-minded compared to the extremist Muslims. At least he's open to the idea that non-Muslims can be good people. But I doubt he's thinking of atheists when he says that. He's a few steps ahead of the fundamentalists, but that's all I can say. I hope this wasn't meant to convert me, because it didn't.

    Islam: What the West Needs to Know is obviously biased, like most films, but there's some truth to it. There are a lot of crazy extremists (that was redundant) who can't understand why anyone would be different from them and decide that those people have to be wiped out or converted. Like the people of Krikkit, who upon realizing that there was a universe outside their planet, decided it all had to be destroyed.

  147. yavanna

    Reb I know yr a conspiracy nut and hate all religions - stop trying to educate me - trust me bro we are on the same page.

    But in fairness - Charles aint no Sissy and ye might owe him an apology if you are a gent. He has always responded to comments as a gent and I have fond memories of him saying how his daughter was bashing her head against a wall repeatedly. Wonder why that was?

    Dont slag Tim for trying to referee, someone in this crazy virtual life we lead has to present a balanced view and Our Lord Vlatko seem to be on a god-like sabatical! He cant be everywhere Zeus-dammit!

    Rule 8 comes before rule 9 hint hint.

    Sorry was gonna not say anything but... peace! though not in the biblical sense!

  148. Reb

    yavana, once someone tells me I am going to hell in a handbasket, they pretty much open themselves up to whatever they get. If I was religious the last thing I would ever wish on anyone is for them to go to such a deplorable place, much less take pleasure in assuming they will. If he chooses to serve a demented spiteful god that is his personal business but when he uses that twisted maniac to judge me, he will get back worse than he sent.

    I don't like charles and I make no apologies for that. Tim and I are ok so you can rest on that issue. IMHO, which I am entitled to, charles is a sissy and a constant irritation. You choose your friends and I reserve that same right. I wasn't trying to educate you or sway your opinion by anything I posted, just passing along some things of interest.

    BTW, most of my comments were held for moderation before they appeared on site so Vlatko didn't seem to object and this is his site. You have a happy new year too!

  149. Reb

    Tim, no matter how soft and loving all these religions claim to be the fact of little things like HONOR KILLINGS OF LOVED ONES somehow paints a very different picture. The only difference between christianity and islam is a matter of about 600 years. Christianity taught the world what religious persecution is and was once as brutal and savage as fanatical muslims are today. They once killed their own for doubt or leaving the 'faith'. If that is what these gods expect from the faithful, I would be investigating just what kind of god that could be.

  150. yavanna

    Someone on another discussion said: Judaism, Christianity, Islam. All weeds from the same route. So true and all borrowed in turn from Egypt and Sumeria.

  151. 1400 Years

    Even longer and more intense: Youtube: "Theist Vs Atheist Debate: Does God Not Exist? 2"

  152. Jarí

    @Charles B.
    There is not even a single shred of medically documented "miracle healing". Ever! Sorry to say but you are a pathological liar. LOL

  153. Achems Razor

    I realize our friend CB is on holidays. but I thought I would include this now, for when he does get back.

    I would like his explanation on this news article.

    From Telegraph. co.uk.
    By Paul Thompson.
    Published 7:11 PM GMT 03 Jan. 2010.

    Miracle Healing???
    A four year old boy was killed by a bullet fired as many as three miles away from where he was attending a church service over the weekend.
    Marquel Peters was seated with his parents "inside a church" in Decalur Georgia, when a bullet came through the roof and struck his head and killed the boy.

    So much for religion!

  154. Patsy

    Achems Razor: Hahahahaha!!!!!

    Just read the article,
    Poor kid must have bin an Atheist!! lol
    well God works in mysterious ways..
    Maybe he has some special purpose for a 4 year old boy up in heaven!!
    Or maybe he answered the gun totting prayers of one of his much loved flock!!! lol ;)

  155. Reb

    Achem and Patsy, that is spelt Decatur. I live in Georgia. Also, cb will say some deep profound nonsense like "God had a plan" "God will use this tragedy to show someone the way" or the always popular "we don't understand the mind of god". Who would understand such a deranged mind that allows the senseless death of an innocent child? If that is the best god can come up with to get to someone else, he is a nutjob that needs to be locked away, for good.

    What about the children who go missing by the dozens each day? Parents by the thousands have sent up millions of prayers that go unanswered. Walk into any child cancer wing at a hospital and tell me those parents aren't sincere in their pitiful prayers for their dying children. Oh yes, god will get the glory somehow or he will keep killing until he does. Only a very sick mind could worship such a heinous creature as the christian god/demon.

  156. Alan

    "Dawkins cannot, has not, and never will disprove the facts found in radioactive particles within granite world wide that have been proven for over 25 years to shatter the evolution model" Errrrm - scientists usually require a reference after an assertion. Particularly one as grandiose as that. Can you tell us (the ignorant scientific world) where we can find scientific reports about these radioactive particles in granite that refute evolution? I mean quote the journals and information sources where you got that from. If you are going to try and use science to defend your beliefs, you must play by the rules of science. Quote your source or shut the f*** up.

  157. Achems Razor

    @Alan:

    What are you getting so hysterical about!

    Nobody is trying to take your religion away from you.

    As I said on "The Four Winged Dinosaur" here on TDF.

    Robert Gentry is a Physicist, not a Geologist.
    For a counter claim- Google-"Polonium Halo's Refuted"
    by Thomas a baillieul.

  158. Yavanna

    Alan

    The 3rd poster on the thread dealt with the troll amply for his silly first comment and it seems he has found a bridge on another site to hide under.

    DFTT

  159. Achems Razor

    Yavanna:

    Yes! IKWUM.

  160. Yavanna

    This video is some way goes to explain the afterlife / near death experiences issue:

    You tube: A Christian Meets The Invisible Pink Unicorn

  161. Achems Razor

    Hilarious! (LOL)

    Also, someone has the nerve to try to prove me wrong! Check.

    YouTube-Occam's Razor Is Simply Wrong!

  162. Yavanna

    already watched it - same YT guy - check his other vids - he is hilarious :) enjoy

  163. Achems Razor

    I just have to add this one here. Check.

    YouTube-People Are Not Animals! (and evolution never happened)

  164. Connor

    Ok, everyone's thinking it, I'm just saying it....that's a very unfortunate pair of shorts for Richard to be wearing here in the first few minutes.....

  165. ellebeck

    I find it very disheartening that people are unable to formulate productive arguments with one another without coming down to petty insults at one another. It is things like this that cause the problems with our world. We are unable to communicate effectively with one another without allowing emotions to get in the way, and treating one another without disrespect. It causes no help for either side of the argument and it's childish.

    Beliefs are an amazing thing in that we have the freedom to choose what we believe and we have the right to educate ourselves on beliefs outside of our own.

    Personally, I believe that the theory of evolution is exceptionally logical and explains more about the how of things with greater detail than the superior being theory; and there is more ability to make admittance when they (evolutionists) do not know without giving up and saying that there is no answer or that the answer lies in a direction in which no material, measurable or subjective evidence exists.

    That is still NOT to say that there is no omnipotent forces in existence, that there is definitively no God. The (general) difference between people who support logic and those who support God, is that those who support logic do not completely discredit other possibilities; they are open to the idea of a God if there were sufficient evidence. It is simply a matter of finding the truth and not creating it.

    There is no reason to belittle another being for their preferred beliefs. I think that we should recognize constructive and productive arguments and treat the other with respect and ask questions and understand one another.

  166. Brandon

    SO...(by the way Brandon is a pagan name) how...by way of your book (you know...the one that was based on centuries of oral tradition from various cultures (various being a slight understatement)before ANYTHING was written down) possibly explain known geological events in the distant past as well as similarities between existing creatures (IE the great apes family)i would also like to point out the fact that the whole notion of one supreme good force (God) and one supreme evil (the Devil) was actually introduced by Zoroaster in ancient
    Persia. This idea was then LATER adopted by the Christians.

  167. xx424

    it really does not mateter how for science how likely a theory looks. it seems most unlikely when copernicus discovered that earth moves round the sun. God is a creation of mind that was needed until NOW.. it was needed as it satisfies most fundamental defensive instinct of human beings. when I am falling from roof I simply can't help praying God to save mr.it will take us a long time to shed aside legacy of thousands of years. but positivists, rest assured.

  168. james

    bottom line...hard to argue with people that believe there IS a god (bertrand russells teapot logic)...much easier to argue the belief IN that god.

    you would think if he was all knowing, loving, blah blah blah he would have popped his head in or sent somebody credible to let us know whats going on, instead of waiting thousands of years since the last time. Personally, if "god" came down and told me what the meaning of life was, i'd be like "how can I believe you?"...like an absent father coming back to say hes here for me now lol...more comfortable ascribing to camus' absurdism.

    and the guy who would rather die in the christian gods arms? are you kidding me? that whole pascals wager thing is nonsense...believe in god, christianity, etc and being right and going to heaven is better than not believing in god? How about just being a good person instead of signing up for any one of the many religions that could be right, and getting it wrong...id rather not ascribe to any and take my chances of getting vip in the "better place"...after death a "better place"...should I kill myself now then?.."no thats a sin"...stupid

    hope that made sense lol. btw i think Reb and yavanna are spot on!

  169. Scientist

    ... our daddy apes too. (how could you forget them, you ingrate!)

  170. Evolved

    When will people learn that the Bible and every other religion is basically just a guide in which how to live your life? The creation of a God is to put the fear of a higher being in people to get them on the right path. Society can not function without kindness. The sooner people realize this, the sooner the world will be a better place.

  171. Ashu

    You speak about the money that people spend in super science but you just forgive the money that all religion gather from there belivers, it s just the same .

    It always make me think of the guy who say he has a Ferrari but nobody has ever seen it . You say you got prove that cannot be disprof but nobody can give one of them that is a prof because the main criteria of a prof is that it can be proven ,...

    I can lived and believe anything too , which or without a god , that something called immagination but it s not the reality.

  172. CaNuDiGiT

    There seems to be an awful lot of people that don’t believe in God, and that’s fine and dandy its your soul not mine. As for me, I guess I suffer from a mass state of delusion with the other 84% of the world that believe in religion. But enough with SOL’s seemingly useless antics. All you evolutionists please don’t let SOL be the creationists spokesperson as to let him deteriorate your already improbable thoughts of creation. Now to good stuff,

    As we all know Charles Darwin was the individual whom provoked the theory of evolution in which his main point was natural selection (survival of the fittest) and artificial selection (cross breeding by humans). Now, Darwinist’s original theory stated that life on earth began in some sort of a solution, high probability that it was water according to Darwinists. This theory stuck for centuries until scientists proved that “ the peptide bond does not form spontaneously in water, amino acids could never have spontaneously linked together to form proteins; nor is there any chemical reason why biological proteins contain only the L-isomer and not the D-isomer” (Johnson, Losos, the living world fifth edition pg 302). To everyone’s surprise (sarcasm) evolutionists changed their theory, stating that peptide bonds spontaneously occurred on a clay tablet of some sort rather than water. 1 point for creationists. Darwin also based a lot of his theory upon the finches that where observed during his visit in the Galapagos Islands. The shape of the beak was determined by the food that the finches ate, therefore DNA research has shows that “bone morphemic protein 4” (BMP4) is a molecule that tailors the shape of the beak. Fine that’s lovely but in my opinion very weak argument by Darwin. Humans obviously (like the finch) have distinct characteristics depending upon there demographics that determine there skin color, hair texture, and skin pigmentation. Darwin didn’t need to travel across the world to realize there is different characteristics of the same species, he could have walked around the block to figure that out. But hey, his name will forever go down in history and made what I’m sure, given the era, millions$.

    Final Thought

    Why cant God be the cause of evolution? Why does it have to be either God or evolution?
    Science is always being reformed, changed, updated, or whatever you choose to say. Religion has not, (denominations depend upon belief and interpretation of scripture, but text is always the same) and if you don’t believe me research the dead sea scrolls that were recently found. I believe God created us all, but I also believe that we can evolve and we can adapt, does that make me hypocritical? I think not.

  173. Achems Razor

    @ CaNuDiGiT:

    Research the dead sea scrolls?? good idea, did you see in there were it says that "Amanita Muscaria" the magic mushroom, was the religion starter, that gave religious epiphanies. No. then google John Marco Allegro. the dead sea scrolls.

    And which God out of the 28,000,000 million Gods where you referring to since time immimorial.

  174. CaNuDiGiT

    Amanita Muscaria, that’s it!!! you have just proved evolution to me, how crazy I must have been to believe in creationism.

    If you actually stop watching you tube videos and outdated documentaries and went to science then you would find that hemoglobin has 141 amino acids and the probability that the first one would be leucine is a 1/20 chance, and that all 141 would be the ones they are by chance, then you would have a probability of (1/20) to the power of 141 which is an impossible event. Thus, proteins to spontaneously occur and create all that we know today is improbable and impossible. Connect these statements with the previous post of peptide bonds and they interconnect with perfect synchronicity. However, if by some rare occasion your pea size brain does comprehend the information given, I urge you to enroll in your local community college and pay very close attention.

    Consider the opposition, and do your own research, rather than listen to a biased opinion.

    And I was referring to God the creator if you must know. I am not aware of the other 27,999,999 gods, but with your apostate knowledge in you tube videos perhaps you can enlighten me.

  175. CaNuDiGiT

    One other thought, look at the religious implications that the founder of this site is propagating, there are countless documentaries of evolutionary theory that deface Creationism. However, he fails to show the many documentaries made by religious scholars and journalists that have a strong case for creationism. Ultimately, this website in itself is biased and presents a one sided argument. I would encourage all you evolutionists to research creationism in an unbiased approach, and when I say research I don’t mean you tube, wikipedia, or any other biased websites like this one. Perform an in depth analysis of religion in the likelihood that you may receive something from your research rather than approach religion close minded.

    Thanks You

  176. Achems Razor

    @ CaNuDiGiT:

    Ha, Ha, Hit a nerve did I?

    You religee's are so funny. You guys get all bent out of shape and fight like little girls with tantrums, to try to prove your God, (Gods) whoever that might be.

    This website is biased?? I think not! There is pro's and con's on everything on this website, so do not knock it.
    If the owner of this website put all religious garbage on here, nobody would watch it.

  177. tallorder

    it's funny how scientists explained something they can't explain by using the word "lucky". Lucky the earth has magnetic field, lucky earth has a moon, lucky earth distance to sun is just right, lucky the dinosaurs died out, lucky that there's a big bang that started everything, lucky there's enough water on earth for life, lucky earth has atmosphere, lucky the temperature on earth just right, lucky that "natural" factors regulate bacterias so that its population don't increase exponentially, we are lucky to be alive, we are lucky that the earth is capable of sustaining life, we are lucky that ... (you can fill in the blanks). Sure is a awfully a lot of scientists like dawkins that believe in the luck like the irish do. Quite a lot of science seems to rest of the proposition of luck.

    I'm not trying to defend the creationist, they do make outrages claims I admit. But to disprove existence of God and replace God as luck is going backward I think.

  178. Vlatko

    You know @CaNuDiGiT, as the owner of this site it is very difficult for me to accept the 6000 years old Earth BS. I mean come on... just from our solar system to the center of the Milky Way there are 20.000 light years. That means if you travel with speed of light you'll get there 200 centuries from now.

    I can't realize how can't you see that the history is repeating all the time. In the not so distant past religions were claiming that the Earth was flat, then they were overwhelmed with evidence and they had to admit the fact that the Earth is sphere.

    Then they were claiming that the Earth is the center of our solar system thus the center of the universe. Then they were overwhelmed with evidence again and they had to admit the fact that the Earth is revolving around the Sun and that we are very far of being the center of the Milky Way and the Universe.

    Now they (you) are claiming that Evolution is wrong and the Earth is 6.000 old. You're still not ready to accept the overwhelming evidence but I'm sure one day you (and all religions) will accept those facts and continue to live with them. Of course the religions will have to adapt according to science as they did in the past.

    After that I'm sure some new religious claim will come out and the struggle between blind ignorance and science will continue.

    I'm always repeating one beautiful statement by Carl Sagan since I find it very truthful and I'm going to repeat it again:

    "We have arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces.

    We live in a society exquisitely dependent on science and technology, in which hardly anyone knows anything about science and technology."

    What can I say... I prefer science instead of blind faith. However there are lots of documentaries here on religions, history of religions, their achievements in art and other fields. So there is a fair amount of religious documentaries. Even there are documentaries that attack atheism as such. But if you ask me to put documentaries with creationist view I'll only do so if I estimate that action to be right in a given moment.

  179. Nada

    @Vlatko - Makes perfect sense to me! Thanks again for this amazing site! :)

  180. CaNuDiGiT

    @Achems Razor

    Hit a nerve, I think not, I would never let someone with the intellectual capacity of igneous stimulate my emotions. However, it is clear in your arrogance that you have rejected the opportunity to analyze and interpret the sciences behind creationism. Therefore, you are not acting in a scholastic manner rather a cacophony of gibberish. You have made it very apparent that your intellect is nascence. Thus, is the wise words of Dr. King “Intelligence plus character - that is the goal of true education”. Your displays here have proven that you have neither of the above mentioned.

    (Golden Nugget)- Achems Razor is a basic principal of probability, as in my previous posts the probability that peptide bonds randomly occurred and formed life is 1/20 to the 141 power which is impossible. Your name actual supports creationism, therefore you are not only incompetent but also hypercritical.

  181. Nada

    @ CaNuDiGiT - "However, it is clear in your arrogance that you have rejected the opportunity to analyze and interpret the sciences behind creationism."

    Maybe that's because THERE ARE NO SCIENCES BEHIND CREATIONISM!

    Give me a break.

  182. Nada

    @ canudigit - You caught me. I failed out of second grade and have never been back. I'm not edumacated. {rolleyes}

    The only way you seem to be able to defend your argument is by attacking those with opposing views. Who's being childish now? Oh wait, I'm insulting my children's intelligence by saying that. They know better.

  183. McGarvey

    CaNuDiGiT

    Everyone appears to be an idiot apart from you my friend. This is from the man who wrote: "Hit a nerve, I think not, I would never let someone with the intellectual capacity of igneous stimulate my emotion".
    Igneous is an adjective and cannot be used how you employed it. Maybe you should gain some sort of command of the English language before you start calling everyone else an idiot - just a thought.

  184. Achems Razor

    @ CaNuDiGiT:

    Actually I know of no Sciences behind creationism, ones that use the scientific method.

    Tell me which ones they are, really want to know!
    Maybe you should take a look on the ongoing forum discussion here on TDF at "Why do people laugh at Creationism" and join in if you have a mind to do so. Some pretty smart people on there.

  185. Epicurean_Logic

    CaNuDiGiT, firstly you are extremely rude and if you think that this site is biased then you should go and subscribe to T.V evangelists-R-us as that might me more up your alley!

    secondly when you insult the creator of this site and anyone who disagrees with your moronic, BIASED and one dimensional views you deserve all the rebukes that you will inevitably get.

    There are many fallacies in your god frenzied rantings here are a few to think about.You said,

    'Case in point, Newton vs. Einstein, Newton’s laws were universally accepted for a great period of time until Einstein challenged them and eventually proved them wrong.'

    wrong, newtonian mechanics has not been proved wrong it has just been upgraded to Einsteins mechanics. Also,Newtons laws only apply to the human scale of observing whereas Einsteins apply to the very lage and very fast. Therefore they are still valid and used to this day. You also said

    'I believe that God is the cause for certain aspects of evolution and adaptation. '

    please elaborate as we science oriented people dont accept swweping statements that do not convey any reason or justification.

    'the bible is not an in depth science book.'

    So why use it to try and overrule real science books. By your own admission it has nothing to do with science.I would go further and say, it is not a science book period. more of a outdated political and tribal philosophy.

    there are countless other dumb points that you make. those are just a few.

    RSVP sil vous plait.

  186. Epicurean_Logic

    Nada- no probably not its just that sometimes rude words can be placed in the middle of longer words and apparently the software takes that into account when selecting comments to moderate.It will pass in the next hour or two.

    I noticed a previous comment of yours that you are a mathematition? thank Zeus for another maths nerd, i was starting to get a bit hungry for some maths talk.

    Do you have any good maths docs to recommend? as we are sorely short of them.

  187. Achems Razor

    @ Nada:

    The reason you where moderated was, you can only use rounded (brackets)

  188. D-K

    Vlatko said: "What can I say… I prefer science instead of blind faith"

    Agreed, even when I was a child i figured; Faith is blind, and I'll be damned if i'm to be guided by blindness.

    Science may not have completely opened our eyes to the truth (yet), but i'd rather touch and go than run like an idiot with my eyes closed hoping (praying) I don't run in to the jagged rock of realism.

    Yes.. I spoke in metaphores as a child.. I was NOT popular..

  189. KnockKnock

    @ Mr. Science Oriented Person

    As far as light and relative motion is concerned, Newton based a lot of his physics upon Galileo’s laws of motion, which were later challenged in the 1880’s by two gentlemen by the name’s of Albert Michelson and Edward Morley. Michelson later invented what was called a interferometer, which used wave properties of light to measure very small distances. The interferometer was able to detect very small discrepancies in the speed of light under differing conditions of relative motion.

    Newton suggested that all space was permeated by a material medium that sustained light waves, which was (if you’re a science man, im sure you heard of it) called the luminiferous aether. No evidence for the luminferous aether was ever found, but was only adopted through theories suggested by past physicists. Which were later laid to rest by Michelson and Morley.

    Einstein later took principals suggested by Michelson and further elaborated on his theories to undoubtedly prove Newton wrong. In essence, Michelson, Morley, and Einstein through a somewhat of a collaborative effort laid to rest Newton’s past theories of relative motion.

    I’m sure Newton mechanics still exist and is used today. However, there were many aspects of Newton’s laws of relative motion the were proven false. (as far as light is concerned)

  190. Epicurean_Logic

    Mr knockknock/CaNuDiGiT

    your point is?

  191. Epicurean_Logic

    Mr knockknock/CaNuDiGiT

    Also michelson morley experiments for the mysterious and as yet unidentified aether have been discredited and as such didn't even have the oppurtunity to be superceded. in simple terms they sucked. So why you even attempt to bring them up on this forum is a mystery to me. Bit like the aether.

  192. Epicurean_Logic

    @D-K, no i havn't i will look it up. thanks. I always search for interesting maths docs ( some might say that is an oxymoron, better than being a plain moron @Mr knockknock/CaNuDiGiT). they are hard to come by. I will get back to you with some feedback on it if you like?

  193. KnockKnock

    Yea its me, apparently Vlatko did not like my opinions.

    Point being that Newton was proved wrong in which you said he wasn’t.

    How is believing in God and certain aspects of evolution biased. If you read my previous posts, I never knocked evolution, but rather adopted it.

    I posed a question in previous posts stating, why must one either believe in God or science? Society says if you believe evolution then you don’t believe in God, and religion says if you believe in God than you a hypocrite for believing in evolution, I beg to differ.

    I believe that much can be learned from a collaborative effort of parties.

  194. Epicurean_Logic

    D-K my response is in moderation. I am watching it now thanks.
    i will get back to you with feedback if you like?

  195. KnockKnock

    Actually previous physicists proposed the aether, not Morley or Michelson, they are the ones that discredited it.

    Michelson actually won a Nobel prize for his works, and Einstein later proved there theory to be correct.

    The results of Michelson’s experiments troubled him because he did not understand them based upon Galileo’s and Newton’s laws.

  196. Epicurean_Logic

    @ knockknock thanks for your considered response. To that i say by all means why not.(applause from the cheap seats)

    Its just when you get agressive and rip into people you should expect to get a bit of stick back.

    you said,

    'Point being that Newton was proved wrong in which you said he wasn’t.'

    Einstein and quantum theory are more accurate than Newton's but please consider this; If you want to create a mathematical model of the long jump, or of a plane in flight then you will almost certainly use Newton for the reason that it is applicable of a human scale and much easier to use. So saying that Newton is obselete is not true and i cannot agree with it.

  197. D-K

    @Epic Logic

    Sure, although my math skills are probably nowhere near as advanced as yours. It'd be a rather onesided discussion. My specialty lies in logic, rather than numbers.

    I'll watch any doc that's well-structured 'n "sciency" though, understanding logical implications (fortunately)require little mathematical knowledge in most cases.

    I'm always up for healthy discussion though, so feel free to hit me up and bomb some knowledge on me, I am eager to learn

  198. KnockKnock

    In my first post I stated that it doesn’t concern me what you people believe its you soul not mine, in response, my beliefs were criticized. I will not under no circumstances roll over and go belly up. I will have a friendly debate and share thoughts and opinions with whomever. However, when my beliefs are criticized in an unfavorable manner, hats a different story.

    I’m talking specifically with light and relative motion.

    Einstein proposed two basic postulates

    1: The laws of physics are the same for observers in all uniformly moving reference frames .

    Which was already universally adopted by all physicists , essentially as a matter of faith

    2: The speed of light is the same for observers in all uniformly moving reference frames.

    This proposed bit of a debate. And this is where Michelson experiments comes into play. And this is what plagued Michelson until his death. Einstein later proved this, and yes, this theory is still accepted today.

    Ultimately, light was an exception to the rules of Galileo’s (which were adopted by Newton) laws of motion.

  199. Epicurean_Logic

    d-K 'My specialty lies in logic, rather than numbers.' formal logic is definately a part of maths ( cross curricular with philosophy) and it is closely related to number theory!

    the final part of formal logic is Godels incompleteness theorem which says that- in any axiomatic system there will always be some things (theorems) that are true that will be impossible to prove- many maths people see this as a problem but i like to see it as something beautiful. it allows you to switch off and say well hey somethings i will never prove. hopefully this will stop you going the same way as Godel ( he went mad).

  200. KnockKnock

    I find it a bit ironic with the current discussion of religion and evolution, that there were two ads on this site that stated,

    1: Become an ordained minister and serve God.
    2: The God who was never there.

    Lol.

  201. Epicurean_Logic

    Knockknock the postulates you stated are sound and i dont have a problem with this kind of peer reviewed information but as i stated earlier this does not make Newton obselete.

    Furthermore, Newtonian mechanics is a vital teaching aid as the historical road to Einstein and Q.M and as such they are still taught in the curriculum. If you doubt this then please have a look a Walter Lewins Classical mechanics coure at MIT opencourseware. Its free.

    lets pick up tomorrow as i have to crash. Thanks.

  202. KnockKnock

    These postulates are actually referring to light , and this is what sparked a revolutionary idea by Einstein. That idea was that Newton’s laws of relative motion calculations simply did not apply to light.

  203. D-K

    @Epicurean Logic:

    Well, since you're discussing light anyway..:

    I'm still wrestling with the fact that motion does not get added to the speed of light, by which I mean that if i'm riding a bike and someone is walking, our image arrive at the same time, my image appearing sooner would make sense, this does not. This has been somewhat of a hairpuller for some time now.. I just can't seem to get my head around it.. Could you shed light on the matter, simplefied to an extent in which a laymen can grasp the concept?

    The problem with "in any axiomatic system there will always be some things (theorems) that are true that will be impossible to prove" a scientist (in the literal sense) might find it hard to assume the position you take. An objective philosopher would find it easier, but I can understand how this would give rise to problems in the scientific realm.

    The problem being (as i see it) that any hypothesis however accurately portraying phenomena could never be scientifically proven, leading to the assumption that if this is true, we'd NEVER, logically, be able to fully understand the universe and factualize it.

    And that, is a bit depressing, really..

  204. Achems Razor

    @ D-K:

    Motion is only relevant to the speed of light if you are going fast enough.
    Walking or riding a bike doesn't cut it. 186 thousand miles a second verses how fast you can travel per second, walking or biking is irrelevant. The speed of light already traveled 7.5 times around the world in one second.

  205. D-K

    I see..

    Why couldn't Carl Sagan just say thát... Thanks.

  206. KnockKnock

    There was an experiment in 1926 that tested the speed of light from 2 rotating binary stars, one moving towards the earth and the other one receding. The data showed unequivocally that the speed of light was the same from each star. Rotating binary stars travel pretty fast, and yet light was clocked at the same speed no matter the position, rotation, or direction of the stars, very interesting test.

    A.H Jay and R.F Sanford, Astrophysical journal vol.29. (for your own research if needed)

    How would you explain that Achems Razor? (in a friendly fashion)

  207. HaTe_MaChInE

    @D-K - Speed of light is a really strange matter. I have really never wrapped my head around time dilation. Gravitational time dilation doesnt help the matter either.

    Someone correct me if I am wrong on this one. If I were on one of KnockKnocks pretty fast traveling rotating binary stars and I had a really good flashlight. If I waited until I was rotating toward the earth and turned on the flashlight I would record the light leaving the flashlight a 299,792,458 m/s but oddly enough when someone on earth recorded the same light it would still be going 299,792,458 m/s.

    So Im on Star-A traveling toward Plant-E at 207,542 m/s, and turn the light source on and record the light traveling away from Star-A at 299,792,458 m/s.

    Classical physics says the body in motion (light) would have a velocity of 299,792,458 m/s + 207,542 m/s = 300,000,000 m/s

    For some odd reason people on Plant-E record the same light still only going 299,792,458 m/s. What happened to the extra 207,542 m/s ??? Well since we lost about 207,542 m/s we will just distort a little bit of time to make up for it.

    What really butters my noodles is time dilation based on gravitational potential. Its like hey you are near a really massive object... lets go ahead and distort time a little bit for ya.

  208. HaTe_MaChInE

    @Achems Razor - "Motion is only relevant to the speed of light if you are going fast enough.
    Walking or riding a bike doesn’t cut it."

    Ah... pretty sure we are traveling about 220 km/s around our galaxy. But since we are ALL traveling that speed its not relevant. We are traveling 95% of the speed of light away form many quasars. But since we ALL are traveling that speed its not relevant.

    Try again Achems Razor.

  209. Achems Razor

    @ Hate. Machine.

    I will talk to you as long as I do not have to hide my cat!

    I do not fully understand what you are referring to?
    Quasars?? What does Quasars have to do with light and the correlation of time on Earth?

    Quasars are not even understood by today's standards, they are only dynamic areas of research. That are the farthest in space and receding the fastest.

  210. HaTe_MaChInE

    @Achems Razor - Do you want to talk about quasars or do you want to talk about your completely erroneous statement "Motion is only relevant to the speed of light if you are going fast enough."

  211. Achems Razor

    @ Hate Machine.

    I suppose I did not make clear what I meant. Meant going the speed of light itself.

    Many experiments have been performed in the speed of light with respect to relative motion.

    Basically no one has yet found a case in which the speed of light in a vacuum is different.

  212. HaTe_MaChInE

    @ Achems Razor - "Many experiments have been performed in the speed of light with respect to relative motion." "Meant going the speed of light itself."

    Your not helping your cause. You better copy/paste what you mean because this is going no where.

  213. Achems Razor

    @ Hate Machine.

    I never copy paste. My cause?? non comprende?

    Am making myself perfectly clear, don't understand what you are getting at, you better fill me in. But be nice!

  214. poopsicle

    sweet doc

  215. Achems Razor

    @ Hate Machine:

    Are you talking about the space time gravity distortion of light? the bending of light?

    The subject of light is complicated.

    The speed of light is the same, for all observers, no matter what their relative speeds.

  216. Christopher

    religions (i call them sects) are the greatests scams in all of history. I can understand the morality and the goodness of the messages put forward by these religions ( how to be a good human guide ), but to start believing in supreme being, all the magic stuff ( miracles and other bs ), heaven and hell ( wtf is that? ) i mean, you die=you rot like all other organic things created by NATURE , you dont fly up to the sky and join god army.....

  217. Christopher

    'Also, Reb, I do know one person who died and met Jesus, personally. Her name is Pat. I just got an e-mail from her today in fact.' - Charles B.

    'joke of the year' award

  218. Chris

    Look Im of of the opinion that SOME kind of intelligence had to have started everything into existence. I believe that the perception of a physical reality is only because there is consciousness to bring it into existence, which is quite proven in the science of quantum mechanics. Is the god of the bible the consciousness that created the universe? I doubt it. But if physical reality cannot exist without consciousness, and if our being aware actually is creating, at a quantum level, what we are percieving, then there is an intelligence behind the existence of the universe.

  219. Chris

    @ Hate Machine & Achems Razor

    Hey guys go watch a doc on this site called "The Primacy of Consciousness" The guy giving the lecture has some very interesting and concise ideas on the nature of light and why it behaves the way it does. Definately worth the time investment.

  220. Achems Razor

    @ Chris:

    Thank you for your suggestion.

    Have watched "The Primacy of Consciousness before, about three times in all.
    Good doc.

    Do you know anything about the science of QM. consciousness, and how it applies et al:

  221. K.T

    Heh I doubt anyone can deny that the thing that separates most of our opinions and causes the worst exchanges of hate in these forums is religion.
    In this clear fact I have to agree with Dawkins. The thing is not if religion is good or bad and which of them is best, the problem is we use it to form barriers and walls.

  222. Davemacdee

    @ sick of lies

    i love how u plugged Kent Hovend! is that the same Kent Hovend who awarded himself a fake PH.D and is now in jail for tax fraud? or is that just a common name in the ID croud?

  223. cumlips

    @sick of lies
    all this 'evidence' or whatever of the necessity of a 'first mover' or some cause for the beginnings of life is not proof that this cause is the judeo-christian-islamic god, nor that evolution isn't correct

  224. Chaz

    Creationism is so incredibly disproved, the fact that you lot stick to your completely wrong ideas is a mark of how terribly tought you were at school. Do you realy think human beings are so incredibly important that we require a god. There is a whole universe out there, perhaps more than one, human beings are the most insignificant little organisms in comparison. The first evidence is that humans invented god about 12000 years ago at the start of rel civilisation and agriculture (yes older than you think the earth is!) in order to give people something to live for as we became increasingly aware of our impending death. Religion is a form of social evolution, but most of us have moved on and evolved away from this stone age social structure, apart from you cretionists, get with the times!
    Also i love your idea we have not observed macro evolution so answer me these questions:

    If a whale did not evolve from a land animal why does it have hipbones that serve no purpose?

    If a snake did not evolve from a lizard like animal why does it ahve vestigal internal leg bones?

    You question our incredibly vast evidence due to a little book, written by some 'religous' individuals (who believed stoning people to death for working on a sunday was moral) over 200 years after the death of some supposed proffit, based on hearsay almost 2000 years ago, which has been translated into many languages and changed numerous times.

    Thats like people in 2000 years time worshiping elvis presley thanks to a book about him that is going to be written in the next 200 years by someone who has done no research.

    Realy?

  225. HighHopes

    @ Chaz

    I take you have not performed your own in depth analysis on creationism. If you had, you would have found that there is an enormous amount of data that exists. The biggest blow to the evolutionists theory occurred when Stanley Miller’s Origin of Life experiment was discredited. It is found that the early atmospheric conditions consisted of carbon dioxide
    nitrogen,and water vapor. It is scientifically proven that peptide bonds cannot occur in these conditions. And if peptide bonds cannot occur, then amino acids (basic building block of life) cannot form. That’s just a little something for you, there is tons of books, documentaries, essays, etc. written on evidence for a creator, just because they are not publicly displayed does not mean they don’t exist. Research it for yourself.

    And as for the Bible being changed numerous times, that is utterly false my friend. The dead sea scrolls were discovered between 1947-1953 and have been carbon dated to about 200 bc - 68 ad. The words in the dead sea scrolls match today’s bible almost word for word (minor discrepancies due to language variances). So there it is, go research these few things and you will realize that mountains of data exists proving God to be true.

  226. eireannach666

    @HighHopes

    I dont think you really know evolution. Try not reading the creationist take only and read the reviewed evidence available .

    And NO , the scrolls of the past do NOT match the bible today. Many added and took away from this book.

    You think because you use big words , that it validifies your point but it does not.

    @Chaz

    Horns!

  227. ekim

    @ epicurus

    You are absolutely right on brother! It never ceases to amaze me how misinformed creationists are, and just because some priest on youtube uses big words and has an "understanding" of science doesn't mean he is not using the information to spread MISinformation. Please any creationists out there look at the research from both sides!!!! and see how wrong you are!

  228. Achems Razor

    @ highhopes:

    Hmmm, the dead sea scrolls, read the 13 books of John Allegro, and a point of interest in the scrolls, that gives rise to the fact that the fly agaric mushroom, Amanita Muscaria was the religion starter.
    Chew on that.

  229. eireannach666

    Mmmm shrooms.

  230. Chaz

    Haha i have horns because ignorance is soo annoying!
    The evidence they hold is based on a fantasy.
    Im pretty sure i could produce more evidence for having a very stoned invisible dragon as a pet, if i had to.

    Evolution is the change in phenotype over generations, says nothing about the production of the first life, creationists seam to think it does,

    Go watch 'why people laugh at creationists' for a good old giggle. Also its a creationist free zone!

    I love these scrolls are proof to some people, they are still 2000 years old and talk about things like some guy being swallowed by a whale and surviving in its stomach for 3 days, yeah sure.

    there is more than one copy of peterpan and somewhere there must be an original, therefore fairys are true.

  231. Chaz

    @highhopes
    The previous comment is a present for you, i didnt read your comment before posting it sorry.

    Also you would benefit from looking up the term data

    and like you say you have books documentarys essays, give me something concrete and quantitative and i might take you seriously, I am a scientist, and in science opinion has to be backed up im afraid.

  232. Time Traveller

    There is a god out there. it just depends on which on appeals to you..

    1. The religious God - Grants wishes and watches over us like a kid with an ant farm..

    Or..

    2. God a.k.a "The Unknown" which we try to understand through the best system we know of "the scientific method"..

    if 1. appeals to you.. enjoy your time inside the box with your eyes closed and your ears covered.

    if 2. appeals to you.. Welcome the Universe..:)

  233. rich miller

    i believe in god but can not believe anyone with half a brain takes the bibles story for real. think you lot would have jesus in stitchs laughing.....

  234. ron evo

    Hello time traveller; I agree with you. Otherwise I would
    find it hard to comprehend the Big Bang and the origin
    of life. The bible is indeed another story.

  235. Cliff T

    I find it quite ironic that Sick of Lies reads a book full of them. Maybe that's why he's so sick of them.

  236. jamie

    people argue over the internet about evolution/creation only to not solve anything? when did this start?

  237. make ppl shut up

    As a confirmed atheist, please don't talk about religion around me because I hate arguments, especially about religion, which has nothing to do with my first point. I hope the human race goes mostly extinct!

  238. tocs

    Its interesting how terrified people are by the idea everything they hold true and believe in is an illusion. This is apparent by how ferociously so many people lash out at anyone who speaks against their beliefs (and that stands for both sides of this discussion). People would be a lot more convincing if they werent so obviously terrified that they were wrong.

    People need to stop fearing an incomprehensible universe and admit that they dont know. No one can honsetly and logically support the claim that "science as the ONLY paradigm worthy of consideration" but neither can anyone deny the discoveries of science. The fact is science has not discovered everything and, despite the religious belief of many, it probably never will. Religion is based heavily on mythologies and has many failings for being the work of perfect beings, and yet there are things we cant explain.

    You dont know anything about the universe. Stop being so afraid of it.

  239. Ty

    Some people are to stupid to see the truth no matter how much proof you present them, this is the problem with people who believe in gods and the divine. They will only ever see what they want to see, its hard for most people to admit they are wrong and true believers are the worst. Science can only show them truth with real proof where as the lies of the bible have no proof and are after all nothing more than a fairytale taken to far by people of low intelligence, mostly through bad education and limited culture. It is natural for the self to question everything and seek to understand all, to live without fear and to explore everything, religion serves to quell all of this and breed fear in all of things that are untrue and evil.
    Simply by denying the truth will not make it any the less true, we humans are descendants of primates and are just like all the other animals on the earth...here by chance and surviving by natural selection of the best of us, lets hope the stupid gene is bred out soon...

  240. Johnny

    Only sheep need shepards.

  241. Johnny

    I wish I could spell.

  242. Lary Nine

    One of the best tactics any evolution advocate could use would be to campaign vigorously, nationwide, to clarify the meaning of the word "theory" in the context of its science usage. When people finally understand that a "theory" is the highest expression of science certainty; that it is an integrated body of testing knowledge, facts and reliable explanations about how some 'things' in science operate, then they may improve their understanding of evolution. It's incumbent upon educators, therefore, to make it clear that the term 'theoretical' in science does not simply mean 'a good guess', (which is actually a 'hypothesis'). Neither do solid theories eventually get promoted to 'facts'. Quite the opposite--- facts and observations get promoted into 'theories' if they repeatedly prove their veracity. I am confident that most uninformed people, if they possess right knowledge will judge these issues rightly regardless of their religious biases. No one has ever been persuaded to learn the subtleties of calculus with improved alacrity by being shunned or humiliated.

  243. TMCD

    Hmm... strange. At the top right of this page is an ad with a depiction of Paul (Saul) on the road to Damascus. Well I don't know what Saul looked like but that pic looks like Willie Nelson - On The Road Again. Probably not Damascus but maybe Nashville.

  244. Lary Nine

    @sickoflies~
    What are you talking about? What radioactive granite particles that debunks the evolution model? Are you referring to r.a. carbon dating for the age establishment of rocks? Whatever.
    Anyhow, I just wanted to tell you that Richard Dawkins is the nicest, least egotistical, least money-motivated personality on the public evo-support circuit of all of them...believe me. He's the real deal; a genuinely gifted teacher. Too bad there is such a dearth of teachable human beings to hear his public words.

  245. InsertFictionalCharacterHere

    I shall end the debate now.

    WHO CREATED THE CREATOR.

    Thanks you. That is all.

  246. Lary Nine

    @InsertFCH~
    This is not a question that can be answered by science. But the appearance of life in the natural world can occur adequately without God---it is not irreducibly complex. Yet this cannot be said about the question of ultimate origins.

  247. Adam J. Gillis

    I so agree, I see so many uses of the word 'theory' on crap documentaries promoting everything from ghosts to angels, it is so misused.

  248. Adam J. Gillis

    @HighHopes The Egyptian Book of the Dead is much older than the Bible. So does older equal true? Does that make the religions of the Egyptians more true, and if not, why. Since your logic states that the Bronze Age mind obviously knew truthes that the modern mind does not/

  249. Epicurus

    LOL you cant carbon date something that is older than 70,000 years. if you are going to say something about science at least understand that science.

    you just show yourself to be very ignorant.

  250. Lindsay

    I still haven't heard a rational answer to the question posed about the watch and watchmaker analogy.

  251. robertallen1

    While you are reasonably accurate about the Dead Sea Scrolls, I would like to add that there are a number of individuals who can not only read the Dead Sea Scrolls in the original language but can also compare them to other copies for stylistic differences, discrepancies, etc. Thus translation is ancillary to your blog in response to Chaz who apparently does not realize that the Dead Sea Scrolls were just that, separate scrolls, not the entire Old Testament.

    By the way, if you're interested in the history of the New Testament, I recommend Lost Christianities, Forged and Misquoting Jesus, all by Bart Ehrman.

  252. Guitarslut

    Not particularly interesting, thought provoking or even threatening. I've read the God delusion...it reads like a high schooler's rant against his evangelical neighbours

  253. robertallen1

    That says nothing against its validity.

  254. Guitarslut

    Within it´s own internal logic it is indeed very valid.

  255. robertallen1

    How can something be very valid? Like unique, it is or it isn't.

    As for its logic, it sure has religion beat which is not saying much, as religion has no logic.

  256. Guitarslut

    Within the academic discipline of biology, everything is perfectly valid --> The earth was not created in seven days and the human species evolved over millions of years etc. But to extend these scientific facts beyond their epistemic scope into the realm of politics and anthropology makes them no longer valid

  257. robertallen1

    @Guitarslut

    My concern is with something being "very" valid, the same with "perfectly" valid as opposed to "imperfectly" valid, although in the latter case the word "perfectly" can be taken as a pleonastic intensive akin to "a consensus of opinion." One way or another, unique is unique and valid is valid and there are no degrees in between.

    Even misapplying concepts or taking them out of their context or environment does not invalidate them, but merely the practice.

  258. Guitarslut

    Agreed! You caught me in a semantic technicality: the use of the word "very" applied to valid is not consistent with the definition of 'validity'. In my defence I only used it to add emphasis to it (i.e. it is definitely valid) - I should have used the word 'definitely' instead of 'very'. I apologize!

    Now that that's settled - what about the rest of point?

  259. robertallen1

    @guitarslut

    I believe the remainder of your post refers to evolution a la Darwin.

    Those who try to apply evolution either don't undertsand it or merely use their misunderstanding to cover up their ethical shortcomings and questionable conduct. Social Darwinism is a prime example. First of all, survival of the fittest, as first used by Spencer and later by Darwin, cannot be applied; it just happens. Secondly, Darwinism endorses diversity while social Darwinism endorses the complete opposite. In short, Darwin et al. described, social Darwinists prescribed.

    In short, a concept taken outside its context does not invalidate the concept, only the spurious application.

  260. noahracheljohnson

    You crazy kids....

  261. Zachary Griffith

    What if the answer is both?

  262. jonathan jackward

    google this unified field of consciousness

  263. Thomas Moore

    American Evangelical theologian William Lane Craig is ready to debate the rationality of faith during his U.K tour this fall, but it appears that some atheist philosophers are running shy of the challenge.

    Richard Dawkins will have nothing to do with him.

    But the pseudo-intellectuals scream ever louder - "Crucify Him" - I watch the Atheists talk about how the moon broke off from the earth into a million particles that have now joined together into a single round mass just the size of the sun (relative to the view of the earth). How did this water world stay in the exact place through the years? One degree closer and we evaporate while one degree farther we freeze? How did the water evolve at it's limited range of temperature?

    Why do Atheists hate so much? They don't hate Santa - who they claim not to believe in....maybe they hate him because St Nicolas loved Jesus - which is the reason that he gave to others.

    Soooo many questions for the Atheist but they don't debate - they state "motherisms" learned from "scientists" who knew much less than we know now. And when a question arises that they don't know, they say they are bored and walk away....back to Richard Dawkins...

  264. robertallen1

    Why should Dr. Dawkins have anything to do with Mr. Craig or any other evangelist, none of whom are scientists in any way, shape or form? As Dr. Dawkins has stated and written on several occasions, he will not waste his time debating scientific matters with creationists and the like.

    And why should he when there can be no rationality to faith as the two terms are contradictory.

    Also, unlike your patently uninformed mischaracterization, when he doesn't know, a true scientist states that he doesn't know, in sharp contrast with evangelists and the like who can't and don't. Scientific theories (look up with this term means in science; you might be surprised) change with the discovery of new evidence. Try reading about the history of global warming for example. That's more than I can say for the stagnant, shallow and ignorant religious and theological beliefs of you and others like you.

    Dr. Dawkins is correct to regard theology as a non-subject (biblical scholarship and comparative religion excluded). No one knows anything more about "God" than anybody else, Richard Dawkins and your Mr. Craig included.

    If modern day atheism stands for putting reason and evidence before mere belief and dogma, I'm all for it.

    P.S.: In case you haven't heard, "so" has only one o.

    God, but you're pathetic!

  265. Janne Börje Niemi

    If one man has an imaginary friend you call him crazy. If? more than one person has the same imaginary friend its called religion.

  266. waz_oz08

    it seems like dawkins is only refuting biblical Statements and not other "creationist" based religions. iN ISLAM , THE idea of evolution DURING golden ages of scientifical progress, accepted this theory... dawkins, instead of unraveling the falsity of the bible, can't you challenge islam. Instead of generalizing all religions as false as a result of your observation and scrutiny of christian thinking, why can't you do justice to the other credible religions and scrutinize budhists, muslims, jews, Zoroastrians ect ect.

  267. Cas

    oooh please!! Knowledge penetration of humanity's mind is shaped like a spear....there will always be a majority who hold on to the old theory of life...and the more refined newer THEORY one will have few followers at the beginning.......

    .THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD is by far the greatest accomplishment of humanity....because within its formula it accepts the limitation of our observations, thus everything is just a THEORY...so one theory can stand better than another because more empirical observations/calculations can support its conclusions...and we hold on to that theory until a better one comes. That is how Einstein's THEORY OF RELATIVITY encompasses Newtonian mechanics....

    It is so laughable, but before all of modern human accomplishment when we only relied on our eyes and perceptions...before we built billion dollar equipments to penetrate into the depths of the universe (Hubble) and into the depths of matter itself (CERN)....we still had THEORY...except it was crude and defined by our limitation to observe the world around us: YES, RELIGION WAS A THEORY....but it is over....IT IS AN ANCIENT THEORY OF LIFE...THAT IS NOW IRRELEVANT AND CANNOT STAND TO THE SCRUTINY OF REASONING......We should not spend a dime arguing with people who luck prerequisite to understand the SCIENTIFIC METHOD...instead we should spend these resources to make sure that more of the young minds that come into this world have the opportunity for education...

    I get mad when I see so much effort spent on convincing people who had all the opportunity to enlighten themselves, but through pride and willful ignorance remain in the darkness.

    I immigrated to the west from Africa, and barely spoke a word of English nor had a proper education...yet after 20 years....educating and taking care of myself....and with an ounce of curiosity and common sense....I can end up watching a lecture by Richard Dawkins ....and have tears of realization run down my eyes....so why should we spend so much resources trying to convince people who had million times more opportunity in life to enlighten themselves than me?

  268. robertallen1

    @Cas

    You are to be commended. Although from what you write, I deduce that English is your second language, you express yourself better than many native speakers.

    Thanks for the post.

  269. Guest

    You write: As Dr. Dawkins has stated and written on several occasions, he will not waste his time debating scientific matters with creationists and the like.
    I thought that was his daily job. Doesn't he do that on a large part of the docs here?
    az
    now let me read the rest...

  270. robertallen1

    @Azilda

    Perhaps I should have been clearer. Dr. Dawkins has stated that he will not waste his timely publicly debating creationists and the like.

  271. OneTaste

    I am watching all of Dawkin's documentaries because I want to write a book as to why this guy and all other "fundamentalist" scientists are way off! Dawkin here, shows an actual fact, there is development, it is obvious that there is an evolutionary, directional tragectory--an expansion, progression, etc. Yet, this does not explain how things came to be! He is merely showing how the organisms adapt and evolve, the progressive movement, but what is it that started the game? What is it that gave it coherency, order, organization? He does not merely scratch this!

    The creationists are equally blind, even worse, actually because they are moved more by fear and a "wanting" to believe what "feels" good, what makes the ego more secure and feel safe. They couldn't care less about reality, about whethere their beliefs truly hold water.

    Dawkins is simply talking about probabilities, mutations, the "guidance" system, that there is one--everyone can see this! The evidence is everywhere!

    Yet, when we look for what the "originating" factor is, we cannot find it! Science has "NOT" found it, Religion has merely speculated and worse, created it as a theory, a religious ideology.

    So what does it take to know not only what we are talking about here and to know what we are looking for? Psychological maturity! The answer is not in the processes! For those are already "after-effects," expressions that have been already expressed! It explains nothing about how the developmental trajectory began! How organization is happening, how the smallest things can know to organize themselves if they, on their own, cannot think!

  272. TheDarkTruth .

    All you pro-creationists out there waffling on about accountability and the lack thereof without the existence of a god. What pains me, is the fact that judging by what you are saying you would have no accountability for your actions if god did not exist? How about this; Get your head straight, and be accountable to yourself, for your actions. Be accountable to your peers, your family, your friends, to those that you love and that love you. How about that? I shudder to imagine the murderous rampage you would all go on if, heaven forbid you ever decided that you had no one to answer to in the afterlife..

    TDT

  273. Gary Pritchard

    i fully agree with you, but would like to point out that dawkins fully accepts these shortcomings in scientific theory, if you see other interviews by him, he acknowledges we do not know what started, and even goes so far as to say that it COULD be some form of intelligent designer, albeit one that was formed through darwinian evolution to rise to the intelligence of being able to produce such beginnings of life (it must be said that he says this is POSSIBLE, but that he does not believe it is true).

    i agree with you that the creationists putting forth their beliefs are ridiculous, as this is simply what they want to believe, and it is an easy copout to say their story is true. science admits to not knowing what began life... YET, but works towards discovering the truth, instead of putting a story together and falsely "educating" young children to these "facts".

    science seeks truth, faith seeks to maintain its own falsehoods

    "Science adjusts its views based on what's observed. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, "Storm"

  274. Chad Phillips

    Gary, your argument has one fatal flaw. Since you don't know what started it all, you cannot say that you know it wasn't God. You cannot even say that the fundamental core of creationist thought, namely, intelligence and the conservation of information is NOT the case...at least not without being logically inconsistent.

    Also, Minchin's quote is fallacious with regard to large scale evolution. Why? Because if Darwinism has taught us anything, it's that evolution is assumed to be true. It wasn't always so, but in our post modern world it has become "fact." Once a theory is assumed to be true, it's rather easy to twist facts to suit theories instead fitting theories to suit facts. To that end, Darwinian theory defies Minchin's claim. Evolutionists have married the vein. Now everything they find is fitted into the theory which is already assumed to be true.

    Once Dawkins was asked what it would take to convince him that evolution is a fractured model for how life works. He basically said that he'd have to find something in the geologic column, which didn't belong. But that has already happened...more than once. And what about so-called living fossils? Yet, another example of facts being twisted to fit evolution instead of the other way 'round. Did Dawkins, his colleagues, or his many hangerons reverse their position in light of these facts? Of course not. What this shows is that no amount of evidence to the contrary would confute their ideas. Since they assume evolution is absolutely correct, any and all evidence to the contrary does nothing more than convince them even more as to the validity of their position.

    Having said that, Dawkins is wonderful at pointing out the problems with other philosophies. He's also a brilliant and witty writer. But he's completely impotent when it comes to his own hypocrisy, straw man making, question begging, appeals to authority, special pleading and the other devices he employs to prop up his own claims. As far as I'm concerned he's just as dangerous as the religious fundamentalists....He's no less extreme, just at the other end of the continuum.

  275. robertallen1

    First of all, let’s dispense with your first “logical” argument. Science cannot disprove creation through a supreme being and you and your creationist brethren cannot prove it—and that’s that. So in this respect, science and creationism, which is about as scientific as scientology, are in the same boat, except that the creationist perverts this standstill to support his misbegotten asseveration while the scientist owns up to not having enough information to support a scientific judgment.
    Like a typical creationist, you try to epitomize Darwin when you’ve obviously not read him, in whole or in part. If Darwin teaches us anything, it is deduction from observation and not the other way around, i.e., accepting nothing on faith, including evolution. So not surprisingly, you have it backwards.
    Due in large part to Darwin’s 99% sedulousness and 1% brilliance, all the evidence obtained during and since his time fully supports, adds to and refines the concept of biological evolution—no matter what you think—no matter what you write, no matter how many facts and scientific concepts you and others like you (not the scientists) try to twist.
    And speaking of twisting, do you know what a living fossil is? I ask this because it does not seem so from what you write. I’ll try to enlighten you. Living fossils, such as the coelacanths, refer to either (a) current species which have no close living relatives, but are similar in appearance to species known only from fossils or (b) groups of organisms with long fossil records. So your statement about their not fitting into a geological column is as inane and inept as your statement that no amount of evidence to the contrary “would confute their [scientists’] ideas.” Once again, you have it backwards.
    Typical of those who write creationist articles and books or produce creationist videos and websites, you ramble on about what you know nothing about in support of the unsupportable. Your ignorance (if it really be that) and downright lies (for I find it hard to believe that they are mere mistakes) say a lot about you and those of your ilk and in the process condemn creationism for the pathetic, deceptive and pernicious idiocy that it is. You’re the one who’s dangerous, not Dr.Dawkins.

  276. Mistymoo

    Not like you to be slating and upsetting people is it Robert? get a job!!

  277. nobody

    damn dawkins was hot back then. makes me sad to see how much he has aged since then. life is too short.

  278. Charlie Spazway

    Im glad the length of shorts has evolved

  279. josé

    I like the video.
    Thanks.

  280. Gary Pritchard

    can you tell me where i said it wasnt god? i accept that until we prove otherwise, we could all be here as a result of god, or allah, or the spaghetti monster.

    but i will say that i dont believe it was god, and wont believe it until i have some evidence for it, that at least matches the mountaints of evidence that stand behind evolution.

    there is NO evidence of god, plenty for evolution, and to say that there are a small set of examples that arent proved by evolution YET, does not disprove the theory. of course reasons are found to fit evolution when anomolies are found, since that is the only scientifically viable option at the moment.

    these anomolies you so enthusiastically speak of simply have not been explained yet, which gives us more answers to find, and i for one relish that. isnt it more satisfying (as well as more honest, more logical, more intelligent etc) to want to find the truth behind something that is NOT YET explained, instead of just finding a gap and saying "oh well, there you go... 0.01% isnt supported by your crazy evolution theory, so OBVIOUSLY there was some supernatural force behind it".

    to believe in god and creationism is to deny logic and deny irrefutable evidence and is quite frankly arrogant and close minded. religion exists only because parents tell their children god is fact. if we waited until people were intelligent enough to make decisions for themselves, which young children are not (since natural selection has taught the young minds to take what they are taught, pardon the pun, as gospel), and then put forward the two ways of thought, a) scientific theory, evolution etc, b) some guy made us all, answer for everything is just "god", then the second idea would be laughed at.

    i think logically, therefore will happily shout out how wrong i was if evidence shows that god did all of this (something tells me i wont be doing this any time soon). you however, and all of gods hangers-on, are the ones who will not revers your opinion, so your argument against evolutionists on that basis has not a single scrap of weight behind it, and shows a high level of ignorance in your own way of thinking.

    to believe in god is also to deny the sheer beauty and diversity that exists in this world, this universe, and the nature that forms it, and perhaps more importantly the thirst for knowledge and discovery of how it came to be. to simply put the answer of "god did it" to everything, stifles that hunger for knowledge, which i think is the saddest thing in this whole argument.

  281. robertallen1

    Your post reminds me of something Dr. Dawkins said which I will paraphrase: With nature as amazing and fascinating as it is, there is no need for fairy tales.

  282. kp24o

    Still looks pretty spry for a 71 one year old.
    But I agree, he had good looks when younger

  283. Epicurus

    "He basically said that he'd have to find something in the geologic column, which didn't belong. But that has already happened...more than once."

    when?

    if you can show an example of a man with dinosaurs, or chicken in precambrian we will throw out evolution.

    can you give me an example of what you are talking about?

  284. Jesse Royal

    I see what you did there lol

  285. Jesse Royal

    I would like to throw something out there. Just because there is evidence of something doesnt make it true. And I highly doubt everthing was created by a "god" because that would me he would be created. And I truely believe you cant create something out of nothing as well something cant happen out of nothing. For the most part Darwinism ( i think i spelled that right) is just as r*tarded as any religion out there. uhhh i might as well say the whole human race are just a bunch of r*tards that assume everything.

  286. over the edge

    @Jesse Royal
    "Just because there is evidence of something doesnt make it true." well i agree we do have to go with what has the most/best evidence in order to progress. could you please give your definition of Darwinism and if you feel that it is the same as evolution? also what parts do you have problems with?

  287. GaryOP

    Darwinism is in no way "r*tarded", it is logicial, and scientific, the very opposite of what you are implying. i dont want to sound condascending, but perhaps you are not fully aware of what natural selection states? at no point does natural selection claim to explain the very beginnings of life, but quite convincingly explains how life came to be so diverse through this process of slight alterations through every generation.

    there have however been experiments carried out that have proven that in the earths early environment of lightning storms, and the liquids that existed, and the particular atmosphere, where simple proteins have been created seemingly "from nothing" (clearly it is not from nothing, but shows a natural process can create these building blocks of life from the environment and products that were prevelant in these early days). i dont know the entire ins and outs of this, but that is the basics of what has happened.

    given that bit of knowledge, what is it about natural selection that is so "r*tarded? im genuinely curious to hear why this process of natural selection, which to me makes perfect sense and seems entirely plausible and painfully simple, seems to be so unlikely in your eyes?

  288. Kayleigh Rice

    Jesse Royal 'Just because there is evidence of something doesnt make it true.'

    Are you aware of how stupid that sounds?

  289. Sean H

    "Just because there is evidence of something doesnt make it true."

    Let me re-phrase that for you:

    "Just because you felt my foot impact your backside does not make it true I kicked you in the backside."

  290. avny82

    uhhhhhh.... yes it does. If your foot fungus ended up on his backside, thats evidence of ass kicking.

  291. kalibos77

    I'm not one for ranting or discounting other peoples beliefs out of hand.But religion and indeed science still have an extreme distance to travel before either can get on there high horse and start bad mouthing the other.
    I am not particularly religious myself but will not mock anybodies faith as the basic concept whether in the future is found to be valid or not still carries weight in society.
    My opinion anyway, is that in the great and distant future ,religion and science will become one and the same. A kind of singularity if you will , of both concepts merging in a profound understanding of which none of us is capable of at the moment. Nor will be for millenia to come.

  292. Tobias MacRobie

    I find it interesting that both religion and science pursue the truth. The difference is in the scope, where science pushes the boundaries of what is known, outward. Meanwhile, religion is limited to exist only in the unknown. Invariably, science pushes religion further out of the known space, which is only clever so long as people believe in such things as zero, infinity, and constant. Without those three notions of existence, we would see relativity as the basis of mathematics, where the great divide is at one, for things more than the whole, or less than. How does that apply to religion? Simply ask what is religion without the notion of nothingness and eternity. *poof*

  293. mike jarvis

    A quote: if I made a million tiny robots and programmed them to love me, to worship me, to sing songs praising me and to weep at the sight of my perfection, you'd call me, at least, twisted.
    If, however, I made a million tiny robots with free will, and then demanded they love me, worship me, sing songs about me, weep at the site of my perfection, and threatened them with eternal torment if they chose not to, you'd call me God- Anonymous.

    My favorite. I believe in God, only I spell it Nature- Frank Lloyd Wright

  294. JohnnyBoy

    Believing in ONE of many religions based on FALSE or at least INACCURATE accounts of history made by ancient man who in their struggle to build cultural unity, and make sense of the world made up stories with their new-found IMAGINATION, NOT based on any evidence is fine if you want to believe in imaginary stories. You don't need science to show just how insane that all is. The FACT that science is based on observable truth, and what is most likely in the realm of NON-FICTION gives it more credit that of FICTION when concerning ourselves with the TRUTH of what we know about the universe around us.
    Science is what will allow us to fix environmental issues, improve health, reach for the stars and journey into space.
    Lies have their uses (Organised Religion for example) in developing countries where FEAR and sometimes love (out of fear :( ) indoctrination is needed to preserve human life and quality of life, however in the developed first world, lies only hold us back from untapped potential to love, build, save, explore, and understand the TRUTH of the universe and our TRUE place in it.

  295. Janeen Clark

    of course man-made religions are false we have enough knowledge to know this certainty. however something much different than what humans have imagined for thousands of years could exist and we see the evidence of this in reality.

  296. Madian Jinzarli

    Your lost. There is not enough knowledge to know "man-made religions are false with Certainty" With logic of course man-made religions are false because their man-made. However how do you know which are man-made and which are not? A better question would be which religions are man made and how and why. If there is a non man made religion there can only be one. And the questions would be which one is that. Richard Dawkins is one of the most over rated id*ots in the world. Sure he is a scientist who hasnt published in years but nonetheless he is a scientist who has specific knowledge in a specific science i.e. evolution. Lets keep this in mind. He is by no means a philosopher, historian or anthropologist to even begin to critique religion academically. He is not qualified. And in fact in all his writings this is strongly evident. He it seems intentionally propagates his view on religion to be some academic one, when it is not. It is no more than a naive strongly ignorant opinion. Atheist philosophers today, not some but all condemn Richard and in fact some refer to him as Dorkins. One of them philosophers is Michael Ruse and openly condemns dawkins as being some kind of intellectual on philosophical questions when in fact he has no ability to do so. All his arguments he puts forth against creationism are easily destroyed. dawkins is just another one of those great examples of someone being famous for being so outright in his views, even though there ignorant and backward and do not represent any philosophical process in thinking. ah man hes such an i*iot.

  297. adminkingman

    I'm really not one for ranting or rebating other races elements out of hand. But I find it engaging that both religion and science chase the real facts. The difference is often because there's evidence of something does not make it correct. At least we all agree about that, so given that a hint of info, what is it about natural selection that is so "r*tarded? I'm actually curious to hear this process of natural selection. Darwinism is in no way "r*tarded", it is logical, and methodical, the complete opposite of what you are inferring. There's no need to sound condescending, I am watching all of Dawkins' documentaries because I would like to write a book re the reasons which explain why this person and all the other "fundamentalist" scientists are way off! Dawkin here, shows a truthful to goodness fact, there's development, it's obvious that there is a perilous issue. Since nobody know what kicked it off, you can not say that you know that it was not God.

    You can not even say the elemental core of creationist thought in particular, intelligence, and the conservation of information as an illustration of somebody with dinosaurs, or chicken at a precambrian state, we cannot toss out evolution. Thats just not valid in any rate of invalidity, are you ready to tell me why and/or otherwise not it wasnt a god? I attest that until we prove otherwise. We could all be here due to god, or allah, or the spaghetti monster. But I am going to say that I don't believe nature as fantastic and fascinating as it is, there isn't a need for fairy stories. Buddhists, muslims, jews, Zoroastrians is by a massive margin the best attainment of humanity....because within its formula it accepts the limitation, and after 20 years....educating and taking care of myself, both with and not with a single shred of curiosity and common sense, why believe anything any longer when I know there could be no rationality to faith as the two terms are paradoxical.

    I appreciate the smoke-screen of compact terms and concepts but this just dancing around any valid points, though in the second case the word "valid" can be taken as a pleonastic all-embracing like "a general agreement of perspective. In a nutshell a concept taken outside its context does not cancel the idea, only the invalid application. Faith is the denial of observation so that belief can be saved, so in particular, intelligence and the conservation of data is Not the case. Why do non-believers hate so much? They don't hate Santa - who they claim not to strongly believe in. As a secularist who accepts evolutionary biology as a hard fact I simply must reject the idea of creationism and is against every kind of non mundane fundamentalism / prejudice, I find People who try to apply evolution either don't understand it or just use their misunderstanding to cover up their moral incapacities and dubious conduct. The Egyptian Book of the Dead is much older than the Bible, and that both explains it all and proves it all. So does older equal true? Which one makes the religions of the Egyptians more true, and if not, why? Since all common logic states the Bronze Age mind knew truthes the modern mind does not that also proves the big audacity and insanity you all have to answer to! Look, is this simple, any query posed about the watch and watchmaker film
    analogy, why? There never was one. I hope this is going to help you understand The Real TRUTH HERE. Enjoy!

  298. Andrew Preston

    Regardless of whether he is an authority on religion academically or not, the point still stands, a religion is a simple, historical, tradition-based dogmatic set of ideas about consciousness and our reality. THIS we do know with certainty.

    Also, religion is a contruct of the human brain trying to gain a grasp on reality in a world so baffling and complex that human consciousness almost collapses under its sheer weight. Therefore they are all 'man-made' (though unintentionally).

  299. MItchell Boy

    Some of you really seem to have a powerful reasoning ability. But what I tend to read here is a bunch of people not setting aside their pride, and focusing too much on trying to sound smart. I say wise up and don't presume to know so much, especially on a planet fuelled by corruption.

  300. MItchell Boy

    He is right on the evidence part. There is such thing as weak evidence and such evidence could be included with the molecule-to-man evolution theory because it includes three assumptions that have potential for error due to possible misinterpretation of the rate of decay between parent and daughter isotopes and misinterpretation of the amount of radioisotopes in the parent and daughter rocks themselves. When a geologist tests a rock he assumes all the daughter atoms resulted only by the decay from the parent. Knowing the rate of decay he/she should be able to figure out how long it took for the parent atom to turn into the daughter. But what if the assumptions are wrong and radioactive material was added to the parent atoms or the rate of decay changed? What if the daughter atoms inside the rock were affected by water or any of the outside elements?

Leave a comment / review: