Why Do People Laugh at Creationists?

2007, Society  -   1,641 Comments
81.7k
6.85
12345678910
Ratings: 6.85/10from 203 users.
Storyline

In this amateur documentary creationists are tackled at every level from the scientific illiterates who want to play in the scientific arena but don't even understand the words they use, to convicted fraudsters like Kent Hovind who abuse the scientific illiteracy of people to dupe them out of money.

An enterprise which is clearly very successful as merely the tax Hovind didn't pay was about a million dollars. Hovind himself has no discernible academic education, and gets by solely on using his confident delivery of scientific terms to convince his audiences that he knows what hes talking about.

Then of course there are the professionals such as the Discovery Institute, the hub and founders of the Intelligent design movement. After the humiliating rout of ID in court where it was found that ID is not science, and that ID is only a relabeling of creationism the Discovery Institute do not utter the word once in their latest promotional video.

Instead they now have decided to teach the controversy which is an irony as they are the only people who disagree with evolution. What they are really asking is not to teach the controversy, but to teach their views, which are supported by neither research or evidence, in schools.

More great documentaries

1,641 Comments / User Reviews

  1. at first, i thought of this as a plain and simple peer review. after a while, though, i realized that it was the adult equivalent of giving The Talk -- you know, birds and bees and all that jazz. if i had children, they would be watching this, despite some rather colourful language. i haven't seen controlled savagery like this since Tyson bit off Holyfield's ear! but this polemic was civil, for the most part -- i can understand the frustration when confronted by a confederacy of dunces -- and so well put together that i felt like i was getting a really wise bedtime story; it complemented my knitting exceedingly well.

  2. So creationists are idiots? Yea, sorry, but this is why science and atheism are dying out. No respect

    1. Benjamin Gingrich
      could you please back up the statement "science and atheism are dying out" with some actual facts? if not maybe that is why some think "creationists are i*iots" and are given " No respect"

    2. "Science and atheism are dying out.'
      Are you sure your not talking out of your ass....Where did you get this info from?

    3. you're kidding, right? XD

    4. What a joke. Atheism is at its highest levels ever, and science only slips in the dumbest of the red states.

      As far as respect, dummies don't deserve respect. Creationists are on a par with the "Flat Earth Society".

  3. I really wonder how Creationists grapple with the chaotic world of Quantum Mechanics and what arguments they could present to show that the properties and behaviors of subatomic particles follow the plan of some mythical divine being who supposedly controls all things in the known Universe...

  4. "creationist" lol,why dont they pay attention in school?I have absolutely nothing wrong with jewish people or their culture at all,but just one of my points ive thought of recently is;wouldnt god be a racist if he "made" his...(her...ITS?) son of only one race?!? earth made in 6 days and rest on the 7th??? was that jupiter days,saturn...ERRR???lol

  5. The poor sound work on this film is just too distracting for the film to be enjoyable.

  6. I really appreciate this documentary and I would like to suggest a bit of elaboration be included in the 7th program for the sake of explaining all the evidence. There are in fact many kinds of tools that were made on the spot/as-needed and then discarded that are evident in the archaeological record. This category is referred to as "tools of expedience", meaning they are made quickly and often disposable. The disposability of tools of expedience is directly related to the fact that they are often a simple sharp flake of flint with minimal effort required to create. These tools include blades, scrapers and other sharp objects used to cut meat and treat skins by removing hair and fat, among other uses. The critical distinction to understand is that tools of expedience are NOT the same thing as projectile points (such as arrowheads, spearheads, and any other kind of aerodynamic point that has been made through the process of extensive flintknapping) which were used to actually kill animals. Projectile points were highly valued and not purposely abandoned unless they were broken or left in hidden caches for future use. There is ample evidence of projectile point making within the boundaries of camps and residential areas, this evidence being massive amounts the debris from shaping the stone tools, visible time and time again. There are a very limited number of materials that can be used for making stone tools and these often have to be heat treated by fire and cooled to prepare the stone for shaping into the desired forms. The archaeological record simply does not support the idea that tools as sophisticated as projectile points were created as-needed upon spotting a herd of animals while out on the hunt. In fact the archaeological record shows that this idea is complete nonsense.

  7. Here's another point:
    Who would doubt artificial selection? It is very clear that we can select for certain traits, and impose our own selective pressures to obtain the desired characteristics we wish. Look at our dogs. We have taken wolves and through selective breeding, based on selective pressures, we have created 400+ breeds of dogs. These dogs are all under the same species of canis familiaris, however, they are of a different species than the ancestor of the wolf, canis lupis. It is obvious dogs were not here from the time of God, as they are a species created by humans. So to say natural selection, and thereby evolution is nonexistant, is ignorant. Artificial selection is natural selection, except imposed by humans. This is the whole concept of speciation. When species accumulate changes most likely by allopatric speciation, these two species (which diverged from one) are now incompatible in terms of reproduction. When two cannot reproduce, they are different species. While dogs and wolves can mate, they are not the same species when you look at the biological species concept. It has to do with the viability of the offspring. (Ligers can be formed from tigers and lions, but lions and tigers are not the same species)There are current studies with foxes and selective breeding that are changing the characteristics of the foxes, making them more dog-like. So if you agree that micro-evolution can occur (changes in allelic frequencies), you thereby have to agree with macroevolution, as macro is an accumulation of microevolution. Nobody can disagree with artificial selection, as we have even created corn, from the ancestor teosinte. We have created food, animals, etc by artificial selection. And artificial selection is essentially the same as natural selection (add the human aspect), and we all know what natural selection leads to....evolution.

    1. You've described two important facets of biology, ring speciation and the hybrid zone. However, as a non-biologist, I think that with all that's been discovered since Linnaeus, we need a new taxonomic system--and as I have no suggestions, I would appreciate your take on this.

      Anyway, you're right, anyone who denies evolution is ignorant.

    2. I agree. The two concepts we have to define speciation are considerable lacked: morphological species concept definitely has its downfalls (two animals can look identical but can still be different species), and the other: biological species concept (BSC) This concept is more often used, but has its downfalls as well, of course with the idea of hybrids. I think biological species concept is the best we have: as we have to consider not only if two species can mate, but whether it is likely (geographic regions), possible (prezygotic barriers such as unequal genitalia or postzygotic barriers: sterile offspring). It can be tricky to define species (some say the dog is a sub species, some argue it's own species), but perhaps the BSC and DNA are the best options at our current time. Anyway, the point of my post was to show that obviously not all life was formed at the time of God, as evident by our most obvious example: the household dog.

    3. I agree with you about BSC and DNA. Perhaps the problem is that the complexity of life itself does not lend itself to facile classification.

      By "at time of God," do you mean at the alleged beginning (whatever that is). If you do, then this new form of life which seems to live off nylon is also an obvious example.

  8. In reference to part 15. Yes, the Cambrian Explosion is simple to understand: it is the transformation of quantity in to quality. It is that simple.
    long live Philosophy of Hegel and those who perfected it.

  9. so what if there's water on other planets. it's frozen. no life can form. where's the people on these planets? why is it earth is the only planet that has people?

    1. @Travis Torres:

      How do you know there is no life on other planets? that everything is frozen? that no life can form? And earth the only planet that has life?? How do you know that the earth is the only planet that has people?

      The Mormons were initially brought here by Zenu from a federation of 21 adjacent stars and 75 other planets.

      The Scientologists were initially from the planet Kolob.

      Are you going to call them liars?

      Are you a 6000 year old earth creationist?

  10. N o sh*t sherlock. DUMBASS. It is self-evident this KID doesn't know the difference bewteen his a** and a hole in the ground! No wonder he gets "laughed at" because he is UNEDUCATED

  11. Dear thunderboot, Sorry I don't know your name. Your masterpiece is part 29. If Frederick Engels had a chance to hear what you so beautifully say in this episode he would have been proud of you. In fact because of your previledge and access to science of today you are even more powerful than Engels.
    Cheers.

  12. oh this is awesome.

    One point a lot of Creation Myths i have read about bring in ' animals were larger in the past'.

    Hmmm. Reality check i think.

    The Longest and the heaviest and Largest in every way Animal to have ever to have existed on Earth that even makes the largest dinosaur not so 'giant' is alive today and is swimming in our seas, thats right the majestic Blue Whale which have been recorded at 100' (maybe larger) in length and weighing 180+ tons.

    The largest plants ever to have lived in History exist today. etc etc.

    If the bible is true God is one truely gifted Alien Scientist.

    1. True, but on the whole, it seems that so many of the extinct ancestors were considerably larger than their current representatives.

    2. God is true, and the bible tells us and it's true, that when he first created the heavens and earth (and the firmament) there was an extra layer of water that surrounded the earth in it's atmosphere. It gave the earth higher oxygen contents and people did live longer. However, when God flooded the earth, it rained down from that firmament and up from the depths below........now we no longer have the extra layer. So, it's not "IF" it is true. When you look at an art masterpiece, how do we know there was a painter? Oh yeah,,,,,,,,,,cause there is a painting. So, how to we know there is a Creator, because there is "creation" Not just that, but many ways it has been proven over an over. But people do not want to believe because it will then hold them accountable to their actions. But get this..........whether you believe or not, doesn't make GOD not real, he is the Creator. And he says that everything around you that you see ((creation)) is evidence of him and you will be held accountable at the day of Judgement. And the only way you can be saved, is through Jesus Christ. The best one, I love, is what are the odds of all the Messianic prophecies that have come true so far, to have come true. It is irrefutable. His laws are written on you heart. Are You a Good Person? Not According to the Bible

      The Bible states that every person is born a sinner, and that we live in a fallen world under the control of Satan.

      The Bible also states that the 'wages of sin is death'.

      And the penalty of sin is eternal Hell.

      All people are told by God to keep his Law, The Ten Commandments (though many don't).

      If you've ever told a lie, that makes you a liar (and you've broken the 9th Commandment).

      If you've ever stolen anything, that makes you a thief (and you've broken the 8th Commandment).

      The Bible says all "liars will have their part in the lake of fire". And "no thief or adulterer will ever enter the kingdom of heaven".

    3. Please read the comment policy about preaching. This wall of religious drivel is an insult to the intelligence.

    4. Have met god or where did you get this information ?

  13. Couldn't even watch the first video. Soo painfull...

  14. Sorry for typos
    New keyboard.

  15. Fact is, religion has been cornered. They rely on the god of the gaps or on the other option...the god mustve done that to. Like saying god is responsable for evolution. Nice. So hes lazy eh? Deus Otiosus. Lazy and suerfulous god indeed! Hows about just nonexsistant.

  16. Hey Achems..Epicurus...Vlatko etc.

  17. Well well well, i see the religees are still active on this thread. Of course they havent gotten any wiser to the facts. Like evolution being more established than gravity. Perhaps we should rewrite the books as to how it is our feet stay on the ground? Tell me, which religee can tell me how it is we get this iireducible complexity in natire and how it is that 99% of all species ever exisisted are extinct? Or how if theyre myths are true why are there only penguins on the south pole or kangaroos only in Australia? Start there please.

    1. Lets start at a more basic level of science :
      In your everyday life, have you noticed that everything tends to fall apart and disintegrate over time? Decaying buildings, bridges, roadways, automobiles and clothing—that everything is subject to deterioration and is in constant need of repair. Each year, vast sums of money are spent on maintenance and medical bills to counter the unrelenting effects of decay. Material things and all known processes proceed from organization to disorganization—from cosmos to chaos. Eventually, all things wear out and return to dust1—material things are not eternal including our human bodies. Do you wonder why we get old and ultimately die? Age, disease and death of all living things are tied directly to the Second Law of Thermodynamics (sometimes referred to as the Law of Increasing Entropy), which states that usable energy in the universe available for work is decaying or running down to a state of inert uniformity, or heat death. Although quantity of matter and energy remains the same (according to the First Law of Thermodynamics), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time. Every energy transformation reduces the amount of usable or free energy and increases the amount of unusable energy. In other words, as usable energy is used for growth and repair, it is “irretrievably lost in the form of unusable energy.”2 The effects are all around, touching everything in the world. The First Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed, but can be transferred from one form to another. This law confirms that creation is no longer occurring but it also implies that creation occurred at sometime in the past! In today’s world, there is no creation of new matter and energy rising to higher levels of organization and complexity as evolutionists would have you believe. Let’s take a step back in time. Because the universe is constantly losing usable energy and never gaining, one can reasonably conclude the universe had a beginning—a moment of least entropy. That is, a time of minimal disorder with a minimal amount of unusable energy—a time when the First Law of Thermodynamics did not apply—a time of creation when systems were rising to higher levels of organized complexity. This is no longer occurring today. The universe is winding down which would logically mean the universe was created with plenty of usable energy—so the question one might logically ask: “Who wound up the clock?”4 According to Scripture, the moment of least entropy is fully described in Genesis 1. Applied to the whole universe, this is a fundamental contradiction to the “chaos to cosmos, all by itself” nature of evolutionary doctrine.5

      Creation, Entropy and Heat Death
      First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics Support Creation — Not Evolution
      Sketch by Roger Gallop
      No experimental evidence disproves these laws of science, say physicists G. N. Hatspoulous and E. P. Gyftopoulos: “There is no recorded experiment in the history of science that contradicts the Second Law or its corollaries …”8

    2. Don't give me that tired old argument about the laws of thermodynamics which you obtained from some creationist website. Any basic physics book would tell you that entropy does not apply to open systems such as the earth which is nourished by the sun. Why don't you read a standard book on the subject before writing your embarassing posts?

    3. I honestly lose more and more faith in humanity when I stumble upon ignorant sheep like yourself plaguing the world. Sad.

    4. If you want to lose faith in humanity completely, try reading some of BradlnFl's posts on "Why I am no Longer a Christian."

  18. This documentary is the best. Me and my friends crack a few beers and have a good laugh. Thanks for posting this one.
    You should have a comedy section!!!

  19. TO EVERYONE:

    Happy pi day. How should we celebrate this most famous of the irrational numbers? How about this anecdote:

    In 1897, Edwin J. Goodwin, a notorious circle squarer, introduced a bill in the Indiana House of Representatives mandating the value of pi at 3.2. Believe it or not, this bill might have passed were it not for C.A. Waldo, a professor of mathematics at Purdue University who happened to be visiting the house on an unrelated matter. When a representative approached him with the bill and offered to introduce him to the genius who wrote it, he declined stating that he knew as many crazy people as he needed to. Well, so much for the bill and crank mathematics.

    This just goes to show you that no god can square a circle or transsubstantiate pi into a rational number.

    Does anyone else have any suggestions as to how to celebrate one of the most imoprtant days on the mathematical calendar?

    1. We could eat pie and watch pi and get pi..... Drunk :)

    2. by transforming the dough nut
      today and everyday

      the pi of I and 1
      is a game to solve
      the pi of I and 1
      is the ratio between
      be and have
      do and give

      (dough nut=evolving self)
      az

  20. maybe the only reason that anyone would laugh at creationists is because they themselves have not been honest enough and forthright enough to have done some simple homework and gone to some reputable sight like wikipedia and done a search for "atomic orbatals" or "atoms" and reveiwed the info there so that they may possibly (and i do qualify the word possibly) begin to understand just how extensively underinformed they are when it comes to the extreme, extreme, extreme, (did i say extreme) and unfathomable complexity of atomic physics-funny how one ignorami calls someone who is just as unable to know it all-an ignorant believer when at least the believer in THE CREATOR is willing to be honest enough to admit that they comprehend this simple fact-that all matter is so - no way in a hundred zillion hells did it just happen as a result of a big bang - impossible unless designed, created and spoken into existance instantly and perfectly with THE WORD OF ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY !!!

    1. You started off so well, but from "ignorami" [sic] drifted into what seems creationist drivel. If you're trying to be funny, it's a bad joke, but if you're serious, you're pathetic.

    2. @michaelv:

      Don't have a clue by what you mean..."impossible unless designed, created and spoken into existence instantly and perfectly with THE WORD OF ABSOLUTE AUTHORITY!!!"

      Do you even know what you are talking about? or did you read that somewhere?

    3. The singular is Ignoramus, the plural is Ignoramii. So it would be one Ignoramus; or possibly you could re-word it as 'a gaggle of Ignoramii'.

    4. Wrong. The Latin plural of ignoramus is ignorami.

  21. Finding an id**t with almost any belief is easy. I am a creationist and don't agree with anything said by the "creationists" in the video. My guess is that finding an id**t in almost any group is easy, this I believe you have proved and I agree with unequivocally.

  22. Please kindly remove the offending comment about Jesus, freedom of thought should not be taken as freedom of disrespect and insult. One day you might be on the receiving end of the insults if you dont learn to respect other ideas.

    1. @Salih Kosan:

      To whom were you referring to?

    2. Who do you think you are telling anyone to remove anything?

    3. I agree , but you'll find the moderators probably don't respect your enlightened and respectful approach to debate. I can hardly imagine there'd be an internet if they did, at least not with all the funny pictures of cats which are so important to us today.

    4. My personal tribes are frequently on the receiving end of insults, but I'm an adult, and I believe that free speech is an important right. Get over yourself.

  23. The late and mourned Hitchens and his friends Dorkin, Rushdie et al pushing on the open door -- you have to chuckle. Strangely the sledgehammer & nut presentation, the use of insult and so on here doesn't square with the narrator's stunning lucidity. Is ther some fear we could get to where fundamentalists and creationists of all religions have chipped in together all their pathologically sentimental belligerence of the loser disguised as 'argument' and plunged us into some new dark age? No worries i say --- if we ever get to where these self deceived specimens (quoting their pidgen 'science' at scientists like they hadn't renounced their right to quote anything at all outside of their hapclappy hallucination) got fully and globally into power then that would be no less than what we merited as a species, whereupon frankly we'd all be better off as potato fertiliser.

  24. it doesn't matter what we say on here because, these people aren't enlightening themselves. They aren't thinking anymore they're "believing". They are so narrowminded that they wont filter down to this great documentary site. In fact this my friends, is the last place you should ever expect to find anyone that is devoutly religious: a place of learning.

    1. @Justin Lesniewski,

      Agreed. But it still is fun to see their beliefs.
      It's fun. Brings a litle laghter.

      Pierre.

  25. i'm a christian and i speak to my fellow christians on this site: why can't you be more like buddhists? why can't you STFU?
    the most discussed docs are those where fanatics stick fingers in keyboards

  26. So creationist Walter Brown thinks that about 7000 years ago the earth’s crust cracked and spurted water to the Moon thereby causing the craters and water content on said astral body.

    I cannot seem to find the mathematical peer review of this ‘theory’ or even *any* supporting evidence to validate such claims.

    I think that Walter Brown is suffering from a very severe form of mental illness and should be sectioned immediately.

    1. Perhaps he is suffering from hydrocephalus, and all that fluid inside his skull is putting too much pressure on his brain? Perhaps he needs to relieve get rid of the excess of water in his head -- perhaps by spurting it to the moon?

      Sorry, I couldn't help making fun of that. He does indeed sound like he's ready for the loony bin.
      It's so utterly ludicrous that nobody is his/her right mind would even waste a second on a review.

  27. wow.....I made it to part 3....

  28. why do people laugh at creationists? because it's socially unacceptable to throw stones...

  29. Why Do People Laugh at Creationists? Probably as it really is the only reasonable response. What surprises me is that there is so much debate on the issue. I'm not saying the subject of God isn't worth debating but that there are so many other more prescient subjects to discus.

  30. My only criticism is the preachy paranoia about the threat of fundamentalism to science.......it is almost as far-fetched as the fundamentalist claiming that gay marriage is a threat to heterosexual marriage.

    1. The problem occurs when they try to bring their ignorance into the classroom, especially the science classroom.

    2. except it's not, and if you can't understand that then you clearly should avoid this debate. Religion is evil, wrong, immoral, hypocritical, psychologically damaging, and a million other horrible things that I'd rather not get into.

      I could start with historical examples of religious zealots persecuting science, we can start with people being burned, hung, crucified, be-headed, your choice. But I guarantee that if you did the stats, the only THING on this planet that has KILLED more people than RELIGION, might, MIGHT, be bacteria / viruses.

      How the s*** is that not a threat to the safety of science?

      And don't say this kind of stuff doesn't happen anymore, try me, I'll make you feel so st*pid you will never post here again.

  31. Fundamentalist, Protestant Christians are only 150 years old.

    1. Right you are and I wish more people would realize this--also, that the movement started in the United States.

    2. I very much agree with that. Having grown up in Europe, I had never heard of it, and thought this whole belief in creationism was some kind of joke. I went to Catholic school in England, and we were taught evolution in biology, chemistry and physics classes. Of course, we had religious education, too, but our teachers always emphasised that the Bible and other religious texts are not science books, and were never intended as such either.

    3. I know what you mean. I thought creationists were some kind of supertroll, set loose upon the world to wreak havoc. I'm disappointed in people.

  32. I enjoyed the Redneck voice with the hint of British accent! I took a class from Steven Meyer when he was teaching Philosophy in Spokane. I wish he remained honest about his scholarship in Philosophy rather than masquerading as a scientist......
    I am a Christian and I loved your video - thanks!

  33. Sorry for saying something off topic but the dignity in what I say right now can give your subject positive energy... There are some actions in society that cause deception, for example: the new popular movie Sherlock Holmes negligently misuses Biblical Hebrew letters in a scene where in the movie they act as a cult was doing black magic with the Hebrew letters, the problem is now for some people when they see Hebrew letters and dont know what they are they might think that the letters are part of a bad cult language for black magic, the movie in that scene participates in creating a definite lie that is harmful in some ways to those who are unaware. We need to protect society by bringing the truth forward and suppress deception by making truth a daily habit.

    1. Yes you are off topic...
      I think the set designers/researchers on Sherlock Holmes were probably refering to certain incarnations of the Jewish Cabala... And inaccurate representation of more obscure religious symbols (Biblical Hebrew is relatively obscure among the non-Jewish community) happens all the time, but I don't see why that is particularly 'harmful' other than the spreading of misinformation at the cost of increasing general ignorance.

    2. > the problem is now for some people when they see Hebrew letters and dont know what they are they might think that the letters are part of a bad cult language for black magic,

      Only if they're subnormal. Maybe we should edit all science and culture such that any thoughts potentially provocative to the very very stupid are removed. What do you think?

    3. The Catholic church has been doing it for centuries.

  34. If space and time are a singularity then there is no start or end, or limits to space, you just think there is because you are in that singularity, i dont think any of you understand that, never mind it is not important, but it does limit you and your ability to discover what is really there.

    1. space-time ... when I actually think about it the question seems ridiculous. In my view I see time as space. And space as time. Time is the just a way to measure distance, or put another way. Time is Movement, and Movement is Time. We have ascribed magical qualities to Time when Time is just action, i.e. movement. Since there is no Movement without space in which to move then this would suggest that any Movement would create Space. So it all comes down to movement as the generator of both time and space! I believe that our pea sized brains are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. So it starts with movement. A Big Bang and this movement is still happening. Then again, I am not book smart.

  35. As any lunatic knows, "invisible friends never lie".

  36. @robertallen1
    ..and payday has arrived! You have never once revealed the core of your objections to my comments, just continuous heckling of the syntax. The method in which you twist others words and meanings isn't clever, it only temporarily hides the fact that you have no original thoughts of your own. You also believe anything that authority decrees is absolute, therefore you are a conformist.
    Your last comment revealed all as you jumped in a little too quickly, just as I presumed you would. Sorry, couldn't help myself..xx

    1. I could begin by suggesting that you look up the word syntax, but I'll save you the trouble. In essence, it means word order and what word order has to do with anything within this purview is a mystery to me.

      You chide me for ostensibly not revealing the core of my objections to your comments (suggesting the need for a serious re-read on your part) and then with admittedly nothing to go on, claim that I have no original thoughts of my own and that I blindly accept what authority hands down. Now, who's the one doing the jumping?

      Homework assignment. Learn the difference between presumed and assumed. I can't do everything for you.

  37. The consciousness of the mind is the builder and we humans are a most sophisticated structure. Evolution continuously seeks a fitting house for the consciousness to expand in certain ways = different species/ different levels of awareness. First thing we have to realize is that we currently know nothing.As I have said before: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Science will explain what our concepts of reality look like on paper, but as yet I haven't found anything on the inner thought processes of a snail.
    Religious and atheistic arguments are sheer amusements, doesn't take too much IQ to argue for or against the unprovable..xx

    1. Why don't you phrase it accurately? "You" know nothing. "We" know a lot; it's just not anywhere near enough. If you would read up on evolution before attempting to write about it, you might grasp that it is a down-to-earth description of biological development and to some extent its mechanisms--and not the abstraction you try to make of it.

      The reason you haven't found anything about the inner thought processes of, say, the snail is because you would rather babble than go to the trouble of researching the issue. Perhaps "The Ancestor's Tale" by your nemesis, Richard Dawkins might enlighten you somewhat. While I don't fully agree with a number of comments in the work, altogether it displays an intelligence and erudition lacking in just about everything you write and therefore commands the respect which your expostulations do not.

    2. I know musicians who can pass the most rigorous theoretical examinations with flying colours and yet cannot create anything much more beautiful than 'Pop Goes the Weasel'. There is a mystery
      to life you buffoon, stop believing Richard Dawkins has found the 'Holy Grail'. I agree totally with his science,not his dismissals through absence of evidence.

    3. On one hand, you agree totally with Dr. Dawkins' science, but on the other, can't bear his dismissals based on lack of evidence. That's tantamount to Hanslick's comment that Wagner's music is really much better than it sounds.

      And let's set the record straight, I do not believe that Dr. Dawkins has found the Holy Grail, but he is farther along the road to enlightenment than ignorant little you ("to life you buffoon", whatever that means) will ever be.

    4. Sorry if I stooped low, I am sure you aren't a buffoon. Dawkins has scientific proof there was not a protagonistic catalystic decision at the very beginning of our particular reality?

    5. A "protagonistic catalystic decision at the very beginning of our particular reality." Do you mind telling me what you're talking about?

    6. Ok - you don't understand what I mean, that's fair enough. Let's just say 'anything that can be grasped by thought doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility of the existence of matter that cannot be grasped by thought'.
      Dummied down further: The theory of Dawkins holds up well in the material/organic world, but the actual laws of physics cannot be accounted for by 'natural selection'. The incredible mathematical intricacy and workability of the laws of physics have always been
      absolute.
      Now tell me how the laws of physics in our particular universe evolved.xx

    7. What has physics to do with the biological evolution and why should its laws have to be "accounted for by natural selection," whatever that means? What is "matter that cannot be grasped by thought?"

      Again, what are you talking about or do you even know?

    8. I come here to relax after working all day to watch various docs and be basically - entertained.
      It's not that YOU don't know what I mean, you infer that I don't know what I mean . You haven't given me any of YOUR OWN thoughts on the subject/argument, you keep firing loaded questions like a prosecution attorney.
      Ease up, I'm not up to having my ideas/concepts deconstructed for purposes of ridicule unless I'm getting paid for it xx

    9. In other words, you don't mind being ridiculed for your idiocy and ignorance if you're paid for it. How pathetic!

    10. Physics is physics. But. You've possibly seen from the process of evolution that it's possible for systems to self-organise. While physics has usefully predictive theories, it's possible that there are deeper layers, foundational systems that we currently know nothing about. If this is the case, can you rule out the possibility that they themselves support self-organisation? Alternatively, if there were aspects to reality that were conceptually as far beyond us as a microprocessor is to a flatworm, would you necessarily recognise the fact?

      At the end of the day, it's worth acknowledging that you don't know what you don't know. This is the place where theists often call on God....

    11. @Salafrance Underhill:

      And what would that be proving to the theists, they still would not know what they do not know, unless of course they still wanted to believe in fairy tales. And for that they do not need any gods at all.

      And yes, there are concepts that are far beyond us as a microprocessor is to a flatworm, and it ain't because of any gods, it is called quantum mechanics, and quantum physics.

      But given time science will always prevail.

    12. And scientists admit that they don't know AT THIS TIME.

    13. Well, you made the comparison of a flat worm and a microprocessor.......one is alive and the other is man made! Just like evolution is man made. And, NO! life does not get more organized.........that flies in total opposition to the first law of thermodynamics. And, yes we are always learning more and more. More that a single cell isn't a simple life organism as once thought, now with our "technology, man-made " it demonstrates that a single cell all by itself is like a universe unto itself. Organized and exchanging information inside that cell. INFORMATION.......not man made, not evolved, or more organized. INTELLIGENT.....GOD makes things oh so complex but yet so simple. Why don't you invest some of your energy and research the reasons why one should believe in creation? Then you will have a balanced look into what the truth is. However, the bible tells us (the living word of God) that man does not want to believe because he hates God. Unfortunately, the days are coming to past,,,,that have been foretold for centuries, and soon very soon, we will all be held accountable on judgement day. There is only one of two ways to go..........Heaven or Hell ......................... That should be motivation enough to do some research, eh? ETERNAL DAMNATION with no relief ever.......Hell Repent, cry out and ask for the Holy spirit to help Jesus come into your heart and have a supernatural regeneration, and in reality......become new. That is worth time to search, right? <3

    14. Underhill's statement shows learning and intelligence. Yours shows neither. You can't back up a single statement you've made and please don't cite the first law of thermodynamics your misunderstanding of which you've obviously gleaned from a creationist website.

    15. If you send me $2,000.00 "seed" money, God will return it to you tenfold. I promise I'll put it to good use. Srsly.

    16. "...you made the comparison of a flat worm and a microprocessor.......one is alive and the other is man made!"

      You should tell Donald E. Johnson about that. I'm sure he would love to be educated on the difference between your brain and a computer.

    17. Quit preaching, TDF is not your pulpit, please read the "comment policy"

    18. Michelle,

      Your statement is (literally) one of the most absurd I've read. Ever.

      Please don't use the comment boards for your creationist talking-points or pseudoscientific rants.

      Besides, you're only reinforcing that creationists don't understand science. Don't quote the Laws of Thermodynamics unless you understand thermodynamics (in which case, you would not misapply it in ignorant statements like the one you made).

    19. Many people do not understand science, who are you kidding? That doesn't mean they aren't trying

    20. your heaven is my hell -- i'm not going anywhere that won't welcome Christopher Hitchens, Socrates, and Sam Harris, to name but a few. everyone has their own version of heaven and of hell, and yours are anathema to me, so by logic''s rules i will suffer for all eternity next to you. and you won't like it.

    21. are you Storm?
      from the Tim minchin poem?

    22. @Giac Belli
      Hey You!, I don't own the labels you are seeking to pin on me, but you obviously have better access to identify them than me. For the record, the only thing his Storm character and I have in common is that we are Australian.
      You see Giac, not everyone is as witty and clever as you like to think you are. That means there is a good possibility that your cheap shot fizzled, not only on me but anyone else who read it. xx

  38. .....we are all born sinners...and we need a savior ...Dont be fooled by the devil and his lies..listen to ur heart sayng save me from the wrath to come!!!! if u dont repent and put ur trust in Jesus Christ then u will not be saved frm hell..eternal damnation..then it will be too late to repent....Today is the day of salvation......10 out of 10 ppl die....U are the next one...!!!!creation itself speaks out the glory of God...u dont have to be a bill gates or an Einstein to know and see that u are surrounded with creation perfect creation that fits right into our lives and u are a creation....May the creator , the alpha and omega forgive us all for doubting his goodness and the great sacrifice he did for us at the cross......

    1. @Carmen Torres:

      Fair warning, quit preaching, TDF is not your pulpit!

    2. @Carmen Torres - Wow! I've heard of people speaking in tongues, but never knew it was possible to type in tongues until I tried to read your post. What the he11 kind of mindless drivel was that?

    3. @N B:

      Ha, Ha, good one. Type in tongues, have to remember that one.

  39. Evil is god's plan. Suffering is god's plan. And it could not be more obvious; even if he didn't come right out and admit it in the Bible ("I form the light, and create darkness. I make peace, and create evil. I the Lord do these things"-- Isaiah 45: 7).

  40. The FSM is an interesting idea. It exists is beyond our perception.

    I am a carbonnarist. Bolognesiststs are infidels!!!!!!

  41. @Chad Roy and hhy2k

    There's nothing ignorant about hhy2k's statement, especially considering that creationism itself is the embodiment of ignorance.

  42. this documentary has opened up a new door for me

  43. if only the makers this series of documentaries actually interviewed some advocates of creationism, that actually had half a brain.there's no substitute for proper and meaningful research and by quoting these intellectually starved people, no progress will be made in the debate of creationism versus chance. after all evolution and the big bang are still theoretical last time I heard.

    1. Still a theory eh? Like heliocentric theory? Or gravity? Do you find yourself often floating away due to gravity only being a theory? It's called "theory" for the very reason that is SCIENCE, always being studied and examined further. Certainly not for a lack of facts or for simply guessing. Honestly, get an education before professing an opinion.

    2. Still a theory? Like heliocentric theory or gravity? Do you find yourself floating away because gravity is still "just theoritical"? The reason it's called "theory" is BECAUSE it's science, continually studied and examined further, unlike religion which is stuck in time. It's not called theory for lack of verified facts or due to simply guessing. Honestly, get an education prior to professing an opinion.

    3. Creationism versus "Chance", Huh?
      That is the typical behavior of a creationist in regard to science.
      That "Chance" came from a bad translation into English.
      "Random" doesn't mean that something either happen or not happen.
      When an hydrogen nucleus hits a bunch of other ones at random, no one knows exactly which "Other ones" hydrogen nuclueus.
      About the same thing as bombing the "Unbeleivers" in Vietnam with napalm if you rembemer. Who know exactly how many human beings where hit and who was it exactly? The "By Chance" is not the right term to express the expressed concept.

      More over, how come did human being came t understand how pleague propagate? First, human beings had to build intruments that permited to see the "Infinitely small (Microscopes).
      Otherwhise, Ahum!
      And why was it the "French" Pasteur who just happen to right under the napalm bomb?
      Why not any other human beings living at that time?
      Oh! Sorry, confused the napalm bomb with the availability of what was an microscope artefac at that time! So very sorry...

      But here again, you could use the term "By Chance" to satisfy some beliefs but it is still a random thing.
      Nature, which human beings are part of in this material world was simply ready to go through that "Discovery".

      Exactly the same for the AID virus that some French and some USA based scientists clamed to be the first to possess purified a few years back. The "Surroundings" were ready for that.
      -The tools were ready...

      One last thing dear Lasheen, is that I'll tell you exactly why I have such a problem with "Creationist" pricinciples:=>
      Their "Believe & Shut Up" attitude toward everything.

      For one thing, the St-Paul scriptures about the "Later Times" were composed while St-Paul himself state within the Bible that he swollowed a lot of what was and still is known as "Magic Mushroom".
      A powerfull psychotrope. Drugs aout the same as mescaline.
      I really don't care if your "Specific Church" use an erroneous and misleading bible that hide that fact.
      One thing that I know, is that the original (Archaic scripture) was analysed by both handwriting specialists and by Carbon-14 dating and the whole St-Paul scripture was written at the same time in one sole exersise.

      How many parts of that book was written under the such an influence?
      Because those types of drugs were known much before Jesus Christ.

      Everyone just love JC, but how one can handle this when a ZAZA creactionist comes up with stupidity such as the claim?

      In conclusion, your assertion :-"Advocates of creationism, that actually had half a brain"?
      My reply is simple, what else can he be, what did you expected?

      Pierre.

    4. I don't think you can find a creationist with more than half a brain...

    5. pot to the kettle with that ignorant statement

    6. that's not ignorant, it's just what I'm believing in!

    7. No, but you can find many with less than half a brain.

    8. you can, and I'm one of them. when I say "creationist" I mean I believe in God, and I also believe in evolution. I don't see why both can't go hand in hand.

    9. @Shirley Guetio
      I agree. I also believe our various ideas/beliefs of who or what God is have been built upon the reflection of man himself and therein lies the dilemma.. xx

    10. You can be religioous *and* do science as long your science is scrupulously free of any hint of theist bias. It has to be that way 'round or it becomes religion wearing a lab coat for the sake of the look.

    11. Science used to be ALL theist based, so really what you are saying doesn't make much sense. Look at the first two laws of thermodynamics all by themselves.......... GOD is the creator <3

    12. Lasheen,
      science may be theory, but religion is MYTH!

    13. You people that think you know it all.
      really upset those of us that do!

    14. @dugiewugie:

      Trolling are you? Don't leave your day job!

  44. I just don't get why so much energy is dedicated into convincing some individual who obviously had all the chance in their society to enlighten themselves but choose to remain ignorant.

    It is really simple:

    1) The human mind is big enough to ask for explanation as to why it is here, in other words it has become complex enough to self-question.

    2) Looking at all the different tribes spread around the world, they have all devised a way to reason their world...call it a THEORY...because that it is what it is. Except it was limited by observation and acquired knowledge those tribes gained. Just as the Church imprisoned Galileo, because he basically shook their THEORY of the world.

    3) Everyday millions of blank minds are born ready to absorb what the information the world offers. Some acquire the necessary prerquisite to understand the scientific method others are left clinging to old theories that don't stand to the rigor of reason.

    4) It is sad that most of the creationist originate from the part of the world that consumes so much of the world resources....I call this a waste of human capital. Worse some of them block scientific progress.

    Shows like this annoy me, because these resources could have been directed to people who are not arrogant as to be willfully ignorant. There are millions given quarter the chance who can contribute to our modern world, directed by reason and science.

  45. this guy is doing far too much.

    1. Why? Just dunno! But keep on going, I like that!
      Giggle!

      Pierre.

  46. Yesterday i was knocked over by bus, and i'm ok. Just a bump on the head. I think these creationists have a valid point. We know the earth is 5000 years old, because there is no monument, fossil or geological mineral thats older than 5000 years. Apart from Puma Punku, dinasasaurs and o wait.

    1. I can't figure out whether to laugh with you or at you.

  47. A nice little article by Granville Sewell on the problem with natural selection, which is in reality a metaphysical explanation (not a "scientific" one) invoked as part of Darwin's theory. This has been published online and is also in his book "In the Beginning."

    In a 2000 Mathematical Intelligencer article, I speculated on what would happen if we constructed a gigantic computer model which starts with the initial conditions on Earth 4 billion years ago and tries to simulate the effects that the four known forces of physics (the gravitational and electromagnetic forces and the strong and weak nuclear forces) would have on every atom and every subatomic particle on our planet. If we ran such a simulation out to the present day, I asked, would it predict that the basic forces of Nature would reorganize the basic particles of Nature into libraries full of encyclopedias, science texts and novels, nuclear power plants, aircraft carriers with supersonic jets parked on deck, and computers connected to laser printers, CRTs and keyboards?

    A friend read my article and said, computers have advanced a lot in the last seven years, I think we could actually try such a simulation on my new laptop now. So I wrote the program -- in Fortran, naturally -- and we tried it. It took several hours, and at the end of the simulation we dumped the final coordinates of all the particles into a rather large data file, then ran MATLAB to plot them. Some interesting things had happened, a few mountains and valleys and volcanos had formed, but no computers, no encyclopedias, and no cars or trucks. My friend said, let me see your program. After examining it, he exclaimed, no wonder, you treated the Earth as a closed system, order can't increase in a closed system. The Earth is an open system, you need to take into account the effect of the sun's energy. So I modified the boundary conditions to simulate the effect of the entering solar radiation, and reran it. This time some clouds and rivers had formed, but otherwise Earth still looked a lot like the other planets, and still no libraries or computers or airplanes.

    My imaginary friend looked more carefully at the program, and said, good grief, you are using classical physics, you can't simulate the effects of the four forces without quantum mechanics. He explained that according to quantum mechanics, the exact effects of these forces on any particular particle are impossible to predict with certainty, the new laws only provide the probabilities. I said, you mean there is a supernatural force at work here? He said, well, technically, yes, if you define the supernatural to be that which is forever beyond the ability of science to predict or explain -- British astronomer Sir Arthur Eddington said quantum mechanics "leaves us with no clear distinction between the natural and the supernatural". But there is no reason to doubt that this so-called "supernatural" effect is completely random, you can simulate it using a random number generator. So I completely re-wrote my simulator, I used an IMSL random number generator with a user-supplied probability distribution to simulate this randomness, and computed the required probability distributions by solving the Schrodinger equations with my own partial differential equation solver, PDE2D. Still no luck -- no space ships, no TV sets, no encyclopedias, not even a cheap novel.

    My friend looked at the new graphs and tried to mask his disappointment. Well, he said, of course the problem is you haven't taken into account the one natural force in the universe which can violate the second law of thermodynamics and create order out of disorder -- natural selection. You mean there is a fifth force -- why didn't you say so? Just give me the equations for this force and I will add it to my model. He said, I can't give you the equations, because it isn't actually a physical force, it doesn't actually move particles. So what does it do, I asked. He explained that one day a long time ago, by pure chance, a collection of atoms formed that was able to duplicate itself, and these complex collections of atoms were able to pass their complex structures on to their descendents generation after generation, even correcting errors. He went on to talk about how genetic accidents and survival of the fittest produced even more complex collections of atoms, and how something called "intelligence" allowed some of these collections of atoms to design computers and laser printers and the Internet. But when he finished, I still didn't know how to incorporate natural selection -- or intelligence -- into my model, so I never did get the simulation to work. I decided the model was still missing a force or two -- or a smarter random number generator.

    Granville Sewell is a professor of mathematics at the University of Texas El Paso.

    The above is a tongue in cheek illustration of how absurd the idea that random undirected processes mobilized material (atoms) into the creation of bridges, ships, cars, planes, computers and the interne

    1. @abdulwalee
      "The above is a tongue in cheek illustration of how absurd the idea that random undirected processes mobilized material (atoms) into the creation of bridges, ships, cars, planes, computers and the interne" where does science state any of these things were rendom or undirected?

    2. In reply to abdulwalee:-

      But most importantly, you do not take into account the effect of non-equilibrium thermodynamics.

      We would need to to know the exact starting point of all particles, which is impossible. See Richard Feynman QED, Boris Pavlovich Belousov Non-liner chemical oscillator.

    3. Yes, but you are facing a contradiction here. If your computer was able to incorporate all the algorithms we should have to know to create a simulator to recreate the universe as it is today, the simulator would eventually create a simulator in which it would create you who creates the simulator. Now, how are we to say we would know what that simulator would do next? Then who is your creator?

      It's just a false analogy. Welcome to the matrix.

  48. google this .....unified field of consciousness

  49. dont let stupid misinformed humans lead you away from what is not human. think of us as ants, we can only see whats infront of us, but theres a hell of a lot more

  50. The "Banana affair" was just hilarant!
    As much as that "Cartonist" explanation of the bible flood when God splitted the earth apart & that earth oozed its water on the moon!
    Better yet, the USA Grand Canyon was flooded in less than 5 minutes!
    Water engulfing the canyon at (3-5) times the speed of sound.
    Not a drop vaporizing! Hilarant those "Cartoonists"!
    Made in the USA, mirror of the Taliban principles.

    It's hard for me to believe that such retarded peoples as "Creationists" & their other associates really exist in the USA. That is the mirror or Talibans!
    -Anybody stole someting using his hand? Let's get rid of that devilish hand of your's! ZAP! Amputated, problem resolved.
    Taken from some interpretations of the Quran.

    To be a little serious if such homosapiens are really strucked by such delirium tremens, within all the speaches these supposed creationists shout, it appears they suffer a deep lack of faith, in religious belief I mean...
    Anybody can identify their feeling of guilt toward their lack of faith.
    Religious faith has nothing to do with pure & applied science.

    All their pseudo science principles based on diverse biblical citation is the exact same thing as Adam & Eve trying to figure out what this material world of ours is made of or how its works, the total "Birth Acquired" knowledge!
    According to the bible thay claim to have such an extensive respect, they commit the 1st sin whatever God scoled humankind for.
    - Quote: -"Pardon them, they dunno what they're doing".

    I work in pure & applied science, earn my living with it and never doubted that there is some sort of God. So badly defined and described through history because of hoaxters such as these cartoonists.
    -Sorry, creationists, is it?

    Sit down & relax! It was found lately that many dimentions do exist factually.
    Now, which is which. I mean "The one"?
    Who knows? Who cares... We'll see when we'll get to that bridge!

    What I do in science is not to compet or obtain a "Godish" knowledge but rather see and have the pleasure to bring a better living to my fellows homosapiens.
    It may be because I enjoy it when we have a better life here within this material world.
    -Misleading someone is not loving who ever can be that other one.

    Faithfully your's,
    Pierre.

  51. using religion for right livelihood is okay but once people start worshiping an entity and get away from practicing the teachings is when it is a problem. god is a jealous god if this is true who likes a jealous person? yet alone a jealous god :). I dont think one god is superior or better than another if their is such a thing but i do Know that it has helped and is helping a lot of people get through LIFE. Im neither for or against it im just simply BEING. Not a christian or part of any religious sect. To me religion is like the different types of fruits. all nourish u a different way but one that taste good to u might not taste good to me. It could also be that gods are like the different types of teachers we've had in school. I might not like them but what they have to say might be useful later on in life. thank you for your time sorry if i bored anyone.

    1. Except that religion does no nourish; it saps.

    2. how do u get that unless it saps you. like i said im not religious i just think its good for the people who know how to use it

      ________________________________

    3. your religion doesn't but mine does... Islam is a complete system but one who lives by his desires will never know

      How many emos does it take to screw in a light bulb?

      non - let them sit in the dark and cry

    4. those who are walking in darkness cant see where they going......Jesus is the light of the world....repent,,trust and obey...love your enemies =)

    5. @Carmen Torres and Abduwalee

      You merely parrot the dogmatic tripe with which your ears (certainly not your brains) have been assailed by a bunch of ignorant, cackling, blockheaded phonies. When it comes down to it, you really know nothing and you ought to be ashamed for pretending you do.

    6. Everyone who believes thinks he knows how to use it--and the use generally turns out to be destructive.

  52. @0zyxcba1
    You said:
    "I then stopped with the questions, for fear he might repeat himself,
    said Peace, and Goodbye."

    I do the same for both parties if each is going to insist they are right :).

    (Sorry I forgot to post as a reply)

    1. @ Tariq Ahmed

      "...if each is going to insist they are right"

      You overlook the fact that one of the two parties is not insisting
      he is right about anything:

      A Muslim once asked me why there is something instead of nothing.
      I told him I did not know and asked him what he thought.

      0z

    2. the truth is in agreement with the intellect, Yes I'm a believer in Allah The Creator of everything, and I worship Him alone without partners or intermediaries....Prue Monotheism

    3. @ Tariq Ahmed

      "(Sorry I forgot to post as a reply)"

      No need to apologize :-)

      0z

  53. I believe it is a state of respect to science rather than a state of creationists or atheists rights. Neither creationists can prove the existence of God nor can atheist prove the reverse. Science is an intrinsic thinking with its own objectives to verify things in a logical discipline. Those who try their best mixing science and religion in a way to prove their own opinions look just miserable.
    I live in Muslim community and know a lot of people, teachers, and even worse professors always looking after such things in what they call "The miracles in Quran". Such people just try to look after the scientific statements that may directly or indirectly resemble what has been mentioned in the Quran or (Sunnah). Today there are books taught in schools to brainwash students since childhood and if someone might deny this relation, they will get upset as if the religion had been abused. Its only themselves who make superstitions out of their believes or religion.

    Science is science, religion is religion (i.e: they are no friends no enemies).

    1. You say:
      "Neither creationists can prove the existence of God
      nor can atheist prove the reverse."

      During my lunch break I'm minding my own business reading the news-paper on a bench in Central Park. A stranger approaches to interrupt
      my leisure and excitedly tells me that he's just seen a pterodactyl, a
      flying reptile which lived during the Dinosaur Era between 190 million
      and 65 million years ago(based on overwhelming scientific evidence ? Young Earth Age: 6,000 years ago, bases on faith).

      Where?!, I ask.

      "Next to that oak tree, over yonder."

      But to our disappointment we see only the oak tree.

      "Well, it was there," assures the stranger.

      Diplomatically I suggest he might be mistaken and that my
      lunch break is nearly over and I really do have to go, now.

      "But it was there, I swear it."

      I don't know how you can prove that and I really must be going.

      "I can't prove that I saw the pterodactyl.
      "But neither can you prove that I didn't."

      What?!
      You can't be serious!

      This guy's nuts.
      He's ruined my lunch break and now I'm late for the office.

      OMG!
      Following morning. New York Times. Front page headline:
      PTERODACTYL SIGHTING
      The sighting, alleged to have taken place in Central Park,
      may actually have occured because a man on the scene
      can't prove that it didn't.

      You say:
      "Neither creationists can prove the existence of God
      nor can atheist prove the reverse."

      The second half of your statement:
      "...nor can atheist prove the reverse,"
      means absolutely nothing! ? ZERO

      So your assertion that:
      "Neither creationists can prove the existence of God
      nor can atheist prove the reverse,"

      reduces to:
      'Creationists cannot prove the existence of God' + ZERO =
      Creationists cannot prove the existence of God.

      Science has absolutely nothing to do with this.
      REPEAT:
      Science has absolutely nothing to do with this!

      Burden of proof lies with he who makes the claim.
      Creationists have made a claim and have provided not
      one shred of evidence to support that claim, therefore:
      Creationists should not expect to be taken seriously.

      End of story!

      Next story:

      Why is there something instead of nothing?

      A Muslim once asked me why there is something instead of nothing.
      I told him I did not know and asked him what he thought.

      The Muslim then proceeded telling me a story so weird,
      I was barely able to follow.

      When he had finished, I asked him a couple-a three questions.
      It soon became apparent he did not know, either.

      I then stopped with the questions, for fear he might repeat himself,
      said Peace, and Goodbye.

      0zy

    2. Science is Science, religion is not religion.
      Religion is not one thing, religion is many different RULES for different religion. All of them claiming to know how to be spiritual.
      Religion is not "awareness of one's personal spiritual senses".

      Spirituality is Spirituality as much as Science is Science.
      Spirituality is the "energy lab" and you are the only scientist in that lab, watching the world. You don't follow an old book, an old church, an old way of thinking, you don't follow when it comes to understanding the voice inside of you, ever.
      You lead the way, you dig, you search, you question, you try, you win, you lose, you cry, you laugh. You do it to your bones and beyond. That's what spirituality is. God is YOU, get to know your Self.
      Everything that is shown to exist outside of you, exist inside of you. Your body is as complicated as the universe it comes from and your SOUL (to me a much better word than GOD) is the deep sea of your reality. We have not began to really explore the vastness of possibilities. We are too busy arguing with religions. Why wouldn't we? When all gov. are backed up by a religion or an other.
      The end of religion will be the beginning of freedom of spirituality which will lead to the search of our SOUL.
      Some have often claimed that Science is not interested in GOD. Well i seriously doubt that. Perhaps some scientist are not, may be some of the most populare are not, but there sure is a very thick underlying who is very interested in understanding THE SOURCE. It would be ignorant of science not to search in that dark path.
      Dark matter may be more than of a natural, material nature.
      Joyeux Dimanche!
      az

    3. stop smoking hun... shaytan has tricked you through that music you listen to

    4. @abdulwalee
      i did ....i listen to all kinds of music, including music from several different countries and i love to dance.
      hun Your shaytan has no power over me
      az

  54. The belief in a god and religions are a joke! Humans are just so in-love with living that they made up the idea of having some imaginary,space zombie in the sky with an afterlife! We have the pathetic need to feel important to the bigger,infinite,picture that is this universe! When in fact,were not! There are infinite universes out there with no beginning an no end!

    "Were a pale blue dot in an infinite cosmic ocean." (Carl Sagan)

    Science has disproven all of the fairy tale bible. For example, Genesis was caused by a volcano not some imaginary,space,zombie in the sky!!!!!!!!

    1. Easter bunny gonna get you. Easter bunny gonna gobble you UP.

  55. @atu180

    At least this is somewhat clearer than your last posts, but you still have a lot to learn.

    First of all, what I think you mean to say is that when viewed over time, large changes are simply a succession of small ones. Granted.

    However, what do you mean by ". . . abrupt appearance of fully-formed . . . ?" As living things are constantly evolving, the term "fully-formed" is only relative--but relative to what, you don't say.

    1. Pursuit in the argument has become undone. I defer to your academic hierarchy in post modern thought.

      Answers given to questions posed have suitable evidence and are compelling, you have carried the day.

      I would refer you to C. Hitchens and M. Shermer as examples of persuasive disagreement.
      The ghost in this machine bids you adieu....
      Live well.... irrespective of what may truly be.

    2. so did you just choose to wilfully ignore my post to you?

  56. @atu180

    Ah, you admit you're writing drivel--but perhaps I'm on the wrong track.

    Why don't you learn English before attempting to write a coherent sentence?

  57. @atu180

    Have just read your last post. Oxyxcb1 writes lucidly while you write as if you're coming off an anesthetic or perhaps something else.

  58. @atu180

    At least oxyxcb1 knows something about what he writes and expresses it clearly. You, on the other hand, attempt to camouflage your ignorance under a patina of drivel.

    I'll take oxyxcb1 any day.

    1. I'm sorry, why bother with me with more drivel, be as you are, out of the picture. Ignorance is well defined by your take, you know not and yet speak you do. I'll remain as I AM, brainwashed and benevolent.

    2. The cambrian explosion happened over a long period of time. Millions of years actually. whatever caused the cambrian extinction was a massive environmental changed which forced a drastic evolution of all species involved. nothing about it refutes evolution.

      other than that i dont see your posts as making much sense either. perhaps if you tried to speak plainly rather than try to sound mysterious and poetic you wouldnt come off so vague.

      what else did you question? do you want transitional fossils? look at tiktaalik, or every hominid fossil. also look up Ring Species such as the Ensatina salamander, or Larus Gulls. if you want genetic evidence look up Endogenous retroviruses or chromosome 2.

      evolution is a proven fact. we have long term experiments like that done on E. Coli showing an instance of speciation. there is no room for denying evolution these days unless of course you have no education in biology or genetics.

      the fossil record unequivocally leans to evolution not just in showing changes in the fossils themselves but also in the fact that more complex organisms

  59. Give me the missing link and I will believe! Show me the plausibility of the biochemistry of vision at the sub cellular complex level with one missing link to that process and it continue to function and I will believe! Step by step so you say, from a single celled amoeba to the molecular juggernaut of your created body; that is the missing link! I believe! It was a fairy tale to believe a prince would come from a frog, now to believe that a man came from a monkey; that is faith I believe!

    1. @ atu180

      The so-called 'missing link'(along with several specimens, both preceding, and succeeding, your 'missing link') has been discovered and cataloged decades ago.

      Now you have what you requested, and more. Now you know. Yet you still reject the obvious, don't you?

      Admit it!
      No amount of evidence, regardless how compelling, will ever satisfy you.

      You have already made up your mind to hold the stultifying stupid for true, on the bases of faith, a faith you demand be honored, and be respected.

      Sorry!
      Respect ain't for free!
      Respect must be earned.

      Remain willfully ignorant, if you so choose.
      But, please:

      Do shut up about it!

    2. Mr. Darwin himself understood, that if no verifiable evidence surfaced, the origin of species by modified decent would be and now is effectively called into question. Numerous falsification are found in the utilized argumentation by your side. Publicly available for all to see, yet still labeled as well informed science. If all of you are as you write, you know then of what I write. A number of your specimens are neither peer reviewed and scrutinized by proper scientific methodology; truth be told by facts that are found. For you however, truth is what you make it according to your view point and facts(evidence) are cumbersome because they construe the truth of a theory. Why must you resort to Vitriol and moral platitudes, I have not mentioned my faith nor have I questioned yours. It is apparent that your belief is a religion by your assault on my questions. Is that science. You expect me to live by a faith of your standard of belief that has little verifiable evidence and yet I am willfully ignorant.
      Well, time will tell...OH! I AM sorry time is not on your side neither preceding or succeeding your present existence. By evolutionary processes, time is an accomplice to your hope; the far distant past, as your positional belief is, prevents you from testing your specimens to be verified and due to the bewildering thought of future time, unavailable to you because evolution is long in time, your theory remains a thought to be considered.
      You materialist may live in your mundane, yet effervescent world, where you come into existence, exist and then fizzle away.
      Your faith is greater than I would ever IMAGINE to posses.

    3. Mr. Darwin himself understood, that if no verifiable evidence surfaced, the origin of species by modified decent would be and now is effectively called into question. Numerous falsification are found in the utilized argumentation by your side. Publicly available for all to see, yet still labeled as well informed science. If all of you are as you write, you know then of what I write. A number of your specimens are neither peer reviewed and scrutinized by proper scientific methodology; truth be told by facts that are found. For you however, truth is what you make it according to your view point and facts(evidence) are cumbersome because they construe the truth of a theory. Why must you resort to Vitriol and moral platitudes, I have not mentioned my faith nor have I questioned yours. It is apparent that your belief is a religion by your assault on my questions. Is that science. You expect me to live by a faith of your standard of belief that has little verifiable evidence and yet I am willfully ignorant.
      Well, time will tell...OH! I AM sorry time is not on your side neither preceding or succeeding your present existence. By evolutionary processes, time is an accomplice to your hope; the far distant past, as your positional belief is, prevents you from testing your specimens to be verified and due to the bewildering thought of future time, unavailable to you because evolution is long in time, your theory remains a thought to be considered.
      You materialist may live in your mundane, yet effervescent world, where you come into existence, exist and then fizzle away.
      Your faith is greater than I would ever IMAGINE to posses.

    4. The current 10% of the last 4.5 billion years, we have the Cambrian to the recent past: Ordovician,Silurian,Devonian etc...with all having a common ancestor with varying differences under the influence of natural selection.
      After long periods of time small difference give over to greater differences in the same species, with still greater differences over a large time scale representing millions of generational modifications giving us differences separating orders and classes of species.

      Then why does the fossil record in the Cambrian period have the abrupt appearance of fully formed species?

      Darwin new this, and now pre-Cambrian fossils fully formed and not in modification have been discovered, the Cambrian explosion.
      If the fossil record is so strong, which way does it lean?

  60. WOW, I can't believe how rediculously stupid they are. They probably believe the earth is flat and is the center of the universe too. Dumb creationists,LOL.

  61. How sad.. this is typical... the world finance economy is disentrgrating before our eyes, together with our civilasation... and the most comented documentary in this site for the illuminated peope is a trivial play ground argument about Creationism...

    As Shakespear said:

    What a piece of work is a man! How wasteful in
    Reason! how limited in faculties! in form and moving
    how useless and vain! In action how like an a stone!
    in apprehension how like some vacume! the beauty of the
    world! the paragon of animals! and yet to me, what is
    this quintessence of dust? Man delights not me; no,
    nor Woman neither; though by your smiling you seeme
    to say so

    1. : ) OH CRAP I FORGOT ABOUT THE GENERAL COLAPSE OF SOCITEY everyone step away from your keyboards and go do something useful Just joking Nino one thing to remember that our world has never been more stable and safe then it is right now I know when things afect you or those you know personaly then it seems like the end of the world but things in the long run have never been better

  62. Wow what a raping...!

  63. I really don't know what people are looking for. Answerers to questions?

    What does it mean to ask the question 'Why are we here'

    I'll take a guess. There is none.

  64. What is going on in my, or anyone else-s head, is, frankly, none of anyone's business. Regardless of what it is.

    1. ...........Except when it is causing bigotry, hatred, war and teaches people not to ask questions and to live in fear or burn in hell... right? Have you not heard about the Phelp's family the most hated people in America? Believing in a god is fine if that melts your butter, but organized religion is a dangerous one way ticket to ignorance and intolerance.

  65. We only mock creationists because their ideas are not worthy of debate.

  66. subtitles?

    1. Second to last, at the bottom of the screen, there is an arrow in the shape of a triangle, and it's pointing upwards. Click on the arrow and a menu will pop up. You will see the letters CC('Closed Captions'). Clicking on CC toggles between the enabling/disabling of 'Closed Captions'(that which you called "subtitles"). If you see 'subtitles', then click on CC and, voilà! GONE(or ON, as the case may be).

      Hope this helps.

  67. I love the fact that I'm so open minded and am never convinced of anything by anyone. That's why I'm a agnostic theist and you are just a follower??
    :p

    1. why agnostic THEIST? what convinces you to hold the theistic stance? is it anything objective?

    2. Like the old saying goes: 'Don't be so open minded that your brains fall out'.(lol)

      I agree, skepticism is healthy, but if you went for a check up and your doctor referred you to an oncologist(as has happed with Christian Hitchens), I'm sure you would have no problem putting your trust in the doctors who would be trying to help you.

      Belief based upon authority is not always a bad thing, so long as you have strong evidence that the claims of the 'expert' have successfully undergone the scrutiny of peer review. This type of deference to authority is not 'faith' but rather a well grounded 'trust'. 'Trust' is not 'faith', and the two should never be confused.

      So, you see, "the fact that [you]'re so open minded and [are] never convinced of anything by anyone" might not be an altogether good stance in every situation. IMHO ;-)

    3. Never being convinced of anything by anyone is called being CLOSED minded. How can you claim that not accepting new ideas is "open minded"? That's the exact opposite. If I can't convince you that aliens exist, does that make you open minded? No, it makes you closed minded, because you don't consider another persons ideas objectivly.

  68. Beset by an all pervasive disregard for rationality, spellbound by appeals to divine authority to submit in shameless abandon to blind faith, the American body politic is seen drifting ever further from a climate of reasoned discourse. Instead of growing more robust and ever more expansive, civil rights are now allotted sparingly in the form of civil 'privileges', granted to some, only to be withheld from others, in accordance with Scripture. Foreign policy epiphanies are bestowed via the graciousness of the Holy Spirit. Supplanted by the Biblical Word of God, the Constitution is rendered but a mere page torn from a funny book. What remains of a once respected system of public education is now a faith-based epistemology firmly rooted in The Way, The Truth, and The Light.

    If you think this cannot happen here, think again.

    Creationists are not just some highly motivated cult of religious fanatics spouting inane claims. Creationists are a highly motivated, well funded, cult of religious fanatics spouting inane claims. That is not an accident. It is not an isolated anomaly. This did not occur overnight. And creationists are not alone in the center ring.

    High over Ronald Reagan's first presidential campaign flutters the banner of the Religious Right. The strategy proved so successful that it has since been incorporated into every aspect of the neo-con, ultra-conservative agenda. For their part, the purveyors of irrationality insinuate themselves, along with their depraved lust for power and control through realization of their theocratic dream, into the facts of the political life of any and every public figure who can be cajoled, blackmailed, or converted.

    Gone unchallenged, this 'Marriage Made in Heaven' will, one fine day, awaken America to a de facto theocracy. Warning signs are everywhere. Take education. What has happened to the American system of public education is depressing. What we are now forced to witness is tragic. And where it is all heading is outright dangerous.

    It is at once encouraging, and sad, that our friends from the UK are among those most ardent and outspoken in defense of that which we Americans ought ourselves to defend, namely, our republic's tradition of separation of church and state. Freedom of religion is not enough. We must fight to the death for freedom FROM religion.

    1. I share your fears.
      Happily, faith for the most part is dead in the water. There seems to be an exponential link between religious scepticism and rational awareness.

      It is a shrinking power base that is desperately trying cling to its political power.

  69. very interesting thosecreationist are so stupiid

    1. Creationists are far worse than just 'stupid'.
      They're religious!

    2. And you are not! From the likes of your comments you are extremely religious. A Belief in nothing I presume and as that man GK Chesterton has said, "a man who says he believes in nothing will most certainly believe in anything''. Allow me to be tolerant of your non-beliefs as I hope you will of mine. Jesus good Devil bad.

  70. Amateurish.

    1. Of course the series of playlist clips is "amateurish."
      Thunderf00t is not a professional film maker.
      Are you?

  71. Alexer,
    I still love you. :X

  72. Here's a fun fact: Vlatko is awesome!
    This was a 'soooo perfectly' a combination of hilarity and education that I giggled like a little girl 3 minutes into it.
    Thank you!

  73. Rats ass you theist desperadoes, you propose an transcendent reality. Which is by definition, untestable. Then you speculate on aspects of character. LMFAS

  74. interesting arguments

  75. His approach is a bit rude, but however his clear logic and scientific arguments give us clear proof that religion has no basis in reality.The arguments of creationists have no relevance to the truth.

  76. OH MY DAYS!!! is this a documentary or a comedy this is hilarious

  77. such a good doc. but for the love of god learn to say 'nuCLE-AR'. not 'nu CU-Lar'!!!

  78. I just finished watching The Primacy Of Conciousness. French Toasty if you felt like you were the ball for a tennis match between Vlatko and Achems, you would quite possibly feel like you're playing golf with a few buddies on this one. I actually liked that doc very much. I did not look at the comments to see what others have to say about it. What i like about your opinions is that you are open to discussion and you admit that you are open to changing your view if something valid came and shook your foundation and in a way you are searching for it in order to validate the foundation you own as truth for now. Others are set in cement in their knowledge based on what they read somehow somewhere sometime although they could be entirely right, they certainly could be entirely wrong.
    Primacy of Conciousness tells us that everything every one thinks might just be vapor.

    dive to the well of eternity
    then climb to the zenith of perpetuity
    the physical and the spiritual worlds can be
    two squares too square ?
    they can turn into an O
    if they spin a round long enough
    az

  79. @French Toasty,

    You say: It is true that I cannot say with certainty that common ancestry *is not* a fact. However, you likewise cannot say with certainty that it *is* an unquestionable fact because it has not been directly observed. As I have repeated, and will not repeat again, accepting this as a fact implies an act of faith in a non-observed conclusion of science.

    Things don't have to be directly observed to be proven when it comes to science.

    You really can't observe that the Earth is sphere? But it is. It was proven way before the man launched the first satellite. It's unquestionable fact.

    You can't observe a real Dinosaur, since they're extinct, but you know there were roaming the Earth. You have fossil records.

    You can't observe that the deepest spot in the Ocean is 11km, but it is. It's unquestionable fact. Proven by science.

    And there are thousands of examples like these...

    1. Scientists are like detectives. You encounter a murder scene. You did not observe the murder but the clues left behind can tell you how it happened, why it happened, when it happened etc.

    2. well, maybe - but we have dinosaur bones and if you go round the earth, you wind up where you started. But there is no common ancestor per se - it is only a hypothesis. It hasn't been proved and in fact, gene transposition suggests it may be false. The common ancestor (singular) relies on the idea that most genes are in common with other species. But that demands the vertical transmission of genes. In fact, more than half of gene transmission is horizontal - microbes just swap them freely.

      It doesn't say anything about ID, but it, and a lot of other research lately, have undercut the Modern Synthesis of evolution. that doesn't mean that evolution is false - it means our particular version of it is false. We really do not understand it. We only thought we did. There is no particular reason why a 'cosmic consciousness' could not be taking part in the evolutionary track. Most of the great physicists beleived in something like that - or at least they wrote essays to that effect - 'God is a mathematician.'

      Still - biblical creationism is pretty stupid.

  80. @French Toasty,

    How do you know that "Common ancestry" is not a fact. You've must have been reading it somewhere. Is there any scientific peer review that invalidates this "fact"? If yes where is it? Remember, The Bible and creationist silly BS CDs, books and websites are not peer review.

    It is apparent that you (and all the other religious people) have a problem ONLY with the evolution and the big bang. Everything else is fine but these two things are really bothering you. Why? Because except these two things, everything else is not confronting the religious texts. Isn't that hypocritical from your side? For everything else you "trust" the science but when it comes to evolution NO. It's kind of silly if you honestly look at it.

    With this way of thinking you're implying that the scientific community is deliberately misguiding the people when it comes to Common ancestry. Like if there is some conspiracy dark plot to enforce this theory into the minds of the ordinary people. This is also silly if you think about it, honestly.

    1. It is true that I cannot say with certainty that common ancestry *is not* a fact. However, you likewise cannot say with certainty that it *is* an unquestionable fact because it has not been directly observed. As I have repeated, and will not repeat again, accepting this as a fact implies an act of faith in a non-observed conclusion of science. The buden of proof is on anyone who believes common ancestry as fact. I do not have to invalidate the view - but you must validate it beyond question for it to truly be a fact.

      I do not necissarily have a problem with the big bang. It is a conclusion also inferred by science, and is even a possible view of the religion that I believe in. It is also possible that if we can peer deep enough into space that we might find even more convincing evidence of the big bang. That is not to say that I agree with it completely, or that I agree with it being taught in our shcools, but I will say that it does not conflict with my view, and I thus do not have as big a problem with it as I might otherwise. I exhibit the faith to believe a big bang was possible, and that is all. Other people whose views conflict with the big bang and do not have the faith to accept it as truth *will* have a very large problem with it. Either way, it too is still not yet an observable fact, and by accepting it as fact at *this point in time* is subscribing to a dogma. Big bang is not yet an unquestionable fact whether we believe it or not. Back to evolutionary thought - currently my faith cannot leap to the point of accepting common ancestry as a fact, while I find myself able to somewhat accept the idea of the big bang, and that is all there is to it.

      Again, I have my own views - I cannot prove them and I do not have to. But you must admit that you are in the same position as I am, no matter what you believe, and you cannot prove your own views unquestionably as fact. If you can, please do so in a way that I can observe totally unquestionably.

      All I am saying in the end is that no matter what you believe about the creation of the universe and life, the possiblity remains that ANY OF US COULD BE CORRECT. You must choose your worldview, and I must choose mine, and we can as of yet prove neither of them as unquestionably correct. Promoting them as truth and trying to convince others of the truth *we* see for *ourselves* is something we ALL do. *Forcing* them upon others is a grave error, which is what I am saying I see happening in our school systems. Either teach ONLY literal observable truth, or give equal opportunity to ALL currently known possibilities.

      I am done replying. (collective sigh of relief from everybody else - lol) I do not wish to start an argument, I only enjoy friendly debate. I feel what we have here is almost to the point of being unkindly argumentative and so I will withdraw. Calling another possibly valid opinion 'silly' is not much in line with keeping an open mind. You are welcome to think of me as hypocritical or silly if you so desire, and you might be correct. That is a conclusion you must reach on your own. I honestly feel that if you have any further questions about my points that you will find the answer for yourself by examining all of my previous replies.

      I will not post again. I only ask, as always, that each of you reading challenge everything - please keep a truly open mind. Cheers!

    2. Come on, are you bowing out in defeat? It was just getting interesting, do not be so sensitive. You have been polite, and so have we, why, I didn't even call you a religee.

      You leave us in suspense, not really knowing what it is you really believe in, is it some kind of new religion? You say you do not discount the BB and go along with most science, but you do not believe in evolution per sa, do you believe in a 6000 year old Earth maybe? What religion from the thousands of religions, and what god from the millions of gods do you believe in?

  81. @French Toasty,

    You said: For example, when a scientist promotes to me the idea of something like common ancestry as *truth,* it is not because it is the truth, it is simply a part of the dogma he has created for himself by accepting a conclusion of researchers as fact..

    The point is that no one is promoting those ideas to you. Not at least in the same way religion "promotes" its ideas. No one is preaching on Sundays in a temple about "Common ancestry" and no one is running from door to door to convert people to believe in "Common ancestry". Simply you can totally ignore it if you just decide. However you can read about it if you go to college or if you visit some library.

    "Common ancestry" didn't came out of blue, without any support whatsoever. Hundreds of researchers in various fields are finding evidence on a daily basis that strongly support the idea of common ancestry, and (this is very important) IF they find one shred of evidence that invalidates that idea they will be the first to tell the world about it.

    To sum up. Scientists do not create dogma. In this case all the data available up to this moment strongly support the idea of common ancestor, whether you like that or not.

    You can say again that it is just another a dogma (in a philosophical way), but yet you have to explicitly show us that conclusions of those researches are not facts.

    1. @Vlatko ~ Common ancestry has support. That does not make it a fact. I would say that *some* scientists do not create dogma. Other scientists promote their findings in such a way that they are accepted as 'fact' which is indeed the very definition of creating dogma, because their conclusions are not directly observed and are not conclusive proof yet are still accepted as fact.

      I do not have to show us that conclusions of various researches are not facts. *The burden of proof is not on me.* Many many scientific ideas accepted as facts *are not proven,* and thus the burden of proof rests upon promoters of these ideas. With all due respect, this is not debatable.

      You say 'no one is promoting those ideas to you.' I wholeheartedly disagree, and this is the very reason I posted in this thread in the first place. No matter whether I look in much of our public and private school systems or into much of the media that is presented to us, I see many ideas (such as common ancestry) being openly promoted (or at least implied) to all people as a FACT. As I have already demonstrated, believing in common ancestry takes faith in an inferred conclusion, and is NOT an observed fact.

      By promoting common ancestry over other possible views within our modern institutions, it boils down to the same thing as promoting divine creation or alien involvement in our coming into existence. *I would not support any of those ideas being taught to my child as factual in our schools* or some priest beating on my door telling me how he has the 'truth,' and indeed, neither would many of you. One may *convince* me of a view, but that is my choice to accept or deny. Don't force it upon me. Before I forget, let me also say that I do not want my view taught in the school system.

      And thus I exhibit great displeasure in the idea that my child's teachers are promoting to him the evolutionary idea of common ancestry as a supposed 'fact' over all others, an act no less ridiculous than marrying religious conclusions into our common school teachings.

      I think I make a valid point. Please consider this carefully. :)

  82. @French Toasty:

    You never gave any "logical" reasons, all suppositions.

    For one thing, the reason you can look out into the cosmos and observe the past due to the properties of light in the first place, is because while visible light has a wavelength of a few ten-millionths of a meter, our Sun radiates at all wavelengths, but is most intense at visible light spectrum. So, by "evolution" our eyes "evolved" in that range because that is the range most available to them.

    The only faith most people of science accept is the world of "facts" and the world of constant change of scientific theories, data, experiments, always upwards mobility. But facts themselves never change in the now. And we all live in the now only, do we not?

    And of understanding the past, which past are you talking about?
    The past and the future are always subject to probabilities.
    Q physics tell us that no matter how thorough our observations of the present, the (unobserved) past, like the future, is indefinite and exists only as a spectrum of possibilities. The universe, according to Q physics, has no "single," past or history. The observations you make on a system in the present affect its past.

    That is why "if" time travel to the past is at all viable will "never" get anyone to the past as they think they know it. The past will lead to infinite different pasts and the same with infinite "future" probabilities.

    You say you only believe what you can observe, what can you observe of modern technology, can you observe how your computer actually works?
    Are you looking at how the analog "0"'s and "1" form electrical signals in the computer to make your typed sentences? No, you are taking a big leap of faith that it will.

    So, as you said, "religion gives me the explanation of these behaviours"
    Tell me which religious book/books, that it was written in?

    1. @Vlatko ~ I apologize for the apparent spam - my last comment was meant as a reply to over the edge, yet somehow seems to be accepted by the website as a new comment. My reply to you was apparently taken as a reply properly, and I am not sure how this comment will go through, so apologies in advance if it is improperly taken.

      @Achems ~ For my own view, I only stated suppositions that *I* concluded as logical. You may disagree!

      Science does indeed deal with observed facts as you stated. However, my point is that much of science depends on *supposed* facts. Also, your statements about the past and time travel are very valid - this means that our view of the past represents only one possibility, which changes as science advances.

      And as for observing my computer function, you are indeed correct that I am not truly observing it and that I am having faith in certain scientific ideas of which I am observing only the evidence. I find myself able to exhibit this faith with ease.

      Yes, religion gives me *AN* explanation of human behaviors, and does not necessarily explain in detail all of these behaviors. As to which book I find myself most in agreement with, I do not wish to say. It would only promote argument about how I can prove this book, which I cannot do. I simply find this book's ideas as the most logical *to me.* If someone else wishes to have a religious view, they will agree with the book or other teachings of the religious view *they* are most in agreement with.

  83. Arguing about Science and Religion is *almost* like arguing about women and men. A very interesting topic with over 1400 comments and surely more to come.
    This thread is interesting to follow, more so than the film itself!
    az

  84. I very much respect your position, even if I may disagree on certain points! I would only point out one thing here. Religious beliefs right or or wrong, as you stated, are not science.

    However *is* believing in conclusions inferred by the world of science truly scientific either?... as they are not directly observed? Interesting question! I do not ask this to start an argument or mean any disrespect at all, only to give people a question to really think about.

    I too would never try to change your beliefs, so I humbly ask that for you to please not take my statements in the wrong way. I only wish to encourage open thought.

    1. yes non observed conclusions are science. as long as they are peer reviewed and the tests backing the conclusion are repeatable. the definitions of science,evolution,theory..... are well laid out and have to be followed. the rules are in place to prevent or limit science from being hijacked. in order for an opposing view to be scientific it has to follow the rules. now an idea that is not scientific doesn't automatically make it wrong but the rules of science are not up to interpretation nor are they flexible they are rigid and cold. now i respect you openness and willingness to learn but you are trying to pound a square peg into a round hole.

  85. @French Toasty,

    You make one big mistake. You want to understand and present science as a dogma, not as a tool. Science is not an organized belief system to whom you have to bow in order to gain. It's a very useful tool which tries to explain various phenomena (space, earth, animals, humans, etc.). In that process, it makes mistakes, corrects itself, offers several solution for one problem, etc.

    Science is combined effort of hundreds of thousands of people around the world, who are trying to explain and understand the world we live in, through out the last 3000-4000 years.

    Those people are responsible for almost EVERYTHING you "know", "do", "think". You use the fruits of their efforts every second of your life (electricity, transport, everything in your home including your PC, etc).

    Now, science never claims that owns all definitive answers to everything. Religion does.

    Those two are so different that are truly incomparable. But you still try to compare them.

    It's very easy to spot the sense of insecurity in you. You simply can't think of standing on something which is constantly changing and doesn't have all the answers. You just prefer to believe in a deity to whom you'll pass the responsibility for everything.

    1. I would agree that science is most certainly a tool. I would agree that science is responsible for many of the things I believe. To accept conclusions of modern science as 'reasonable' makes logical sense (as I think anyone would agree). Still, so many of science's conclusions are unproven.... to be *truly* scientific and accept various conclusions as only likely possibilities (as science is supposed to do), the result is that you may have no dogma, but you also have no definitive truth beyond what you can directly observe either - which in itself is a position some (very few) people can accept. When we *do* accept any inferred conclusion of science AS truth, we then are creating a dogma for ourselves by accepting a view as authoritative (factual). This dogma might change upon new discoveries, but we are still creating a dogma. This is how one can compare what is most often seen as a supposedly 'scientific' worldview with a 'religious' one. For example, when a scientist promotes to me the idea of something like common ancestry as *truth,* it is not because it is the truth, it is simply a part of the dogma he has created for himself by accepting a conclusion of researchers as fact.

      I would also disagree that religion offers a definitive answer to everything. Rather, my veiw is that it offers a possible answer to everything. I do not accept that answer as definitive unless I truly believe that that answer is accurate and authoritative, thus making it my dogma. Certainly many religious people will *present* their view as the definitive answer (just as many 'scientific' people will present their own view as 'truth'), but that is a choice they have made for themselves, and is a choice we all must make for ourselves. Truth is a highly individualized concept apart from what we can all directly observe.

      I have chosen a theist and religiously-oriented view, and I am responsible for making that choice! Anyone else is free to choose a different view if they so desire. That does not as of yet make any of us truly correct... or incorrect!

      Mind-boggling. :)

  86. @Epicurus ~ I am sure you will find my reply to your previous post in the following pages!

    @everyone else ~ I would like to make one final point, and then I will shut up. Really! lol If you read all of the previous comments, you might conclude religion as an illogical choice. I will now attempt to give a logical reason to accept religion, the 'rationale for religion' if you will.

    By accepting a worldview as presented by science, you are truly exhibiting faith whether you will admit it or not, just as I am by accepting a religious view. Yet consider if you will the idea of understanding the past. I tend to accept the idea that we can look out into the cosmos and literally observe the past due to the properties of light, a thought which amazes me to no end! However, when we attempt to peer into the past on *our* planet, we can only observe certain evidences - many evidences we also conclude are lost due to the ravages of time and the elements and such like. Accepting science's worldview of the past means that we are having faith in a great many of mankind's inferrred conclusions.

    Now consider our ability to peer into the future. We might reasonably predict with some accuracy what will happen tomorrow, or next week, or maybe even next year by observing the evidences of the present. However, our degree of predictive accuracy decreases significantly the farther we try to look into the future. My view is that the same is true of *earth's* past. The farther we try to look back, the more inferred conclusions we make, and thus the farther back we try to go, the possibility that we are accurate significantly diminishes. This gives me great pause in truly accepting many of the views presented by modern science. This is also a reason why religious people accept modern technology since we can observe it, but are less likely to accept the various conclusions of the scientific world about the past.

    Religion however, gives me something different. I have stated elsewhere that the behavior of mankind is one of the most illogical things we observe. Religion gives me an explanation of these behaviors. These are things such as exhibiting love, jealousy, competitiveness, hatred, how they all work, and indeed in the end the very state of myself, and of mankind today. I find these explanations *extremelely* believable, as I observe the display of religous conclusions around me every single day of my life in my interactions with fellow man and in observing the rest of mankind. The science of phsychology only seems to present more evidence that these 'religious' conclusions are correct *in my eyes,* and many religous people thusly see phsychology as showing what they already knew to begin with.

    When historical events suggested by the religious text of my choice are also evidenced by modern science (even by inferred conclusions), it gives me more reason to believe that this text may be accurate. Now, my choice of text also presents ideas about history that may seem fantastical, and indeed they are - even I must accept the possibility that they are inaccurate. However, the apparent accuracy of so many other points contained in the text makes me think twice! And indeed, though many of these ideas are fantastical or supposedly inaccurate, the key point is that though science may suggest a seemingly more likely possibility, science has not truly *invalidated* these ideas by conclusively proving otherwise - again, we cannot directly observe *earth's* past, so we have no real PROOF of anything, we only have evidence with which we infer conclusions.

    You must admit that the idea of a creator (of your choice) placing life into our world is really no less fantastical than the idea that life arose from inanimate matter or that aliens brought life to our planet. We can prove none of those things. However many of the conclusions of my religious text of choice certainly seem to have merit (again, in how we observe human behavior and our own behaviors and perceptions), and the historical ideas and conlusions have yet to be invalidated. The fact that the scientific world so often shows itself to be inaccurate by rejecting old conclusions and accepting new conclusions again leads me to have hesitation in accepting the worldview current science offers. Due to all of these things, for MYSELF, religion makes for a very logical choice. You, or anyone, is free to choose otherwise. I simply choose the religious text that I feel most closely agrees with what we observe in mankind today and most closely matches scientific suppositions about the past.

    Consider these things very carefully, and as always I encourage you to challenge everthing and to have an open mind! Cheers to all!

    1. i am not and will not try to change your beliefs. but i will defend science. i find it interesting that you see sciences willingness to change or update itself as the evidence demands as a weakness. i find the willingness of science to do that one of its greatest strengths and the opposite one of religions greatest weaknesses. in our debate a couple of times you modified your view based on evidence given and i voiced my respect for that ability. religious beliefs right or wrong are not science (that is a fact) science tries to define the natural world by natural means and god by definition is supernatural and therefore not scientific. there are way too many religious people out there to try to debate all so i pick my fights and my personal threshold is as long as religion stays out of science class/my home/ is not the driving force in politics (i accept it will be there tho)/does not misrepresent science / and is not forced on anybody or used to discriminate i let it be.

  87. Very deep. One thing I do believe in from the bible is proper spelling.

  88. Instead of making mockery of everything connected to religion,people should apppreciate those books and try to derive wisdom through them. for ex.

    Imagine how many atheist would have laughed at buddhism concept of parellel universes,but now they listen and debate the M theory with all seriousness.

    or for ex.RIG VEDA talks abt Hiranyagarbha(Cosmic egg) and Bindu sphota(Big bang) in 2500BC,but now we spend hell lot of money on LHC to
    study the Big Bang.

    or when an anciect sect Ajivika says that Time is a cosmic illusion,many would have laughed at them but now we understand that TIME is not what it seems.

    In darkness a rope can a mistrued as a snake but when there is light, the misconception stands corrected.and it really doesn't matter wheather you are a believer or non believer if you really wants to see the truth then understand the power of 'AUM'.

    Regards
    Anurag Awasthi
    India

  89. I respect this view, but of course I cannot accept some of these statements as unquestionable facts, since as I have stated, the conclusions required to support them are inferred and not observed.

    Again, thanks Vlatko for allowing healthy discussion and sharing within the confines of these threads! I hope that if nothing else, we can agree to disagree.

  90. @ Achems Razor & over the edge

    I suppose my underlying point is that mankind does not know as many immutable, uninferred facts as we think we do.

    I have also said pretty much all I desired to about the subjects at hand. Please know that even though we may disagree, I certainly respect you both and your opinions! Cheers!

  91. Here is a nice quote:

    It is time for students of the evolutionary process, especially those who have been misquoted and used by the creationists, to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.

    It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.

    It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.

    It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.

    It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.

    It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different.

    Birds arose from nonbirds and humans from nonhumans.

    No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

  92. In reply to @French Toasty:

    You don't have to prove any belief system at all, just as I do not have to prove the tooth fairy, santa clause, spiderman etc: exist.

    Because all they are is beliefs, just making small talk. Talking in the wind.

    But you are saying that your beliefs should have merit in the scientific community, are you not?

    That is why you have the burden of proof to show why your beliefs have scientific merit by the scientific method, not by circular logic in a bunch of outdated books written in the bronze age. Until you can do that, trying to marry religion and science is moot!

    1. Yes, I will admit to you that I have my beliefs! But no, just as I have tried to make clear that not all current scientific ideas truly have scientific merit, I cannot assert that all of my beliefs have scientific merit either. Many of my beliefs rest upon simple faith, which is not scientific at all, and many ideas I have cannot in any way be scientifically proven. I could attempt to *convince* you of my beliefs, but I cannot prove them to you. I am forced to admit that other possibilities exist beyond those that I believe in.

      This is why I would not even make an attempt to 'prove' my beliefs, and have no reason to accept the burden of proof. However, neither do I accept a great deal of supposed scientific 'facts,' as they too cannot yet be proven.

      Bottom line: I make conclusions, just as all people, based on inferences. This is a fallacy in rational human thinking, and this does not mean my personal views are truly correct, but they certainly remain open scientifically as a possibility as I have yet to see any scientific proof that invalidates them.

      Now does that make me a fool to believe something? Maybe so, but by this same concept, we are all fools to a certain degree! No disrespect is intended, but I hope you see the point I am trying to make! :)

    2. Scientific facts are just that, "facts" just as the Earth rotates around the Sun, and the Moon rotates around the Earth, and so on.

      Believe what you will, I do not really care. Not trying to do any reforming here.

      This discussion is going no-where so will bow out for now. Nice talking to you.

    3. It is better to have no fear in expressing your thoughts than follow the crowd of what was said just to fit in a mold. stay active in the presenthave no regrets for the pastbut especially no fears for the futureit is not there yet it can always changecontemplate in beliefevery new things should be alienthere is a first to everything in every 1be proud when it is your timeto learn from some 1from blind nest to know ledgereflect on your words and reactionsan opinion is never a facta fact is an opinionbased on a personal or communalexperience of an experimentuntil abolished or invalidatedremember the futureimagine the pastyou will reverse the adversityallowing every 1 to give a bit of witevery 1 happy to get a bit of wagfrom human gray matteri have called myselfan atheist of science and religioni have seen both as dogmastrying to control the opinion of the massesuntil invalidated, abolished or surpassedi am a pragmatist for a period on ia converted to the rebounds of my minduntil validated as a bowl of s***aza poet in her free time

  93. @french toasty
    here is an example of the third definition i gave (by the way it is not my definition but sciences definition) look up the long term e-coli evolution experiment it is 100% observed. i promise this is the last time i bring this next point up but you again say your beliefs are in line with science but again say it is not important to inform us of your beliefs. i honestly believe the root for your views are not only important but necessary to the discussion but as i said i will not ask again.

    1. I have looked up the long term e-coli evolution experiment as you have recommended, and will agree with you completely that it is 100% observed and can be accepted as fact.

      After closely examining the third definition of evolution you cited - "3 the appearance over long periods of time of new taxonomic groups of organisms from preexisting groups," I think I can admit a mistake and agree that this experiment can confirm this as well! Very observant!

      HOWEVER this does not do anything to prove the idea of common ancestry or the idea that all species evolved from previous species. Common ancestry is a probable possibility, yes. Still, the conclusion that common ancestry truly exists and that ALL species are a result of evolution remains an inferred conclusion and thus cannot in any way be accepted as fact. Again, any attempt to use results from the experiment you mention, along with other currently known data, as indisputable proof of common ancestry is an exercise in circular reasoning. This means that *some* ideas presented by modern science about evolution are indeed fact, yet others (such as common ancestry) are only unproven theories and should never be promoted as a given fact. The idea that all known species evolved from previous species and have common ancestry is without doubt a *theory* only, and there still remains a very real possibility that other explantions for the formation of all known species exist! We should not fail to explore as many of these possibilities as we can!

      As for my beliefs, all I will say is that I completely and totally accept *proven scientific facts and laws.* I refuse to blindly accept ANY currently existing theory or inferred conclusion as fact. Doing so is refusing to adhere to scientific principles.

      I hope I have clarified myself adequately, and my key points still remain valid. Science has not given any directly observable proof of common ancestry OR the existence of all known species as a result of evolution. This is what infuriates me to no end about the promotion of these ideas as fact!

      This thought has enormous implications about other vast bodies of scientific work as well, as we all too often make the leap of accepting inferred conclusions as fact. Question everything, and accept nothing completely without direct and observable proof! Explore the possibilities! This is the very heart of science, is it not?

    2. i think we have taken you debate as far as it can go and i will respectfully walk away at this point at least for a while. i fear we will end up arguing semantics (both of us not an intended insult) enjoyed the talk but a break for now at least

  94. @over the edge, or anyone else that cares to join this debate ~

    Your statements do not invalidate the point stated in my earlier post - this is the key concept, as you cannot prove what I termed advanced evolution.

    Even in some of the extraneous examples you mention such as the ice age, our conclusions are NOT immutable facts. We infer that the ice age happened because of the evidence we see, however we did not literally observe the ice age occur. To dismiss the notion that any other possible explanation exists at all for 'ice age' evidence is to deny scientific possibilities and believe, as so many throw in my face, a possible fairy tale of our own contrivance (no disrespect intended if you do not agree). Now, Hawaii itself is debatable, since we HAVE literally observed new land mass formatinon through volcanic activity. This activity is not inferred, we can literally observe it happening. Take a different idea, such as the theory of general relativity. It is one of the most grand theories ever devised, but it is NOT an immutable fact since it cannot be proven as observable truth in every know application.

    It does not matter what I believe, and it does not matter how many churches or other organizations have chosen to accept advanced evolution as fact. It is NOT provable, observable fact. Just as you might ask a creationist to prove God's existence, so too I might ask you to prove evolution. The only way you will be able to do this through literally observable processes is for a known species to undergo advanced evolution with us as immediate onlookers.

    I find it strange how an opposing viewpoint such as my own can in any way be conceived of as contrary to scientific methodology. The burden of proof does not rest upon me, and the the only fact that remains is that advanced evolution is a theory since it cannot be proven as correct in every situation. There are any number of other theories that could be correct, and this will remain a given about ANY theory until science can prove the theory and thus transform theory into law. Consider this very carefully.

    On a side note - Epicurus, if you are reading this, I am curious to know your opinions! :)

    1. you are right i cannot prove the theory of evolution 100%. but if you read the scientific definition of evolution i quoted i can prove that. the reason i asked for your belief is that like i said in a previous post the fact something is possible doesn't make it probable. science cannot look into every idea it has to narrow itself to ideas with the most evidence. as i and others have pointed out religion is not science. you are coining your own terms changing the definition of evolution and then pointing out the flaws with your terms and definition to say evolution is flawed. at first i thought it was an honest mistake now i am not so sure it is not on purpose. then you say "I find it strange how an opposing viewpoint such as my own can in any way be conceived of as contrary to scientific methodology" and then say "It does not matter what I believe" how can anyone point out how your views are contrary to the scientific methodology if you don't give your views? and if (i am assuming now) your views are based on the bible i have pointed out some of the contradictions with science and i am more than willing to point out more if that is your view and you address the ones i pointed out already.

    2. If my scientific understanding is correct, you would likely only be able to prove the first two definitions for evolution you listed, not the third - the third is based on inferred conclusions and cannot be accepted as an immutable fact. Any reasoning that attempts to prove otherwise boils down to circular reasoning.

      I would agree though with the idea that this third definition of evolution you listed is a *probable possiblility.*

      On top of that, I would even admit that some of my own views ARE inferred conclusions which do in fact run contrary to scientific methodology.

      There is no need to change the subject to my own beliefs. It still does not matter what I believe - the fact is that it is quite possible that we are both wrong. We each infer conclusions we see as probable, not provable. You say that science cannot look into every possibility, which is fine. However science cannot blindly accept it's own inferred conclusions to be fact, *even if* they are probable conclusions. Science demands direct observation to understand immutable facts and laws that are not based on our own possibly faulty inferences.

      This is correct, yes? Very interesting debate!

    3. Right! GR cannot be proven in all applications.
      But since everything derives from the "quanta" not the macro.

      The quantum field theory is the most precise in all of physics.

      And precision tests of quantum mechanics Re: Smithsonian/NASA Astrophysics Data System.

      And yes, the burden of proof does rest on you, since you are presenting a "belief system" devoid of even one shred of scientific evidence.

    4. I must say, I find quantum studies extremely exciting! It is a subject I definitely have a limited understanding of, and I eagerly await scientific findings concerning quantum mechanics and theory!

      I must disagree that the burden of proof rests upon me. What belief system have I presented in this thread that I must prove?

    5. okay, lets leave science and get philosophical.

      if you claim we cant know something unless we witness it, then we might as well claim we cant know even what we witness since our senses can be flawed. many times i have perceived something that was not actually how it happened. so now we cant know anything except of course that "I" exist since i cant doubt that i exist since you must exist to doubt.

      lol fun.

      but my actual position is that even if you want to be completely black and white and say we cant know it 100% it is still the most supported. it is certainly open to any scrutiny by anyone. it has thus far survived 150 years of some of the most rigorous tests and attempts to refute.

      it seems not only unlikely that it is false but also illogical to hold any position over it. it would be like insisting disease is caused by demons and not germs and cured by exorcism and prayer not medicine.

      however i would still like to challenge you to think of ANYTHING you can know 100% and if you cant know anything 100%, is the following statement true: we can never know anything 100%.

  95. @ Wes B

    I didn't mean to come off arrogant, simply put I don't get why creationism is even a debatable topic. It's as valid as any other religious view, as scientific as astrology, and a cause for people to waste enough time in counter-productive arguments. Creation "theory" is a religious crutch for people to lean on because they don't want to accept that they will be worm food when they die. Just because the "exact" proof you need to see to prove evolution as fact hasn't been found yet doesn't mean a god/s had to be the kick-starter. We have been on the verge of countless scientific discoveries(steam engine, direct current electricity, rockets) without fully understanding the exact science behind it. Following a blind belief that some dude up stairs did this is as awesome as the ancient egyptians believing in dog and bird and goat headed dudes having sex with each other and pulling the sun across the sky in a canoe. They built(or found) some wicked monuments in the desert, but they lived their entire lives wasting their money and labour on meaningless toils preparing to meet "whatever" on the other side. All for what. Creationism is and will always be another pointless debate on the extremely long list on pointless debates we have as a society/super-organism. I could argue Gaia hypothesis with you, or whats wrong with being a vegetarian, or global warming, and non of it would be worth the time of either of us. top 12 most commented docs on tdf are creationist or anti-creationist docs, piled long down the page with 1000's of comments about if or if not there is a god. its amazing how much people can get into it, me included, but when it comes down to it, one of the reasons we are destroying our planet is because a large chunk of the world needs a whole lot of stuff all the time, and we're so busy being inside our little god believing bubble to ever really see whats happening before its too late. religion at its core is meant to keep you looking down your whole life, just accept the story we give you, blah. and hey, to be fair, i also dont get religious fence sitters, people that dont know what to believe or let it be considered acceptable to have religious freedom. when will religion become extinct? yeah, time machine me to then, i wanna live in a society where people dont believe in any degree of religion. they only believe in the advancement of human intellect, the art of war, and death by snu snu.

    1. No, I didn't think that you were being arrogant. That's exactly what I have been driving at. Both are theory. Both require a certain amount of "faith" because both sides have un-observable contentions. The debate between evolution and creation can go on and on because both sides have a biased motive with the information each provide. All anyone can do is take all of the information from both sides and draw their own conclusions.

      I personally see more flaws in macro-evolution than not. Mainly similarities do not constitute common ancestry, it can infer it, but not prove it because nobody has seen a species evolve into another species. Genetic similarities between same species like humans and apes are to be expected because we are both mammals and the chromosome 2 debate raises a great point in favor of evolution but it's also being refuted by Christian and secular scientists alike.

      Then I always go back to the beginning. The idea of this energy that contains all of the building blocks of our universe cannot be created, brings any rational person through deductive reasoning to conclude that because it cannot be created and because we know that it exists, means that it must have always existed. Now when this energy exploded (big bang) it created a process of growth and development to create an intricate, complex and seemingly intentional chain of events to perfectly create life and the laws and functionality of our universe as we know it today. I believe that as a rational and logical thinker it is very irrational and illogical to believe that an explosion of energy by itself with no 'intelligent' direction can create anything but chaos. Such chaos of this magnitude(the perfect organization of our universe) is such an infinitesimally small probability that design is a valid point to make.

      To put it in another way. It is highly improbable to believe that if we took all of the energies, matter, atoms, materials, molecules, etc. of everything that made up New York City's physical and biological (trees, grass, animals, etc.) structure, put it in a pile and exploded it, we would get New York City as we see it. Now you could say that over time, billions of years, NYC developed into what it is today. But the likelihood of that is still highly improbable due to the complexity of NYC. Instead we know that NYC is the way it is today because it was intentionally designed that way. We can see how it was designed and the complexity of it, which makes us say, "Wow, what an intelligent design that is."

      Then we ask ourselves, "What kind of designer was/is this," thus we see religion and philosophy enter the picture.

      But again, that's just the way I see it based on all of the information I have gathered.

  96. After reading the discussion between WesB and Epicurus, I would like to present at least one issue I have with the idea of evolution and it's supporters. The bottom line is that I am simply tired of a theory so often being pushed on dissenters as a fact.

    First what is evolution? To avoid confusion, I will just use layman's terms and split this into two categories, basic evolution and advanced evolution. A short definition of what I term basic evolution, is nothing more than speciation. This is the idea that one species can arise from another through processes we generally term as adaptation or mutation. As I understand it, this definition of evolution has been literally observed in plants. It is suggested in animals, but plants is good enough for me. Due to these observations, I have little trouble accepting basic evolution as a fact.

    Now, my issue lies with what I have termed advanced evolution. This concept is taught in modern science, and is the idea that all species that ever existed speciated, or evolved, from an earlier species. The idea rests upon many principles, but the one I take issue with here is common ancestry. If this concept is true, then it follows that a chimpanzee might be my ancestor, another organism would be his ancestor, and so on until we arrive at the first ancestor - the first form of life that existed and is supposedly the common ancestor of every living organism. I don't think I need to really explain this, we all know how this is supposed to work, right?

    So do scientists! They observe the facts found in DNA, they observe the facts found in physical appearance, biology, the fossil record, and so forth until you have the total sum of the facts cited as evidence by modern scienctists. The scientists then use these facts to draw the conclusion that common ancestry is a logical conclusion. And there you have it. This is the crux of my issue.

    You see, this conclusion is drawn from the facts. However the conclusion itself is not drawn from a direct observation of common ancestry, rather it is an inference. You must admit that ANY inferred conclusion cannot in any way be considered an immutable fact, much less a proof. You can make many merry rings of circular reasoning and accept this conclusion as fact if you like, but in all honestly this places the idea of common ancestry at best firmly within the realm of theory. And as theories go, I do not see this as a particularly airtight one. There are many other possible explanations for the similarites that are exhibited in the facts. We would be doing ourselves and science as a whole a great disservice by dismissing other possibilities, and we would sadly be depriving ourselves of the excitement of exploring them! This does have some serious implications for the idea of advanced evolution as a whole, since it would be unlikely to stand without the concept of common ancestry.

    Regardless, advanced evolution *is* a possibility. But please do not try to force it upon anyone as a fact. I just wanted to point this out because I dislike what I have described as advanced evolution continuously being implied as fact by half the people I come across, as well as many scientific bodies, and even the media.

    If I am in error, someone please correct me!

    1. Thanks for this, it's pretty much what I've been trying to get at.

    2. first the scientific definition of evolution. "[ev??lo?o??sh?n]
      Etymology: L, evolvere, to roll forth
      1 a gradual, orderly, and continuous process of change and development from one condition or state to another. It encompasses all aspects of life, including physical, psychologic, sociologic, cultural, and intellectual development, and involves a progressive advancement from a simple to a more complex form or state through the processes of modification, differentiation, and growth.
      2 a change in the genetic composition of a population of organisms over time.
      3 the appearance over long periods of time of new taxonomic groups of organisms from preexisting groups. Kinds of evolution are convergent evolution, determinant evolution, emergent evolution, organic evolution, orthogenic evolution, and saltatory evolution. evolutionist, n.
      Mosby's Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier."
      ok that's out of the way. you are still confusing darwins theory (how evolution happens/happened ) and evolution (that it happens/happened).and not to pick but "a chimpanzee might be my ancestor" is not claimed by the theory of evolution only that we share a common ancestor. i know this sounds picky but these misconceptions are repeated on purpose by creationists as a last ditch effort to discredit evolution. now i am no way saying you are doing it on purpose. also a single first ancestor is not the only answer there could of been multiple original organisms. now you say because we didn't observe it we cannot claim it as fact. we didn't observe the last ice age but we accept it as fact, we didn't observe Hawaii being formed but we accept volcanic activity as the factual cause and so on. now on to the theory.the sheer volume of evidence and that it has stood up to all comers for over 150 years proves its robustness and within the scientific community it is almost universally accepted. even the roman catholic church had to accept evolution and they are not know for their progressive stance. to end you clearly do not accept evolution as the answer so please tell us what you believe? having one side of the debate is unfair.

    3. im only going to answer a couple things, since Valtko and over the edge pretty much covered what evolution was and what we know as a matter of fact.

      my question to you is, if not all life came from a single ancestor, then how did those species come to be? and why do they share the same basic genetic code?

      are you saying that some life spontaneously generates into existence very quickly in full form without taking slow gradual steps like evolution? if so, why?

      now i also want to take your argument that if we havent observed something we cant know it 100%.

      this is absolutely false. i do not have to have witnessed Jeffery Dahmer murder and eat his victims to know it happened. i can use evidence to point directly to him. if you want to get very specific we could use things like DNA and finger prints. the same works for other areas of life. we dont have to observe there was ocean water at one point covering Wadi Al-Hitan, Egypt. this is a fact we know this from evidence not from witnessing it.

      now this is the BEST example i can give you. evolution happens very slowly so unless you have the privilege to work with smaller organisms in a lab you wont get to see full on evolution, however you arent going to see a mountain form either for the same reason. the process is much to slow for us to observe in our life times. now we know tectonic plates push together and form mountains and we know this by studying the geology of the mountains and the chemistry of the rock as well as finding marine life from millions if not billions of years ago at the top which is more evidence that it was once flat ground and submerged. but you wouldnt suppose that mountains were just placed on earth and fossils are there to trick us (and i hope you wouldnt believe in noahs ark for a myriad of reasons we dont need to get into here lol)

      we have known about evolution for about 150 years. we have recorded history for maybe 10,000 years (more like 6,000) humans in general the way you know us today go back 195,000 years we have been here doing our thinking thing for only 200,000 years out of 4.4 billion. i would say we are pretty impressive with the amount of information we have gathered.

      i also find it very odd that the only issues in science that religious people have a problem with are, Cosmology (big bang and cosmic evolution), Biological evolution, and global warming.....(this last one seems mostly politically fueled i suppose)....why would scientists only be lying or so wrong in these three fields but everything else, like the science that gives them po tarts and tv and microwaves and nuclear weapons and satellites and cell phones and all that fun jazz, not to mention medicine......oh all that is fine, that doesnt go against the ancient fairy tale.

      PS sorry i cant focus too much attention on discussing here, im coming up on finals and i work all weekend...

    4. I can offer ideas about how speces came to be, sure! But I have no reason to, as I cannot prove any of them. Now, as to your examples, it might seem that you are correct. Knowing that science demands direct observation to devolop utterly unquestionable facts and laws, I ask you to consider my following points very, very carefully.

      I am not overly famililiar with the Dahmer case, but I too believe that it happened. However, you cannot unquestionably prove to me that he killed his victims or ate them since I am unable to observe it directly. Here's an interesting thought.

      To believe this, I am exhibiting faith. What!!?! Yes. I exhibit faith in the testimonies of various people, the conclusions of various people, and all the technologies and other things that might've been involved in this case. Does this make sense? It certainly does, but I have not reached this conclusion strictly scientifically.

      Back to the topic of common ancestry, mankind has not proven this as a fact as it has not been directly observed. It may make logical sense as a conclusion, BUT by accepting ancestry as a fact, a person is exhibiting faith in mankind's powers of deductive reasoning based on evidence.

      By following this idea to the extreme, you will understand that all of what a single person accepts as truth is a combination of what can be literally observed (fact) and a display of faith in any number of ideas, concepts, literature, speech, etc.

      No matter what one believes to be true, faith is an integral part of what each of us accept as truth, and we surely must accept that many of our conclusions are not truly scientific.

      I am short on time at the moment, so I will stop there for now. Deep stuff!

    5. i hate how i cant respond to replies if there have been a couple aready...it seems the reply button gets cut off by the border.

      anywho, i could come up with ideas how species would come about without evidence also but of course that would be a silly position to hold in contrast to any position that had even SOME evidence.

      now what you were saying about faith....the way we use the word faith as in i have faith my girlfriend wont cheat on me, or i have faith the scientists at NASA understand space, is VERY different from the use of the word faith in the context of faith in a god or faith the bible is correct.

      faith my girlfriend wont cheat is based on lots and lots of evidence still...i cant be certain of course but i have much more evidence to support it than a hindu person has to support their god or a christian etc. same goes with the NASA example.

      the use of faith when talking about god is basically just trust that the people who wrote the bible were telling the truth, in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary....as soon as you got to the part where woman was being made from a rib or a snake started talking you should put the book down and realize it is no more real than harry potter.

      now your problem with induction seems to be slightly flawed. again you dont have to witness an event to be sure it took place. your father is your father. you werent there for conception. however you could check DNA. you werent there but you know.

      now if we are to assume that everything is just faith then we have to ask what is the more LOGICAL position to take on faith or what requires the LEAST faith and has the MOST evidence....that is the position one ought to hold, and if evidence comes along to change the view then you just have to accept the new one. that is a lot harder to do when you just say something is on faith then refuse to accept the possibility of anything else (which of course i know you are not like)

    6. I quite agree with you on *most* of your statements, as usual!

      I would still say though, that nothing can be proven unquestionably without direct observation. The only way that we come to accept other things as truth is to make a conclusion after examining the evidence, and then accepting this conclusion as accurate. This inherently implies an act of faith by accepting an inferred conclusion, whether we made this conclusion ourselves or someone else made it. To beleive this conclusion is most assuredly an act of faith as we have not truly observed anything besides evidence.

      This is why each of us have our own 'truth,' and in the end our own worldview. I may be convinced of the accuracy of certain conclusions, while you may disagree and be convinced of different conclusions that conflict with my own. Now, even if one conclusion has more supporting evidence than another, it may seem more logical to choose that conclusion, but it does not prove it as a fact, and one must admit that other possibilites may exist. I think we could agree that it was possible for the earth to be a cube until we literally observed that it was spherical!

      Now, no matter how much evidence exists for a single conclusion, one cannot say that a different conclusion may eventually be found to be accurate. Scientific progress has shown this time and again. Thus if I refuse to accept ANY conclusion as accurate, it simply means I do not have enough faith to accept it. That would not make my own opposing view correct, but it certainly would not invalidate my opposing view either. To follow one of your examples, I could believe that my father is not my father if I so desire, and I could not unquestionably be proven wrong! To believe it as truth, I would have to exhibit faith in a inferred conclusion reached by examining various evidences, such as testimonies, blood and DNA tests, and so forth.

      In the end, and as it relates to the topic of evolution, I find myself unable to exhibit the faith to accept certain conclusions of evolutionary science, such as common ancestry. Maybe you can! Ironic, eh? ;)

      It follows though, that it is entirely inaccurate to promote common ancestry as FACT. As of yet, no one can prove it. Neither can I prove my own differing conclusions. Because I cannot accept common ancestry as fact, does that make me illogical? Very possible! But it does not inherently make me wrong!

      Many people laugh at the idea of faith, but it is a thing that we all use, whether we realize it or not. You have enough faith to accept one conclusion, while my faith recognizes another. The reason we differ is due to a lack of unquestionable proof. Indeed, anywhere you find a debate, you will find that it exists because neither side can truly prove their point. All we can do is try to convince each other that we are correct.

      I do not think I would be able to convince you that my conclusions are correct, and you may not be able to convince me that your conclusions are correct. And since we have no proof, neither of us would be unquestionably right or wrong. And at that point, what more is there to say? We must wait on one of us to accept a different conclusion, or for proof to be laid before us, which results in the end that we might for now agree to disagree.

      I am greatly enjoying this discussion, and Epicurus, know that I hold you in the highest regard for even considering what I have had to say!

  97. @ Epicurus420

    Ok, so then I suppose that my question ultimately comes down to this. Why is evolution still taught as theory and not as fact by secular scientists? What is missing in the evidence that leaves scientists who have no religious stake against evolution opposing it? Are they just that misinformed or do they have credible or valid reasons for their objection?

  98. Why we are aware and perceive is due to wavelengths. And electrical signals in our brains.

    A wave is simply energy that moves through a medium. This range is known as the "electromagnetic spectrum" from 10-6nm to 100km, a small portion that we see as visible light from 400 to 700 nanometers. That hit our retinas and light receptors..Re: chromatics.

    So yes, we are physically aware of the illusion of light and colours of our own making from our computer brains. Dogs and other animals, insects, see light in a different light, as in ultraviolet light etc: So on with sound waves et al.

    What we see, hear, smell and touch are nothing more than electrical signals in the cortex of our computer brains, we do not have a movie theater in our brains. And this includes all matter, our own bodies, et al.

    Basically all is illusion, as in Einstein Re: spacetime. So yes, there is way more out there that we cannot perceive due to our limitations.
    Upwards of 26 dimensions, M theory, parallel universe theory and new theories coming into vogue constantly.

    But have to say that science rules!! Period.

    1. We do have a movie theatre in our brain and it contains an unlimited library of films.

    2. You seem to have missed the rift of what I was saying.

      If we do have a library of films in our brain, than mine would be all X-rated (LOL)

    3. @Achems...If your rift was directed at me you should have attached it as a reply and be more explicit. You may think i am not smart enough for your big brain made of sexual dreams. That's ok. I'll never know you anyway and you me.
      I respect a lot of your comments on this forum and have seen quite a bit of your tantrums too, they do bring a smile here and there even if they are directed at me!
      I am always curious of people's ways of being. Your last one reminds me of a funny horny monkey in a zoo of words! LOL is right!
      Equanimity is easily attained with distance.
      az

    4. Now about my movie theatre...In a cinema you look at the screen and the film is not really on the screen; it is just a projection of shadow and light. The film exist at the back, that's where the projector is.
      What ever you see is just your perception of those electrical signals. But the real projector is at the back of the brain.
      Now i will be happy to learn anything intelligent someone wants to tell me about this....because learning is one of the reason i am here.
      az

    5. I only mentioned films, X-rated yes, didn't say nothing about sexual stuff, since you said "horny monkey in a zoo" thing you assumed that is what I meant.

      Yes, "most men" think of sex approx. every 27 seconds. And to keep this on topic, if there is any type of god, must be a horny mother f....!

  99. Let's say there are ants with a certain kind of awareness who are not aware there are people above them with a certain kind of awareness who are not aware there are planets above them with a certain kind of awareness who are not aware there are matters with a certain kind of awareness all around them....who is aware of what, when every one think they are aware of every thing? ...and they are not!

    1. thats a lovely thought but it is not how we understand objectively the world we live in or we could start just believing all kinds of silly things like
      "what if there are invisible fairies that live in our garden and make our flowers grow?"
      "what if the sun is the home of a magical unicorn?"

      its good to ask questions, but the questions ought to have some valid grounding and MUST be falsifiable and verifiable.

    2. The reason people have believed in fairies starting way back is simply because it is a belief that got spread, like angels and GOD which is the most spread belief and it is not falsifiable or verifiable but very much defended by many.
      Questions and affirmations were thought to be completely crazy ideas until they came to be accepted. In my view science seem to add a concluding truth to the past concluding truth constantly. The universe is expanding as fast as our ideas and conclusions of what the universe and ourself are.
      I agree with Achems...Science rules because it is the most interesting game played on this earth by the most dissective active minds...i call it The Game of Life and sometimes The Game of Love.
      az

  100. @the WesB & Ivan Topic discussion

    I also do not understand why the very idea of creation by intelligent design is so quickly dismissed... well, aside from the un-scientific things spouted by so many who do believe in intelligent design, which I feel are often grossly inaccurate and do little to support their cause. In the end, no one yet knows exactly how things began. Did the universe really begin with a big bang as we seem to think? If so, did an unseen (or visible for that matter) designer cause it and/or guide it's results? Or was it a result of some natural event that mankind has yet to understand or even discover? Either way, whatever might've existed before the beginning of our universe remains a mystery.

    Ivan seems to mention that intelligent design in itself is not science, which I can somewhat accept. However, consider that if intelligent design were to be true in the end (no matter who the designer(s) are and exactly what part was played by any designer in the formation of life and the universe as we know it), then science is simply a study of that designer's finished product and how it functions. If, shall we say, good ol' mother nature is the 'non-intelligent' designer, science is still a study of the finished product regardless.

    To me, real science will always reveal what is correct and true as long as we have a proper understanding and our scientific methods are accurate. Science can as yet neither prove nor disprove the presence or absence of a designer/creator. There are a lot of other things that science cannot yet prove or disprove. Thus, I do not think it is wise to completely discount ANY idea, whether this be some sort of intelligent design or creationism, a 'natural' big bang from the unknown, a 'brane' beginning such as suggested by string theory, or what have you. If any religion is accurate in it's account of 'the beginning,' it will eventually be proven or shown extremely likely by science. If no religion is accurate in it's account of the beginning, this too will eventually be shown by science.

    In my opinion, one should not dismiss an idea out-of-hand, even if it is unpopular or you do not agree with it. It only breeds closed-mindedness.

  101. Logging in again.

  102. I am not denying the fact that many creationists just say whatever kind of nonsense they wish in their attempts at refuting science. I happen to be a Christian and I love studying the ideas and concepts behind the big bang, micro evolution, string theory, etc.

    I don't claim to know enough to refute scientific findings however it seems as if the idea of intelligent design is too quickly dismissed. The basis for this dismissal to my understanding would be that intelligent design involves having faith in something that can not be seen and therefore can not be scientifically tested, ergo intelligent design is foolishness.

    The question then comes to mind however that in saying first there was nothing...nothing existed...nothing...at all.. and then there was a big bang from the nothing, and suddenly all that makes up, produces, grows and develops everything that did exist, does exist and will exist. This, to me, seems to require just as much faith as intelligent design, if not more.

    Now can someone please put me in my place on that hypothesis?

    1. I notice that you left out macro-evolution when stating ideas and concepts you enjoy studying. May I ask why that is?

      Intelligent Design is dismissed because it is not science and it was even ruled so by the courts.

      Regarding your last point. Science is, essentially, the study of everything. There are things we know to be true and things we don't. The big bang isn't supported by overwhelming evidence but it is supported by enough to make it a much more rational option than "god did it". I'd also like to you to show me where it states that there was nothing and that formed everything. I am not familiar with that argument other than from creationists. The most basic response I can give you is that an unknown is still an unknown and I treat it as such. To simply state that "god did it" to things you don't understand is to place your pre-determined convictions above logic and reason. An atheist doesn't say that it's impossible for god to exist, or 10 gods to exist, or 100 gods to exist. We simply state that there is no evidence for such a being(s) and therefore we don't believe in such a being(s). A prime example I can give you comes from the worlds most popular atheist, Richard Dawkins, who clearly states in his book ,The God Delusion, that he isn't a 100% sure that God doesn't exist.

      I will not discuss Christianity specifically as it likely won't lead anywhere but I can just imagine how honored you must feel to be right and for every other religion in the world to be wrong. Congrats on picking the right one ;)

    2. Sarcasm noted on that last sentence. I do not wish to discuss Christianity either because you are right, it won't do any good. I am not posting to 'convert' anyone into my cult, as it were.

      Well, I asked for a response and I received it. Be careful what you wish for right? I would like to thank you for not insulting my intelligence in your reply (though you may have on your side of the screen) saying how stupid I am and what not. Even though I am a Christian I welcome and enjoy discussion on all different views.

      I did intentionally leave out macro evolution because based on the information that I have reviewed both for and against, it has lead me to dismiss it as a creative and elaborate theory. I have in my own understanding found more flaws in the theory than not. That's just my interpretation. (Yes, I know that there are flaws in biblical interpretation as well) I am not a crazed right wing evangelical fundamentalist. Those people scare me in more ways than one.

      I suppose you are right about my interpretation of the big bang. Still my premise on the belief that the 'stuff' which had always existed suddenly exploded and created everything, in my opinion constitutes the same argument that atheism gives to Christians about an always existing being. Where did this God come from? Where did these particles come from?

      I do not disagree with anything that you said. I believe that science has up until now and will undoubtedly in the future result in an extraordinary amount of proof which explains how our universe both exists and functions. To me it comes down to the fundamental question of, "how did it all begin," not, "how does it all work," in deciding what side of the debate I am on. I believe that there are known and unknown laws of the universe that explain the functioning of it all. To merely say, "God did it," in the absence of evidence is an enormous irresponsibility as a human being. But it is because I see the universe as an intricate, complex and completely mind blowing phenomenon on every level, I am personally led to say that something which is vastly intelligent had to design this. Or in other words, "God did it." ; )

    3. Hey before i just clarify some things i wanted to say that as much as i disagree with your position i think the way you have presented it so far is excellent.

      now about macroevolution. i would love to know specifically what you dont get about it so that i could maybe clarify some things. If you have an extensive knowledge of biology here is a great website that gives most evidence we have for macroevolution (which has been observed btw) talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

      Now for your comment about atheists saying the particles that made the big bang always existed is analogous to christians saying god has always existed. The distinction to be made is that we have models and laws in physics that show energy itself can not be created nor destroyed. it changes forms. now we know energy exists. so given our knowledge energy exists and our knowledge that it can not be created nor destroyed we are able to make a reasonable statement that we can stop the regression there and dont need anything else to explain "where it all came from" (of course we dont know for sure)

      however that is still better than positing an intelligent being with intentions and basically super powers that created everything. that seems like a huge stretch to go when you could just as easily admit that you dont know and go with the evidence we do have.

    4. My intention is not to come out guns blazing and call you and idiot for your own beliefs, especially when considering that I have met many faithful who are anything but stupid. I respect anyone's right to be religious but I still believe them to be wrong from my perspective. I get no satisfaction in belittling anyone and I do understand what it's like to be on that side of the fence, considering I was on that side just a few years ago. I was brainwashed from an early age and you don't just wake up one day and decide not to believe in god. It is a long battle inside and can last years. In fact, I'd recommend you watch the documentary, "why I am no longer a Christian", on this site as it will give you some insight in how long of a process it can actually be to "de-convert", so to speak.

      While I don't doubt your research regarding macro evolution, I would like to know what specifically you disagree with or find flawed within it. As I see it, Macro is just a longer version of Mirco and we have ample evidence to prove it.

      Looking at your fourth paragraph, it seems to me that you are making more of an argument for agnosticism than god, which is interesting. No one knows where those particles came from, at least not for sure. It is an unknown.

      I guess the major difference between our views is this.

      You see an intricate, complex, and mind blowing universe and this is evidence of a designer to you.

      I see an intricate, complex, and mind blowing universe and this is evidence of a universe to me, and nothing more.

      Now, here is the problem(as I see it and I may have to include Christianity)and I will include your last three words to sum it up. In other words, "god did it", right? Why monotheism, one god? Why not polytheism? How do you account for the contradictions and, what I would call, evil acts within the holy books of the Abrahamic faiths? If you conclude that the bible is your doctrine, how do you account for the supposed favoritism this god shows to some and not others? For example, some being born to christian parents(right faith) and some being born to parents of other faiths(wrong faiths)? Doesn't this offer and advantage to those born to parents of the right faiths? For example, Would you be a christian if you were born in Saudi Arabia? I would be a bit reluctant to dedicate my entire life to a religion I have little to no evidence for ,with a god that claims to love but yet has a place of eternal torture ready for you if you do not submit to his commands. As Christopher Hitchens put it- "Yes, this is North Korea". I could submit it an endless list of questions regarding all faiths and I have face to face. I rarely receive the same answer from two different people(of the same faith) and it's usually dancing around the question to begin with.

      The fundamental questions of, "how did it all begin", and, "How does it work", are connected. To find out more about how it all began, you have to understand how it works first.

      Anyways, enough typing for now. I'm looking forward to your reply. :)

    5. I posted a reply but it is waiting for approval for some strange reason. Epicurus420, awesome name and I'm in agreement with your post.

    6. Ivan I am looking forward to your reply.

      @ Epicurus420,

      I appreciate that very much. I try to be respectful of others beliefs and engage in constructive discussion. With that being said this is going to be a long reply.

      Ok, so am I wrong to infer that the fact that energy itself cannot be created, means that it must have always existed?

      Now, about macroevolution. That link you gave has some extensive reading attached to it. It's gonna take me a while to get through it. My knowledge isn't too extensive when it comes to biology but I will answer your question as best as I can using my sources.

      I got most of my information from Dr. Johnathan Wells from the Discovery Institute and Lee Strobels' book, The Case for a Creator. If you know about Strobel you might not think he is a credible source, especially because he only interviews Christians, but what is important to note is that he conducts these interviews as the non-Christian objector because he was once an atheist.

      Depending on how much time you want to invest in this discussion I am going to have to answer your question in segments to give you a chance for refutation. I have a lot more than this but we will just see what happens. Brace yourself for a long read.

      I agree that there has been biological change over time. That can't be refuted. However I disagree that the biological change transcends species meaning, I disagree that all species descend from one common ancestor.

      Darwin's tree of life for example. We have more than a century of fossil discoveries since Darwin came up with this tree of life design. This tree however has not held up to the fossil record. He believed that if a population was exposed to one set of conditions and another part of the population experienced other conditions, then natural selection could modify the two populations in different ways. Over time one species could produce several varieties and these would produce new ones, so on and so forth, then you would eventually get a separate species altogether. A key aspect of his theory was that natural selection would act, 'slowly by accumulating slight, successive, favorable variations,' and that 'no great or sudden modifications' were possible, Darwin's words. Thus billions of years are required given the extreme complexity of this concept. (Not trying to get into the young vs old earth debate)

      Darwin would have had to know that the fossil record in his time didn't support his tree. He acknowledged that major groups of animals, which he called divisions and are now called phyla, appear suddenly in the fossil record, not over a long and drawn out process from a common ancestor. The fossil evidence in his day showed that the rapid appearance of phylum-level differences in what's called the Cambrian explosion, is opposite of gradual divergence with the differences growing slowly until you get the major differences we have today.

      I am assuming that you are familiar with the Cambrian geological period. What the record shows is that there were some jellyfish, sponges, and worms prior to the Cambrian and then all of the sudden we see representatives of the arthropods, modern representatives of which are insects, crabs, etc; echinoderms, so modern starfish and sea urchins; chordates, which include modern vertebrates, etc. Mammals came later on but the chordates were there at the beginning of the Cambrian. This is contrary to Darwin's tree of life. These animals are fundamentally different in their body plans and they appear fully developed all of a sudden. (Strobel, 2004)

      You might be thinking that there is still time to find these missing links but I don't agree. The Cambrian explosion is too big to have flaws in the fossil record. Today there are evolutionists who are turning to molecular evidence to try and show that there was a common ancestor prior to the Cambrian. However you can't get molecular evidence from the fossils themselves; all of it comes from living organisms. Say you examine RNA in a starfish and then study its equivalent in a snail, a worm and a frog. If you find similarities among different categories of the animals body plans, then you can assume that they have a common ancestor and create an evolutionary tree.

      But if you compare this molecular tree with a tree based on anatomy, you get a different tree altogether or multiple trees. It's all very inconsistent. This is not to say that we cannot trace any living creature to a common ancestor like fruit flies, elephants, probably dogs and so on. We see common ancestry in species, genus, family, order, class but not at the phyla level, which is where Darwin's theory needs it to be.

      Hopefully I didn't put you to sleep.

    7. Darwin was not exactly right in all areas of his theory. The theory of evolution does not only use what Darwin first noted. it has advanced much since then and includes Mendelian genetics. there have been examples in the lab of quick changes. we call this punctuated equilibrium.

      Now the huge misconception with people who are not well educated in this topic have the impression that the cambrian explosion happened suddenly and very quickly....in fact it was a period that took place over a couple hundred million years. that is not quick and that is PLENTY of time for drastic changes in evolution as long as there are drastic changes in the environment. things can go for extremely long periods of time without having to change too much if there isnt much pressure on them to evolve. for strobel to say that they appeared evolved "all of a sudden".....thats a DRASTIC error or he is being purposefully obtuse.

      there is no need to find any more missing links. we have plenty. and in fact when you think about the chances it takes for things to fossilize, we should be more than amazed with how many fossils we do have and the progression they show. the best part about the fossils is that when we use the evolutionary theory to make a prediction like "we came from apes which are found in africa. if this is true we should find intermediate fossils between apes like chimps and gorillas and us humans....low and be hold we go to africa and we start finding these fossils. the fossils also match the predictions we would make using evolutionary theory. by doing relative and absolute dating methods we can even see that the fossil comes from a time when we would suspect it should....and we can also see a logical migratory path which matches up with our mtDNA information."

      how can you deny a scientific theory with such amazing predictive power? that is how a theory works. and that is just for apes and humans. the same goes for every single animal you can think of. the predictions work all the way back. sure there are gaps but you cant expect there to be evidence of every single thing that has ever existed.

      here is a great read that will give you the answer to your claim that the phyla evidence doesnt support evolution.

      warning it is science heavy but the information is heavy because it is thorough and complete.

      home.entouch.net/dmd/cambevol.htm

  103. I enjoyed the documentary and agree with its tenets. Creationism is hanging by a thread and the leaders of all those myths are clinching at straws to save face by any means necessary. Their religion evolves as science advances, ironically. You cannot win against a negative because they can twist and turn their faith in any direction to suite today's scientific facts. That is why it's called faith. It's absolutely void of any facts and that is why certain scientists will not participate in any debates with them, and why it is often counter-productive. After all, how do you argue with "I Believe"?

    1. I like your explanation of Faith's rejection of sense. It is ridiculous in so many ways that the only book that needs no defending in any argument, is the bible. But, I have to say your argument is even MORE impressive, because you're a cat. I have been called a dog before...

      So maybe we *(humans) should bugger off and leave the plant to the pets....except they would need direction. Ok, I have it, you as a cat could rule one half, and I as a dog could take care of the rest.

      I am assuming that as a cat you would like the desert type areas, and as a dog I will take care of trees. Humans could come back, when they learned how to smell the ruler's bums as a greeting.

      Oh My, I think we have a NEW religion!

    2. Yes, I am a cat. Soon enough, we will take over you silly and wasteful homosapiens and rule the world. We can, however, live in peace with the dogs.

      Under the strict condition that we call our religion "Meowism" and that Garfield, is our god. All hail Lasagna!

  104. @loudenas

    I have to comment here about a couple of things you say.

    Firstly, "How about we all save our disagreements for a more appropriate time and place."

    Where would that be?

    Secondly, "We need somewhere where the forum is fair to all sides, accepts evidence that supports theories, and modifies theories when the evidence does not. "

    This site is one of the few last bastions of "free speech" Everyone's opinion comment or diatribe is tolerated and accepted, and then posted.

    Definitely disagreed with, but that is FREE SPEECH!

    Try going to the blog at 20/20 (the ABC news show) and disagreeing with a particular story by pointing out any facts that are ignored by mainstream media...all I can say is....Good luck being heard.

  105. @theknowitall69

    I used to give this one credence. Then I read a book called the “God Delusion.” By, Richard Dawkins. His arguments are very convincing. And again, I have yet to hear a theological counterpoint that actually disputes any debate about the legitimacy of science over religion. Many very intelligent religious devotees have given their particular argument to this man’s (Dawkins) assertions, however, none of them have satisfied even then the most base of his observations.

    Once again this is just one of my thoughts

  106. Wow there are so many comments. How about we all save our disagreements for a more appropriate time and place. We need somewhere where the forum is fair to all sides, accepts evidence that supports theories, and modifies theories when the evidence does not. We need some kind of way to systematically record and discuss observations, with the focus being on discovery of new things, always trying to disprove theories in order to make them more perfect. Everyone that has not picked up on the sarcasm so far is a creationist. Science wins because it makes sense, it works, and it gets results. Creationism loses because it has no capacity for change. Oh, and by the way, this is the most poorly-made documentary I've seen in a while, and that's saying something because I recently watched Zeitgeist.

  107. ummmmmmm....is it possible that both evolution and God exist or are we still to pretentious to reconcile the two? It pains me to see how that idea seems to be very rarely mentioned in the argument. I believe in what science is but this video is way to arrogantly done to ever convince the creationists who believe science is not the devils work. But again, pretentiousness always seems to get in the way.

    1. I've heard this argument made quiet a bit and this is how I see it. If you don't have a specific doctrine, such a the Bible or the Quran, and still believe in a God, then it is more than possible for the two to be reconciled as there is no real conflict. If, however, you hold one of the above mentioned doctrines to be accurate, then the two cannot be reconciled as they blatantly contradict each other. Not only do they contradict each other regarding evolution but in many other scientific aspects as well.

  108. find this documentary a little arrogrant but, I basically agree with it's tenets.
    and @ Nelson..I have to agree with you on this point:

    "The grand canyon could be formed in less than five minutes if we as humans would want; the creationist used is just an individual who talks too much."

    No one can prove this statement wrong. And like everyone I have lived to see some amazing stuff. That still doesn't mean I believe that a giant fairy in the sky with ability to see and track all my movements and judge me, did it.

    But like every other theory it can be labratory tested and then subjected to peer review. (or and I just thought of this one, Claimed as possible, with no tests at all, because a sacred book with no peer review, other than a bunch of already prejudiced devotees say it has to be true because God said so) And here is my thought, If an independant body of reseachers, with no immediate gain other than the pursuit of the truth were to take on this question, I would tend to believe them more than a governmental and or religious organization sponsored, "for our cause" type study.

    Religion, I have discovered, is an anthropological study of civizilation. However, the stories are coloured by particular superstitions. I watched a movie the other night, and older one called the "Village" by M.Knight Shamalangadingdong I think his name was....

    Bad joke, but I think, a great example of how people in a specific place can have no clue about what happens somewhere else.

    What I have always wanted to cry out at religious supporters is:

    "How does it hurt YOU if I don't believe?" In your idiom, I will go to Hell. So, does that hurt you? Does it change the fact, that because of your pious behavior, you will go to heaven? I think probably not, but I never underestimate the possibility of an argument over this one. I was thinking that possibly, I might hear about quotas....

    Sorry, twisted brains have twisted ideas.

  109. I like this video and the maker did a good job but we are all creationists in some way. I wish the maker would have taken a broader view on the people that get laughed at. But the guy that gets laughed at has some good points if we would change our perspective. The grand canyon could be formed in less than five minutes if we as humans would want; the creationist used is just an individual who talks too much.

  110. I saw this videos a lonnnng time ago, but I agree it needs to be included here.

    I can't believe that after seeing it, you all don't still believe in Creation, though. I would have been better if the initial creationist had used some helium to make his point. But hell his arguments are freaking brilliant! and hah ha the narrator said Uranus.....

  111. why does it say/picture Ben Stein on the cover art?
    love this, though. creationists are so infuriating.

  112. Every one knows that there is an inteligent force in the universe. If you don't see it, that's your problem, and it has nothing to do with religion.

    1. You base this on nothing other than your own intuition and pre-determined convictions. There is no evidence of any such force, much less of one that is intelligent.

  113. @DaftAida:

    Your right, we don't know, should that mean we should stop trying?

    What you seem to be sprouting is eastern philosophy/religion, "From within"??
    You seem to imply that you know something, tell us, don't leave us dangling!

  114. I always read the comment thread prior to deciding to watch a video. I shall not waste time watching this one. The same boring old use of the dialectic of opposites, spawned from the same source of disinformation: CreationISM vs DarwinISM. Ain't that simple, dimwits. Creation: Nature the absolutely mind-blowing science in nature of which we have been indoctrinated to neither know or see. Anyone claiming that the design within nature is not exponentially intelligent is to dumb for discourse on anything. Evolution: All matter evolves but not from one thing to another thing, right? Apes do not 'evolve' into humans, flies do not 'evolve' into bees BUT through Dawinistic Evolutionary stupidity, humans are devolving into cabbages via sub-human scientific pollution of insane ideologies and warfare technologies.

    The simple truth is, the creation of which we were an integral part is way out of orbit for our understanding as we have all been vaccinated to a dumbed down level of autonomism. Therefore, those in the know who have over time withdrawn knowledge and access to knowledge can fee us any old bull manure to encourage healthy cabbage growth for the harvest.

    They wrote the Bible and write the psuedo-scientific manuals promoting de-Evolution. So stop being dimwits and wake up to the fact that in our current state of debauched parody of a humanity, we simply don't know.

    The only way to access knowledge is from within. Happy sprouting.

  115. Hey all!

    If I think the bible is inspired by God, I have faith that the bible is correct when it says I am created by a creator. If I think the bible is complete rubbish, I have faith that science can explain what it has yet to irrefutably do. Believing in something we cannot prove is faith. We all have it no matter what we believe to be true.

    Making a comment on the first scene about the Grand Canyon, nowhere in the Bible does it claim the Grand Canyon was created via the biblical account of the flood. The individual making the claim of water traveling though the canyon in 5 minutes is ridiculous and totally unfounded.

    The Creationist “elite” on astronomy: It is common knowledge there is water on other planets. Even if there is life on another planet, it will in no way refute the possibility of a creator creating it as well. Nowhere in the bible does is say life is localized to our planet. Christians believe in an omnipresent, omnipotent, and omniscient God, so why couldn’t their God have created a billion other worlds in a billion other galaxies in a billion different time frames? Crazy but still fun to think about :)

    Part 3 with the preacher talking about the frozen meteor is absolutely hilarious! A Christian preacher who makes a claim neither supported by the Bible or science makes for a good laugh indeed. There is no requirement for being a preacher. No standard of knowledge either scientific or biblical is required to preach from a pulpit. This can lead to some very entertaining ideas. I hope people reading this don’t think this is what all Christians believe. It simply isn’t.

    Part 4 shows a preacher making the claim that the earth can be covered by a single drop of water. Why even honor that idea with a counterargument? Again, another person with hopefully good intentions (spreading a message he believes to be correct) going about it in an absolutely wrong and idiotic way. Worse fail than the third video in my opinion. One of the most fundamental messages Christians are taught is to not put their faith in an individual, with the belief that we are all broken people in a broken world. People will always let you down. The preacher at my home church used manipulation and “counseling” to start a relationship with my mom. They live together now and she won’t even speak to me because he doesn’t want her to. Just saying to people reading this that you can smear those who call themselves Christians all day long, and it will have absolutely no bearing on Christianity itself. It actually goes along with what the bible says: that we have all sinned and are fallen. Simply because someone calls themselves a Christian does not make them scientifically intelligent, or in this case even biblically intelligent.

    Hovind Theory: Many Christians are not stupid enough to believe a layer of ice separated us from the sun. Water was indeed divided, but not miles above the earth as an ice layer (lol). Instead, it tells us God separated water under the surface of the earth, from water on top of the earth. Claiming a layer of water encased the earth from miles above is completely biblically, and scientifically unfounded.

    Part 6: Trying to explain x-rays as responsible for aging does not make sense from a biblical standpoint at all. The Bible’s reason for our again has nothing to do with x-rays. It tells us in Genesis 6 that man’s days will be numbered to 120 years. Christians believe this was in response to how evil man had become, but whatever a Christian chooses to believe, it has nothing to do whatsoever with the sun :)

    Part 7: The preacher makes the claim, “The bible says we are getting weaker and dumber.” No it does not! It says in the bible we are created in God’s own image. God made man to create, explore and multiply. If I am a Christian, I believe God blessed me with abilities, and it is up to me how I choose to use them. Science is not counter religion; it is people using their incredible abilities to discover the mysteries of the universe!

    In dealing with dinosaurs, there are only two references to them in the bible. And those are controversial at best. Some people will look at this as a way for Christians to weasel out of anything, and if that is the case so be it…but understand that the bible is written as a book of faith, not science. The purpose of the bible is not to prove it is scientifically accurate, but to explain to any willing to read it the “Good News” it has to offer.

    I am having a good laugh at the stupid dude preaching so I will keep watching :) For anyone who actually read all of this, my goal is not to get in a debate of science (which I would probably lose), but to let people on here know that not all people who call themselves Christians are as crazy as the dudes on this doc, and that disproving a lot of completely unbiblical theories about creation does not disprove creation itself. I may be wrong and there is no God, but I will keep my faith. It is part of who I am and I think I am better for it :)

    Cheers,

    Orcses

    Ps. If there is a later part in the series where something comes up that you guys think cannot possibly be answered through the bible, bring it to my attention. The only way you can make your faith stronger is by questioning it, and if I can’t answer it then it is a challenge to my faith and I need to do some soul searching. Not all Christians have blind faith, and I want to know everything about how I came to be here just as much as anyone else :)

  116. @J. Bird

    Isn't the reciprocal of Intelligent Design far more likely? As in things were not designed to just be in existence and it all magically work together in perfect sync. Instead there are fundamental rules of physics, chemistry, biology, etc and evolve in a symbiotic relationship as to produce some pretty remarkable things.

    I agree that that there is a GOD, but there is no such thing as magic. Its one thing to say "GOD has a plan" and knows all the eventual products of the initial Big Bang.....but to say it all just works out because of some "Intelligent Design" umbrella statement/theory is a rather lazy comforting theory... ESPECIALLY when there is a superior theory with actual facts that can be tested and reproduced. Sure those theories leave out GOD, but at this point they need to. Science and religion are merging more and more, GOD is not what guys 3,000 years ago thought up ( in terms that made sense during their existence)and I know GOD is definitely not what aetheists claim. I respect the distinction and love the merging.....but neither point of view should really aggressively try to eradicate the other out of fear, that creates ignorance on different fronts ( ignorance of nature by believers, and rigid counterproductive thinking by atheists---science does not evolved if not exploring the fringes).

    One of the consequences of the Big Bang was humanity being eventually created and having the intelligence to discover more and more about the fundamental intricacies of how the Universe works. We are nowhere near truly understanding it, and might never do so, but thats part of the beauty of humanity transcending and being closer to GOD ( if i created something, I would love it if it wanted to be my friend and understand me more and more).

  117. @J Bird:

    If it was "all" intelligently designed then we would of not have to come up through the ropes of trial and error, from swinging on the trees, to arrive to where we are today, talking back and forth on the computer, and again by trial and error to keep achieving more scientific breakthroughs to realize our full potential as a human species via evolution!

  118. Where is the concrete proof that this is not all intelligently designed? All of this is just happenstance? I can't help but to LMAO at you arrogant fools;)

  119. Why do people laugh at creationists? Because they are having fun at it. It was a pretty good doc. It's one of those doc's that you have to take in small doses at a time. At least it was for me.

  120. I'm christian and that was pretty funny..where did they find the christian carni..........step right up and see the bearded lady....If you guys want a challenge watch Priviledged Planet by Guilliermo Gonzalez an Astro physiscist/agnostic who I got to Meet at the premier in Seattle....pretty cool doc they aired on Nova

  121. LOL that "piranha" is a Pacu. They're SUPPOSED to be huge.

  122. @kiki
    The documentary was intended to be biased in favor of reasoned logic and to be biased against stupidity.

    I am happy you caught the "nasty edge" directed towards those who lie and cheat and defraud people and who break our laws through slimy efforts to sneak religion into the science classrooms of our public schools.

    You are wrong claiming that "ID isn’t that bad." After all, it is religion.

    It has NOT "been mostly disproved," it has been TOTALLY disproved! And intuition has nothing whatever to do with logic!

    That you "wouldn’t make fun of anyone who believed it for a while" is admirable. The video did not make fun of the victims, either. The video makes fun of the ring-leaders who make themselves laughable while, at the same time, preying upon innocent, if ignorant, people.

    I do not believe you when you say you are an atheist.

    And you are not "being played by another person’s opinion"(I don't even know what that is supposed to mean!).

    If you would like to have learned "more objectively about the root of American Christian extremism," then why did you watch this video? This documentary is centered strictly on creationism and on creationists. I don't understand. It is like buying a ticket to a cowboy movie and then complaining that the movie is short on ballet!

  123. you don't need to be scientifically literate to know that creationism is stupid. its a wild stab in the dark at the truth. at least evoltion has evidence and a logical explanation behind it.

  124. Next bulls..t on an attempt to topple the existence of God, l'm sick and tired of this c..p.
    The most comical though is the fact that everyone claims to know best, just think about the beginning and the end of everything and you are in the s..thole because it finds out you don't know anything.
    It is not possible to size something up looking at a certain part of it only so good luck guys, outtie.

  125. The similarities between the preachy Christian and the elitist creationist guy are a bit sad.

    Both seem to be screaming 'look at me, I'm better than you and I know more'

  126. pathetic people creatonists, call themselves christians but lie with every word, no wonder no one believes anymore

  127. Nevermind "ad hominem", I am relatively tired. But you get what I mean.

  128. This is somewhat mean with its ad hominems, but other than that it is very well made.

  129. Actually I'm not laughing. At the top of the Creationist pyramid we have people motivated by greed who will stop at nothing - no lie, no scam no con too great to perpetrate on a less-informed mass looking for simple answers to complex questions and reassurances that their lives have meaning. A lot of people watching Hitler's early rantings also found him amusing.

    PusstoothX or whatever his name is, Banana-dude and the other minions of misinformation are pretty funny guys tho. They should do standup.

  130. This is a brilliant documentary.

    In this age of information there should be no tolerance for unproven public assertions.

    If there is a God who made this universe, then he/she shall be discovered by the scientific method - not because some hick banjo-playing Appellation Mountain goat herders decided unilaterally that he/she SHOULD exist.

    If you know God exists, PROVE it - because if you can't, then you can't prove it to yourself - so you don't know either. You cant fool me into believing just because you want me to be like you.

    I WANT to believe too - but that doesn't help anything. The difference between the educated and uneducated seems to me to be more about who is willing to let go of their childhood fantasies. Those fantasies about how you WISHED the world was. Those fantasies about a personal god only YOU could see.

    Drop your childish pride and let go.

    There is no "God" in the form you previously hoped. There is only you, me, and a ton of personal responsibility.

    Why do bad things happen to good people? Not because god let it happen, not because god is punishing them - but because you and I are sitting here letting it happen. That's why.

  131. You poor ignorant people.

  132. The evolutionist extremists are a funny little group of pagans. They say that they are open minded/ but anyone that refuses to go along with their small minded(being created by aliens theory) is all wrong.
    I pity the fool. If the evolutionist crowd had their way, they would round up all the ID crowd and gas them. Whooops! that sounds familiar. Hummmm.?

  133. this should go to the comedy section

  134. Thought the documentary was biased and had a nasty edge. ID isn't that bad. Even if it's been mostly disproved, it had a sort of intuitive logic about it, and I wouldn't make fun of anyone who believed it for a while.

    I'm an Atheist, but I just don't like feeling like I'm being played by another person's opinion.

    I would've like to learn more objectively about the root of American Christian extremism.

  135. @Steve

    I think you were onto something when you said
    "However,if God does exist my reasoning could be compared to that of an ant.So my conclusion in the view of God would be inconceivably st00pid."

    I think the main question is the nature of GOD (if an all encompassing type of being exists).

    Most religions anthropomorphize GOD as some guy who looks like us sitting in the clouds or in the corner of the Universe somewhere. That makes absolute no sense to me and i feel its jstu an outdated view of something incredibly complex for someone who, as intelligent as they were , had limited knowledge thousands of years ago.

    Given what we know now, I think GOD is the accumulation of everything. Akin to how our brain is made up of neurons, chemicals, fats, etc and not jsut one giant neuron,...GOD is composed of everything that exists.

    Given that, the question would be; Does the Universe have a consciousness? Just because its different than our own, it doesnt mean something doesnt have a consciousness (i.e. Does a school of fish have a collective consciousness created by the individual fishes?...or take the brain example again).

    Afterall, if there was a hypothetical race of beings on another planet with a "greater/higher consciousness" they would probably see us just as bags of chemicals that react to their environment.

  136. Creationism is what comes from taking midrash literally. The first few chapters of Genesis are Midrash, literally, a story to fill in the gaps. It is actually a morality tale, not a scientific document.

    Take the Book of Revelations; It reads more like a Greek play than traditional Hebrew prophesy. Each character wears a mask to represent a concept of a place and an event. To take the literary tools of a religious writer and attempt to establish the existence of Dragons and such is ludicrous to the extreme.

    It is too bad that there are still people out there who believe the King James Bible is without error and tout the writings as some sort of historical document that perfectly describes the creation and construction of the universe.

    I personally have found numerous factual errors and distinct contradictions in the Bible which cannot be easily explained away unless one learns about the literary history and traditions of Judaism. I am not, however, willing to throw out the baby with the bathwater.

    Determining what is to be taken literally from what is figurative or merely literary fluff can be difficult. I find the most important things in the bible deal with ethics, morality, and man's relationships with God and with one another.

    Unfortunately there are numerous charlatans out there who see religion as a means of profit (financial and otherwise). Like wolves, they prey upon the weak. Others are truly caught up in zealous fervor, ignorant of the damage they cause.

    1. @Patrick,

      Don't take Midrash literally... those are stories to fill in the gaps... the Book of Revelations is just a Greek play... contradictions in the Bible cannot be explained unless you know Judaism... what is to be taken literally from what is figurative...

      Are you aware that what you've wrote is way to ambiguous and vague... just like the Bible is. That implies you're not any better of those charlatans you mention. You fit the narrative to serve your views instead of imposing an objective and critical thought on it.

      It doesn't matter how you interpret the Bible. What it matters is that you've stepped into the world of delusion. Your delusion is just slightly different from the delusion of the ID guys.

  137. Wow, that was freaky. No wonder you guys rail against "creationism" and Intelligent design. Do you actually lump me with those i@#$%^? Freaky.

    I'd never even heard of these guys, yet I get lumped up with them. Kinda depressing.

  138. Does God exist?
    The ultimate question,or to some,an ignorant question,
    I dont know,but my education and reason would bring me to an obvious conclusion..no.However,if God does exist my reasoning could be compared to that of an ant.So my conclusion in the view of God would be inconceivably st00pid.

    To try and rationalize religion is contradictory,and will only end in dispute.I dont think religious people have flawed reason,I myself often consider going back to church.There is something in us all that bring us together,like that warm feeling you get when you help someone.Theres no rational or evolutionary reason you get that warm feeling.

    Whats the reason behind love,in most cases it damages us.
    Food for thought i guess. Any other views?

  139. Oh ya, now I remember why I decided to no longer attend church so many years ago.

  140. Those were NOT piranhas in the NOT pressurized tank, they are a type of pacu that looks similar but otherwise nothing like piranhas.

  141. Brilliant! Thank you.

  142. Headshoot !

  143. Vlatko your the best thank you for this great doc

  144. creationism is a 'system' of 'ideas', which makes 'cogent' and 'reasonable' and 'informed' 'observations' concerning 'problems' and 'controversies' within evolutionary biology, which is 'just' a 'theory'.

    creationism, or 'Intelligent' design, or 'ID', is about space-aliens or hercules or satan or jesus or jesus' dad 'designing' or 'destroying' the world, much as described in the 'holy book', which is 'true' and 'divinely inspired' but has nothing to do with the ID 'theory' itself.

    this is what they want to 'teach' your kids, all kids.

    IDers wish, also, to 'free' science, the schools, the universities from the 'tyranny' of providing reasonable explanations for things.

    the ignorant are usually the most resistant to the remedy of which they are most in need. that remedy is to talk less, but read, listen, observe and ponder those things observed, always and everywhere, without and within, more.

    if you have been taught that life must be viewed entirely within the context of the bible, you have been LIED TO. wake up.

  145. with all due respect im appealed that the maker of this film is attacking a handful of creationists and claiming to discredit all of them. im neither a creationist or an evolutionist i take it as it comes. you could call me a evo-creationist i believe that evolution is just one of the many mechanisms the universe (or god to me and i do believe in a universal consciousness)uses to achieve the final goal what that may be my tiny human brain doesn't claim to know.

    To give himself more credit the maker of this film could at least discredit a few more creationism ideals rather than picking on that venomfang and a hand full of other guys whom i agree were mistaken in there application of known sciences.

    And one final thing:
    Im lucky to be a DJ with a mixer coming out of my comp as i would have had to keep adjusting the volume on my crappy windows mixer. this is the basics of making any kind of film this guy spent so long discrediting these creationists he overlooked the basics of video making and sound control
    pah! what an amateur.

    Bloody c@#$% film makers.
    Bloody religious n@#$.
    In my opinion you both suck!

  146. Now that I have 'come out' (of the proverbial closet, why dont you all listen to Tim Minchin 'Storm' - because it sums up this entire documetary in just 10 sweet minutes - there, save yr brain for finer things.
    there, ive said all that needs to be said. job done.

  147. and if I were to justify my opinion, I would have to tackle just about EVERY 'ism' 'ist' and 'ology' - 'pro' and 'anti'.
    quite frankly, I jut dont have THAT many years left on this planet!

  148. Sadie the Celt09/20/2010 at 19:16 I just watched this – (correction) I TRIED to watch this – I skipped into every section but got more and more bored – this programme would not get air-time on BBC or any channel with integrity and values, in my opinion

  149. @Brad:

    A meta-theory is a theory whose subject matter is some other theory, in other words, it is a theory about a theory, and since creationism is only a belief system your whole point is "moot"!

  150. @Achems Razor

    Creationism is certainly a theory, it is a grand meta-theory that makes claims about everything in the universe.

    It is not, however, a scientific theory as Intelligent Design pretends to be.

    @Jay I would say a theory sets out to have explanatory power beyond the individual. Where as a belief is a personal conviction that isn't set to go very far beyond those bounds.

  151. Good science and good logic exposing pseudo science and bad logic.

    What an excellent series! It took me a few days but I watched all 33 episodes and I am glad I did.

    I wish some of you would shut up about 'oh religion and science are too different spheres' etc. In these videos the scientific claims made by creationists are ripped to shreds by good science. If the proponents of your religion or your religion itself is making scientific claims based on bad science it isn't immune to objective analysis.

  152. @Achems

    it was just one of those moments where you want to stick your foot between two fighting cats... to remind them that they're just cats.
    yeah, there are theories and beliefs, but i don't see where the two are distinguished. maybe that's what comes with being 100% objective on the subject.

  153. @Jay:

    Since your past yelling comment was deleted, will give you the benefit of the doubt, and if so, I apologize. Nobody is sure about anything, that is why there are theories. But Creationism is not a theory, it is a belief.

  154. @Achems Razor
    D*ngbat?
    Did I say there are only three dimensions?

    I said that it might not be possible to explain our origins and existence using only three dimensions.

    Btw, I used caps because I was upset. We are a stupid, ignorant species. To be so sure about anything like evolution or creationism, in our current state, is immature. To mock one another about it is even worse.

    You can go ahead and continue insulting my intelligence now, if it makes you happy.

  155. @D-K:

    Absolutely! 26 dimensions work for bosons. It was found that the vibrating waves of "fermions" travel clockwise using 10 dimensions, add one more for time, and the vibrating waves of "bosons" travel counterclockwise in 26 dimensions.

  156. @AR:

    According to some, there might be 26 dimensions.. lol.

  157. @jay:

    Why yell? we can hear you! 3 dimensions? maybe there are 11?
    A d*ngbat (LOL)

  158. lol, creationists make such easy targets.

  159. I was able to watch this whole documentary in two sittings and I must say it was very entertaining as well as educational.

    The claims these Creationists make are so deluded that it makes me quite sad knowing people like that exist and spread their plague constantly.

    Great addition to TDF, Thank you.

  160. I usually like things like this. But this is not even worth watching 31 videos with the guy he is tearing apart in most of the series. I'm on Video nine (skimming) and I'm so done. the guy he is using for his narrative is making the most preposterous scientific claims that its not even fun to deconstruct his arguments. I'm not a scientist, but even a 6th grader would laugh at the crap the preacher was saying. I think darkmatter2525 on YouTube is soo funny and well worth watching.

  161. well worth the watch

    i love how people preach from a book that was written by man

  162. @nico:

    You say, "even after billions years-nothing can be evolved into anything"?

    Your whole post is nonsensical, not really worth replying to.

  163. well this story of evolutionists positioning themselves with intellectualism is a farce.

    mr darwin was speculating that many human organs were waste left overs from evolution that formed no function when they were proved latter that all human organs form a function even the appendix.
    evolutionist argument is medieval folly and anyone saying different is burnt at the witch
    look at your science --the same barbaric folly of the medieval ages.
    it is illegal to say fresh fruit and veges can help you be cured from disease-- so that big pharma makes profits.
    trust me--evolutionism-- a theory that requires a huge leap of faith has to stretch time in the millions so that maybe some of the millions of monkeys placed a round the universe can somehow type up shakespear--when this is impossible.
    same with evolution --- even after billions of years-- nothng can be evolved into anything

  164. Everyone's missing a big point on Ray "Banana Man".

    Ray, I have a question. Who made coconuts... the devil??? It doesn't fit well in the hand. it's rough and scratchy. It's very difficult to open. It doesn't fit in the mouth well. It's better cooked than raw. But it's very nutritious! How cruel a thing this is. ;(

  165. It's a good arguement applied mostly to very weak targets.

    A little better would be to lose the constant inlammatory remarks, and concentrate on getting through to the ones's who might be able to be swayed.

    Intellgent Design is worse for religion than science or evolution ever will be because they put forward terrible science.

    People of faith need to realize that science has always pushed back religion, and never the opposite - so get on board and start getting along with your counterparts. The time will come where religious zealots will have to agree with each other eventually, (outside the borders of good science, of course) - quit dragging your feet - your killing us.

  166. I ended up going to college, thank goodness. But as a result I had to give up my support system. Well worth the education.

  167. I was raised as a Jehovah's Witness and was taught a lot of magical thinking. They discouraged the young people from going to college thus keeping them bound by ignorance. This was hard to watch as I had at one time been inundated with so much misinformation based upon information that supported the views of that religious sect. For me this is embarrassing. I think that is why religion targets the poor and ignorant (that is uneducated) individuals, so they can misinformed without being questioned.

    I enjoyed the video, thanks.

  168. No Vlatko? Sorry, my apologies with due respect.

  169. So, there’s an old priest and a young priest
    The old priest is going on vacation all week and asks the young priest to fill in for him on Sunday to do confession.
    Well, the young priest says, but I’ve never done confession before. What do I do?

    The old priest says, don’t worry. There’s a chart to go by inside the booth.

    So, come Sunday the young priest is a little nervous.
    The first person comes in and says, Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I’m jealous of my neighbor’s new car.
    He looks at the chart, finds envy, and says, Say 3 hail Mary’s. Go with God.

    The next person comes in and says, Forgive me Father for I have sinned. I cursed my mother out.

    Again he looks at the chart and says, Say 4 hail Mary’s and 2 Our Father’s. Go with God. Now he’s a little more confident in his abilities.

    The third person comes in and says, Forgive me Father, for I have sinned. I gave my boss a blow job.

    He looks and looks, but can’t find blow job on the chart.

    Finally, he sticks his head out of the curtain and summons one of the altar boys over to him.

    "Altar boy! What does Father give for a blow job?" priest asks.

    boy says;Two snickers and a coke!

    Q. Whats the difference between acne and a catholic priest?
    A. Acne at least waits till you’re a teenager to come on your face.

  170. wow a creationist teaching students....no wonder Americans are so much lower than us Canadians in education standards.

  171. EPIC :D It's fun to watch.

  172. @ Runilo

    Did you watch the video(s)?

  173. I find it amazing that this documentary is even posted on this website... There exists a mountain of evidense against creationism.

    This so called documentary ridicules all other good documentaries on this website. There should be no need for me to explain why. Just do a little bit of research, and you will find that creationism has absolutely no solid evidense, is based competely on religion, contradicts all known sciense and just defies common sense

  174. @ Jake

    I don't understand what you are asking and to whom? I never said anything about making a movie- where you talking to me?

  175. You spent time to make a film to argue with a 17 year old?

  176. @ Chris

    Thankyou for your sentiments about my father. Quite true that TDF is not the main part of my life, work is unfortunately. I enjoy work, I do almost the same thing as you. I am an assitant to the professor though not an assistant professor, I don't teach. I do fill in for the Professor when he has to be out though. I develope all his arguements for him, which he inturn throws at the class and gets thier counter arguements. Well actually he looks at the one I developed and researched and then presents it more like an assertion than a arguement, leaving out almost every bit of the worlk I've done. He still makes me completely hash it out though, he says so he can see where it will lead when the students start developing thier arguements. It never goes that way though. They find totally different ways to support thier arguements and end up teaching me a thing or two now and then. This one kid always finds some way to bring up sports. I don't care if we are discussing god or politics, he works sports into it somehow. He still makes some good points though and presents a strong arguement, truthfully though we are all just waiting to see how he will bring in sports this time. Another kid always ends with, "It's like my daddy always told me.." This one is not doing so hot, but he tries. I really do enjoy work I am just so consumed with my father right now. Any way I'm sorry we didn't get along better I am usually not as emotional. I still disagree with your arguement as I feel it rests on assumptions and sets two different standards for proof, that being said you have a right to disagree. You say yourself that established organized religion is not a good thing. That, organized religion, is what i am really against. If people just want to believe in a god in general that's fine, as long as they do not develope another destructive system like organized religion. I personally do not believe in any god period.

  177. @John Seals

    Wow! Three posts in a row! That's quite a bit of pencil.

    Sorry to hear about your father. I suggest you calm down and remember that TDF is not the main part of your life. Also, you may be interested to watch, right here on TDF, "Through the Wormhole - Is there a Creator" narrated by none other than Morgan Freeman. Quite interesting to see a film openly discussing the topic, even though I don't agree with all their conclusions.

    The point that film makes is that even non-believing legitimate researchers have come to the conclusion that it could not have all just happened given the impossible odds. Some turn to God for an explanation and others, rather than turning to the church of their childhood, reach for alternate definitions of who God would be, being forced into a corner by their own observations and calculations.

    Logic is not going to provide proof, beyond a doubt, of the existence of God, I agree. But it can, very legitimately and reasonably, eliminate various other options. I would not ever try to force anyone into a belief of God, especially through Logic. But, given current observations and scientific conclusions regarding the nature of the universe, God can not be reasonably ruled out.

    And you are quite correct, I hold the title of assistant professor at a public university, where I teach Beginning Logic, Scientific Philosophy, and Introduction to Astronomy - Our Local Universe part-time. My arguments are routinely sliced and diced by some very intelligent and well informed young people intent on disproving them in order to bring their old professor down a peg. It's a lively part of the class experience.

    Peace. My best wishes to your family.

  178. @ Chris

    Have you even watched the above documentery. Obviousely I am not the only one laughing, they made a whole movie about it. But if they had just used the Cosmological arguement, no one would have laughed then, huh Chris. Because the Cosomological arguement has been the answer all along, right Chris.

  179. @ Chris

    You do not have students, you may be a assistant but you are no professor. If so let me know which college and I will verify it. The reason you thought, laughably, that you where the last man standing is because I have been tending my sick father and most of my replies are hung in moderation, as I was angry at my situation and cursed you out. I am very emotional right now Chris so my suggestion is that you do not tell me where you work actually. You want the coveted tittle you can have it. All hail the magnificent Chris the great debator and savior of religion. Maybe you are god Chris, you have the ego thats for sure. No more replies, no more mulling over the same dead arguement, I am busy with things that matter and when I come here I just want to watch documentaries and have discussion with sane people. Not get caught in a arguement, this is definetly not a debate, with some self made guru. I truly don't care if you are not smart enough to see the failure of your arguement or the logic in mine. You win Chris, are you big enough not to insult and degrade that which you obviousely do not understand? I doubt it.

  180. @ Chris

    Look no one is going to waist time with someone that is dead set that what they think is the only theory with value. The fact that people refuse to have conversation with you should tell you something. Truth is I wrote out a very logical and honest reply to your pathetic ideas, it is awaiting moderation. Now I have a sick father to attend to and could really care less wether the founder of "Chris"tianity thinks he is the almighty debator. Yes Chris the Cosomological arguement has been the answer all along, for the last two thousand years it stared us in the face. Thank god the mighty Chris came along to show the rest of the undeducated world our failures. Hail Chris- Hail Chris.
    Thier does that stroke your ego just right Chris. Are you a happy little boy now, I hope so. Maybe we could move on to an arguement from this century at least. Not you and I- trust me I gave up on getting anything through your thick skull a long time ago. If we are all so horribly illogical and wrong, maybe you should just move on. I'm not sure why you feel you must be right anyway. You are never going to change the minds of those that prescribe to scientific reason with your post then throw a tantrum, post then throw a tantrum- style. I have been waiting for the moderators to cut this off for a long time as you refuse to let it elevate into real discussion. You simply say the same things over and over and refuse to admit they have already been adressed. If you still believe them fine, but we have told you what we think and you refuse to just say, O.k. We have different opinions. No you have to blow up and accuse everyone. I am willing to say I believe what I believe, along with most of the scientific community, and you believe what you believe (along with a few other supporters of the Cosmological arguement). Now if that is not good enough for you I'm not sure what you want. You will never get me to say I support a two thoudsand year old arguement that proves nothing except those that prescribe to it are unable to admit they do not know enough yet to support this assertion. Here is part of my reply that is waiting in moderation, maybe they will let it go through this time.
    First you are making an assumption Chris. That absolute infinity does not exist. This, as we have stated over and over, is your opinion and not scientific fact. Now if we make this assumption, that absolute infinities do not exist because they have never been observed, we must follow the same logic and come to the same conclusion about god. One of the corner stones of science is that the standards for proof do not change when coming to one conclusion versus another. But you said that it disproved a natural phenomenon not that it proved God- so I will address that. It only disproves natural phenomenon in the respect that you understand it. We know for a fact that we do not yet understand all natural phenomenon- perhaps thier is a natural phenomenon that would not even establish infinite regression or absolute infinity. Why yes thier is, as I have mention several dozen times, quantum theory. You say, ” Well I know some scientist say that is an incomplete theory.” My point exactly. We do not know what it may be capable of or what parameters are even involved yet. So to say you have ruled it out is ludacris.

  181. I see I'm the last man standing. Well enough, then. I see you are just talk. Let others see as well.

    By the way, I've used our little discourse as an example to my students in my Understanding Logic class on Saturday evenings. Lots of lively and open debate and discussion from believers, atheists and agnostics.

  182. PS:

    Hi, Ruth!

    Well, stress... my doctor says the same thing, "Avoid stress." Huh. I don't know how to do that. Life is pretty stressful, and really SHOULD be.

    I gotta make up something like 50 thousand US dollars in the next five years if I want to retire in the manner I had planned five years ago, (before the market crash).

    I gotta lot of work to do!

  183. Hi, Ruth!

    Thank you! And I do watch my diet very closely, thank you!

    And, your advice about the artificial sweetners, in another thread, is well taken. Studies show, what you and I know, that they are bad for the brain, have mutagenic qualities in cell growth, and are generally bad for you!

    It is better to use real sugar, in moderation, if you must, than to use sugar substitutes.

    At any rate, thank you again, Ruth!

  184. To the moderators. Sorry, I am having some personal issues. I'll chill without being scolded, this is not like me anyway. I enjoy the site and will try and respect the fact that others are coming here to learn and have real debate.

  185. @ Chris

    You did it again. You got me to debate a mute, self defeating, and tired arguement. You're good man. Just disregard my comments I am really am done this time.

  186. @John Seals

    Gone for a few days and look at all nonsense you spew. You are the King of the Strawman. You consistently misrepresent almost all my arguments and points. Then you sit back with Eireannach666 and poke fun at your strawman. Truly, I am amazed at your little world.

    You said, "He’s issue is that he wants to combine religion and science, which is impossible. For if you try and give a scientific explanation of god you invariably have to fudge a little on your facts or say that something is settled when it is still in question."

    Very well, I issue this challenge.

    1. You show me where what I have stated regarding the nonexistence of absolute infinities and how that logically implies a universe that could not have originated through a natural cause was not logical, rational, reasonable and sound.

    2. You don't have to agree with it. There are many valid theories proposed by rational professional scientists that do not agree with each other. GR vs. QM, for example.

    3. Present your well-constructed argument based in logic and reason - not opinion. Your agreements must have a reasonable point and process that is not word and logic twisting or turn on absurdities.

    We'll let V decide.

    Again, it's not a matter of whether you agree. It's a matter of presenting something supported by other than your opinion, your jeering and your fairy tales.

    Also, for the record, I am indeed a born-again, go-to-church-on-Sunday, bible-believing, filled-with-the-Spirit, Jesus-is-coming-back Christian. I am not alone as there many who believe as I do. And nothing I have presented originated with me. These things have been reasoned and realized through the ages by others seeking the unfettered truth.

    And so, the topic is infinity. Are you up to supporting your assertions or do you just talk?

  187. Hi, Randy! I'm glad to read you are feeling better. avoid stress and watch the diet to help too.

  188. @ eireannach666

    Yeah, believe it or not I agreed with some of what he said, he's issue is not intelligence. He seems fairly smart. He's issue is that he wants to combine religion and science, which is impossible. For if you try and give a scientific explanation of god you invariably have to fudge a little on your facts or say that something is settled when it is still in question. He's down fall came when he said that absolute infinity can not exist as we have never observed it.Well using that logic God doesn't exist either, no one has observed him. He also says infinite regression is impossible- again this is not proven, only inferred through logic. So to make his arguement he had to make certain assumptions that support said arguement, those assumptions where what I took issue with. Not to mention his arguement says that if you satisfy A and B then C must be true, this is not the case. Satisfying A and B means any number of things still could be true, not just C. Especially when C abandons all logic and reason, has been redefined through out thousands of years to be a thousand different things, and is the exact opposite of the context you are attempting to place it in. Regardless, I enjoy a good arguement with someone that is not insulting and arrogant- same as you.

  189. @D-K. Holland is one of my favourite countries and Fan Pershie is the don. Yes i'm a gooner. The current team is definately one of the better Dutch sides in recent years, and i always cheer for the boys in orange unless i have money on the other team (lol) but that wouldn't be very wise now would it? I don't bet against Holand.

    I was over in Dam the start of may. My favourite coffeeshop is Siberie and Grey area has a good smoke. Whats all that 65 euro gear all about? Isolator?:))

    I'm over in a few months or maybe sooner if Brazil take the cup! Love Holland.

  190. The Netherlands will take home the cup. Heed or otherwise mark these words.. They will take. the. cup.

  191. Thanks for reminding me of that eire. Ze chermans gave us a good lesson in football and we deserved it for the ugly performances. USA doesn't deserve to win because they dont even call football by the right name! SOCCER!!

    As i said before my moneys on Brazil and even if they don't win at least you know that you'll get a run for your money and get a bit of feelgood factor.

    Vamooos. Brasil.

  192. @Epi_Log

    But I will say this, You guys got slaughtered by the Germans. At least we put up a fight.

    Just kidding man. Cheers!

  193. @John Seals

    Yeah, I hope so. He just wanted to argue not converse. He was not even one of those fun religees to talk to, that would at least see both sides even if they didnt agree.

    As you see I agreed with some of what he said except a few points he made but he never answered. Instead he started with the trash talking and insults. Some people are thick skulled.

    Oh well, life goes on.

    @Epi_Log

    Well the foot is in the mouth.

    We got "Ghana"riaed.

  194. Well... Um... God is good, Evil is bad.... OK? :)

  195. @ eireannach666

    I think you may have actually gotten rid of dude. Thank you, I really was getting tired of trying to debate soemone that is stuck on one point and will not budge no matter what. I mean we gave him plenty of logical counter arguements that made perfect sence, at which point a real debate should move on to the next point- but Chris did not have a next point. The Cosmological arguement is the basis for every thing he seems to believe. He is one of those people that say they want to debate when really they want to preach. They have decided before getting started that this concept or that is right and it will stump every one. When it doesn't all they know to do is get mad and start insulting people. Religiouse people should know by now that they can not and will never prove the existance of thier God. If he exists, which I am sure he doesn't, he is beyond proof by his very definition. Of course we can not allow them this indulgence when they attempt to bring his existance into question in a scientific way. Science demands proof, so if they want religion to be on the same level they will have to do something that is impossible- prove that which is beyond proving. The truth is they are not and will never be at the same level- science and religion. Once they get that through thier heads and stop coming to these scientific sites with thier religion- I will at least respect thier right to be wrong.

  196. I am now leaving this thread as I feel the moderators have really indulged us. We are mulling over the same points and eireannach666 is right, Chris has insulted every one that has disagreed with him. Everey time he gets mad he starts accusing every one else of getting mad and implies no one is as smart a sophisticated as himself. Of course what do you expect of someone that thinks they are prevy to the parts of the Bible that are ficticiouse and which parts are true. Someone who feels an arguement that failed when argued by Plato and Aristotle only need be repeated by him and it will prove the existance of God. Not only the existance of a god but the existance of the Christian God. If Chris where from India maybe it would prove the existance of Brahma but he is Christian so it proves the christian God exists. It is simply an unsound arguement and that is the end of it for me. If you would like to see many others much smarter than myself shoot holes in the Cosomological arguement simply google it. Mostly you will see that it is a bottled arguement that is used by creationist through out the years because it has no true solution. admitting the possibility of God admits trhe possibility of the unobserved thier by admitting the possibility of absolute infinity which disproves the existance of god. It is a logical circle used as a trick because creationists have nothing real to stand on. The arguement was identified two thousand years ago as a logical circle and thierfore abandoned by most philosophers- its really a shame that I let myself get suckered into debating it at all. As for you Chris, I do not associate with rude arrogant people. You should be ashamed of the way you have acted. If this is an example of the morality and values instilled by "Chris"tianity- I'll pass.

  197. @ Chris:

    I guess no ice cream for me, that link you gave is a bust.
    No such link, even tried variations, no go.

    Anyway my friends should know, was not deriding them when I thought what you said was humor.

    My stance has always been for Evolution and science, even though at times it may have sounded more like philosophy or spiritualism. Was just trying to make some sense of QM. in a round about way.

    There may not be proof on physical infinities as yet, but there will be. The answer must lay with the new science of QM and all its derivatives.
    You seem dead set against any form of QT. string theory, etc: why is that? because maybe therein lies the proof of no gods?

  198. @Epi_Log
    Ha! We got this dude. Get ready for soccer to be a world wide definition when we break out our new treatment for "Ghana"ria. Those "cheetah chasers" are going down. The Germans are gonna get all "final solution" on you guys. For what is it 3 , 4 times they stomped you guys' Cup dreams?
    Hey and if we both win , we will get to put some soccer up your football.

    No offense to anyone , just trash talking.

    @ jesux Chris

    Whatever man. You can insult everyone you like but it only makes you look the fool and nulifies you point. No matter how lame it may be.
    However, I am an equal opportunity hate factory and its tit for tat in my book . Sort of a do unto others , except I dont need a god to fix anything.

    You keep acting like you are the super intellectual and nobody else can grasp the subject at hand. I assure you that you are the one not being open-minded. Just because people think your ID concept on infinites is farfetched , you assume that they just dont understand. We understand clearly what it is you are impling , as you have voiced you newly founded "Chris"tian belief system so very arrogently and repetitively. Still we disagree with it. Resorting to insulting my , or anyones character, maturity and intelligence , is simply the last resort of a person who cant have things their way, like a spoiled little brat.

    Do you act that way around your friends too? If you have any . I dont know of anyone who enjoys arrogent and such self-centered attitude. You just have to keep tooting your own horn , huh? Are you the alpha of your circle? All your friends hang on every word you say and every move you make? Bunch of weak ,needy little follwers of the "Chris"tian faith? Coolest of the uncools are ya? Leader of those that wont oppose your ideas because they dont know how? Expert on nothing but master of insults? Hard core Chris Dog from the streets of Compton,Ca and the halls of Oxford?

    Sorry man , Im never going to agree with you and your idea of a god. Has nothing to do with , as you disrespectfully put it ," You should have more faith in yourself when you sit at the adult table discussing adult topics. Instead, you run screaming for your mother, “Mommy, mommy! He hurt my feelings! He talked about God!!! Make the bad man go away!”

    Sounds alot more like you , ( with your name calling and lack of evidence) , after your ideas are not accepted and thrown aside in the ID/Creationist trash can, with the rest of the garbage.

    I tried to sit this one out after the first time you insulted me but you do that to everyone who has opposed your idea, thus far. I wasnt going to say anything until you got all butt hurt when I pointed out me observing your hypocritical contradiction above.

    OK , we got you man. We understand where you come from and your ideas , so stop acting like a mormon on crack , trying to force everyone to belive the good word. Just like the mormon , you figure if you say it enough it will change reality. Maybe youve convinced others and yourself but not those who arent persuaded by your attempt at a sermon.

    Once again, ID sux and is the same as anyother creationist theory. Even "Chris"tianity . You can call your beliefs whatever and you can beat the facts until they leave you the room you need to justify what you feel to be true, but it still is what it is.

  199. @ Chris

    Even if we abandon logic and say o.k. your right. The best you have done is support the diest view that a creator created this all and then stepped away. To say he satyed around means you have to explain, war, death, poverty, and all other evils that clearly prevail here on Earth. Or you have to say we have completely mis-stated the purpose and aim of the creator- ergo a new religion is born. Back to the drawing board, you guys can do better- I just know it.

  200. Also you say that God may exist as no one has proven that he doesn't. Same applies for infinities then, right? I mean we even have logical thinking to back up the possibility of infinity, more than I can say for your Hokus pokus. So we basically come down to the fact that if we say god may exist we also say infinity may exist. We have acheived nothing as the two cancell each other out and thier is a equall playing field just like before we started. Just as much chance God existed as chance that he didn't. This means it comes back to logic. Which of the two would be more logical? Let's examine that. Every single system we know of evolved, wether the internal combustion engine or the system of life. Never in the history of the world do we see a complicated system just burst into existance. We see RNA evolve into DNA, we see gas and particles evolve into stars and atoms, we see atoms evolve to create molecules, we see cave paintings evolve into complex society. Now you would have us abandon this logic and say o.k. some guy poofed this all into existance from nothing. This is not the nothing I spoke of earlier as that nothing reffered to a world in a quantum state evolving into the world of general relativity. You speak of absolute nothing, not even quarks. And along comes this magical being that needs no explanation as he is magic, and poof- we have what ever state you say he started us in. Sorry bud but that is not logical at all. What makes sence is to say that one system is born of the previouse and the creation of our universe is no different. Now yes this does set up infinite regression, same as belief in God does. That's right I am not allowing you the indulgence that God is magic and thierfore needs no explanation, as that would be a cop out. So we see now that though we can not prove a natural cause you can not prove a supernatural cause. So once again we have logic left. What is more logical? The natural solution of course.

  201. @ Chris

    Give it up man, your are exposed for what you are. You can try and throw around demeaning insults and proclaim your intellectual superiority all you like, it isn't working. The truth is you and some other want to be's have formed some new cult around an almost two thounsand year old arguement. Now you want to demand everyone lend it some validity. That is not how it works bud. You have come to the wrong site to try and promote a bunch of assumptions that have NO factuall basis. You keep pointing out the difference between potential and absolute infinity. Yes thier is a difference and we are all very aware of this, it changes nothing. No one but you says that infinity would have to exist for the world to be created by natural phenomenon. In fact Quantum theory says it could exist from absolutedly nothing. But of course this doesn't suppost your God idea so it has to go. Your justification for dismissing it, you met one Phd one time that says it may not be right. Well call the presses and wake the children man. I bet you anything you want to bet that i can find a Phd to support a singing pancake created the world. One man matters not, Phd or not. In fact twenty men matter very little in the huge pool of opinion that is science. What matters is supported evidence and logical thinking, something you have very little of on your side. You say, "Your replies have taken on unrealistic, negative, assuming, and biased tones." Come now Chris, wasn't you that proclaimed we had never met anyone like you, you who called us well meaning but foolish, you who continues in the face of perfectly logical opposition to say no one has adressed your stance. No one is running to Mommy big boy, we have made our case and stand by it. You are just another in a long line of religees to form a new self serving concept of God- few years from now someone will be saying your ideas where wrong and they have now discovered the real truth of God. When will you guys just accept that science is the answer not personal interpretations of existing religiouse dogma. By the way your religion having no official dogma or even text that explains it must be really easy to practice. I guess at the end of the day what ever Chris did was right, huh? I mean you obviousely discredit the Bible as you do not buy the account it lays out. You say you disagree with founded religiouse dogma- So where do you gain insight into this new religion- from the Cosmological arguement it would seem. Oh, thats right you said you do buy the Bible, but only you know what parts where mistranslated- so only you know what parts to believe. At this point I would like to apologize for all I have said. You are obviousely the new leader of a religioiuse movement that may gain power one day- so let me just say- I never meant to offend and "angels on your body." Last thing I need is trouble with the new Man.

  202. @Achems Razor

    Thank you Achems. Please feel free to help yourself to more ice cream.

  203. @ Chris:

    Did not know you had a sense of humor, (LOL) you made me laugh out loud!

    Am interested in your infinity link, so will look at it.

  204. lol@'Anyways , U.S.A. , U.S.A , U.S.A ! Watch us take the World Cup , and the rest of the world will start having to call it soccer.'

    Oh please no. SOCCER! May the glorious brazilian godinho strike you down for your sacriledge:))

  205. @ Hardy:

    Have enjoyed your posts.

    Talk to you later.

    Chow.

  206. @ Randy:

    Well, there you are, it is your prerogative to lie low on these comments of course. But then you will miss all the fun.(LOL) but will see you from time to time.

    As eire666 says, Slainte!

  207. @Randy

    Glad to hear so! Was getting a bit worried there, buddy ;-)

    I've decided, as you have, to stay out of these discussions for now. It's been a great and interesting time, but I've had enough for now.

    Has been fun with all of you guys! 'Man sieht sich immer zweimal im Leben.'

    *passes the horns on and signs out*
    Hardy

  208. @Randy

    à dieu vous commant

  209. @Randy

    Glad to hear that , mi amigo! I see you have some emphasis in your words again. A little puncuation goes along ways. LoL. Happy to know your moral is alot better.

    It seemed like you werent ok for a while.

    Anyways , U.S.A. , U.S.A , U.S.A ! Watch us take the World Cup , and the rest of the world will start having to call it soccer.

    Dont invest , entertain yourself and get your brain going. Health, family, and work first. Then the extras.

    The religees miss you too. Im sure of it . They cant survive without their daily dose of "Randism".

    Slainte , my brother!

  210. @Everyone

    Hello! My MS has gone into complete remission now, so I am on a tear of getting things done and making more money!

    Plus, I have been pulling away from the "social" aspects of the site, as I had been getting WAY too invested there...

    I'd rather just watch the docs when I can, and not get involved with the internet CRAZIES!

    (not my good friends, you know who you are!)

    I will check in with you guys every now and then, but in the meantime, FIGHT THE GOOD FIGHT (against the religious crazies!)

    *throws the horns*

    RANDY

  211. @Chris

    I said I wasnt going to debate anything with you , so just let me call this an observation.

    You said," try to force and twist scientific facts in order to fit their preconceived religious notions."

    Dude , eat your own feed-back. This is precisely what youve been doing. Try and explain yourself all you want, but all your doing is trying to mix god and science. ID! Come on , man , stop the hypocrisy. What, Its OK for you to do it but not anyone else? How come when you do it , its intelligent debate but when someone else does its "twist and force"? Call it what you want and deny your deep down need for the hope of a god , but your words speak louder to others (from the outside looking in.) than they do to yourself.

    Like kodak , I see your true colors.

  212. @Epi_Log
    "The link was terrible. Every time he mentions god and tries to use physics to justify his argument..etc"

    I got the same take on that. Then "1 , 2 , 3 , " were all well stated and simply put. Epi scores! I always like the way you seem to say alot with less words than Myself. Slainte!

    @John Seals
    After reviewing your posts , I have to say that you pretty much nailed it. Havent been on TDF lately , but find it refreshing to see somone join in on this thread with some sense and a well stated opinion. Even humorous.
    Slainte to you as well.

    ---
    Unfortunately , some people will jump on board of an idea simply because it seems to prove to them that there is a god , even though the idea is just that , an idea. No proof. Only speculation and the thought that since we cant 100% prove the non-existence of god, then there is still hope that there is. ID is creationism. Bottom line. Just because a person doesnt pray or worship doesnt make them less religious if they live their life according to the belief of a god or an expectation of a good and bad afterlife.

  213. @John Seals
    "if those ideas get disassembled they will have to rethink everything."

    I couldnt agree with you more on that one.

    @Epi_Log

    How goes it,man? Long time no post.

    ----Where is Randy?

  214. Gotta pass out for a minute or three. I have to give a lecture tommorrow on Why Do we Suffer as Humans- probably the most debated theme in theology but I am giving an example to a second year class and he wants me to use this as they are not able to use the example therefore verifying he doesn't get the same old bottled arguements from the class when its thier turn. Much like the cosmological arguement me and Chris have been debating lately. I call them bottled arguements cause they have been around forever- they prove nothing but can't be disproved either. I always want to tell people when they start with these rehtorical arguements that they are providing as much proof for the juju at the bottom of the sea as they are for God and thierfore not proving thier point at all. Besides it just gets boring repeating what others have said all the time. Most people have thier own personal reasons for believing but they do not divuldge them easily. I think they are afraid if those ideas get disassembled they will have to rethink everything. These are what i am interested in though, in an academic sence. Why do people really buy this mythology when they may be perfectly reasonable about everything else? Its facinating to me.

  215. Wow- man what a cool thing to say to me. It's hard I know man. Me and my dad where never real close when I was younger so I am trying to make up for that now in a way. I have to live in a screwed up place but I get to work in a cool environment. I help out in the theology department of the local junior college. We don't exactly get a lot of diversity of opinion around here which means it's hard to debate and expand ideas. I try to do that on line as much as I can and just present the different arguements I run into and my counter arguements both to the students.It's hard seeing my dad so helpless though. It really bothers me, he was always so capable and domineering. He has a big farm here that I grew up on to some degree and he wants me to keep it going after he is gone. I will try and keep some of it going but I am no farmer. Who knows where I will end up after i get my degree and go to work in my field- but that's a long ways away. I figure even with my present degree I will be in school for three years at least.

  216. Who do you keep talking to when you say to ALL. You mean to the peole your argueing with or are you actually trying to pronouce this as the truth and the only truth so help you Chris and thier can be no other. Because if you are trying to say it to whom ever may come along its like you are willing to pass your opinion off as fact. Science has never discredited either infinite regression or absolute infinities and we can't get them to just cause chris and the cosmological family have built thier new cult around it.

  217. @John Seals. You are spot on in your analysis. Chris isn't a christian. I also want to say to you that i have utmost respect for the care you provide for your sick family members. We have a lot in common on that as i also care for my sick father; he had a stroke 3 years ago! Surprised? I am surprised actually because it is very rare for us men to be carers, and then to meet up on a form of learning like TDF is really nice. You are an inspiration. Thanks.

  218. Do you realize we are now argueing this same arguement on three different threads. Man that is conceded, I'm sorry yall I will shut up now. Hold myself to one thread per arguement. You really dig this cosmological arguement don't you man.

  219. @ Chris

    I see others agree, you are reinventing christianity to try and validate it compared to the new knowledge of your times. You also are premature on saying that absolute infinities can not exist. Just because you can not comprehend them and no one has yet observed one does not make it impossible. You guys have built some new religion based on the cosmological arguement and you just can't exept that it fails to prove your point. By the way stop explaining elementary concepts to people trying to seem smarter. We know the difference between potential and absolute. I was merely stating that the logic exists for absolute infinities to exist- this does not make them so, it just says we can not totally count them out.

  220. @chris. here it is in full.

    The link was terrible. Every time he mentions god and tries to use physics to justify his argument he absolutely makes no sense whatsoever.

    Just to clarify.

    1. Your argument is not valid because it’s not exaustive as stated time and time again.

    2. no infinity implies god exists also makes no sense whatsoever.

    3. We are not going to get rid of infinities in science just because it doesn’t fit in with your religous model.

  221. Please excuse the simplicity of the comments. Moderation prevents me from saying things more clearly.

    You know the arguments anyway. There in the previous posts.

  222. 3. Infinity is just fine in science. Religion has no say what gets a pass and what doesn't in science.

  223. 2. No infinity implies god exist makes no sense whatsoever if you take point 1. into account. So its not even going any furter with that one.

  224. Moderation hell has prevented my posts from getting through to you. But you know my arguments already. So lets try again.

    1. Non exaustive proofs are not valid.

  225. @ Epicurean_Logic

    Just because something is very useful within its context does not mean that it is transferable to another context. Your reply makes no sense.

    I agree that math is used to model real world applications, but they are only models, not the real thing. Once you have a working model that mimics the real world accurately, you can use it to conduct experiments with a reasonable expectation that the results could be transferred to a real world application.

    But you can't actually use the model because it's on a chalkboard or computer. It would be the same as trying to actually live in the house you bought in Second Life. Or painting a picture of a very useful shovel, and trying to use it to dig a ditch.

    I think you didn't really read my last post. Again, just because something is useful does not make it transferable.

    Anyone else getting this? This is a rather basic concept that I really shouldn't have to work this hard to explain. I'm beginning to think you are just messin' with me.

  226. @Chris. you say,

    'Regarding the complex numbers, they also have no place in the real physical world. They are mathematical tools used on chalkboards.'

    and yet they are used for many realworld applications, like moodelling liquid flows (thats the only physical app. i can think of, off the top of my head. There are more). A bit like infinities! Dont you think?

    Diversion: Again i have to disagree on the question of discovery/invention. I am more in the discovery camp. e.g Triangles have always existed, we only figured out useful facts about them at a later date. Interesting question though!

    Pi is Transandental (never ending) Surely it doesn't apply to the real world? Oh but wait. Its one of the most useful numbers around.

    The list just keeps going on.

  227. To all regarding the non existence of actual infinities:

    A fundamental (sometimes controversial) question basic to both mathematics and physics is whether mathematics is discovered or invented. In other words, is mathematics the way the world actually is or is it simply a way in which we can model the world.

    Some examples of mathematical applications will obviously exist in a sort of grey area one way or the other. However, in the end, it MUST be the later because it is quite clear that there are physically impossible situations that can be discussed and modeled mathematically. Like absolute infinities and infinite regress.

  228. sad to see people using this film to feel "smarter" by being less stupid.
    relax people... the fact god doesnt exist as the holy books portray it doesn't make you any smarter, or any more scientifically viable.

    Whoever's trying to disprove god has a major issue with reality. It's useless to disprove something that cant be defined.

  229. @Chris. You say that,

    'The main point he makes is one I have made several times on this site. That if absolute infinities and infinite regress are put back on the chalkboard where they belong,'

    So lets put complex numbers, Q.M., Pi,... back on the blackboard? The only problem then is that we have to give up computers, mathematical moddeling, Architecture involving circles,...,pottery (sorry i just can't resist adding pottery to any argument) and so on.

    Not a good idea.

  230. @ Chris:

    Your quote..."It is more fine tuned than is reasonable to believe could happen without a "Fine Tuner"...unquote.

    Another way of looking at it is, the universe and its constants are not fine tuned for life and humanity; instead life and humanity, through Evolution, are fine tuned to the universe, (especially the Earth) as it is.

  231. @Chris. You have a totally individual, bespoke concept of god, that serves your own needs and puposes; That of rationalising god.

    It reminds me of some arguments that i heard, oh, way back when, that each person has a unique one-to-one relationship with their creator. I think it's a muslim or spiritual concept? not sure though. I'm guessing that you have a tough time at the local church on sundays expressing your beliefs!

    Somehow your understanding is similar to @Oliveglueons ideas, with a bit more physics involved. One point of note is that physics doesn't require your god concept, but you require it to make sense of things. So, which one is more powerful?

    Jesus is a great character. Right up there with Oddyseus and Hercules in my book. The moneylenders story in the temple is one of my favourites. The problem i have is with the rest of the baggage that comes along with it... I guess that we have something in common in that respect.

    Be well and please treat my friend infinity with a bit more respect in the future. He deserves it.

  232. See you all later. It's 3:30 PM and I gotta go be a dad.

  233. @Crhis
    Aye, but from whence does this idea hail? What supports this consensus, because google is giving me diddly-squat on it, and several CA sites I checked don't delve into it beyond simply establishing it as a foundation for further arguments to be built upon.

  234. @D-K

    He was not drawing an independent conclusion. He was making an observation, one that he did not invent. It is the consensus of the cosmological community, which is that behavior of dark matter is thought to not interact strongly with, if at all, with baryonic matter except for gravitationally.

  235. The main point he makes is one I have made several times on this site. That if absolute infinities and infinite regress are put back on the chalkboard where they belong, the odds of all the forces of nature and the consequences of how matter has assembled being what they are decrease far beyond what could be expected by chance no matter what math system you use.

    The presenter has a very solid and respected professional scientific career that directly applies to the topic of origin. And the facts and conclusions he presents regarding a fine-tuned universe are not in dispute in scientific circles. It comes down to our universe is not only more fine tuned than we think or than we can imagine. It is more fine tuned than is reasonable to believe could happen without a "Fine Tuner."

    Really, this crucial point gets glossed over far too often by authorities who know better. I've listened several times to Richard Dawkens discuss this point in discussions with believers and nonbelievers alike. For him, absolute infinities are mother's milk. His book "The Blind Watchmaker" scores some good points in the broad strokes, especially with silly young-earth creationists, but up close, his ideas start to fall apart because of his dependence upon the reality of absolute infinities.

    As you can tell about me by now, I am not a supporter of the traditional religious ramblings usually posted on this site. However, REALISTICALLY, I do not see how a naturalistic-only origin of the universe we observe and measure could be even remotely possible. The staggering numbers against it are unimaginable, being orders of magnitude beyond even cosmological scales.

    The question should at least give you pause. Is there a reasonable view of reality where we really THAT lucky?

    Have we made a reasoned study into the question of God's existence, or is it the concept of the God offered by traditional organized religion to which we recoil in disgust? It's something we should be clear on and honest with ourselves.

  236. I feel he should elaborate on how and why he inserted exotic matter to explain the "clumping" of matter, after somehow conlcuding that exotic matter does not interact with radiation as much as matter does.

    Maybe I missed the explanation of this, can anyone clarify?

  237. Despite the length of the presentation, this really only presents his views in the broad strokes. I've been looking at his material for months. He does seem to be a religionist -- no I don't agree with every single one of his conclusions and explanations. And being a religionist, he is interpreting much through the fog of religion. However, he is quite different from other Christian authors who try to force and twist scientific facts in order to fit their preconceived religious notions.

  238. @Chris. I have got to 40 mins on the audio track and my initial thoughts are that he differs from your interpretaion of god beacause he quotes the bible, jesus and the creation myth (incidentally there are two versions of this in the Bible!).

    His physics talk is just fine, i just don't get all the god stuff. He was doing so well until that point. It's like reason and rationale fly out of the window at these points. Maybe because i just don't understand what he's saying!

    Anyway, Just a couple of initial thoughts.

  239. @ Epicurean_Logic and John Seals

    Here is an interesting talk on a reasonable, scientific, Christian explanation for a finite created universe. There is a lot of data and you may find it interesting, not that I expect you to agree with all his conclusions. The point is he addresses the subjects of science in a respectful, learned manner.

    I would like to have Thunderf00t engage in a moderated debate with someone like this, rather than well-meaning but foolish YouTube creationists.

    If you had never heard someone like me who embraces science and yet believes in a God created universe, here is someone who believes as I do, and with a lot more credibility.

    It's a long read, but I would like to hear your comments.

    Cheers.

  240. god didn't make the world,

  241. @Chris. I didn't say that,

    'So, by your argument, there is some physical equivalent to actual infinities?'

    I provided some other circumstances where non-physical math constructs are effectively used in physical situations. Complex numbers, Q.M, Pi, and many others that don't immediately spring to mind.

    In reply to your last question. I dont think that it's possible to create a model of the whole universe. Its just beyond human ability at the moment, maybe forever.

    Ah, the prom date stealer, don't take it personally. There were probably an infinite amount of other stolen dates too.

  242. @Epicurean_Logic

    Yes! They stole my prom date and I have been plotting my revenge for the last 35 years!

    So, by your argument, there is some physical equivalent to actual infinities? This position is untenable. Do you know of a recent peer-reviewed mathematical model of the actual universe (not a potential universe) that matches observations and that invokes actual infinities as a physical property? So far, they all gloss over this topic.

  243. @Chris. Here is a counterargument to

    'I’m confused. If you agree that absolute infinities are not based in reality, how can they be applied to the real physical world?'

    Complex numbers are not based in reality, and yet phsicists use them to descibe flows, Q.M. doesn't seem to be observable reality and yet our most powerful physical predictions to date are via Q.M. and so on.

    Pure mathematics is constructed/discovered purely for the reason that it is beautiful! (it has meaningful direction within its own structure). from there on in other scientists can use these tools to describe and define real situations;
    from a physical point of view, they are just modelling tools that provide useful answers to questions that cannot be attacked in any other way, and they do this very well.

    Why the prejudice against infinities? Did they beat you up at school? or steal your icecream? They are just as important to the progress of maths and hence science than any other construct/discovery.

  244. @ Epicurean_Logic

    "Also, correct me if i am wrong, but you postulate that no infinities implies god exist. I just don’t get what you base this premise on. Mathematical infinity is a tool, maybe no more based in reality than complex numbers or higher dimensional geometries. A useful tool nonetheless."

    I'm confused. If you agree that absolute infinities are not based in reality, how can they be applied to the real physical world?

    The non existence of actual infinities as an implication of God is not a direct route. I am not saying, "Because actual infinities do not exist, therefore God does." That is a bit glib, don't you agree?

    I am saying that, because actual infinities do not and cannot exist physically exist, then explanations regarding the origin of the universe that depend upon the existence of actual infinities are flawed at their foundation and cannot accurately represent reality.

    Let's back up a bit. Is there a reasonable logical theory of origin that does not invoke actual infinities special pleading?

    To anticipate the objection, the concept of a non-physical personal origin of the universe does not invoke special pleading because it is derived by subtraction in that no other theory is left standing after eliminating absolute infinities.

    If God created the physical universe, then He cannot be a part of the physical universe. If He is not a part of the physical universe, He is non-physical and stands apart from the physical universe. Since He is apart from the universe, he is apart from from Space and Time. Since He is apart from Time, then the concept of physical infinities, which is a concept within Space and Time, cannot be a limitation for Him.

    So far, you are the best. Feel free to have a second helping of ice cream.

  245. @Achems

    According to your arguments, nothing is really provable. Okay, there is a school of thought that agrees with you. Reality itself could possess an infinite number of options so that anything is possible and any set of physical laws could be possible in order to allow anything to happen anywhere and at any time. And that eventually, we will arrive at a state of being where we are able to comprehend all things, but that could take an infinite amount of time.

    Enjoy your ride, my friend. I always enjoy your point of view and look up your references when you offer them.

  246. @ John Seals

    You are confusing "potential infinites" with "actual infinites."

    Potential infinites are numbers that can be increased by adding another increment. Like a counter or timer. Once it starts, it will continue to accrue until we stop it. If we never stop it, it could continue to increase forever -- POTENTIALLY. There are many physical real world examples of potential infinites.

    Actual infintes are sets of numbers that, by definition, contain all numbers. There is nothing to add. There are NO physical real world examples of actual infinites. They exist only on chalkboards.

    This is a common mistake. The physical sciences have always had difficulties with actual infinites. Mathematicians like them a lot because their science does not REQUIRE the real world support of observation and experimentation. They only care about the arithmetic adding up on their chalkboard.

    The difference between potential infinites and actual infinites is not just an interesting brian teaser or puzzle. There are real world applications and consequences. Glossing over it is not the same as addressing it.

  247. @Chris. Well, i am glad that i fall into the highly demanding bracket! and why shouldn't I? When you offer a proof for something then it must fall into the highly demanding bracket or else you might as well call it by it's real name of a conjecture.

    In answer to your question,

    'Have we utterly exhausted ALL possibilities, both what we currently know and what we will know in the future? '

    No,and we never will. This is the exact argument that does not allow you to logically use an exaustive proof of your conjecture.

    Also, correct me if i am wrong, but you postulate that no infinities implies god exist. I just don't get what you base this premise on. Mathematical infinity is a tool, maybe no more based in reality than complex numbers or higher dimensional geometries. A useful tool nonetheless.

  248. Heres something else to think about Chris, since you want to use the cosmological arguement all the time. we have yet to prove that infinite regression and absolute infinity does or does not exist. You assume they do not because you can not comprehend them in the physical and they have never been observed. Well, try and comprehend the size of our universe or how far a light year really is (around 6 trillion miles) You can't no more than you can cvomprehend atoms being in two places at one time- but it happens and a light year is real and so is the fact that our universe is uncomprehendably huge. So don't be so happy with the cosmological arguement as it has never prevailed nor proved anything- and has been argue for years and years. I know that arguements against it have not prevailed either but at least the arguements against it are logical. Logic says you could just keep adding a number to the line for ever as a line goes on forever in both directions. Now if absolute infinity is possible then infinite regression is no longer an obsticle. I realize I have not proven anything here but you have not disproven anything, and you never will with this arguement. All the arguement really suggests is that we do not understand yet the natural world, we still attempt to impose the limits of our own imaginations and intellect on it. In no way does it prove the existance of the divine by eliminating all other possibilities, like you guys want it to. Back to the drawing board friend, don't feel bad I am right behind you I am just headed to the science board and you are headed to the religion board thats the only difference.

  249. @ Chris:

    You say think of a being greater than ourselves? The only thing that is greater than ourselves is higher dimensions. Since you mentioned flat-liners trying to comprehend 3-dimensions, then maybe we should try and imagine 11-dimensions, that does exist in math concepts. String theory, M theory, seems to allude in that direction.

    Maybe our universe is but a fragment concept of 11-dimension reality, or at least what we visualize of it.

    That may be where infinities lay, It may be a static probability field where everything that happened or will happen is already done.

    Since Einstein, and QM. say that Spacetime is illusion, do you think it is that far-fetched.
    Our concept of linear time is of our own making to give direction and seemingly fluid motion of our existence. per: Theoretical Physicist...Julian Barbour's premise on his "End of Time" book and published papers. as you recall, we did have discussion on this before.

    All realities/universes are always in our now, everything is always eternal. If you think there is a great void, a nothingness, oblivion. Then please by all means define it for me.

  250. MY biggest issue with your arguement Chris is that it takes religion out of the context that it has been taught in for thounsands of years in order to try and validate a fantastic claim. Let me explain what I mean, the Bible does not say that God created the laws of physics and then the universe kicked off from this starting point and then evolved.- Which seems to be the way you want to look at it. It says he created the Earth and all the universe in six days and some how made life from bones and dirt. That God sent his son in the flesh to be killed so he could rise again and there by redeem all man kind- some how. It then goes on to be one of the most violent, racist , contradictive books in existance. These same basic principles are the corner stones of Christianity. It seems you want to change that to say that God just kicked everything off and then science is right about the rest. That would suggest that it doesn't matter what we believe as thier is no reward or punishment for your actions, no right or wrong way to worship (in fact why worship at all) I mean who's to say that this God that you describe is not go on and left us long ago? You certainly do not subscribe to the biblical account or Christianity so what are your thoughts on after life, miracles, virgin birth, all the stuff that is religion. It sounds to me like you are a scientist that believes that it all had to start due to some divinity. If this is your stance why did science and logic not matter and then all the sudden it does. Once again to prove a divine being you had to strip it of all sugnifficance, at least in the present- a common thread among those who attempt to believe in science and religion.

  251. Wow, this debate reminds me why I keep coming here. You guys are beautifull- please continue. I am not being sarcastic, I am learning alot by reading this.

  252. @ Epicurean_Logic

    Hmm. So you are asking for proof to be 100% before you are willing to explore the premise? That will never happen for either a naturalistic origin or a creator. For the first, you would have to provide irrefutable evidence from the very beginning of the universe. For the second, you would have to produce the very person of God, equally ludicrous.

    I don't know of any science or logic, scientist or philosopher that demand such a high and absolute threshold. Both Science and Logic only require what is reasonable and probable, using what fits the preponderance of evidence, and what is in line with previous experience as a guide.

    Have we explored every nook and cranny of the universe looking to see if God was hiding under a particular rock? Have we utterly exhausted ALL possibilities, both what we currently know and what we will know in the future? Could He be hiding in the nucleus of a particular uranium atom and shall we check them all before reaching a conclusion on that atom before moving on to neptunium?

    We can only look at the best theories we have, reach whatever conclusions we can reach. There are hundreds of thousands of researchers working on aspects of science upon which the Standard Model is founded. The Standard Model is the best description of the universe so far. It describes most of the observations we see. The Standard Model says that our immediate part of the universe is representative of all other parts of the universe. As I stated above, the universe is both isotropic and homogenous.

    Therefore, Occam's Razor recommends it to be reasonable to reach a conclusion regarding the universe as a whole with observations and evidence gathered from our immediate surroundings. We don't have to exhaust all other possibilities everywhere in order to eliminate them from contention.

    Mostly, this is due to the fact that every theory I have heard depends upon absolute infinities for its existence. Since absolute infinities are 100% IMPOSSIBLE in the physical universe (or in any universe), it is a logical, reasonable and scientifically sound choice to disregard those theories. They just do not match the known facts.

    Hmm. It seems I have met your 100% threshold in this case.

  253. the things on the first site HAVE BEEN tested and peer reviewed. not just laughed at and ignored. and like i said, we are aware there is political motivation to suppress science but that doesnt mean the science doesnt get done and out there.

    you are not making any sense.

    you are creating a ridiculous strawman that you actually believe to be true.

    and i havent made it clear i would not allow you your voice. i love people like you arguing that science is wrong. what better way for the people lacking a religious bias to have more and more evidence. we just keep doing more and more tests, whether you choose to ignore the results or make up excuses like they are lies that is your problem.

    once again, you believe in your magical man outside the universe watching over everyone. that is completely logical.

  254. @Chris:

    Never mind, it's not in my nature to do this, but I will not continue our discussion.

  255. @Chris. The reason that a proof by exaustion is not valid is that you have to exaust ALL other possibilities! We only have a few other possibilities for a description of how and why the universe exists.

    In our limited range of thought,(we are a speck of dust) the options offered as solutions to this question are but a few. i.e. God did it, Big bang, Q.M, parallel universes, etc. Here, the etc could and probably is hiding a lot of other possibilities that are much to complicated for the present human mind.

    In short this type of proof requires firstly that ALL the possibilities are identified (therein lies the problem) and then the exaustive disproof of all but one of these.

    We can then safely conclude that the remaining choice is true.

  256. @ Epicurean_Logic and Achems Razor

    Well said. I think the quote is,

    "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains,
    however improbable, must be the truth."
    -- Sherlock Holmes

    Proof by Exhaustion of All Other Possibilities! I like it! Any why is this not a reasonable logical conclusion given that the universe is observed to be isotropic and homogenous by the deepest sky surveys available? In every direction, we observe the same stuff and the same amount of stuff.

    Because the universe is the same everywhere and in every direction, we will not discover a new law of physics or observe a new chemical element in a far quarter of the universe that would not also be discovered or observed in our own neck of the woods. Logic here is logic there.

    Now, Achems, to your point of labeling the unknown "God" simply by default. How about first making it a bit more palatable to you by adopting more of a deist view than theist. Sweep away all the religious traditions and fables. Just consider a being that is greater than you, that exists outside of our reality of physicality, and, because of that, has an existence that we have a difficult, if not impossible, time of visualizing.

    Think Flatlanders trying to understand 3 dimensions. Or how about the concept that we are all computer simulations running on someone's computer? Indulge me to quote Paul: "we see through a glass darkly." And, "it is not yet clear what we shall be." And, "it has not yet entered into the mind of Man what God has prepared..." We simply are not going to be able to set God up the table to dissect. The only thing we can do is eliminate other possibilities and see only the broadest outlines. Regarding God, you are never going to be able to use logic or reason to get to an "Ah ha!" moment with all questions answered regarding God. Jesus Himself said that no outward sign would be given to establish His identity as God.

    I truly believe that organized traditional religions have poisoned the intellectual well for reasoned unbiased discussions regarding the nature of God by making pronouncements that are ridiculous, simple and unrealistic. You will simply have to get past it.

    I think there is much truth to be found in the Sherlock Holmes quote. When the impossibility of infinite regress and absolute infinities are acknowledged, all naturalistic theories of the origin of the universe lose their foundation.

    We are left with an Origin of the Universe that exists outside of, and independent of the physical universe, needs no origin or cause other than itself, had the capacity to create the Universe and the Will to do it or not do it. The attribute of having a Will is attributed only to persons, not things or forces.

    What else is there?

    The CA does not start from a belief in God and then offer logical arguments to support that premise. It starts with the blank slate of logic and asks how the universe came to be. The Kalam CA argues that 1. the universe is not eternal, 2. that it had to have had a beginning and 3. that the cause of the beginning was a person. Then by logic, it demonstrates each point. The Kalam CA did not originate with Christian thinkers, but among the classical Greeks. It found its full force in the 16th century Arabic world. Kalam is an Arabic word. Achems, you need to give the CA more credit. You don't have to like it, but should address it from a more logical and considered position.

    Gotta go. I'll check back for your reply. Child needs changing, dishes need washing, code needs coding and the day is far spent. I spend too much time on this site as it is. A two year old has been tugging at my arm and grabbing things off my desk while I try to type so I hope this makes some sense.

  257. @ Chris:

    I do realize that this argument is to prove existence of a God.Gods.
    It seems by your blogs you really do not believe in man made religions. why do you go to church? It is to cover all your options?
    In case there is a force, of which we are made in its image?

    Our tiny, tiny, dust mote of a planet actually disappears, hardly even a pixel in comparison of scale to the rest of the cosmos. Completely inconsequential.

    You are coming across more of a deist. than anything else.
    In our limited understanding of the cosmos, it is human understanding to give the unknown a name. therefore has to be a God.

    There are no Gods, all there is science, there is nothing else but consciousness. This whole argument should be what is consciousness?

    And consciousness will be proven by science, not any man made Gods, or religions or even by supernatural intervention. All that does is hold back the progress of science.

    QM. revolution/evolution is a-coming!

  258. @Achems. Very true.

    @Chris. you say,

    'God cannot be proved to exist through Logic, but you can demonstrate through logic that all other choices are illogical.'

    What you are talking about is a proof by exaustion (i.e. exausting all other possibilities and deducing that the remaining option must be true). Its not so cut and dry as you claim for the simple reason that exausting a few scientific possibilities in no way constitutes the complete set of all possibilities.

    We are a speck of dust observing the universe. It would be complete arrogance to say that we are anywhere near to having an exaustive list of all possibilities.

  259. @ Chris:

    Suppression of new science? Well Yeh! Your quote..."You end up in situations like Galileo and Copernicus"...unquote.

    Who do you think suppressed Galileo and Copernicus? if not religion itself, the church, the wonderful inquisition, at least if any suppression, the scientific community did not, and does not, resort to burning at the stake!

  260. @D-K

    Hmm. I stated previously that I thought you were trying to trip me up on a convoluted tortured point in logic or vernacular, and it seems I was correct. I have little patience for this sort of thing, these days, because it is so similar to talking to my daughter as she attempts to get out of her chores.

    Very well. Your point regarding my use of the word "direct" is counter to the use of logic. First year debate students frequently mistake Logic for Debate. You can still be an outstanding debater with very flawed logic. You are pulling far more out of my statement than was intended or is demonstrated by its plain meaning taken as a whole. You are changing the wording of my statement in order to make a rather tortured and convoluted point.

    In my statement, the words "master" and "direct" are prior to the word "create". "Master and direct" modify "energy and forces" which then are used to create the universe. Further, considering the wording order, it would have to be concluded that "energy and forces" are attributes of the "powerful-enough" creator in this context. It addresses nothing about what He does to the universe after creation. Your rebuttal fails on this defense.

    Finally, I am entitled to express my opinion without having to pass it by my lawyer first. You stated that you value logic. If that is the case, you will remember that the purpose of logic is to clarify understanding. This type of word-twisting and meaningless debate only cloud reason and understanding. Logic is not mathematics. There are very few "since this is true, ergo that is also true" moments. While there are some truths that can be derived through the use of logic, logic itself exists only in the human mind and for the benefit of the human understanding. It has no substance outside of that framework.

    Any truths you are able to establish through logic must be seen through that lens. God cannot be proved to exist through Logic, but you can demonstrate through logic that all other choices are illogical.

    Finally, until and unless the physical reality of infinite regress and the existence of actual infinities can be proven or demonstrated, there are no alternatives to a universe that was not created.

  261. @Epicurus

    You really are proving my point here. Yes, I have read the information at the suppressed science site, but Just look at your reaction. You are in hysterics! Look at how aggressively you dismiss it out of hand. You deride. You criticize. You put down.

    Don't you see? You show yourself to be in support of the rigid scientific establishment that suppresses alternate theories and research. You prove the point! You are in support of only the most orthodox and accepted view. All these other ideas are nonsense to you based solely on the most shallow understanding! And I can assure you that their authors are older, more experienced and better educated than you seem to be.

    Fool! Of course I do not support all the theories posted at that site. No one does. But I support that they are deserving of exploration unhindered and uncensored by the establishment. Unless alternate ideas are allowed a safe and protected nursery to incubate, you end up with situations like Galileo and Copernicus.

    Here's a historical fact: The Ptolemaic earth-centered model of the solar system with its epicycles produced more accurate predictions of planetary positions than did the sun-centered model proposed by Copernicus, and yet Copernicus's theory was closer to the truth. I'm a supporter of the Standard Model, but what if it is wrong? What if it is able to produce results that resemble observations, but for the wrong reasons? We need alternate theories and research. And we need them without children like you making snide comments on the sidelines.

    Additionally, you further demonstrate your bias by your comments regarding the second site. You state, "we all know the bush administration was against global warming and were doing anything they could to quiet it. but that didnt seem to work did it?"

    The REASON that, eventually, it didn't work was the failure of the Bush philosophy politically to propagate past the end of his presidency. But WHILE HE WAS IN OFFICE, it was a rousing success. While he was in power, he was able to ignore opposing views and suppress information contrary to his agenda.

    Whether religious power or political power, whether they are left or right, conservative or progressive makes no difference because those who are in power have the power to suppress the truth if they do not like it. Safeguards must be built into a system that routinely suppresses that to which it disagrees.

    In both examples, the competing models of the solar system and competing models of global warming, the prevailing theories had the support of the power structure and money.

    You have made it pretty clear, that if you had the power, I'm sure you would try to suppress my expressing my views, too, because you do not agree with me. There have been several regimes in the past 80 years that thought as you seem to think, and that are now in the dustbin of history.

  262. @Chris: Sure.

    "“powerful enough to master and direct all the energy and forces necessary to create the universe”

    Keyword; direct. The notion of him directing/controlling the forces beyond simply having created them, is a claim you have yet to justify. It implies that he constantly shapes our reality and thus interferes with it.

    "If there is a God, we at least need to know that and to know Him so we can live our lives in a manner that is in accordance with His plan and wishes"

    Which, coupled with your last statement, would imply that God is shaping our reality, and wishes for us to live according to his plan (without being capable of understanding his nature or his plan). I see no basis for this way of thinking/assuming besides religious conviction, and as you concluded yourself, religion is not the key to understanding god and his nature/will, which makes it peculiar, would you not agree?

    "The central point of the discussion was whether there is a God or not"

    Indeed, but by specifying his nature, you leave yourself open to people questioning how you got your answers. I don't care if you are wrong, right or delusional, I value logic. You claim to deduce that there is a god, rather than simply believe it, so I am merely interested in the logic that went into that, not your personal investment. I'm not attacking you.

  263. @D-K

    "Almost, what I meant was: if God (being infinite in nature, existing outside of and apart from the finite universe) created the finite universe, Why would you assume he still (or has ever) actively participates inside this universe/our reality?"

    I don't recall making this assumption in my above posts. Perhaps you could point it out to me?

    "You say he created the forces that created a reality, that does not automatically signify that he is, or ever was, actively engaged in shaping it, he merely created the forces necessary for shaping our reality, not our reality itself, yet you claim he still interferes with out reality. I ask you, on what basis do you believe this to be true."

    Again, I don't see in my posts a statement that resembles what you have written. I never used statements like, "...still interferes with our reality."

    It feels as that you are trying to put words in my mouth. It appears that you are trying to make me say something like, "God created the initial forces of reality, and sent them spinning off into the void to make our universe, and then stepped back to see what would come of it all." This is very much a 'deist' philosophy as apposed to a 'theist' view. Again, I don't understand what point you are trying to make.

    Here you say, "You say he created the forces that created a reality, that does not automatically signify that he is, or ever was, actively engaged in shaping it, he merely created the forces necessary for shaping our reality, not our reality itself, yet you claim he still interferes with out reality."

    Again, I don't recall saying this.

    The central point of the discussion was whether there is a God or not. My argument is that, by the evidence provided by history, geology, astronomy, cosmology and other sciences, by the conclusions provided by logic, by the sense of the Bible, not to mention my own human experiences, I conclude that the universe cannot account for its own existence and requires an explanation with conditions best met by a personal designer. The other side feels that the evidence points to a reality that came about by naturally explained causes and requires no designer for its existence.

    Can you reframe your position within the above context? Much appreciated.

  264. @Randy

    Oops! I apologize if I "crapped" all over your help towards Charles B. by abruptly changing the flow of the conversation. My nerdlike response by shooting up my proverbial hand in class drove me to show gluttony was in the bible. Ooops! But the quotes didnt mention you were going to hell if one overeats, it just says one will vomit and those who overeat have health problems...so I dont believe guilt was introduced. If it does produce guilt...i apologize that was not my intent and really didnt think it would cause any guilt.

    I respect that you would give him advice in spite of some of the more heated debates between the two of you. I think thats great!

    @eireannach666

    You seem pretty cool in my book too :) We obviously dont see eye to eye in a few things, but I think most of us who hang around here have good minds and tough skins! Once in a while we all let emotions get the best of us, but I think for the most part people here mean no real harm ( with the exception of some people who get incredibly emotional when they cant debate and resort to name calling with no point)and cite some great questions, fallacies, and expertise.

    I try not to take any offense since I dont take myself too seriously but at the same time I take seeking the truth as a serious matter.May seem like an oxymoron but its like Gandhi said "Whatever you do will be insignificant, but its very important that you do it!"

  265. @Chris

    "if God (being infinite in nature, existing outside of and apart from the finite universe) created the finite universe, how can He participate in the activity of the finite universe without He Himself becoming a part of the finite universe"

    Almost, what I meant was:

    if God (being infinite in nature, existing outside of and apart from the finite universe) created the finite universe, Why would you assume he still (or has ever) actively participates inside this universe/our reality?

    You say he created the forces that created a reality, that does not automatically signify that he is, or ever was, actively engaged in shaping it, he merely created the forces necessary for shaping our reality, not our reality itself, yet you claim he still interferes with out reality. I ask you, on what basis do you believe this to be true.

  266. @ Chris:

    Was waiting for response to @ Epicurus: non forthcoming?? Then you must be referring to USA. In Toronto 30 to 50 papers are published every day, just on astronomy only!

    Google..."Toronto astrophysicists pretty much figured out origins of universe-the globe and mail"

    Click the first or second link for full story.

    No big bang! it is called the big wheeze!!.

  267. @Epi_Log / McGarvey

    How about that U.S. FB my friends? Oi Oi Oi!

    Ha! Algeria seriously Epi? You guys are lucky you didnt have to see the Celtic FB club in this round.

    But the CFBC will be another story.

    U.S.A , U.S.A , U.S.A !

    Sports bring out the "umph" in me. Like Mcgavrey said ," Youve discovered my religion."
    Metaphoricly speaking.

  268. @Randy

    "Yeah, I know right?It’s exhausting.How many time have I typed out… “evolution is a fact… Darwin had a theory about it… we see evolution happening all around us, everyday, blah blah…”

    Yes! People familiarize themselves with one theory and start jumping on board without all the facts being weighed and calculated.

    I stand by the facts and weigh probabilities until tested. I want to be clear though, god is not a probability, only a dream.

  269. @chris,

    "You seem to be have unwavering faith in the process of science. I assure you it is unfounded. The industry of science is highly politicized and very closed minded. There are any number of promising theories deserving of exploration and funding, yet remain buried or discarded because their authors fear losing tenure or being dismissed for failing to fall lockstep with only the most orthodox views. If you only knew."

    prove it. provide a few examples.

  270. @Chris
    You seem to want to argue more than read. I was pretty much agreeing with alot of you points except the 3 I mentioned. Which you did not even attempt to reply to . Instead you resorted to attacking me personally. That is grade school , not me asking for you to explain your ridiculous statement about your "gods of science ."

    Trust me man, you think you got this quantum thing figured out but again I assure you that you dont.

    As for your god theory , it is about as possible as me living to be a thousand. There is no mental , spiritual , or physical god. Stop trying to have it both ways. You can be bisexual but you cant swing both ways between science and god .

    I dont really feel the need to even debate anything with you since you are a so quick to undermine others and disrespect when people dont see it your way.

    You dont have to respond. I can see we wont get along since your attitude is to shoot first ask questions later. Plus I hate hippies. Leave it to a hippie to bring god and spirituality into science. ID sux.

  271. Thank you, NADA!

    How are you feeling?

  272. I tried to post this yesterday but for some reason, I couldn't.

    Happy birthday Randy!

    Happy belated birthday Epicurus!

  273. @eireannach666

    You seem to be have unwavering faith in the process of science. I assure you it is unfounded. The industry of science is highly politicized and very closed minded. There are any number of promising theories deserving of exploration and funding, yet remain buried or discarded because their authors fear losing tenure or being dismissed for failing to fall lockstep with only the most orthodox views. If you only knew.

    As for the rest of your comments, I don't see a logical point, reasonable question or defensible argument in any of it. It seems to be more on the level of grade school playground taunting rather than reasoned discussion.

  274. @D-K

    Okay, I'm back. It seems that you are saying that if God (being infinite in nature, existing outside of and apart from the finite universe) created the finite universe, how can He participate in the activity of the finite universe without He Himself becoming a part of the finite universe, which would be contrary to His infinite nature? Please correct me if I'm have not framed your position correctly.

  275. @ D-K
    Hahahaha I just noticed the JBMHRsuchacraftymexican!!!! Hilarious!!!lmao

  276. @ D-K

    Very well thought out and stated. I appreciate the reply!!!
    I am not saying you are wrong in any way shape or form - I agree with your statements minus 2.

    "I don’t see where I claim anything that would oppose this statement, as I agree with it."

    This is YOUR truth. This is YOUR believe and therefore this is where YOUR logic and believe in "truth" is derived from. It's not that you claim any statement - it that you state your truths and arguments from them. People who do believe in God or the Bible do not see their contradiction to logic in their faith.

    "I hold no beliefs, no allegiance, no pre-formed notions, seems unlikely, but i’ll explain if you want me to."

    I don't really see how this is true. You believe in science and logical thinking. You have stated that spirituality is illogical. You think with philosophical reasoning. All I'm saying is we are ALL influenced by how we think.

    For that last statement, i’d just alter one thing: “People will believe IF* they want to believe and base it on what they learn, examine and know of”
    Well said.

    You misunderstood, the system itself can run anything, but logic does not derive from the system, it derives from the software (windows). The system can adopt any OS, but once an OS is implemented, any application/reasoning must be alligned with windows code/inherent logic, in order for it to work/make sense.

    I do understand this but I think you are using to make the statement that once someone is ingrained with religion - there's no other form or logic for them but that which is based in those believes or uses that "code". I disagree. Religion is not 100% programing. Let's say the religious use notepad to do all their documenting... We use Office. I understand your point. Maybe someday they'll use Office and never open notepad again. Anyone got a krack for that?

    All your comments are intelligent and I have no qualms about stating you are obviously a very broad thinker and know what you are talking about. Thanks for the response.

  277. @D-K

    Ugh, proof-read you lazy sob. Besides the glaring grammatical errors, this little semantical doozy might conjure up some problems, so I'll pre-emptively hammer it out.

    "I believe that in science and logic, the means outweigh the end, as logic and science is about understanding, rather than knowing."

    is supposed to say:

    "I think .... "

    Believing, while contextually different here, still could give rise to unnecessary debate over non-believers believing things.

    I really should proof-read.. the grammatical errors or otherwise lingual ineptitude don't resemble the amount of thought that went into my views.. This is what you get for discussing on multiple sites in multiple languages on multiple subjects, my attention to detail obviously dilutes to resemble the grammatical capacity of a piece of lumber in the end.

    Other than that, my comment is fine :D

  278. @Jesusbuiltmyhotrodsuchacraftymexican:

    "What you are failing to observe is no matter what philosophy and or psychology teaches us regarding human behavior or conscience – it is only the rationalization of it."

    I don't see where I claim anything that would oppose this statement, as I agree with it.

    "but do they shut off their own personal input during this ? As in – they just stop thinking for themselves totally? I disagree. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying in this – sorry if I didn’t comprehend what you were saying there. ;)"

    Critical thinkers and rationalists alike have the ability to adopt external logic momentarily, and judge according to it (in contrast with own inherent logic). Rationalizing is nothing but verifying by relative comparison, for people who're able to think outside the box this ability is what makes such subjects as supernaturalism worthy of discussion.

    Men of faith will often try to reconcile external teachings with their own logic, and discard information that seems incompatible with their "train of thought". These people are called believers, they're the only ones with the incentive to adopt unchanging realizations/epiphanies. I am an agnostic realist, I hold no allegiance, I have no fixed starting point and as scuh, I'm able to preserve objectivity, whihc in turn is needed to appreciate external logic. Like it or not, those that believe found their worldview on inherent irrationality, as the act of believing (taking a leap of faith) is inherently irrational. Seeing as logic and irrationality don't mix, and believers often have an emotional and spiritual investment in what they believe, and as such opposing logic is discarded.

    "Logic is a philosophical study – what you may determine to be logical, another may not… What you consider to be irrational, others may believe to be truth. How do you think anyone who doesn’t study philosophy regards the statement of ” believing is irrational”?"

    Good point, one that forces me to explain my personal position. My logic is based on factual data, and factual data alone, in this case, it's a case of definitions. Believing is to take as fact, that which cannot be proven. It's the act of jumping over a hole in logic, in order to appreciate pre-formed notions of "the bigger picture" It is my personal "defect" that I discard notions of the bigger picture until empirically or otherwise logically evidenced. I believe that in science and logic, the means outweigh the end, as logic and science is about understanding, rather than knowing.

    "Fair enough – but your point is made from inductive reasoning. Your own inductive reasoning.
    What do you say to those who believe they HAVE had a religious experience and find logic in that?
    You have to stop yourself from deriving answers based solely on YOUR belief’s and what you see as logic and truth. Until you do this you are truly only examining one side of this"

    I hold no beliefs, no allegiance, no pre-formed notions, seems unlikely, but i'll explain if you want me to. Finding logic in spiritual experience is (at this point) an oxymo ron, as the spiritual exists within a realm beyond logic. Spirituality is an emotional process, logical reasoning is cognitive (or mathematical), emotion is illogical, thus spirituality is illogical. It serves an individualist purpose, but nothing beyond that, logic on the other hand, has common purpose/goals.

    "I do understand the example. But a Windows system will run more than just it’s OS. It has the ability to do more if the information is written and the software provided."

    You misunderstood, the system itself can run anything, but logic does not derive from the system, it derives from the software (windows). The system can adopt any OS, but once an OS is implemented, any application/reasoning must be alligned with windows code/inherent logic, in order for it to work/make sense.

    For that last statement, i'd just alter one thing: "People will believe IF* they want to believe and base it on what they learn, examine and know of"

    Lately i've been examining fear and it's effect on people decision-making, but i've been having a tough time classifying it.. emotional or instinctive, it can't be both, but it also can't be just one.. the concept of fear is a logical fallacy, and as such I cannot understand it at this time, so i'll refrain from delving in on your last statement.

  279. Plus, it's not "space and time" it's space/time, all one word.

    That's Einstien.

    Don't be simp.

    Hi, Hardy!

  280. 'what i am saying is that anything you attribute outside of space and time is just your assumption based on all these weird premises you are making up.'

    While reading this discussion with Chris, this is my main problem with his argument. Yes, it may be in itself logical, but the premise is so arbitrarily chosen that it renders the logic that follows pointless.

  281. Yeah, I know right?

    It's exhausting.

    How many time have I typed out... "evolution is a fact... Darwin had a theory about it... we see evolution happening all around us, everyday, blah blah..."

    People just don't do any research before they open their mouths, (or type)...

    But I get you, dude!

  282. Man , I ve been repeating myself alot lately. Seems like everytime I say something in one place the same applies and is restated in another.

  283. (I posted this elsewhere but realized it would be more appropriate here as this where the excahnge happened...)

    Oh and, “Olivgarden”?

    The reason I was so angry with you, is that I was helping Charles B. (who I actually like, despite his christian dogma! I know the good guys from the bad guys, I’ve been around the rodeo a few times…), and trying to make him feel better about himself, and you cr*pped all over it.

    Guilt is another BIG cause of weight gain. I was trying to HELP him. I’m a doctor.

    So, I was really angry at you!

    And if you don’t remember the exchange, scroll up.

  284. @Chris

    Your comment seem thought out pretty well, but I have just a couple questions for you and a couple comments.

    You say,"science will FOREVER be asking,“And what came before that?” and "false gods of both religion and science whom you dogmatically preach," and "The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.”

    1. Of course they will. That is the basis for all science, to question , research , test , review and explain .
    That is why you have all the luxuries, beauty and knowledge science created. Not a designer or god. Unless you mean a designer , as in Newton designed a gyroscope or something to that effect.

    2.False gods of science? Preach? Please elaborate on that. That seems to me to be an oxymoron. Im being serious not sarcastic. Elaborate.

    3."The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” I say to you that you should rethink that , as I and many others in the world would say the same about the ones who say god is real.

    Further more, you are just thumping ID and whether you want to admit it or not, its a creationist theory. All god existing ideas are creationist ideas. I could pretend my a** is made of roses and call it a rose bush but that wouldn't make it a rose bush. Call it what you want but still , it is what it is. I just dont get how someone who obviously has some intelligence , can really still use god as an answer to the unknown . Like I said before, whatever floats your boat,

  285. @oli
    I didnt intend for you to assume that when I said "good for a laugh," that I was insulting you intelligence , but rather I was only really talking about how you make such a great point and in the same paragraph , blow it by trying to have it both ways. You cant have your science cake and wash it down with god water. Of course this is how it appears to me, whatever you floats your boat, man.

    I will say you do tend to throw god into most of the things you say. Which would be ok if the person you were addressing belived in god. But when you adress an atheist and say that god is why this and god did or does that , than of course you will trigger a humorous and possibly negative reaction.

    I apologize for not elaborating earlier. Ive actually had a rew good and positive go arounds with you. I have nothing against you personally. In fact I can tolerate your ideas on god alot more than most. Of course that is your humorous side that just cracks me up. I think you have alot of good scientific habits but I feel you hold yourself back by hanging on to god. . I just have a problem with the constant god answeer and explanations when discussing science. You are ok in my book.

    Now , you said." they described the nature of dark matter/energy/flow" and "goodbut it MUST exist because an equation says so….hmmmm sound familiar?"

    First off, yes quantum is not written in stone yet but we are extremely close to figuring it out. Look at the stuff going on in the Fermilab collider. And thats just what has been released. Besides now you got me chuckling again. I mean even physicists dont really get it yet but the evidence there all points in pretty much the same direction. I use pretty much loosely. Then you have the other option , god , in which there is absolutely no evidence . Both require faith and as you may aready know, I dont do faith. In QT or in god. I am not 100% sold on alot of QT but I like where it came from , where it is today and we will see where it goes. There are alot of understandings in QM/T we just have a ways to go yet to be able to officialize alot of it..

    We will never be able to officialize it all, because as Epi_Logicc has stated before,( Im stealing this because I think he said it best and the simplest.) "When we answer the big questions ,10 more pop up." Which to me is what its all about.

  286. @ D-K

    I read over your reply to my post and I agree with your views completely... or rather - the logic of them.

    What you are failing to observe is no matter what philosophy and or psychology teaches us regarding human behavior or conscience - it is only the rationalization of it.

    "You failed to appreciate the concept of lingering logic, that’s when certain phrasing of propositions lead to self-realizations."
    So in other words - when someone continually hears input - they somewhat absorb it sub-consciously. Valid point - but do they shut off their own personal input during this ? As in - they just stop thinking for themselves totally? I disagree. Maybe I misunderstood what you were saying in this - sorry if I didn't comprehend what you were saying there. ;)

    "I tend to let people speak their mind, and point out wherever there is a flaw in logic. I will not condemn anyone for believing, as long as they know believing is irrational, and they are at peace with themselves for it."

    Logic is a philosophical study - what you may determine to be logical, another may not... What you consider to be irrational, others may believe to be truth. How do you think anyone who doesn't study philosophy regards the statement of " believing is irrational"?

    "seeing as logic isn’t based on spiritual experience but rather the verifiable, it makes more “sense” to this unwilling to take a chance on the truth."

    Fair enough - but your point is made from inductive reasoning. Your own inductive reasoning.
    What do you say to those who believe they HAVE had a religious experience and find logic in that?
    You have to stop yourself from deriving answers based solely on YOUR belief's and what you see as logic and truth. Until you do this you are truly only examining one side of this.

    "The child cannot ask critical questions as it bases those questions on the logic implemented. Quick example; if you install windows on your computer, your computer will function on windows, it will reason according to windows logic and it will have a hard time performing functions inherent to other operating systems."

    I do understand the example. But a Windows system will run more than just it's OS. It has the ability to do more if the information is written and the software provided.

    Children question logic on the foundation that their personal logic is built upon. Is it built on notions of probable supernaturalism? then the supernatural is probable, if personal logic is based on the observable and verifiable, then anything of immaterial nature is intensely scrutinized. Such is the nature of logic.

    I agree with you - but most adults let alone children do not understand or base there belief system on this. They simply know what they know. I understand where you are coming from and your first reply to this would be " but it doesn't matter whether they are aware of how their logic is built" But it does. People will believe what they want to believe and base it on what they learn, examine and know of.

    The most valid point I have on this goes back to the religious zealot who suddenly comes to the realization that their God does not exist. Just like Santa. Just like the boogie-man which is great example because I do not know of many parent who sit in their children s room telling them about the monster in the closet. It is something that a child forms in his/her mind based on fear. Without a continual input that shapes it.But as that child grows and learn rational thought and truth from his/her own experience they dismiss or go on believing. Much like religion.

    My apologies if this all reads poorly... I tend to write clearer when I just write rather than scrutinize...sometimes my phrasing clouds my idea...

  287. I'm not trying to trick or trap you, I find your position interesting so I'm examining where I feel you should elaborate. I do not dismiss your thoughts, I clearly ask for them, there is no reason to be defensive (unless you question my motives).

    I'll be awaiting your reply to see where I misstated you.

  288. @ Chris:

    Yes, I do know how we exist in linear time with all our successions of now's. Since we have had discourse on all of this for close to one year.

    (LOL) yes, it is easier for me to swallow that we are the products of an extra-terrestrial Race from, not the fifth, but the 11th dimension, than all this convoluted God stuff, sorry!

  289. @D-K

    I'm going to copy/paste your post to another document, shut off my computer and go spend time with my children. I'll answer your questions at another time. You can look for my reply in the next day or so.

    However, on the face of it, it appears that the wording of your questions is designed to trip me up on some fine and convoluted point of logic. But I'm up to the challenge and will indulge you. I will only state at this time that you have not accurately framed my previous statements. Restating my comments and position incorrectly, and then attacking the misstated position is not a sound tactic in logic, but it does play well politically.

    Good night all

  290. @chris. when you end each paragraph with fail you show your maturity. please for your own sake stop doing that.

    okay i stand corrected. you didnt say more complex. you said; "The origin must be powerful enough to be the origin of the universe. Meaning, that it must be greater than the universe"

    okay sorry you are right it MUST BE GREATER. (especially in order for your premises to hold up...)

    Second, To say that something exists outside of space and time is the whole point of this discussion. “Time” and “Space” are aspects of the physical universe. It seems to be a bit disingenuous to object to a “person” existing outside of Time and Space but not have a problem with something like a “multiverse” existing in the same way. FAIL

    what i am saying is that anything you attribute outside of space and time is just your assumption based on all these weird premises you are making up.

    anything i have asserted are things we already know to exist. you are attributing magical beings. i will say like most atheists that i honestly dont know what our universe is expanding in, or what happened before the cosmic expansion began but i wont posit any magical being.

    now after all your nonsense you tell ME not to interject and you shame my parents...if only the pot could see its self now.

    i feel no need to try and insult you or try to make you mad or engage in a trolling war.

    ....fail?....ugh, grow up.

  291. @Chris: "powerful enough to master and direct all the energy and forces necessary to create the universe"

    This and some of your previous statements imply that god is actively interfering/controlling our reality, and has been since he has created it. He also has been around before creation of space/time, which would make him an infinite concept, agreed?

    You also stated how he created the forces that created our universe, which in turn created us, correct? If he (merely) created the forces that created our reality, what would lead you to conclude that he is still actively controlling our reality?

    If he is not, this would remove the certainty of the argument for him being infinite, which is the actual necessity for him having created the forces that created us.

    Last thing, you mentioned you have experienced/contacted him, and elaborated in the color example. What is required, in your view, to contact god?

  292. @Achems

    "What you are implying is a supreme consciousness, with the CA."

    Yes, I am. I call it God. You can call it the Flying Spaghetti Monster if that makes you feel better.

    "Does the supreme consciousness transcend infinities, and if so, where did the supreme consciousness come from? There has to be a source. Did it come from nothing?"

    The terms "infinities" and "come from" and "source" all imply the concept of "location." Location implies "physicality" which has to to with an identifiable set of coordinates within the physical universe.

    Clearly, there are no answers available to your questions that align with your concept of reality. If we experience Time one frame at a time, it is because we exist within SpaceTime. To exist outside of SpaceTime would mean that causality and the progression of events would have to exist on a different basis.

    Most of the CA does not tell you what God is, but rather what He is not. He is not of this world. He is not of this universe. He exists apart from physicality. He has no source that is identifiable within our understanding.

    Does it help at all to contemplate the existence a divine being if He is divorced from traditional religion concepts and baggage?

    Or: Is the idea easier to swallow that we are the creation of an extra-terrestrial super race that exists on a higher dimensional plane of reality, and that, long ago, deposited us on the earth as seeds of life from a place far away, sometimes directing and guiding our development, occasionally showing us how to build pyramids and requiring our worship as gods, and then ascending back to the sky where they came?

    Both require that a vastly more powerful and superior intelligence from far away was our origin. Label it "God" and you are preaching iron-age foolishness. Label it "aliens from the 5th dimension" and suddenly, "Gee! It could be a real possibility."

    Just a thought.

  293. @ Epicurus

    Your counter makes little sense.

    First, I didn't say that the origin would have to be more complex. I said that it would have to be more powerful. FAIL

    Second, To say that something exists outside of space and time is the whole point of this discussion. "Time" and "Space" are aspects of the physical universe. It seems to be a bit disingenuous to object to a "person" existing outside of Time and Space but not have a problem with something like a "multiverse" existing in the same way. FAIL

    If you are going to interject yourself into a conversation, please try to keep up. Additionally, your apparent lack of manners clearly exposes a problem with your upbringing.

    Shame on your parents!

  294. since there are no actual infinities in reality you have created an alternate reality that exists outside of reality and before time and contains a thinking powerful being that intentionally created all this and us.

    wow chris. for a smart guy you fall short.

    also your claim that the origin would have to be more complex is false. there is no reason to assume that.

    you believe in something that exists before time, outside of space and north of the north pole.

  295. @ Chris:

    What you are implying is a supreme consciousness, with the CA.
    does the supreme consciousness transcend infinities, and if so, where did the supreme consciousness come from? There has to be a source. Did it come from nothing?

  296. @Vlatko

    Agreed.

    For your first question: Since there are no actual infinities in the physical reality of the universe, the origin of the physical universe must lie outside of the universe. The proposed multiverse concept cannot be that origin for the same reason, that the multiverse requires actual infinities for its existence.

    Therefore, the origin of the universe must be transcendent. Meaning that it stands apart from the universe and is not physical. If it were physical, it would be a part of the universe.

    The origin must be powerful enough to be the origin of the universe. Meaning, that it must be greater than the universe, powerful enough to master and direct all the energy and forces necessary to create the universe.

    The origin of the universe must be able to have created all the levels of complexity on every scale of physical reality, and have those complexities have lasted for 13.7 billion years. For example, Unless the cosmological constant is balanced upon far more than a razor's edge of accuracy, the universe would not exist at the present time.

    But even with all this, something is missing. The above are all necessary conditions but are not sufficient conditions because intentionality is missing. Therefore, the origin of the universe must have the Will to have done this at all. Without Will, the power to create the universe could not have been acted upon. And having a "will" is an attribute only ascribed to persons.

    Now add all these things up: What exists outside of, and apart from, the universe, is not physical, has the power to create the universe, and the will to do it?

    Is it not an all-powerful and transcendent person a description of what we could call God? This is the basis of the cosmological argument.

    I'm not trying to prove the bible at this time, (the CA is used in Islamic apologetics, as well) but the God described in the bible (not religion) is consistent with the above argument.

  297. Well, jesus had a hangnail... I can send people to you...

    I mean, I am considering, as you are so mean to a dying man... maybe you need some punishment.

    Is all's I'm sayin'

    HAHAHA, just kidding, doesn't hold up in a court of law!

    I went to law school, you know...

  298. @ randy
    Do I care where you live? Haha - see you make the assumption I am from a repressed christian background or something - I see where you are going with this. Sorry pally - Mom was united, Dad was a catholic - no one went to church or felt a need to... You're the one with the repressed issue's friend-o. And ok - tell me where I live Big-shot. Hell I'll tell you - I live in Edmonton, AB. - That's in Canada. But you knew all that too huh. Geez - you remind me of a kid with a headset for his XBox. Online yelling at people and making threats. Wow. 57 yrs. old you said? You my friend - live in a box. Seriously randy - I'll say good riddance to you now because you are no better than a little kid.

  299. @ D-K
    No not directed at you per say - just at those who disregard others beliefs when they do not intertwine with their own - and resort to name calling or insults to justify their own insecurities about having someone disagree with them.

  300. I work from home, I am surrounded by computer systems and as I have employees, I can take a day off any time I want.

    And if they don't comply with my wishes... I make them cry.

    @Jesus went a sailing...

    Anytime you want I will have your whole family over and we can share truths. I know where you live, do you know where I live.

  301. @ et al,

    Well, well, haven't all the children been busy while the adults worked. There is no way I can, or have inclination to, answer all the complaints and whining that has been posted regarding my posts.

    The following will have to suffice as my reply:

    1.) To many of the comments regarding religion, I agree. In fact, (get ready for it...) I believe religion to be the MOST evil thing on the face of the earth. Here is the reason:

    1.A.) The question of whether there is a God or not is the most important question to exist.

    1.A.a.) If there is no God, then we need to know that we are alone and have our lives in our own hands. If no God, then we should put away foolish fables, grow up and face the world as adults. We will never understand the nature of reality if we console our fears with fairy tales.

    1.A.a.) If there is a God, we at least need to know that and to know Him so we can live our lives in a manner that is in accordance with His plan and wishes. It would be the same as my children learning to obey my voice. If they do, they will prosper and grow up properly. If they refuse to obey, they will have much trouble and be the cause of much trouble, not only to themselves but to the rest of the family. Again, if there is a God, and we refuse to believe it, we will not only fail to understand the nature of reality, but may find ourselves as transgressors speaking against God who truly exists.

    1.B) Religion is evil because:

    1.B.a.) It portrays itself as representing God, and may even bring a person part-way to God, but fails to accurately represent God, even falsely portraying God as something that He is not. In other words, failure to bring a person fully to God is the same as not bringing a person at all. It does no good to bring a person most of the way to the lifeboat but prevent them from getting in.

    1.B.b.) It interprets God's speaking poorly or even falsely. Many people have been turned away from God because of an inaccurate translation of key text. For example: Wrong - "And the earth was empty and void, and darkness covered the face of the deep." Right - But the earth became an empty wasteland and darkness covered the face of the deep." The first translation means that the earth was created dark, empty and desolate. The second means that, after a much earlier and longer period of time, the earth suffered a great cataclysm resulting in darkness and destruction. The second translation is more aligned with other scriptural references and ancient traditions. Similarly with translations that support a 6k year old earth. Rather, the bible supports an earth that is truly ancient. The young earth concept is not found in scripture and has led many to discount the bible as inaccurate.

    1.C.) The abuses of religion have caused many to conclude that the supposed superior morality of religion CANNOT reflect the loving God it preaches, therefore how can such a God exist who would allow such things, and espousing a natural basis of morality.

    1.D.) The nonsensical scientific pronouncements of religion regarding the natural world make it a laughing stock to thinking, learned people.

    2.) Because religion is dismissed as fables and myths, God is also dismissed as a part of the religious system.

    2.a.) People then look for other ways to explain the origins of all things.

    2.b.) People feel betrayed by a system they may have grown up with, or depended upon, only to find it to be false and ridiculous.

    Conclusion: Yes, I see your points quite clearly. And you are correct in many of them. However, you are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face.

    Tossing out religion is a good step because it clears the ground to understanding. But tossing out God leaves you with a science-only understanding, which by the way, keeps bringing you back to a DESIGNER.

    Face it! Science will not be able to get past the fact that there are NO actual infinities in the physical universe. Actual infinities are mathematical inventions used to solve rarefied problems on chalkboards but DO NOT EXIST in the real universe. Actual infinities are a REQUIREMENT for ANY explanation of physical reality without transcendent design. Without actual infinities, science will FOREVER be asking, "And what came before that?" This one FACT should be enough to give you pause.

    So, make all the jokes and insults you wish. Dismiss it all. Live as you wish to live. But at least be honest enough to admit that much of science glosses over the hard/difficult/impossible parts of your god-less universe. It is as religious as is religion.

    I don't know all the answers and no one does. I encourage anyone to continue to explore and discover with no censorship. But I will call you out on the false gods of both religion and science whom you dogmatically preach, hiding the truth both from yourself and everyone foolish enough to give you heed.

    The fool says in his heart, "There is no God."

    1. So @Chris you're not affiliated with any of the existing religions but you do still believe in God, the Bible and hold on to Science in the same time. Agreed?

      Let discard infinities and assume there aren't any in the physical universe. According to you that means there must be a creator, right? How did you derive this? And by which analogy you think the God from your Bible is the actual creator?

  302. "Now I see why Randy comes on here!!!! This is where his “friends are !!!!! Obviously just as ignorant as Randy BTW… You all make the assumption that I back religion for some reason"

    Could you specify who you're adressing/referring to by "you all"? I have a sneaking suspicion you adress me as well, even though your comment does not apply to anything i've said.

    If you did not include me in "you all" disregard this comment.

  303. Now I see why Randy comes on here!!!! This is where his "friends are !!!!! Obviously just as ignorant as Randy BTW... You all make the assumption that I back religion for some reason - which shows me you did not read the posts prior to poor Randy crying his eyes out like a 11 year old boy when he could not address a valid point. Randy was the one who turned to insults - and it's pathetic that he feels the need to boast about his achievements on here - I don't believe a word of it but you all seem to share a wolf-pack mentality regarding each other and when you get backed into a corner you try and belittle people's intelligence.I have read posts by ALL of you on this site. It's pattern behavior at its finest. Yes, your country was founded in all the ways you point out - by men who believed in God. Write it anyway you want. Ironic how you turn to this argument yet love to resort to use people believing in God to insult their intellect. I don't believe in God at the least. Yet because I can understand where religion would fits into the world you think I am riding the fence as Randy resorted to as a reply. None of you would survive true debate - you all bring your personalities to the table. Oh yeah I'm an astronaut. And an olympian, and I make 1,265,000 a year - I have 6 degrees. I hung around Oxford.... Sound believable? Yeah just like Randy - the guy who never leaves this site. But wow - all that educated and he's trying to save for his retirement. Maybe someday I'll make another appearance around here - hopeful Rand-O with stay out of the topic. For some reason he always needs to poke his nose into it.

  304. Thank you, D-K!

  305. @D-K

    Oh yes I definitely believe the fundamentals of a majority of religious beliefs are false. When I do try to reconcile I take the side of science ; a personal belief CAN NOT take the place of an observable, tested, reviewed , validated, retested fact. But a fact can explain some non tested observances ( hypothesis), but I doubt in my lifetime I can ever create a an experiment to test a "GOD is self aware" hypothesis that can produce empirical evidence ( i know someone will ask why even believe in GOD then?....because of my "supernatural" experiences...which I believe in but still trying to debunk).

    I have noticed the creationists on this video do the opposite. They take a non tested observance and dream up a fact ( create a fact? oxymoron) to propose a theory. I will NEVER get over the ice shield theory...WOW!

  306. Correction:

    "Logic is the key to co-existance (wink at epicurus) as belief is something to be defended and experienced on a personal level,"

    scratch "defended"... don't know how that got in there.

  307. @Randy: Happy b-day, sir.

    Oliarguello: The fence is in place to keep faith faith-based and science fact-based. I have no problem with you reconciling the 2 on a personal comtemplation level, but on a grand scale, it wouldn't be beneficial to either form of the "search for truth"

    I'm sure you realize that the key principles for science and the fundaments for religion are like night and day, right? Rationalizing faith invalidates faith and employing faith or belief in science invalidates science. Reconciling the two is fine on a philosophical level, but practiccaly, it'd be a nightmare.

    @JesusBuilt..: Making something personal, and trading in rational thought for name-calling and mocking does little to defend your rationality. Furthermore, when you said: "Go figure. But it didn’t happen because anybody else told them what they were doing was the wrong thing at the time or what they believed in was untrue. It was by choice"

    You failed to appreciate the concept of lingering logic, that's when certain phrasing of propositions lead to self-realizations. Debate is not meant to persaude the other side of me being right, on the contrairy, I tend to let people speak their mind, and point out wherever there is a flaw in logic. I will not condemn anyone for believing, as long as they know believing is irrational, and they are at peace with themselves for it. Defending philosophical ponderings with such tenacity leads to fundamentalism, and we get stuck out debating inprovable concepts and resort to pidgeonholing and namecalling.

    People tend to take lingering logic in on their own time, for instance, Pascal's Wager. Honestly, a ridiculous proposition, but it lead me to question inherent self-evident logic within the bible, securing faith based on equating "probable" chance with fact. My debate with 'IlovemyselfmorethanI' and then later the debate with 'God is awesome' sketches this out nicely.

    Logic is the key to co-existance (wink at epicurus) as belief is something to be defended and experienced on a personal level, yet celebrated and heralded on a massive scale. Logic is a conclusion most people will come to if their equations are absent of faith, seeing as logic isn't based on spiritual experience but rather the verifiable, it makes more "sense" to this unwilling to take a chance on the truth.

    Lastly, I'll react to this statement of yours: "Do you think people are really manipulated or forced into what they believe? Nobody can truly be manipulated into anything unless they want to be… I see so many references from evo’s saying all religious people were ” brainwashed” into their faith.."

    Brainwashed is a wrong term, conjuring up negative connotations, indoctrination is far more accurate. Small children form a frame of reference based on given knowledge and the observable. The child cannot ask critical questions as it bases those questions on the logic implemented. Quick example; if you install windows on your computer, your computer will function on windows, it will reason according to windows logic and it will have a hard time performing functions inherent to other operating systems.

    Maybe a shaky example, but a thourough psycho-analasys, if possible though time/bandwithconsuming, wouldn't be cost-effective. I'm sure you can relate my example and apply it to what it portrays.

    Children question logic on the foundation that their personal logic is built upon. Is it built on notions of probable supernaturalism? then the supernatural is probable, if personal logic is based on the observable and verifiable, then anything of immaterial nature is intensely scrutinized. Such is the nature of logic.

  308. @Randy

    Thanks.

    That may be true. I have changed my mind in the past.

    I actually might follow your footsteps in one regard and that would be to get a few more degrees. A degree in physics and a theological degree.

    I use to hate physics in college , only because it was a requirement for my Bachelors and just needed to get it done and over with. But after years of reading some articles and seeing documentaries, I want to understand all the theoretical physics at more in depth mathematical level.

    As for the theological degree....well I am not sure how they give those out. If its based on regurgitation I will be fine. If its based on a lot of essays...I might fail out since they definitely wont agree with what I will have to say . LOL

  309. @oliarguello

    Thank you, sir!

    You just need a little more life experience and a little more study, and you will see the simpicity of life, and it will amaze you!

    You have a good mind, I can see that.

    Watch more science docs on this site.

  310. @Randy

    oh and happy birthday.

  311. @Randy

    You and Charles B. put up the fence not me ;)I agree with a few of the things you and he say about various topics, but again its not a one-or-the other view for me. Did you learn that black and white view point from The George W. Bush school of logic ( you are either with us or with the terrorists)?

    I wasnt calling you a racist when I used that blood analogy. I was pointing out the fact that you can seem to comprehend that someone who believes in science and also has a few spiritual beliefs, is actually capable of having both points of view simultaneously. You automatically group someone to the other side of your wall/fence that you deem worthy of putting up to make your life more black and white.

    Its all fine if thats how you wish to live your life. Just pointing it out since you seem try to put labels on people based on YOUR point of view and not that of another persons ( aka you are right and they are automatically wrong).Like the other poster mentioned.... you have a really hard time being empathetic.

  312. Yes, You see? If you scratch these "apologists" hard enough you turn up a christian, everytime.

    They get backed into a corner and shout:

    *I MUST HAVE A SOUL!!!"

    And then they plug their ears and squinch shut their eyes and stamp their feet and sing, "la-la-la, I'm not listening!"

    It's so silly.

  313. @eireannach666

    LOL@ I am good for a laugh.

    Its fine if you think what I believe and know seems silly to you. It goes both ways.

    I was actually watching a new doc on here called "Is Everything we know about the Universe wrong" and laughed my ass off when they described the nature of dark matter/energy/flow as this invisible stuff that has no direct effect on matter, is invisible and undetectable , cant be observed directly, yet its everywhere and has an incredible effect on the universe....but it MUST exist because an equation says so....hmmmm sound familiar?

    How does song go....Mm 'cause I gotta have faith-a-faith-a-faith

    and yeah yeah yeah.....we will eventually be able to study, research, think and we will find answers to our observations(faith-a-faith-a-faith)

    that should make ya chuckle a bit too huh?;)

  314. @oliarguello

    "I know both science and spirituality to be true and try to reconcile the two. Did you forget all of this and just make allegations based on biased selective memory?"

    Yeah. That would be the definition of trying to be on both sides of the fence.

    You have no home. Charles B. rejects you and so do I.

    And I am not racists, my beloved wife is Mexican/Spanish. I love the great Spanish Speaking peoples of the world.

  315. @ Randy

    LOL you brought my name up again huh?

    Sounds like you projected a bit there with "knowing you " ( geared towards JBMHR). With that whole bit of:

    "Let me see... you are desperately in love with your father... secretly... you seek his approval, but he just doesn't seem to understand you...

    You want to remove yourself from your upbringing and that dogma that you will "go to hell" but you are just too afraid!

    (because he is probably supporting you!)"

    Sounds like you know from first hand experiences? ;)

    As for the part that I am on the fence? Hmmm no. I have been on both sides of the fence. I had a stint as a devout unquestioning believer in my childhood, an atheist in my teens and early 20's, and now I know both science and spirituality to be true and try to reconcile the two. Did you forget all of this and just make allegations based on biased selective memory? Or just use the old addage of "tainted blood" in that if you have one drop/belief then you are tainted and are automatically 100% inferior race/religious.

  316. @ Epicurus:

    Happy belated birthday! Also.

  317. Happy Birthday, Epicurus!

    And, thank you for your wishes, and your wisdom.

  318. my birthday was sunday on the 13th.

    happy birthday Randy.

    and JBMH, you have degraded to a very sophomoric level. it was so quick but very drastic.

    and for the record, the founders of the USA were deists.

    i tend to lean towards 666 and randy's position that religion is no longer beneficial to us and actually causing more harm then good.

    religion was a beneficial adaptation. there are social solidarity theories, which view religion as having evolved to enhance cooperation and cohesion within groups. Group membership in turn provides benefits which can enhance an individual's chances for survival and reproduction.

    Stephen Gould cites religion as an example of an exaptation or spandrel, but he does not himself select a definite trait which he thinks was actually acted on by natural selection. He does, however, bring up Freud's suggestion that our large brains, which evolved for other reasons, led to consciousness. The beginning of consciousness forced humans to deal with the concept of personal mortality. Religion may have been one solution to this problem.

    Other researchers have proposed specific psychological processes which may have been co-opted for religion. Pierre Lienard and Pascal Boyer suggest that humans have evolved a "hazard-precaution system" which allows us to detect potential threats in the environment and attempt to respond appropriately.

    google "evolutionary psychology agent detection"

    Justin L. Barrett proposes a similar situation. He suggests that one of the fundamental mental modules in the brain is the Hyperactive Agency Detection Device (HADD), another potential system for identifying danger. This HADD may confer a survival benefit even if it is over-sensitive: it is better to avoid an imaginary predator than be killed by a real one. This would tend to encourage belief in ghosts and spirits.

    these all show reasons why religion would be advantagous for us. however like a baby with a security blanket or pacifier...eventually it must give it up because it is no longer helping but hindering. no matter how warm and happy it makes them "FEEL"...there is a whole world and who knows how many future generations. we cant just concern ourselves with delusion or allowing billions of people to delude themselves if that delusion makes them ignorant of the here and now.

  319. Thank you, humbly... both of my freinds...

  320. @ Randy:

    "Happy birthday" to our (CEO) from me also!

  321. @Randy: Seriously, my respects for your the story of your life and what you made of it.

  322. Seriously, I am not engaged in any illegal activity, I wouldn't do that.

    I do have credit reports, but as soon as I am done with them, the hard drives are extracted, smashed with a hammer, and thrown away...

    I am not ever going to hurt you...

    Unless, you come after me. Well then... Then it is "crazy squirrel monkey time"!!!!

    (oh, and btw, I see someone tapping at my firewalls, *wags finger*)

  323. Ill be happy to have SS and some med-coverage if I make it. Doesnt look promising the way the world econmy is going.

  324. @jesus had a cold... whatever...

    No, I do OWN a library. But my job is as a database analysist for... well... for people...

    I have all of the credit reports for... most of the country, on my computers...

    HAHAHA! That was a joke... all fantasy. Not provable in a court of law!

  325. @Randy

    Thats what I tell mine everytime.

    Q. "What do you want?" A. to her"My B-day spankings "
    Q" Where do you want to go?" A to her "The bedroom."

    Her response. "Laughter." Mine. "Come on , its my B-day"

    i just hope that the 30th time I ask it will actually happen when I ask so nicely.Shed never fall for that. Yet I still try.

    In the end a woman will let you get your way but on their terms , so as not to accept defeat. Gotta love 'em.

  326. If you are used to living on 50,000 US a year, (just for example, I am accustomed to living on much more!), then you must have 500,000 dollars in assets, by the time you retire, considering that you will live ten years longer.

    Well, I had that untill the market crash... and building this house...

    So, I am working hard on re-building my retirement funds...

    (not counting my off-shore accounts...ALEGEDLY!)

    Haha! Just kidding, court of law!

  327. @ rand-"O"
    aka DR. Randy... Officer Randy... Super Randy... The Immaculate Randy... The Chosen One - Randy
    Incredible. Are you into Dr.Phil or something creepy like that? You seem to maybe feel a need to hmmmmmm, present yourself in high-regard huh? I wonder... Dr.? nah, Lawyer? uh uh ....maybe a night security guard in a library ??? That's what you strike me as..... Yeah ...LOTS of Doctors get out of the med profession and head into law - then go back to for the PhD !!! let me guess you paid for it all from your PT job at the supermarket bagging groceries right? Seems likely... But then again what the heck do I know Dr. Randy? Alas. I actually do have a job and I really do work so I am going to hit the hay... You can leave another comment pally I'll let you have the last one ok?... I think I'm gonna call it a night . You take care and keep that nose stuck in the air. You're gonna go far Rand-O!!!

  328. @Randy
    For all the advances in medicine, there is still no cure for the common birthday. - John Glenn

    I love that. I dont even remember mine until my old lady asks me what I want or what we are doing.

    After 25 ,when your car insurance gos down - there is nothing until 62 , social security.
    ( Thats if you youngsters work hard for a living and pay uncle sam) Hopefully you will have retirement saved and put to the side.)

  329. @jesus built something...

    Do not call me "Rand-O" that is dissrespectful of my accomplishments.

    Call me Dr. or Reverend Randy. I earned it.

  330. Thank you, my brother!

    Yes, she won't forget to punish me... (but I like that)

    Just kidding!

    (maybe not...)

  331. @ Randy -

    I just cannot help myself I guess.... It's too easy when you just keep replying. Happy Birthday Big Guy!!! But in all fairness you started this and ya know it. you seem to think I am all for religion and that I have some sort of attachment to God or it... Sorry buddy - you'll have to find another angle - better than the "go play with yourself and listen to ministry" one. But wow, what a story!!! Oh and sad too - keep your laundry to yourself. This isn't a dating site and for 57 you don't seem to socially adept.
    Good for you that you went to school and that your are an intellect. Med school and Law with PhD's. Oh and an extreme knowledge in EVERYTHING else right.

    My sincere apologies to anyone who has had to read through these sad posts between Rand-O and myself... Not my intention at all for posting on here - but I am not meek when it comes to a jer k off like him who can't keep up with a debate and instead looks for the easy way out of insulting the opposing party and then plays the victim. Poor you Randy. I feel really bad now, but oh yeah... I didn't pick an argument with you right? Guess you had me confused with all those other intellects you try and pick on for amusement. I needs conversations with people like you like I need a kick in the nuts. It's redundant. Good night Friend-O and enjoy your B-Day!

  332. @Randy

    Well , shyte! Happy B-day man. I know thats a cliche thing to say but Cheers to many more.

    Tell your old lady I said to not forget those 57 a** kickings you are due , for me. And one to grow on for good measure.

  333. @Randy

    Yes siree. Just because religion gives someone peace of mind doesnt make it a good thing. Heroin has the same effect and is just as addictive. And Im sure a serial killer feels the same after slaughtering a family in their sleep since you cant have slaughter without laughter.

  334. OH, and by the way, I have been married to a magnificent woman for 30 years.

  335. #Jesus built...

    No I have no idea who my father was. I left my drunken, drug addled mother as soon as I could and had my first apartment when I was 18.

    I had step fathers, of course, and they did abuse me horribly, but I survived it because I have a superior mind and will. (That is documented...)

    She's dead now.

    And, I am an only child.

    I went to med school, law school, and got PhD's just on hard work.

    But! It is my birthday today! I'm 57! So, thank you!

    I thought you were leaving...

  336. @My gaelic brother...

    Well, that's the only sensible way to go through life, I think...

  337. @ Randy ( sad, sad, randy)

    So you want me to knock ya on your a then… ok here goes.

    So let me guess Randy? Poor little repressed christian boy? Mom never let ya out of her sight huh? Dad give you the belt when you tore the head off your little sis’ barbie.

    Jump ahead to 13, no one liked you – no friends at school and you were probably bullied? – but dear Auntie Marion give you that copy of “Space and Our Universe” and you took a liking to it. Matter of fact Randy was good at this!!! You could put your hand up in science class the fastest and answer anything asked of you. You were like everyone’s ” smart” little cousin that never shut up huh? You developed this complex – ya know that bully one that you keep to yourself, that’s why you like to be sooooo “smart” on here huh? You’re only confidence lies within your smarts. – how you always interject into people’s conversations with your “educated opinion” that people ALWAYS want to hear right? You probably hate a lot of things don’t ya friend-o? Nothing makes ya happy and you’ve got that negative chip that you want to shake off but ya just can’t seem to ditch that negativity towards EVERYTHING that makes anyone else happy right?

    Do you cry in the shower Rand-O? Still taking the effex-or like the Dr. told you to? Sunday dinner at mom’s? little sedan for a car and that general feeling that you think people like ya but you know they don’t. The ‘office loser” right.

    But at least you can come on here every night and write comments till you feel “real” huh?

    Wow. you look the fool. Go read some of your futile attempts at ridding yourself of insecurity and don’t post to me anymore. It’s humiliating for me to drop to your level in this but you are owed this.
    Have a good day man!

  338. Just to clarify, I do not fear religion. I loathe and despise every fiber.

  339. @ Randy ( sad, sad, randy)

    So you want me to knock ya on your a then… ok here goes.

    So let me guess Randy? Poor little repressed christian boy? Mom never let ya out of her sight huh? Dad give you the belt when you tore the head off your little sis’ barbie.

    Jump ahead to 13, no one liked you – no friends at school and you were probably bullied? – but dear Auntie Marion give you that copy of “Space and Our Universe” and you took a liking to it. Matter of fact Randy was good at this!!! You could put your hand up in science class the fastest and answer anything asked of you. You were like everyone’s ” smart” little cousin that never shut up huh? You developed this complex – ya know that bully one that you keep to yourself, that’s why you like to be sooooo “smart” on here huh? You’re only confidence lies within your smarts. – how you always interject into people’s conversations with your “educated opinion” that people ALWAYS want to hear right? You probably hate a lot of things don’t ya friend-o? Nothing makes ya happy and you’ve got that negative chip that you want to shake off but ya just can’t seem to ditch that negativity towards EVERYTHING that makes anyone else happy right?

    Do you cry in the shower Rand-O? Still taking the effex-or like the Dr. told you to? Sunday dinner at mom’s? Crappy little sedan for a car and that general feeling that you think people like ya but you know they don’t. The ‘office loser” right.

    But at least you can come on here every night and write comments till you feel “real” huh?

    Wow. you look the fool. Go read some of your futile attempts at ridding yourself of insecurity and don’t post to me anymore. It’s humiliating for me to drop to your level in this but you are owed this.
    Have a good day man!

  340. Haha - and just so I don't confuse anyone..... I've never been to church or practiced religion at any point on my life - not even Sunday school. But I am not ignorant of it.

    @ 666
    I bid you a good night and maybe another day I will jump into another discussion - I just read your last post and I agree!!! But fearing religion will only empower it.... thank for the conversation.

    @ Randy
    I guess my last reply to you is too much for the moderators... I didn't even swear in it but hopefully it makes it on here... it's a work in progress I think lol. Kinda like you.

  341. @Randy

    Ha!Ha! Olivegarden. Nice. That dude is always good for a laugh.

  342. @JBMHR

    Ok so you are familiar with Paine or Jefferson. Im not going to get into how religious the founders of this country were , as we will obviously have to agree to disagree on that.Still the fact remains that this country was designed around the seperation of religion and government. ( Why do you think they came here? It wasnt for the boat ride.) That has been severely lossed overtime and now religion has such a foot-hold on the world , that it has continuously stood in the way of progress , while justifying themselves with the contempt of a nonexistant and irrelevant god and fear of hell. Not very long after the Constitutiion was written . In fact very quickly as in the rest of the world before it.

    Not to mention as soon as we do put their feelings to the side for the sake of science and progress , they sue the f*&^ out of everyone. They also are a majority here , so everything up for vote will be ridden with religious cancer and therefore the outcome effected by it. All religion is evil. All of it. We dont need it to be moral. If you do , than you shouldnt be.

  343. @eireannach666
    Well thank you - you seem to think before you speak and I do appreciate the open-mindedness. As I said before I am not religious by any means and if that's where people find their solace then so be it.
    It is very difficult to judge ones attitudes here , but I can see you are willing to see both sides - even when you believe what you know to be true. I am not a fan of creationism and I cannot fathom how people could ignore what science has to offer regardless of believing in God or not.

    It's the bashing of personal belief's that I really shake my head at... They do it - we do it - it happens on every single doc on here - sad really... it just closes the door on any chance for discussing things which in the oddest of ways would probably lead the opposing to maybe actually take a look.
    I've known religious people to all of a sudden - up and go agnostic or to walk away from their belief in a higher power with no reason other than that was what they came to.
    I also know a biker who one day figured out he was gay and found God all at the same day. Went from leather and skulls to knit sweaters and a rosary. Go figure. But it didn't happen because anybody else told them what they were doing was the wrong thing at the time or what they believed in was untrue. It was by choice.

    But anyway - thank you for the discussion and I really do mean that. You did make me look at a few things and think a bit - which is exactly what I come on this site to do.
    Have a good one!

  344. My last post was directed at, 'jesus built..."

  345. Let me see... you are desperately in love with your father... secretly... you seek his approval, but he just doesn't seem to understand you...

    You want to remove yourself from your upbringing and that dogma that you will "go to hell" but you are just too afraid!

    (because he is probably supporting you!)

    So you try to straddle the fence like "Olivegarden... whatever his name is..."

    I see you... I understand you, I know exactly who you are.

  346. @JBMHR

    First let me start by saying I enjoyed reading you posts , thus far. It is rare that someone comes with their guns loaded. Very well thought out and stated.

    You said,
    "if I open my yap and start telling you that football sucks while I am wearing my baseball jersey then I agree – have at it."
    Exactly.
    I should have maybe been a bit more specific. Sometimes its hard to fully grasp anothers thoughts when they are merely written without emphasis. What I meant was that one should not walk into a situation , knowing what kind of surroundings they put themselves in , without at least being open minded and without being ready to back up what they say with some verifiable evidence supporting their ideas.

    " But who asked you to sink the ship? Does the ship really need to be sunk? Why? "
    Nobody has to ask. A person who would bring religion to a science conversation is asking for some holes , if they argue theism over science. I have no problem if someone is religious. Its more of a problem with using hear-say as proof or blind-faith as justification.

    " I take it that your opinions haven’t been changed in your latest conflict within tonight’s posts have they?"
    Well of course not. However, I have yet to see any new evidence brought to light either. Im always open for new evidence. But as we al know it doesnt exist. Thats why I ask from the religees to at least come with the right equipment to join the game. Hence the football analogy .

  347. Good Debate Randy.

    Wow - you ended that with some real intelligence. You are quite ignorant to say the least. Go read another book in your library. Maybe a self-help one since you can't take anyone's views but your own even if they share the same ones as you. It's those like you - (the coccyx's of the science community) that make the religious look well mannered. Sucks when someone shoves it back in your face - but nice deflection to avoid a topic you can't partake in due to your intelligence. Go look up "coccyx" on Wikipedia now.

  348. Do I sound ignorant in this? Do I sound like I need to be shown Jefferson's writings? I would rather read Paine on any given day my friends. You have missed what I am saying..... Read " The Religious Life of Thomas Jefferson". Then tell me he shared the same atheistic views as you. You have contradicted yourself. You look at Jefferson as a hero yet you bash those who share his believe in God. Do you believe in God now too? He did. He didn't believe in Christianity's use of it for empowerment or the conflict and wrongdoings of it.

    You have completely ignored what I was saying.

  349. No. You missed my point... entirely.

    Religion is a cancerous, vestigial organ (do you know what the means?), and it must be removed.

    But, you know... just listen to "Ministry" and play with yourself until you hit the grave...

    I'll be working...

  350. @ Randy -

    I think you missed my point....

    No, your country was not founded by religious zealots...But they were religious. They were god fearing and were probably creationist too. I hope you can agree that their believes did play a role in what they knew to be right from wrong.... Biased at the least. Not to say they didn't do a fine job.

    Slavery was not good. It was abolished. But a lot of people didn't think it needed to be and were against it. Why, I think they even brought the bible into their defense of it.
    In the end it didn't pan out.

  351. @JBMHR

    This is true and a common misconception made by many.

    Check out some of Jeffersons writing for starters. He was very out-spoken on that issue.

    He says," I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature.  They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology.  Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned.  What has been the effect of this coercion?  To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world ...    The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves.  [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ. For here (The new born Republic.) we are not afraid to follow truth wherever it may lead, nor to tolerate error so long as reason is free to combat it.- Thomas Jefferson

  352. @eireannach666

    Very well discussed and I see all of your points.

    I do have two quick replies to a few of your comments....

    "I disagree . People shouldnt come to the football game with a baseball uniform on. You will be laughed at, made fun of, and maybe even kicked about."

    Why?? This is bigotry in it's truest form and NO I am not calling YOU a bigot - so let's be calm.... I just think people ( especially myself) can wear whatever I want without fear of being singled out.... Mind you - if I open my yap and start telling you that football sucks while I am wearing my baseball jersey then I agree - have at it.

    If you dont poke holes , you cant sink ships.

    Look, I understand that religion and creationism is full of holes and incredibly ridiculous ideas and theories... You know that too. But who asked you to sink the ship? Does the ship really need to be sunk? Why? Because you are scared of one ship in a sea full of them? Buddhism doesn't share our views of evolution. Should we go inform these monks who have lived that way for a lot longer than Darwinism has been around? Point being it's no different from the thumpers jumping all over us for what we think and trying to sink our ship. I take it that your opinions haven't been changed in your latest conflict within tonight's posts have they? Didn't think so.

    Please read my reply to Randy, and thank you both for your comments.

  353. @jesus built... etc. who wrote:

    "Do you really think religion didn't or hasn't always played a major role in the political arena since it's inception? Seriously... Does it really seem so obtuse that the zealots are trying to bring it back to the forefront???? Your country was founded on it and those who shaped it were more than likely 10x the believers than what the definition of a religious man would be by today's standards..."

    Yes. Slavery played a very important role in civilization for long time, too.

    But, it's not good any more, like religion.

    And NO, my country was not in any way founded on religion! It was taken by religious monsters, but our Founders tried to FREE us of religious tyranny.

    They all had a lacadasical attitude toward the stuff, please. read their diaries...

  354. @ Randy

    First off let me tip my hat to you as I have read many of your comments and posts on many different docs on this site....I do realize you are quite intelligent and you seem to put thought behind your words. I appreciate that.
    No, we do not need to oppose religion. I understand the evangelical movement that is occurring and the repercussions that having the separation between church and state obliterated would entail. Believe me when I say I find it a terrifying concept as well.... But to be fair - how do you think religion has been treated in the last 100 years or so? I respect Dawkins in a incredible way, am a Darwinist 100% and I am a Big Banger but I am not an ignorant one. Even Darwin himself recognized the repercussion his theory would have against religion.
    I do however see Dawkins inability to accept religion as something that is a personal choice, and isn't so different from you or I choosing evolution as what we know and accept as the truth. Dawkins does blatantly want religion to go away. He comes across as being from the " I want children to make the choice" tribe, but he reminds me of a man on a mission at times. Just because Dawkins can explain Dawinism completely to a priest or a creationist doesn't change what they know and believe to be the truth. Ya know that look he gets when he's debating it and the creationist's only reply goes right back to the start? It's his disbelief in that he wasn't able to make someone go " WOW - You are right Richard - thanks!!!" It isn't ignorance or naivety on their part either... It's ignorance on his and sometimes ours as well. Trust me - I read some of the incredible insipid comments left on this site and I just shake my head - I want to comment on the obscurities and disillusionment of many including those who seem to regard themselves as experts on many subjects... But I don't - I think it baffles me because I cannot comprehend what it's like to not believe in the big bang or evolution. Einstein had no difficulty separating science and religion. Neither would the God that is written of in the bible. I hope you understand my point in this - it's not meant to offend.

    Do you really think religion didn't or hasn't always played a major role in the political arena since it's inception? Seriously... Does it really seem so obtuse that the zealots are trying to bring it back to the forefront???? Your country was founded on it and those who shaped it were more than likely 10x the believers than what the definition of a religious man would be by today's standards.
    I am an atheist as well, but I don't fear religion or believe it will overtake the world or our economy or my ability to think for myself. It never has before - actually the world was much more religion based 2000 years ago and we got through it didn't we... Yeah they crusaded and oppressed and we all know our history, ( except maybe them) but the movement and their power is not what it was, nor do I believe it will be again.

    But I think we scientific folk tend to fuel their fire and religion has been on the receiving end of the stick for a while now... Yeah it's making waves again but seriously, look at the changes in society that have overtaken the blanket that was draped in our laws as a throwback to religion... Homosexuality, slavery, abortion - how about divorce??!! Think of all that society forced into change... We have nothing to worry about and they know it. Let them have their creationism or whatever they want to believe... It won't change the truths that are there, and they won't abolish our science classes or Darwinism or the big-bang... There's too many people out there like you to be the opposition. Have some faith in that.

  355. @Randy

    Yes , but you fall in a smaller minority. The majority never even question what they have been taught. I too was brought up in the church. Catholic and Babtist. However , it was easy for me to sway away around 11yrs old. Heck my father has adegree in theology and has his own church. He also goes to all the prisons here , once a month to "testify". We wouldn't even talk if it weren't for the fact that we dont discuss the matter. Wish I could say the same for the majority of the rest of family.

  356. @My gaelic brother, who wrote:

    "Belive iit or not, it is brainwashing to take a child and show them only one side of the coin so much that they think thats all there is. Then they spend their growing years not questiong and defending a lie. Kind of like racists do with their kids..."

    Yes. But, as I have said before, I was brought up in christian and racial intolerance and I was able to see through it... with math and science!

    It illuminated me. Liberated me. I felt I could do anything with knowledge and...

    Well, I acheived becasue of it, despite my horrific background.

  357. @JBMHR

    Pretty well said. You made some valid points there. It is a persons choice. What if they were not really given an opportunity to really weigh them all? What if evertime they ask why , they just get told that they will forever be in burning anguish if the question? To believe out of fear for what might happen , as opposed to belief with evidence , is the difference between taching and brainwashing.

    Unerstand that I do agree with most of what you say. However, I will say that when it comes down to it, I just like to see another persons perspective. Not everyones but mosts. Well , until they start bible thumping scriptures at me. That is not proof of anything but the persons ability to distinguish/choose a "observable verifiable"fact over a "made to scare and promise, invisible" fiction.

    They do so because thats all they have. And they dont want to think that they have been lied to by everyone they love since day one. Of course no one likes to be wrong but it happens. You feel silly afterwards but you learn. (Some do, anyways .) Like when you realize there is no Santa or tooth-fairy.People for some reason have to have a cop out for bad things and a reassurance for the good things. They have no proof , because it simply doesnt exist. ( Im speaking in general here. Not everyone is like that , but a good majority are.)

    Belive iit or not, it is brainwashing to take a child and show them only one side of the coin so much that they think thats all there is. Then they spend their growing years not questiong and defending a lie. Kind of like racists do with their kids. They tell their kids that all else is bad and they grow up treating others according to what was poured into their head all their lives. Some grow up to see the truth, but its like a 50 to 1 that they dont. They socialize only with people with similar beliefs. Eat , sleep, and interact solely on an imbeded superstitious thought. Its a shame. Trust me, Ive seen it first hand. Maybe you have as well.

    Im not trying to convince , just trying to get them to look into it more and think out of the religious box. God worked ok to explain the unknown 6000yrs ago. Now that we can explain things better , there is no need to continue on a faulty road of god. It only gets in the way of progress.

    Also , alot of times there will be a great discussion going on and then out of nowhere , here comes someone with the god theory , attempting to miv science and god. Without any solid evidence to back up what they say. I find it intresting and somewhat entertaing to see just how far one will go to defend something that doesnt exist. And then they try to talk science but run away when someone asks them to speak on their non-biblical references or elaborate .

    Nobody know it all. Even quantum physicists dont fully know or understand quantum. Nor do I.
    I do know the facts. They say we are star stuff. No more than a chance meeting of matters , that met and mutated over and over , due to the preasures around it to survive. And here we are , as well as everthing else , past , present , and future.

    If you dont poke holes , you cant sink ships.

    You said "won’t let another play within the group because of ethnicity,"

    I disagree . People shouldnt come to the football game with a baseball uniform on. You will be laughed at, made fun of, and maybe even kicked about. Point being this doc was about just that. Why do people laugh at creationists? Because they say stuff like ,“The bible records that Jesus healed the man’s ear that had been struck off with a sword. Not glued back — healed.” and "Your lack of research is showing. A 30-second Google search turned up this site containing a list of contemporary non-Christian, etc."

    Like googling jesux is research or that the bible is nothing more than an insane, cultist-chain-letter. .

  358. “it was more sad apologetics from people who are desperately clinging to an iron age mythology that no one would care that you practiced if it wasnt for your incessant need to interfere with the rest of the worlds life”

    Yes. Yes indeed!

  359. "it was more sad apologetics from people who are desperately clinging to an iron age mythology that no one would care that you practiced if it wasnt for your incessant need to interfere with the rest of the worlds life"

    Yes.

    Yes indeed.

  360. Myself. Here is only one example supporting (not proving) a designed universe: Given that the current estimates of the diameter of the universe exceed our visual horizon by more than a factor of 10 (making the universe more than 100 billion light years wide), the flatness and horizon problems in the Standard Model require an initial preciseness that is unlikely, unnatural and statistically impossible, even accounting for inflation theory.

    my first response is, message thunderf00t. if you REALLY want to debate with him message him on youtube.

    now on to your claims. the thing that stands out to me is claiming that it is statistically impossible, yet claiming that a being that has existed for eternity and makes everything and will judge us and does miracles is perfectly normal...speaking of fail.

    oh and about what you claimed I failed at....like i said his medium was youtube, he was responding to youtubers. no one said this is the end all of creationists.

    look, here you say:

    The proposed solution is a “multiverse” creating infinite numbers of universes in order to make our type of a universe an eventuality is highly speculative and flawed, mainly because it requires the existence of actual infinities, which is an impossible, fairy-tail notion.

    however, again i should point out you have no problem believing in the bible and the christian god.....*facepalm*

    By the way, whether or not you agree with the above point, I have presented it as a reasonable, scientifically-supported, evidence-based, logical position. You said you had never had a creationist present you with one valid point. Here ya go!

    ABSOLUTELY NOT. it was more sad apologetics from people who are desperately clinging to an iron age mythology that no one would care that you practiced if it wasnt for your incessant need to interfere with the rest of the worlds life.

    (Sigh…) The bible is not proof for the divinity of Christ, at least not in the way of pulling Christ out of a hat in order to satisfy your idle curiosity. The bible is proof of the divinity of Christ to those to whom God has revealed Himself. For example, you may have read many cookbooks and yet still starve. Yet someone who does not even know how to cook, and yet eats the simplest food, will understand far more than you. As the bible says, the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who believe, it is the Power of God. As for you, yourself, the bible will never be able to prove the divinity of Christ, but that has nothing to do with the bible.

    your all knowing all powerful god has the ability RIGHT NOW to prove himself to me and save me from an eternity in hell...but he doesnt. he wrote a book that is only meant for those that believe already...wow...okay my argument goes same for the quran and bhagavad gita. prove me wrong.

    Hmm. Yes, I watch those conversations. Thunderf00t made quite the fool of himself. He was easily out-matched and out-witted, even by someone to whom he wished to be aligned. It was embarrassing to watch. I recommend anyone to watch them if you have ever wondered how far down a foot could be inserted in the mouth.

    are you kidding me. first thing you should have said is ray comfort is just another example of a poorly educated creationist and then you should have admitted that thunderf00t made him look like a bumbling child. this is like talking to someone who thinks George Bush was insightful....

    please set up a debate with thunderf00t, Donexodus2, or cdk007. if you want im sure i could set it up.

  361. @Jesusbuilt...

    I personally, wouldn't have a problem with religion if it were a personal and individualist concept. However, religious groups influence parties of government, and as such affect the lives of atheists or non-believers.

    Unification seems rather unlikely, segregation or elimination both seem more probable.

  362. jesus built my hotrod (awesome song)!

    No. It's much more critical than you think. We must, (MUST) oppose these religions for the sake of our future.

    Just recently, (and I do not have the exact info, I am doing 12 things at once here, so I am not going to google it, someone else can), a GW Bush appointed head of the Department of the Interior was asked by a reporter:

    "What is your plan to save our parks?"

    He responded,

    "Well, we just don't know when jesus is coming back, but I think it is soon, so... we won't need to worry about that..."

    Matter of public record. Terrifying.

  363. It baffles me... actually leaves me dumbfounded that the same people who devote their entire life living by a book written by man ( please spare me the "word/hand" of God explanations - if you believe that man is capable of sin to further himself or to achieve status, power or glory - then you should understand this request ) - know so little concerning the history of their religion which they confuse with a science...
    Almost as amusing are the evo's who seem to think that because science is proven in so many areas - that is just cause for those theists to abolish God in their life.

    Do you think people are really manipulated or forced into what they believe? Nobody can truly be manipulated into anything unless they want to be... I see so many references from evo's saying all religious people were " brainwashed" into their faith... Well I guess from about the age of 2 I was "brainwashed" into believing Santa Claus was real... But somehow I figured it out on my own he was not. Do you really believe those with faith don't want to live as they do or something?! Why bother trying to dis-way them towards anything they don't WANT to believe.... Did your Grade 9 science teacher FORCE evolution on you??? Were you manipulated into what you know to be true??? No you decided for yourself....

    And as for the religious who LOVE to jump onto the forums bashing any documentary that doesn't say " The earth is 6000 years old and God is responsible for everything we know of and don't", wake -up. Don't watch it then. Don't comment on it. You don't see atheists going around block by block knocking on doors telling people their god doesn't exist do you? I don't care that your bible tells you to spread the "word" and turn me on to Jesus... Your bibles also tells me those who eats seafood will go to hell. Leviticus 11:9-12 NCV. Right above the part that literalists have tuned into the hate- on for homosexuality.

    Point being... Neither side should bother to bash each other or go to such extremes in some effort to convince the other that what they believe is WRONG. Both views and beliefs are available. Why should you care as an individual what some other random has chosen to put their belief's in.... why not discuss the documentary at hand instead of turning it into some redundant war of words. I have yet to see anyone change another's belief system on here because they left some ignorant comment.

    It reminds me of kids on a playground who won't let another play within the group because of ethnicity...Yeah it's that bad.

  364. Sorry, D-K. Can't play any longer. Client broke their website and needs me to sweep up the mess. (sigh... It never ends, but I suppose I get paid either way, eh?).

    I don't see much point in much more. As I stated to someone a few months ago, "Nothing stated on this site will ever change the minds of believers or disbelievers. The only thing that occurs is already entrenched positions become more so."

    Gotta run. Peace, love and ice cream for all.

  365. I'd also like to add before I leave for work, that while Thuderfoot refutes the "easy" arguments, it's these arguments that the majority of "creationists" base their faith on.

    Most people don't care to scrutinize their thoughts, and thunderfoot "teaches" the masses. He is a positive force.

  366. Hey hey!

    Seems we have an actual debate going on, how exciting!
    I'm off to my nightshift, and once I arrive at work, i'll be joining in on this little shindig.

  367. @Chris who wrote:

    "Hmm. What does it look like when God reveals Himself? To understand the answer to this question requires an understanding of our human existence..."

    Hmmm... what does it look like, Chris? It looks like a huge pile of Oxytocin rushing into your brain, that's what it looks like.

    Please, do not quote the bible at us, it has no revelance.

    Brain chemicals!

  368. @ Vlatko

    "I’m not saying Jesus never existed, he just got proportional attention for his work in the non-religious books in those times. And than he was terribly misused by his followers afterward."

    The purpose of my post was that some were claiming that the historical Jesus was fictitious, and that the only mentions of Him were from the Bible. My point was simply to prove that claim to be false. It is unreasonable to expect me to answer all attacks in one post. And I agree that He has been terribly misused by His followers.

  369. Vlatko weighs in. I'm honored.

    I didn't say the Standard Model is obsolete. Far from it, generally, I'm a supporter of the Standard Model. However, the Standard Model is far from complete (as any honest cosmologist will admit).

    But the multiverse is NOT a part of the Standard Model. It is a fix proposed to solve the fine-tuning problem. Personally, I see the Standard Model as more of a problem to atheists because it points to a solution/origin that must be outside of our universe, but CANNOT be an physically-based infinite. More than this is impossible to determine with evidence.

    Hmm. What does it look like when God reveals Himself? To understand the answer to this question requires an understanding of our human existence.

    Man is made in three parts according to Paul's Thessalonians: A physical body with 6 senses to interact with the physical world, the mind or soul to interact intellectually (Soul comes from the Greek 'psu-khê' which is the origin of words like Psychology), and a spirit to interact spiritually.

    The Bible says, "God is Spirit and those who worship Him must worship Him in spirit and reality."

    Therefore, you are not going to clearly "see" God with your physical eyes. And you are not going to apprehend God with your mind. These are the wrong organs. People have tried it for thousands of years and it does not work. You may as well attempt to determine 'color' with your nose. You must use your spirit.

    Anticipating your next question: "How do you know you have contacted God with your spirit?", I ask how do you know you have seen the color red? And how do you explain 'red' to a person born blind? You either see or you do not. If you do not, no amount of explanation will suffice. If you do see, no explanation is needed.

    I suggest you (or anyone) see if you can contact God on your own. Feel free to complain to Him about everything I have written. My own complaint regarding His tendency to hide Himself was, "If you are real, bring me into that reality.

    In my answers, I have endeavored to respect your intelligence. Therefore I would not trouble you with the burden of believing fairy tales like a 6k year old earth, or other such nonsense that keeps thinking educated people from coming to God. Just forget what religion has taught you can seek on your own level.

  370. @ Chris:

    Again we are going down to infinities, yes infinity is impossible in our 3 and 4 dimensional linear reality.

    Everything is based on time again. But Einstein said space and time are illusion, as does QM, very easy to Google. And before the lynching squad gets ready, this is from the fathers of QM, not Deepak, and his minions.

    Since you are gravitating towards (CA) and I know that is your forte, would like to see someone, explore the cosmological argument with you!

  371. To all, it would be helpful if you actually read the posts, comments and replies before responding.

    @ Epicurus: Once again, your vitriolic agenda has gotten the better of you:

    1. "thunderf00ts medium here was youtube and he was using the most subscribed to christians on youtube. whether you think they are bright or not, they are the “voice”, like it or not."

    And because the readerships of the National Enquirer or Reader's Digest far exceeds that of Scientific American, does that elevate the level of their scholarly authority on the subject of UFOs and Atlantis? FAIL

    2. "could you point out ONE good creationist who makes ONE valid point for their position?"

    Myself. Here is only one example supporting (not proving) a designed universe: Given that the current estimates of the diameter of the universe exceed our visual horizon by more than a factor of 10 (making the universe more than 100 billion light years wide), the flatness and horizon problems in the Standard Model require an initial preciseness that is unlikely, unnatural and statistically impossible, even accounting for inflation theory.

    The proposed solution is a "multiverse" creating infinite numbers of universes in order to make our type of a universe an eventuality is highly speculative and flawed, mainly because it requires the existence of actual infinities, which is an impossible, fairy-tail notion. Think about it: if the multiverse possessed the property of actual infinities, this property would have been manifested in our universe in some way however small. But it does not. I'm sure you understand the difference between "potential infinities" and "actual infinities."

    Therefore, since the concept of a multiverse is untenable, we are left with only two options regarding our own universe: Either we were lucky beyond belief, reason or logic, or it was the result of a designer.

    By the way, whether or not you agree with the above point, I have presented it as a reasonable, scientifically-supported, evidence-based, logical position. You said you had never had a creationist present you with one valid point. Here ya go!

    3. "also if the bible is proof for the divinity of christ then then bhagavad gitas are proof of hinduism, and quran of islam….oh and lord of the rings of middle earth."

    (Sigh...) The bible is not proof for the divinity of Christ, at least not in the way of pulling Christ out of a hat in order to satisfy your idle curiosity. The bible is proof of the divinity of Christ to those to whom God has revealed Himself. For example, you may have read many cookbooks and yet still starve. Yet someone who does not even know how to cook, and yet eats the simplest food, will understand far more than you. As the bible says, the Gospel is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to those who believe, it is the Power of God. As for you, yourself, the bible will never be able to prove the divinity of Christ, but that has nothing to do with the bible.

    4. "Thunderf00t has a whole debate with Ray Comfort and also a meeting with Richard Dawkins in which they dont agree 100% at some points."

    Hmm. Yes, I watch those conversations. Thunderf00t made quite the fool of himself. He was easily out-matched and out-witted, even by someone to whom he wished to be aligned. It was embarrassing to watch. I recommend anyone to watch them if you have ever wondered how far down a foot could be inserted in the mouth.

    5. "this series was not meant to do anything than show how silly these types of people can be."

    And that was part of my original point, as well. However, the joyful glee you feel in watching thunderf00t's sorry spectral of tossing uninformed, inexperienced, and uneducated believers to the lions of his dull intellect only furthers my point that thunderf00t's videos do not represent a true contest.

    His videos are mental junk food for like-minded atheists and only demonstrate that thunderf00t can pick on babies.

    1. All right @Chris according to you "since the concept of a multiverse is untenable, we are left with only two options regarding our own universe: Either we were lucky beyond belief, reason or logic, or it was the result of a designer". Also you say the Standard model is obsolete.

      So I have a question: If there was/is designer what is the model of our universe then? How the universe was/is designed?

      Also you say that "the Bible bible is proof of the divinity of Christ to those to whom God has revealed Himself.". By reading this I must conclude that God revealed Himself to you. So I was wondering how it looks like when God reveals to you?

  372. @Chris

    "The bible records that Jesus healed the man’s ear that had been struck off with a sword. Not glued back — healed."

    Again religion comes up with a highly impossible scenario to buff up its poster child. I mean , really? Just picked it up off the ground and stuck it back on , huh? That just as make-believe as the snake talking and the splitting of the sea with a magic walking stick. It never happened. Ever think that maybe jesux just stopped the bleeding of a cut ear and over time it got stretched into a severed ear? Exageration over time is common practice in folklore. The jesux story resembles others. Johnny Appleseed being a good one. I love me some apples.

    "You would do better arguing ‘who’ he was rather than whether he existed."

    And just who was he and how do you know this.

  373. Epicurus,

    Remember when I called your posts, "A little bit too snarky..."

    HAHA! Now who's calling the kettle black!

    Yeah, I mean, in the face of ignorance it is very hard to keep one's patience...

    Tear 'em up, my friend!

  374. since my post is in moderation i will try again

    @Chris, thunderf00ts medium here was youtube and he was using the most subscribed to christians on youtube. whether you think they are bright or not, they are the "voice", like it or not.

    what makes you think he would only debate or take on these people? (could you point out ONE good creationist who makes ONE valid point for their position?) im sure thunderf00t would debate anyone that accepted.

    also if the bible is proof for the divinity of christ then then bhagavad gitas are proof of hinduism, and quran of islam....oh and lord of the rings of middle earth.

    and i dont know who you think would be worth debating (to me, debating a creationist is like debating someone who believes storks bring babies.) but Thunderf00t has a whole debate with Ray Comfort and also a meeting with Richard Dawkins in which they dont agree 100% at some points.

    this series was not meant to do anything than show how silly these types of people can be.

  375. @ Randy

    I'm truly sorry to hear that! Please accept my sincere condolences. I'll only add that it would be a mistake to judge God by the missteps, errors and crimes of organized traditional religion. The Revelation of John warns that religion will be severely judged because of its misrepresentation of God. Respectfully, I'll say no more.

  376. @Chris

    Oh, holy batman... blah blah blah

    Yes, Chris. Your little superstitions, your bedtime stories, that get you and your little family through the day, are absolutely truth...

    I am going to be dead soon, I don't care, destroy the world.

    But I'm telling you, I have forgotten more than you will ever know.

    I have actual results of my intellect. Homes, libraries, feeding families and children with my company.

    Results are all that matter. Everything else is fantasy...

  377. @ Randy

    The bible records that Jesus healed the man's ear that had been struck off with a sword. Not glued back -- healed. It would seem that your conditions for belief has become a bit of a moving target.
    Re your "non-existent Jesus" remark. Are you saying that Jesus did not exist? There is plenty of verifiable contemporary non-christian writings that record the existence of Jesus. You would do better arguing 'who' he was rather than whether he existed.

  378. @ Achems: It's not a matter of opponents being equally matched in every way - they never will be. It's a matter of each side being qualified to fairly represent their argument. The Christians that Thunderf00t attacks are hardly qualified to make a cup of tea. And Thunderf00t is not qualified to face a knowledgeable and experienced Christian scholar, and he knows it.

    The reason some people say that politics and religion can't be discussed or argued is not the fault of logic and reason. It's because most people are not logical or reasonable. In fact, they refuse to be.

  379. Apparently, the non-existent jesus character, stuck a recently severed ear onto a man's head, (but not in all the "gospels"... inconsitancies).

    I could do that too.

    Blood is extremely cohesive, (glue like).

    What I want is an amuptated arm or leg... to grow back!

    Got anything else?

  380. @ Randy

    On 06/12/2010, you stated, "There is no documentary evidence, biblical or otherwise, for god restoring a severed limb.... Grow me a limb, Lord, and then I will believe in you!"

    The bible records that Jesus restored a severed ear. Does that mean that you now believe?

  381. @DiannaK

    Ha! You said it.

  382. i really liked this little home-made series... creationists ought to be embarassed - but for reasons i have yet to understand, they aren't, and that always bugs me.

  383. @Chris, thunderf00ts medium here was youtube and he was using the most subscribed to christians on youtube.

    what makes you think he would only debate or take on retards? (could you point out ONE god creationist who makes ONE valid point for their position?) im sure thunderf00t would debate anyone that accepted.

  384. @Randy
    Dont get me wrong , man, I totally agree with you.You are right about having that paper. I got my degree 4yrs ago , however , I have yet to land a gig that pays anything in that field. Like I said before , I make waaay more money as an ASE diesel mechanic . Im talking 10k more a year , too. I feel like college , for me , was merely a very fun pit-stop in life. I learned alot , F*#$ed alot and drank alot. I would do it again. This time I would Major in something else.

    But yeah , I learned alot from just being around people and being forced to adjust to many different environments. Some great and some extremely horrible. I learned most of my Spanish from a girl but the rest got picked up in d.o.c. Amoungst other useful knowledge. I spent alot of time in books. Great way to free your mind when you are not physically . (Enough talking on that bad memory. F*** d.o.c , by the way, stright in the mouth with a two edged claymore.) I always try and tak every situation good or bad and bring something positive back from it.

    Anyways as I was trying to say , I think I just made a huge mistake on choosing my Major. At the time the economy was still doing well, but by the time I was ready to get into the field , it turned for the worse. Oh well, life goes on. I am thinking about trying to go for some kind of engineering , maybe. Next year. I got a fat raise in pay this week and if all goes well , the rest of this year , I am going back to school. Only time will tell. Its not set in stone yet.

  385. @ Chris:

    Makes sense, but if I read you correctly, if everyone were to up the bar, so the opponents are equal to a world class fight, would it not be hard to determine a winner! If at all impossible, back to the old adage. You can't argue religion or politics!

  386. @Randy, et al,

    Sorry for the long delay in my response. The point of my post is as follows:
    1. Thunderf00t makes an accurate rebuttal to some particular selected Christian YouTube videos.
    2. To draw a conclusion that those videos fairly represent accurate Christian scholarship and apologetics is disingenuous and misleading.

    Therefore, Thunderf00t only fights battles he knows he can win. He only takes on uneducated inexperienced idiots and fools.

    @Achems: My comments were not intended to make a case for intelligent design. They were only examples to demonstrate that Thunderf00t's conclusions are not justified since they are based solely upon the poor arguments presented by his inept opponents.

    You cannot claim to be a great undefeated fighter if you only beat up babies. Thuderf00t only succeeds in demonstrating that he can make a "fool" out of a "fool". To applaud his efforts only lowers the bar. This was NOT a good addition to TDF.

  387. @Hardy, who wrote:

    "Meh, I’ll stick with Thor..."

    Yes. Thor is a GREAT god! I loved studying Thorian legends!

    Loki and all that... (still, an apocolyptic religion, plus all the white-supremacy that surrounds it... but still! Great comic books!)

    Awesome stuff. I have many encyclopedias devoted to the Germanic/Scandinavian mythoses, (sp?)

  388. The subjects in question in this doc was way too easy to pounce on, they didnt have a clue what the were talking about obviously! A high school student could have disproved everything they were saying, way too easy for scientist to shoot them down. But one thing that stands out is that life did start from some higher being. Francis Crick the discoverer of DNA wrote that he became convinced that every form of life on earth - all flora and fauna, the entire ecosystem - had been created not by God, but by an alien race of incomprehensibly vast intelligence and powers, a race that might also have created this universe itself, and others. The dead sea scrolls and the sumerian tablets all tell of visitors from outside our world came with great knowledge who contributed to the some of worlds greatest structures ever built. Primitive people didnt create such structures, great knowledge did. The same accounts appear in different parts of the world. This would explain not only in the bible of genesis (hebrew text) and earlier writings about the sons of the gods interbreeding with the daughters of man, and the results were the nephilium..offspring much larger in stature and very intelligent. There are many ancient depictions of intelligent life that came here thousands of years ago. They all could not be CRAZY! where there is smoke there is fire! This was a very good doc making these idiots look just like that, IDIOTS....

  389. @eireannach666

    "I would like to meet a chic that speaks it though. I learn most of what I know in linguistics from the women Ive dated and actually learning on the streets..."

    Ha! Yes, that is the best way to learn something, from a woman you are dating!

    Seriously, though, I'm all over "knowledge of the streets", very important, but you still need that piece of paper, man.

    Everything I know is mostly self taught... but I knew from a young age, that I would need to go to college just to get that damn piece of paper.

    I learned more from having drinks with my professors AFTER school than from lessons, or tests, in class.

  390. @Randy

    Yeah, I dont even know where to start on some Hindi. I would like to meet a chic that speaks it though. I learn most of what I know in linguistics from the women Ive dated and actually learning on the streets. Everyday application is the best trainer or teacher , or life if you will.

  391. @eireannach666

    Thank you. That is very helpful. Esplendida. I like that.

    I guess living in California, Spanish is pretty essential!

    But, you know, Hispanics are the largest growing minority in America, so knowing fluent Spanish can help you get a good job, too.

    Also, Hindi, as we have discussed before; but lordy, Hindi is another really hard language!

  392. @Randy
    The only words I know of close to magnificent is "espléndida" or splendid in english and "espectacular" or spectacular in english.

    If my spelling is correct.

  393. @Epic

    I actually wrestled through it before posting, maybe I missed something though, I'll re-read.

    Note that i'm not claiming whether or not DM/C is accurate or even existant/inexistant, i'm simply expressing my doubts concerning their inclusion as evidence for something else, when they're understood so little. I'd say that it's hard to use something as evidence when that something is a mystery itself, 's all i'm saying.

  394. Seems like a degree doesnt mean a thing when you have a felony. Even if the degree came afterwards.

    I love German. I would love to live there. Yes ,Scandanavian is abeast of a language . My friend from Sweden says she will teach me but I dont know if I want to or not. Its really difficult . Germanic languages like ours are easiest for Americans. I tried my luck at Japanese , but only manage to learn a few numbers and a couple sentences . I know quite a bit of Spanish , though. Comes in really handy here in the states.

  395. Oi! I'm trying to learn Japanese, too... it's all too much for my poor old brain...

    Wacarrymas! (I know I spelled that wrongly, but that is Japanese for "I understand")

    But, I love the romance languages, Spanish, Italian, etc...

    The Scandinavian? No way. Can't do it. German I can play with... but, that's about it.

    Anyways...

  396. @My Gaelic brother,

    Well, we have talked about this before. The thing is this: you have to have that piece of paper, that lambskin, that gets you in the door. Then, your personality and innate inteligence, (which you have), gets you the rest of the way.

    But, yes, I have said before, you almost have to go to another country to live the American dream, these days.

    When I retire, I want to expatriate to Germany, or Canada, or Sweden, (although my wife hates the cold...).

    Maybe Spain, or Italy. My wife's mother is from Spain, and I am learning Spanish.

    Yo en espouse es magnificente (?) Is "magnificente" a word?

  397. I got moderated twice even after , I thought I fixed it. Oh well.

    Why is it so hard to find work when you are an ex-con (non-violent) that is more than qualified for a job , even after 7yrs have passed? To get beet out of a job by the most under qualified , wannabe ghetto , uperclass , suburban kid , with no degree, is very , very demoralizing to a person. Ahh! Makes me want to go apesh**. Pop-culture has made it acceptible to act and talk with ignorance but not acceptible to make mistakes and redeem oneself. What the F is going on. Almost forces a man back into a lifestyle , he swore to leave behind , just to eat. I should move to another country.

  398. Oh, we were both spelling his name wrongly. It's Van Morrison, (with two R's).

    And yes, another great Irish writer.

    "Moondance", "Into the Mystic"? etc... Yeah. Always a crowd pleaser.

  399. @Randy

    Good point. Thats what I say . Look at us! Look at them. Heck I dont know if they are more human or us more ape. I guess more ape since we are the latter but still. There is nothing wrong with being what you are. Whats wrong is denying the fact that you are and going along with the “nay-sayers ” , as you say, (Ill say the ignorant and stubborn and also the superstitious and religious ) believing you are something your not just because of some weird idea that we are ,in some way, not animals but divine or in a special class of being. We are just a step up on the evolutionary chain, Its only a matter of time before we are passed up.

    At least our predecessors will be smart enough to know where they came from and acknowledge their link to us and the apes. I hope so anyways. ( Could you imagine ,” I didnt come from no F’ing human, Eww !Gross! No way.” Ha!) Unless , of course , we are all wiped out by some freak disaster, (by man or nature.) in which bacteria , and viruses , etc will be our replacements. Or whatevers left if anything. That would be kind of cool if our planet had to restart from scratch with just a few surviving bacteria and re-evolve back to us then repeat , and repeat . (Except that we wouldn’t be there to see it. )Ok i am rambling. Got caught up with the mental visualization in my head. Would make for a good movie, though.

  400. Yes. It is strange how people get offended to be called an ape, when, in actuality, apes are really more noble than most humans.

    But, really, it should be very self evident. I mean... look at yourself, for crimeny sakes!

    And as for the common ancestor-- these nay-sayers are people who never took anatomy classes.

    And as for the CPA? Um... I have really been seeing alot of not very bright people graduating college lately...

    Try interviewing them for a job! Wow!

  401. @Randy
    Ahh , Van Morison. That is something I dont have in the collection . I like Van Morison. Another Irishman to love.

    I will write a reminder to myself to add that. Been a while since Ive heard that name.

    What is it with people ? I was discussing evolution basics with some people at a BBQ the other day , (whom I didnt really know ,some religious christian , the others not ) and not even five minutes in someone said that they would like evolution , but dont because they didnt come from any kind of ape, and and wont even fathom the idea. ( Remind you I walked in on the conversation of origins while getting a beer and listened to some misguided views on it and decided to be social for once to enlighten them on the facts.) Of course the christian wont even listen and gets defensive , wanting to drop the conversation. (After getting everyone to chill and bite their lip for a second .) I explained the common ancestor deal and still he wouldn't give it a second thought. WTF? I had to ask " Whats so bad about having a common ancestor ?" I got no explanation. Just F that Im not an ape etc. Had to drop it but this bothered me. Made me think that had I have said we are related to a cute little white bunny rabbit first , I would have gotten a different response. Can someone tell me what is so bad about being related to one of the smartest species on earth? Ive heard that more than once and quite a few times. This guy said he wasnt religious. Then why the delusion ? Just a mor**, maybe? I dont really think he was uneducated. He is a CPA , if I remember correctly. So he had to have some knowledge on the topic from school. Just arguing for the sake of, perhaps? It bothered me that I never got a reasonable answer as to why out of him. I swear, people, man.

  402. @eireannach666

    "Alot of times it differs depending on who Im with not everyone likes metal, so tI try to be respectful..."

    Yes. That is very true. And, it is a very Irish trait, being respectful of guests!

    I find Van Morison is always a crowd pleaser!

    I love all the music you mentioned, but the country stuff, reminds me too much of my youth in North Carolina... EVIL!

    Although, I do love and respect Dolly Parton... (she's an amzing woman and a good writer! A little too christian, but... seriously smart...)

  403. @Randy

    Ha! Yeah, I told the doc about how the new sleep-aid effected me and he took me of and just upped the dosage of the one I already had. Much better.

    I like classical as well , all you named as a matter of fact. Jazz is cool. The blues. I Ilike everything but country and opera. I like western though. You know Cash , Haggard etc. It reminds me of old Irish songs. Im into punk like Sublime , The Pouges (Ireland) The Ramones , Social Distortion etc , Some older rock , like Sabbath etc , but am a metal head to heart. Im not talkin 80's bu** rock but like Slayer , Deicide , Vital Remains , Sepultura (from Brazil) , Testement etc. Ilike some industrial as well, Skinny Puppy , S.I.T.D. (from Germany. I got to drink with them when I di security for their show. Those Krauts wouldn't go on without their beer , Ha!)

    Alot of times it differs depending on who Im with not everyone likes metal, so tI try to be respectful) mood and how much Ive drank. Most of the time it death metal.

    So anywho , How about Reggae like Marley. Love Marley , man.

    "Don't gain the world and lose your soul, wisdom is better than silver or gold. 'Tell the children the truth'” -Marley

  404. Ha! Yes. I have these beautiful, black python skin, "Tony Nacona" boots that I bought for like, 500 bucks in 1980--blah, blah-- I bought them because I knew they would last for life.

    They are elegant and awesome, but the heels are like two and a half inches tall... alas... with my MS, I would simply fall off of them like the physical mess I am...

    So, I wear black sneaks, or dress shoes, now. Age.

    Listen we are treating Vlatko's blog like our own personal chat room, here! I don't think he would appreciate that...

  405. Cant forget the black combat boots. Never leave home without 'em.

  406. Hmmm... very interesting. I love all music, but metal and very dark classical, (Bach, Wagner, Beethoven... Black Sabbath...) is the very stuff that inspires me.

    (Although, Vivaldi! Another little Italian man like Dio... sigh... um, that sounded gay, but it really is just admiration... you got that, right?)

    But, listen, you are staying away from the mixing meds, right?

    No mixing meds!

  407. I'm the same. 98% of all I own is black . Except I only have 2 suits, ha! My types of work don maintain the suit and tie dress code. I only wear mine on special occasions such as funerals. Which is funny because I wear black sunglasses eveyday all day, and sometimes at night if there are a bunch of bright a** lights where Im at. No Im not goth, Im death metal. I do security sometimes at a goth club my little bros promote for though.

  408. @eireannach666, who wrote:

    "Your like the mad scientist in the basement at 3am cooking up the batch of religex juice to introduce to the world population. Yeah , I could see that. With your white coat an safty goggles on. Fro-ed out hair from lack of sleep..."

    HAHA! You are not too far off, my friend! Except that I have only worn black clothes since I was 16... I have that Einstien thing where I just have the same clothes, same color, same style, etc... (Black suits...)

    So that, like him, I don't have to expend any mental energy on what to wear. A frivilous entertainment, frankly...

  409. Or maybe more like "Artist of the Beautiful" Where Hawthorne wrote of Owen Warland. The clock-maker trying to come up with a perpetual motion machine, and the people in his town all see him as a nut and a little crazy. Kind of like that neighbor of yours , no?

  410. @Epicurus

    "try to explain in here something as complicated as this when it is already done so eloquently by someone better learned than me."
    I have to agree with you there.

    Even though I was not involved in the dark matter/energy in the BBT conversation , I did enjoy looking over your provided link/s .
    ( Did I post this already?Hmm.If I did then,my bad.)

    @Randy

    Your like the mad scientist in the basement at 3am cooking up the batch of religex juice to introduce to the world population. Yeah , I could see that. With your white coat an safty goggles on. Fro-ed out hair from lack of sleep, contact with others for days or shower .Ha! Like Dr. Herbert West ( Speaking on one of my favorites Mr. H. P. Lovecraft.) I think it was "Herbert West, Reanimator".

  411. Epicurus,

    I love the concept of dark matter and energy, (it's even part of my novel...), but I kind of lean towards the rebel scientists that have been saying Newtonian mechanics may not apply everywhere in the universe.

    (That gravity varies throughout space/time, etc...)

    If that was the case, then there would be no need for dark matter...

    But, I still really love the idea of dark matter... I want it to be the real deal.

    In my novel, the dark matter is giant, galaxy sized space squids... so... kind of H.P. Lovecraft/Cuthulian mythos stuff...

    Anyways...

  412. @Randy "Yes, I read it, but it seems to be a critical review… I need the hard data."

    Man that link was hard enough for me to read. I wouldn't even know where to start if I had full access to their hard stuff. I mean , I might have more luck with it than I think I will , but wow, you know? Im kind of anxious to see what the review turns out. Heck , it might come back as nothing , but I doubt it. Only time will tell.

    "I swear, I’m gonna get burned at the stake by these people eventually."

    Dude , I got people out here that wont even talk , look , or sit next to me due to my tats and street clothing. (Things I wear out and about. Certain shirts etc., but I get to see thousands of pro-jesux shirts and logos everywhere I go. ) I get asked all the time if I worship the devil. In which I reply that Im atheist and get an almost exact copy reaction to being a devil worshiper. Ha! 90% of them dont know the difference. Such intolerence and ignorance . (Well I gues one does breed the other.) Yet I have to tolerate their backwards beliefs and way of life. Even at work. Shame , shame, shame, indeed.
    WWJD- what would judas do?

    @Achems

    Thanks , man. I think that makes some sense. Sometimes I need the physics for dummies version with some stuff. People write books , etc , and just over-complicate the simplest things. Then when you figure out what they are saying , you just want to scream at them, " Why the f*&^ didnt you just f^%$&*' say that to begin with a**wipe!"

  413. @Epi:

    What I'm saying is that Dark Matter/Energy shouldn't be included as viable evidence for the big bang as the nature of this (anti)matter is unknown, and there is a not a single particle observed, nor can the effects be observed as gravity isn't fully explained.

    DM/E mechanics might as well be effective properties of gravity/gravitons/gravitulions or whatever name is currently popular, that get parted from gravity in our limited understanding.

    I personally think, that without having explained gravity, the nature of the cosmos will remain a mystery. Not just the origin, but the very nature of it. It has been the driving force of the BB, galaxy evolution, countless other unexplained phenomena.

    I'm hoping for a breakthrough in white and black hole studies to reveal extra properties of gravity, I think we underestimate this force, but I digress.

    In short; DM/E is what is missing, since you can't quantify/qualify what is missing (in this case), you cannot attribute functions to it, therefore it cannot explain, it can only solve. DM/E is a solution, not an explanation.

    Great Scott, would you look at me ramble..

  414. Sorry, it was Tennessee (sp?), smoky mountain territory...

  415. Here's an interesting thing:

    (Listen I can't sleep because of the pain, so you just have to absorb my typing... JUST DO IT!)

    There was a religious cult in the Appalchias, (um... Kentucky, I belive), that claimed to be christian, yet they worhsipped Satan, because jesus said, "He is the Prince of this world" according to the gospels.

    Hmmm... really? I think the cult is extinct now, but I have spoken to them...

    Similar to the "Sin Eaters" or the "Snake Handlers"...

    Um... science!

    Although, there was lots of interesting co-relevance to the Gnostic Gospels in their idealogy... Beautiful country.

    Anyways....

  416. @My Gaelic brother who wrote:

    "Did you check out that link to the 30 + page paper they sent in for review I posted for you?"

    Yes, I read it, but it seems to be a critical review... I need the hard data.

    So, I have petitioned the Hadron Super Collider folks, and they will give me the data, eventually.

    But, I am a patient man. Science is a slow, methodical process.

    I am fine with that.

  417. By, "enough already..." you all know I meant, enough of the superstition... you got that, right?

    I mean, the "Dancing Cane" trick is really old. I bought it from the back of a comic book when I was 12...

    Anyways, the end of the story is, I had to go to her house and show her that I was not practicing black magic, (which all my neighbors think anyway... ah well...).

    I swear, I'm gonna get burned at the stake by these people eventually...

    *sigh*

  418. @Epicurus

    Yes, I agree, certainly, but really, all religions are just bad for us.

    Science and evolution teach us everything we need to know, is all's I'm sayin'.

    @My Gaelic brother,

    I just don't know. Right now, they have all the data locked down. I can't get any access to it, even with my credentials, so...

    Here's something interesting:

    Today I was in my backyard playing with my walking staff, (I have it rigged with wires so I can make it dance, an old trick... makes my nieces and nephews laugh...)

    Well, I was practicing making the staff hover and dance in the air, and my neighbor, (a GROWN woman!), saw me and SCREAMED and ran into her house...

    Really? Enough already!

  419. @ eire666:

    The neutral B-mesons are like women, can't make up there mind (LOL) but when they do, have an eventual preponderance of 1% matter over ant-matter when they decay to muons according to there tilt, or spin. called CP-(charge-parity) violation.

    Apparently new particle, new physics, in the making for neutral B-mesons

    Brings to mind Nassim Haramein, at the resonance project foundation, discussing Quantum spin.

  420. @Randy
    Did you check out that link to the 30 + page paper they sent in for review I posted for you?

    @Randy / Achems
    So if they indeed have discovered the Bosen particle ,then we would be able to explain where mass came from in the universe and the difference between photon, and W and Z bosons (mass vs. massless and electromagnetic force vs. weak force )? What would this mean , really? How does this effect us in the universe. If we can explain where mass came from then where did the mass making bosen come from etc , etc?

    Care to elaborate on this any? I am still trying to figure all the whole "bosonic-composites" deal and why exactly they are not true bosens as the Bose-Einstein statistics would state. If they are either elementary, or composite, (protons and mesons) Then why call the so called bas*&^% particles ("bosonic-composites") bosens at all?

    Science rules. Every step leads to another marathon of questions. Every step squeezes god further out of view. Unfortunately the religees will still deny facts and hold on to blind faith and superstition. What a shame. I bet this will really pi** off the religious world powers that be. I cant wait to see the review results.

    *Evil grin* Rubbing hands*

  421. @ eireannach666:

    I know what you are saying! and agree.

  422. Oh and 1 to 1 U.S. vs. England final.

    Too bad we couldnt get you limeys back for the mess you made in our back yard. Just kidding you fog breathers.

  423. Oli

    Agree to disagree.

  424. @Oli

    Ever think that those illnesses supposedly cured by hippie healers would have been cured by the immune system over time if the person just took care of themselves ? I bet they would have. A positive mind state and willpower along with exercise and a healthy diet can do amazing things. Ill bet all those factors came into play but peoples need to buff up a " healer" or "god" as the source of cure is so strong that they will throw aside all logic. I guess we will never agree on that one. I dont buy it. I say its bogus. The mind and body have natural ways of dealing with illness and pain. Some peoples are stronger than others. Just look at the "healer/god " win:lose ratio. Proof enough for me. Those people are just playing the law of averages.

    "healer/god If you were to ask a meathead,wouldnt he say you are a hippie for looking at documentaries online?"

    No , not me. You can look at me and know better than that. lol Im by all means nowhere near that category . In fact , Id bet half the people on here wouldn't even approuch me with so much as a hello or handshake , if passing by. Unless we were in the same room together and were involved in some kid of open dialog , I doubt they would even think I was half science, math, history or book savy at all. Thats what is cool about the internet.

    However , I do see what you were trying to get at. Im open minded to new ideas but realistic when it comes to "miricles" because they arent real. Also , if a person jacked up on bull shark testosterone cant really say anything. They are so dense that they can barely spell hippie. Hipee? I was just kidding about the hippie anyways. Although the majority of the "healer cultists" are indeed hippies. Just messing with you. Lighten up the topic a bit. No disrespect intended.

    @Achems
    That doesnt make you a hippie my friend .A person who opposes and rejects standards and customs of society and advancement. Especially one who advocates extreme liberalism in sociopolitical attitudes and lifestyles , is a hippie. Having empathy towards your fellow man, towards animals, and not to messing up our planet anymore than it is , is just just and wise. Codes in which we all should start living by. I feel the same as you on that one.

  425. Of course you can call me a hippie!

    But my definition of a hippie is someone who has empathy towards his fellow man, towards animals, and not to f..k up our planet anymore than it is. Now am going to hug a f...n tree! (LOL)

    Hippie dome forever!! Yeh!!

  426. @Achems Razor

    LOL. Yeah the "hippie garbage" can be a tiresome debate and its definitely a dead horse being beaten. Its obvious nobody is going to change anyones mind here. But its occasionally useful and fun.

    Even though I wont directly call you a hippie I will call Stephen Hawking, Einstein, Newton, Galileo, Epicurus, Socrates, Plato, Steve Jobs, Jesus, Buddha, hippies ;)and DEFINITELY Diogens and Gandhi( not only mentally but they physically embodied the epitome of hippie). I was going to call some political leaders hippies but I couldnt think of any, once in office they are all the same ( except maybe Mandela and JFK?)

  427. @ oliarguello:

    Ha, Ha, Well, good for you! we are all "Hippies".

    Without any slight to my friends, but am tired of this hippie garbage.
    Oh, please do not say I am a hippie! dread the thought of being classed as a hippie! just because said new thoughts, or not in agreement with everything that is said, have to be careful what you say or. He's a f...n hippie!!

    Just a parody folks. Nothing personal, (LOL)

  428. @eireannach666

    The point of the "time machine" metaphor was that you wont believe something unconventional until you see it for yourself. Which I dont blame you. Prior to seeing the healer I was an atheist.

    At some point you have to take it upon faith to believe what you believe. Those great understandings you mentioned are in the end theories, the data is concrete but the interpretations of what drive the data are beliefs. There are not proofs of anything, jsut theories based on empirical evidence. Just like I have a theory based on empirical evidence ( what I have observed vs the clinical results i have scrutinized).

    P.S. In case I have to make it clearer the Big Bang and Evolution by natural selection are theories. There is a lot of evidence to support the theories( the theories are afterall based on evidence), but different interpretation of the same data, or in conjunction with evidence outside those theories, lead to alternate theories.

    My point being is you have to keep an open mind. If anyone in any field thinks they have it all down pat , then there is no progress and you are stuck. Imagine if they decided not investigate or question ANYTHING 200 years ago.

    P.P.S. Hippy? Hmmm. Thats a relative term no? Especially the way you interpret the word ( based on a way of thinking vs physical attributes). I would suggest you are a hippie as well and that we in fact all have a little bit of hippie in all of us. If you were to ask a meathead,wouldnt he say you are a hippie for looking at documentaries online? ;)

  429. @eireannach666

    the following is what I went through chronologically and changing my hypothesis accordingly. There are more events that happened butI will stick to some the health claims.

    Claim: A person claiming to be able to heal the sick in Santa Ana, CA without surgery or medicine.

    Hypothesis 1: Minor self healing ailments are "treated" that dont have anything to do with the healer.

    Observations: People with cancer, AIDS, advanced leprosy, are cured and wheelchair bound people walking without contemporary medical intervention.

    Hypothesis 2: Its a trick and people are lying to help recruit other people and to keep them coming.

    Observations : There is some clinical proof of before and after conditions documenting proving SOME of the claims (AIDS patient and cancer patients). Also, my mothers cancer diagnosis by medical doctors is misdiagnosed as ovarian cancer, the healer diagnoses is it as stomach cancer and further medical testing confirms it is stomach cancer. I personally go through the process and have some minor chronic ailments alleviated.

    Hypothesis 3: Since no medicine or surgery is involved, and some major medical miracles are proven to be cured, there msut be a mechanism in which such things happen.

    Theory: HVPGS voltage has been shown to stimulate DNA translation; electrodermal phenomena from the skin due to emotions has been proven ( stress, anxiety, etc). It is my hypothesis that electrodermal phenomena can induce HVPGS like voltages at target areas to stimulate DNA translation into protein synthesis or degeneration from apoptosis.

  430. That's supposed to be 'galactic', obviously.

  431. @Epicurus:

    I don't quite agree with the inclusion of dark matter and dark energy as viable forms of evidence.

    "Evolution of galaxies"

    Do you mean glatactic formation/deformation or alteration?

  432. Here's a fun fact:

    There is no documentary evidence, biblical or otherwise, for god restoring a severed limb.

    So, psychosomatic ailments are easy to heal, but the real stuff... the lost limbs or eyes...

    Hmmm... Grow me a limb, Lord, and then I will believe in you!

  433. @oli
    "What exactly would you consider scientific evidence? A face on a tortilla? A few scriptures saying this guy did that? No right? I mean short of building a time machine and going to see for yourself what could possibly satisfy you?"

    Scientific evidence , you know, scientific method. Observation, hypothesis , experimentation, conclusion that validates the idea/ hypothesis , or not. Real evidence. Wait , there is none is there. Shucks , I prayed all night for it , but its not here. Maybe I was doing it wrong. Guess the World Cup tickets arent going to show either.

    Heck , show me one person who can raise dead people , walk on water , or cure a fatal illness with his super, hippy, newage, magical, healing powers. That would be great. People like that dont exist but in fiction books. All the evidence Ive ever seen points in the no-god direction. Are you a hippy? Starting to seem that way. Im sorry if my idea of evidence is something of fact and not something that has a "trillion:one" shot of being possible . And thats a conservative estimate on the odds.

    Oh , and we dont need a time machine to prove the big bang , evolution , or anyother one of our great understandings.

  434. @eireannach666

    Actually, I am having problems getting all the data from the Hadron-Super Collider. So far, the conclusions seem sketchy, but as I do not have access to the full equations...

    I'm sorry, my gaelic brother... I can't help you with "the toe of god".

    I will say this... they seem to have discovered the Bosen Particle... maybe...

  435. @Randy

    Any comments on the " toe of god" research up for review yet?

    Anyone else?

  436. I'm writing a novel that incorprates M-theory... I don't particularly like M-theory (Membrane, or 'brane theory), but it is fun to write about.

    The equations just don't work for me.

    But, it works for my novel. Which, none of you will ever read. That's private.

  437. @oli
    I wish I could have stopped you after your first few sentences. Your ideas are ,by far,not new to me.
    Im not saying you are religious. However you throw a god concept in with your thoughs on the way the universe works .Implying that god is anything at all , is still a creation theory. There is no god. The universe runs on its own , natural , mathematical way. Even if M-Theory were to be a proven fact , it still wouldn't be gods doing. It would be a natural process that just makes things more interesting. There is no place , zero , zilch , not one , in science for god. If you say god anything , then you are suggesting there is a supreme enity. Sorry you had to go on for three paragraphs about it but there is no god. Physical , spiritual , or mental. Just nature at its finest. We and all things, are nothing more than an accidental meeting of matters.

  438. I can't sleep. All of you must suffer...

    @Epicurus,

    I have been reading over your posts, and I see that you seem to be bending toward Bhuddism. I tried that path...

    Someone, I forget her name, reminded me recently that Prince Siddartha left his wife and child to horrible depravity, for "enlightenment".

    To hell with him! I do NOT forgive any man not supporting his wife and child! For any reason!

    Sorry, I get angry about that... All religions are horrible... Sorry, carry on...

  439. @Epicurus,

    I've said this before, in other posts, but, again, you show my shortcomings.

    You have a laser point mind, and I am all... Irish... and poetic...

    As I have posted before, this is why I am having trouble with my Master's thesis in Biology... World History and Classical Literature, I can ace with my writing style...

    But, Evolutionary Biology? Advanced Physics? I'm too poetic... You just nail it, every time!

    I call you the Intellectual Quizinart. Live with that.

  440. I'm watching "Dracula", the Frank Langella, John Badham version... O' Holy Batman, when I was a kid I wanted to be Dracula...

    I was the original goth!

    Sorry, carry on...

  441. @Epicurus

    Bravo! Incredible!

    "Fluctuations in the CMBR"

    You are the man!

  442. @WTC7

    how many different pieces of evidence do you want?

    Large-scale homogeneity
    Hubble diagram
    Abundances of light elements
    Existence of the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation
    Fluctuations in the CMBR
    Large-scale structure of the universe
    Age of stars
    Evolution of galaxies
    Time dilation in supernova brightness curves
    Tolman tests
    Sunyaev-Zel'dovich effect
    Integrated Sachs-Wolfe effect
    Dark Matter
    Dark Energy
    Consistency

    if you need an explanation of any of these maybe it would be safe to say you are not educated enough to even debate this.

  443. @Randy B.

    Indeed.

  444. I don't believe His Royal Highness, the majestic, Sir Doctor Randy even exists. Because if he DID exist, he would be God. And as God does not exist, His Emminence, the Righteous Randy is only an imaninary figment of all our imagination. No ones but he has scoped the entire universe and all time, to be able to come up with his absolutism. And that would make him God.
    You are NOT god, randy.....Get your brain around that.

  445. @Randy

    Hawkeye(MASH): I dont believe in atheism.

    lol

  446. @Olivegarden, whatever...

    There is no god, we are an accident.

    Get your arms around that.

  447. mental fart...replace amino acids with nucleotides.

  448. @WTC7

    I never typed anything about background radiation. You need to read more carefully.

  449. @ Randy
    **Don’t listen to Olivegarden, whatever his name is… he is never right.**

    Lol @ olivegarden

    But I concede, you are right and I am wrong.
    But wait! Since I am never right that would mean you are...

    @eirecannach666
    Thos jokes were actually pretty funny LOL!

    ** Whats the difference between that ( pantheistic view: GOD=Universe) and ID or believing in divine creation?**

    Not only does creationism imply a creator outside of the universe, but ID and divine creation is backwards to the way I think. I think everything in the universe/dimensions are bound by certain laws ( the ones we know and don’t know of) and everything exists, progresses, changes because of those laws. While ID and creationists think because everything is the way it is currently, someone consciously manipulates said laws to create what is here today ( a deity moves that those gases to make that planet, blows that wind, moves these amino acids, etc to make a human). Sort of like…I think GOD is the MIND AND BRAIN, while creationist think hes just the frontal lobe that somehow created the rest of the brain, somehow has a mind of its own, and controls it all.

    But I see the confusion let me give and more concrete example…….For instance a creationist and someone who believes in ID thinks its highly improbable that our genetic code to exist the way it does, therefore someone had to consciously put the forces together to put amino acids together to create a genome. While its true that it is improbable, that does not mean our genome came into being by chance. Genetic material is not regulated by luck, its regulated by principles of chemistry, physics, microbiology etc ( I believe this doc points this out as well). The cascade of events of the big bang ( and the innumerous events following it ) inevitably lead to a genome to exist on this planet. Just like if you knew every variable in the universe since the big bang, you would know exactly what number would come up if I were to roll a handful of dice..its all about the scope of a cause, all its factors( not just the physical, but the mental ones as well), and the inevitable effects.

    The only question that remains for me is the consciousness of the Universe I proposed. A mechanism by which the universe can “communicate” is theoretically possible ( supersymmetric string theory), but the question of self awareness remains. If you think that’s nonsense…well then you can say the same about the human brain. You can see it just as neurons, neurotransmitters, and action potentials reacting to stimuli; and memory, instinct, will, and thoughts are just consequences of the brain reacting to various situations.

    ** Seems to me that any and all who think science and god can be together as one have a deep well of religious intent inside. Just because one doesnt go to church or worship doesnt make them any less a creationist Simply by saying they believe there is a deity connection with the universe and its phenomena is implying an ID/Creationist concept.**

    I think you cling onto the connotations of certain idioms as oppose to trying to understand what I am saying. Which is understandable, when a new concept is introduced one tries to reconcile it with past knowledge ( I do the same). But I never claimed I wasn’t religious, in fact I said some of my beliefs and theories require faith since I cant prove Universal self awareness or communication, but I believe it to be true based on what I have experienced. Just like physicists cant entirely prove super string theory but they believe its true based on math and what they have observed from experiments….so far so good for them ( with some exceptions).

    ** I meant scientifical evidence proving the existence of a god or Ill even settle for some kind of proof that jesux was anything more than just a guy who taught good morals.**

    What exactly would you consider scientific evidence? A face on a tortilla? A few scriptures saying this guy did that? No right? I mean short of building a time machine and going to see for yourself what could possibly satisfy you?

    How about proof that healing is possible the way Jesus did it? If so you are welcome to come to Santa Ana, Ca to see. Although you may not have to wait for that, I am looking into seeing if the healer will let me make a website to post what goes on. And if I can, I hope to get medical proof ( and there has been some), not just hearsay of testimonies. And no I don’t think its magic, since it its real I have theories on how it works (a sort of innate HVPGS voltage conduction to stimulate DNA translation for instance).

  450. @ Randy,

    Yes, of course, the cosmic background radiation is an effect of something that happened some 13.7 billions years ago. But we have an effect here, do we really know what happened at the time when it happened, that was my point. I don't want to argue about this particular point with you (& you shouldn't either, as even scientists are looking for better theories than that of the BB), that was a question for Epicurus.

  451. @WTC7

    And background radiation

  452. Me-thinks, that @ Chris: is trying to make a case for either, creationism, or intelligent design.

    Am I right Chris!

  453. @WTC7

    Red Shift.

  454. @ Epicurus,

    What's wrong with you tonight, your English doesn't seem to be great at this instance?

    But, tell me, what "evidence" do we have for Big Bang?

  455. I would also love to see something knowledgeable and scholarly on this subject. Hopefully that would put the discussion on the topic on a higher level, though I don't think much can change compared to the current one...

  456. @Chris, even if you places the flood as a melting ice age, the story about Noah would be nonsense, the story about an ark also silly, collecting animals would also be silly. it still would be wrong.

    there was never a global flood even during ice ages or during the melting. it never created a world wide flood.

    if there was the oceans would be desalinated and all salt water marine life would have died out.

    there is nothing scholarly about creationism because it is myth and not science. what meaningful intelligent discussion can be had with someone who claims a magic man made all life? where do you go from there?

    claims without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.

  457. @Chris

    So... what are you saying?

    Calrify your point.

    Try to crystalize it in just a few words.

    I read and re-read your post and you seem to be all over the place... clarify.

  458. @ Epic_Logic:

    Okay, now I dig! that does strike me as a mystery, ghost in the machine? (LOL)
    Since your other site was private, has to be coincidence, no other way around it.

    Unless someone has your IP...address that shouldn't have it, which I doubt!

  459. I'm on a trip and without Internet for the past five days. When I come home I'll be buried in comments that are waiting moderation. Hang on guys, I'm typing this from some lazy Internet Cafe.

  460. I have to go out now. I am boring myself to death. Let alone you guys. Later.

  461. I am not being clear. Randy posted 1 month ago. I posted on another private site yesterday. Randy re-posts here on TDF one minute later.

    Please let this pass moderation.

  462. Epic_Logic:

    Have noticed double posting Randy's Hawking's story. I do not know the answer? maybe because it is a good story?

    Moderated 5 times? No slight to Vlatko, but am sorry, this moderation system belongs in Victorian age, you know, covering up piano legs and such. (LOL)

    Randy mysterious? well of course! that is why he is admired!

    Don't know why your internet is acting up, could be virus, could be a number of things, windows is famous for that. I presume you have windows?
    I myself run Linux, ubuntu, studio.

    You should ask @ Vlatko, about why so many blogs moderated.

  463. @Randy. Please put me out of my misery, so to speak. What is your take on this.

    @our US cousins. Come on Eng-er-land.

  464. @Achems

    Hey, I have MS and I still manage to hobble my skinny-ass around the block every day! Excersise!

    Listen, weight gain and loss is simple. If more is going in than is going OUT, then you will blow up like a balloon.

    Fiber! It actually cleans your blood and reduces tri-glycerides, (which, in fact, Atkins body was ruined with when the autopsy was performed!).

    And your brain needs complex carbohydrates. Needs it. Your brain uses complex carbs for fuel. Omega 3's are very important, (in fact, your brain is practically MADE of omega 3 fatty acids...) but you can't deny your brain its essential sugars.

    "A good body with a dull mind is as cheap as life itself..."

  465. Also, just to make things stranger ArchbishopRandy is being really cryptic and every time i post on this, my comments get moderated (5 half paragraph posts) and my internet disconnects in different way as to how it usually does.

    WTF@Achems Razor.

  466. Sorry to keep banging on about it. In short,

    I copy and pasted Randys Hawkins story ( posted 1 month earlier) on my secret dating profile (lol@me) and less than 1 minute later he re-posted it! It is on the masters of the universe Hawkins doc.

    Weird coincidence?? or is there some other answer.

  467. @ Epic_Logic:

    What, about women? or something else? inform.

  468. lol@Achems Razor. Now that sound like a diet i could follow.

    Did you understand what i was saying to Randy yesterday? It was so weird.

  469. @ Epicurean_Logic:

    Good diet... have tried that done that! That is why am so healthy, when younger used to drink like a fish, smoke like a chimney, and f--k like a mink!...(LOL)

  470. @ Randy:

    With due respect! But I can't agree with you always. (LOL)

    Dr. Atkin's was a quack?? that is old school stuff! there are millions of people on this diet at any given time, and according to my knowledge no one has died on it. Not even Dr. Atkins, the founder. He lived in optimum health well into his eighties, when he slipped on a New York city icy side walk, and either had an extradural or epidural heamatoma, and died.

    On this diet you eliminate all the bad carb's, all sugars, the killer "high fructose corn syrup" that is in a lot of foods as sweetener.

    Instead you focus on good proteins, good fats, like omega three, extra virgin olive oil, and low gylcemic veg's. lots of veg'

    And the beauty of it you can eat as much as you want and still loose weight! And like I said, know of this first hand!

    Also, exercise is not an option!

    Peace!

  471. Or alternatively try the Epicurean diet. Lots of sex preferably with a partner. Plenty of ,chase me round the bedroom and a little spank me/slap me. lol

    @Randy. you sneaky cold reading magician. If yesterdays fiasco was a coincidence then i want your dating advice even more?

  472. @Charles B.

    Don't listen to Olivegarden, whatever his name is... he is never right.

    @Achems

    Do NOT do the Atkin's diet! It is very bad for you! You can lose weight by killing yourself, too, is that what you want?

    I went to med school, I know this stuff, Atkins was a quack.

    Fiber! Lots of fiber! Excercise, fiber, lean protiens, (fish, poultry), fruits veggies...

    Did I mention Fiber?

  473. the problem here is that these "creationist" are just religion obsessed people who have no idea what their talking about. personally i don't even think they know why they believe in God its like they are brain washed. i believe in God but not like them, i managed to combine the creation and the evolution theories and created my own opinion about how the world was created. first u have to understand that 2000 years ago the people still thought the earth is flat so it would be impossible for them to understand that there exist atoms and other stuffs beyond there comprehension. that's why i dont believe every thing that is in the Bible, and because it was written by humans and the Vatican hides things from the past. but never mind that the idea is that the people in this videos are stupid and haven't done any research before contradicting the EVO. theory soo dont think that if u ask a preacher (at least in my country) those questions they would say the same thing that the people from this video said, they would probably laugh at them to :P, i think those guys are just stupid americans who ask no questions and are blind ty for the vid. and creationist adepts next time u say u dont believe in their God say that u believe in God but not in the same way, or just wonder why u dont believe, but dont say because its bogus just think for a while :P tyvm for the vid again nice stuff in it:D

  474. Oli: You're right. I think we have an innate sense of "sin" much of the time and gluttony is just one of the easiest to justify, whether or not is's specifically spelled-out as sin in the Bible or not. If fall under "lack of self-control" which is self-control a "fruit of the Spirit" in Galations chapter five. You are bright. I'll give you that. :-)

  475. Yes, don't get us mixed up!! What an insult!!

  476. Heaven help you if you lose your place in this video! 32 parts and 5 hours long? It's cute to repeat things once in a while, but they probably doubled the length of this video just by repeating things so many times. The sound quality is awful, too. They need to do a better job of editing this video and cleaning up the sound, because this issue is definitely worth learning about.

    I always thought that Creationism and Intelligent Design REPLACED science with religious teachings - I had no idea that they actually made up such comically wrong scientific facts! Sure, I expected them to drastically reduce the age of the earth to conform to the bible, and to argue against evolution, but to actually say that the earth has a perfectly circular orbit around the sun? Does it really undermine any religion to teach that the earth's orbit is elliptical? And to say that water will shield you from X-rays? I doubt that even the most devout parents would want their children to believe that it's okay to be around X-rays as long as you're wet!

    People need to see that there's more than just bible studies going on here. I really hope they edit and polish this video so that more people will watch it.

  477. 1. Jesus walks over to a crowd that is about to stone a prostitute, he stops the crowd and says to them all “let he who is without sin, cast the first stone” at that a woman in the back tosses a stone. Jesus looks over the crowd at the woman then yells ” Sometimes you really pi$$ me off , mom!”

    2. and Jesus said unto his 12 apostles as he was being nailed to the cross.
    ‘Don’t touch my fuxin Easter eggs. I’ll be back on Monday!’

    oops. I needed to doctor these.

  478. @Achems
    "the objects are energy first, that forms matter. So you can say everything, RE: objects, are energy."

    Nice. You a right. This is why I keep throwing things out there. For a response like that. Thanks for the add on to the point.

    *bows to Achems.

  479. @oliarguello

    "I take a more pantheistic view of GOD that reconciles my beliefs with science. "

    Whats the difference between that and ID or believing in divine creation?

    Seems to me that any and all who think science and god can be together as one have a deep well of religious intent inside. Just because one doesnt go to church or worship doesnt make them any less a creationist Simply by saying they believe there is a deity connection with the universe and its phenomena is implying an ID/Creationist concept.

  480. @oliarguello

    You seem to have confused me with Randy B. Don't do that again.

    I went to medical school, AND to seminary schools... so...

  481. @Achems

    Ha! Yeah I was really bored the other day. I figured if I gave a quick brief on some Newton , it might get someone talking about it. Oh well.

  482. @oliarguello

    I meant scientifical evidence proving the existence of a god or Ill even settle for some kind of proof that jesux was anything more than just a guy who taught good morals.

    Yes thanks for the correction, "creationism."

    I would just like someone to bring some actual physical evidence , visual evidence is acceptable as well. If you can see something or if there is a way to mathematically prove something , then it kind of helps with its credibility.

  483. @ Randy B. Charles B.

    If I remember correctly Proverbs mentions that if you have honey eat only enough to satiate your hunger. If you eat too much you will vomit.

    And I cant remember where in the Bible ( somewhere in the Old Testament I believe), but there is a passage that gives advice which states; the man who drinks too much will become poor and only have rags as clothes, the man who overeats all the time will always have stomach health issues ( might be Proverbs as well).

  484. Dr. Randy: Oh, really? I guess you are right. I cannot think of any mention of "gluttony" in the Bible. Good call, Dr. Randy!

  485. Thank you everyone for your concern! What great people!

    Um, I have been out of town, working (hard!) to procure new lines of income. Some success and my company has been busy, but it is exhausting to me... so I have had little energy left over for any other pursuits.

    I have been monitoring some of the comments and I must say:

    Hi, Ruth!

    Charles B. Sounds like a good plan! Fatty liver disease can be as bad as a scirrotic (alcoholic) liver, so be careful of the fat. But, remember, "gluttony" was a "sin" created by the Catholics, it's not in the bible.

    Gluttony is bad for your body, not your soul... but, yes, lots of fiber, fruits, veggies, lean protiens, a little excercise goes a long way, spend more time with family, you'll be fine.

    Hello, to all my super-intellect friends, (you know who you are!)

  486. M theory sounds like fun, I'll say that.

  487. @ oliarguello:

    Vibrations?, since you brought it up, will go further down the rabbit hole.
    Could be, our reality is but one vibration unit/level of infinite levels, infinite universes, in the vast sea of Q. energy, and probabilities.
    Some parallel universes as close as a Planck-length away. RE: string theory.

    Gravity could be leaking from a close "super universe" to ours, why our Gravity is such a weak force.

    When I say stuff like this, it seems to piss off a lot of Empirical, Tabula-Rasa...Scientists?? Really do not care! just digging the rabbit hole!...(LOL)

  488. @ Charles B:

    Glad you are okay, You say you are to fat? It is not "fats or protein" like meats, chicken, fish, bacon, cheese, butter, eggs, that are getting you fat!

    What is getting you fat is (carbs)!!, sugars, high fructose corn syrup, that seems to be in a lot of foods.

    If you can cut all forms of sugar, all forms of carbs, except some proper vege's, your weight will drop dramatically. Your blood work will improve, your fatty liver will improve.

    I say this from first hand experience, I have dropped 40 lbs. in 2 months, my blood work is superb.

    Went on "Atkins diet", Google it if you want more info.

    Wish you the best.

  489. Dr. Randy: How have you been doing? I hope you are well. Seriously.

    Anyway, no, I don't I think I really have any repressed "rage" but I do overeat. My dad says that like any temptation, you need God's help to overcome your besetting "sin" and eating too much is characteristic for nearly my whole family on my dad's side. But, he's 83 and still relatively healthy, so if I cut the "fat" (literally), I hope to also have a long healthy life.

    I didn't know they could tell so much from a blood tests. My tests came back normal (or withing acceptable limits) on all things including my cholesterol level, but he said I had too much fat in my liver and it was working below acceptable levels.

    I'm trying to avoid the pork chops. Dang, that's hard here in Korea! Not pork chops, per se, but they sure do love pork! I sighed deeply when at lunch today they had white rice, boiled pork with all the fat a drippin' and Kim Chee (two kinds), and some soup. I had the soup with raw onions and some dried fish. It was actually good, but I sure was "lusting" after all that pork my co-teachers were chopsticking down! I even had one tell me that the fat is boiled out and not to worry about it. I didn't believe her. They never tire of telling me to "Eat rice!" but I don't even like white rice. It's just nearly 100% carbs without any nutrients at all. Yeah, sure . . . Like I need that! My wife cooks a mix of black and white rice. More healthful for you, I think.

    Anyway, I'm feeling better, eating better, and I think the chest pain was caused from a cracked sternum when my boy jumped on me (a running jump no less), and I just didn't realize how badly he hurt me. I usually just say, "Son! That hurts, now stop that!" I haven't had chest pains at all for the last two days.

    Notwithstanding, I'm taking the time to spend more time with the family and less on-line unless it's something my wife also wants to see. She likes 48 Hours Mystery. I miss you guys (a little), but I just have to keep my priorities strait.

    Peace,

    Charles B.

  490. I most definitely enjoy this blog. I do still believe in God, and like others here, I DO have a lot of problems with "religion" and the leaders of such. But whatever you may call it, I still have a sense of awe and majesty at all that is....from that first nano-second of the beginning of the universe to the human brain that can write all these words I read. What God is...I don't really know, and yes, by faith, I do believe there is a God.
    But you have made me aware of things, think more deeply, learn lots. I wish I could sit around a campfire for several nights. Not just to talk about what is talked about here, but to know the people that write them all. I think I would like and enjoy you all. Christian, aetheist, scientist, philosopher, whatever and whoever you all are.
    I tip my hat to you all.

  491. @D-K

    Nice. very nice. That in itself is an enlightened statement.

    @Justin M

    If you need further clarification I think Kant's book "What is Enlightenment" will help and this quote from said book summarizes his thesis.

    "Enlightenment is man's release from his self-incurred tutelage. Tutelage is man's inability to make use of his understanding without direction from another. Self-incurred is this tutelage when its cause lies not in lack of reason but in lack of resolution and courage to use it without direction from another. Sapere aude! "Have courage to use your own reason!

    Laziness and cowardice are the reasons why so great a portion of mankind, after nature has long since discharged them from external direction (naturaliter maiorennes), nevertheless remains under lifelong tutelage, and why it is so easy for others to set themselves up as their guardians. It is so easy not to be of age. If I have a book which understands for me, a pastor who has a conscience for me, a physician who decides my diet, and so forth, I need not trouble myself. I need not think, if I can only pay - others will easily undertake the irksome work for me"

  492. @Justin M:

    And my axe..?

    You should be careful in uttering that which makes you seem like a fundamentalist, it devaluates your point, and that of the group you claim to belong to.

    Enlightenment is not about active processes, it's about awareness and personal contemplation, enlightenment does not belong to the masses. it belongs to the individual.

  493. Anti-theism is from the devil..lol I keep trying to tell myself there is something good to be gained by being alive during earths "dark ages". I've yet to figure. I take some comfort knowing that future scientist will see videos like this and realize not all ancients were mentally retarted. We need to continue trying to enlighten the masses but more importantly we must prepare to fight them. The bodies of millions have shown us the measure of they're resolve. It's time we show ours.

  494. @eireannach666

    I need some clarification. What did you mean by " science to prove creation"? Doesnt science already do that? Did you mean creationism? As in the Earth being 6,000 years old, GOD created Man as he is now, he created all animals and plants as it is now?

    If thats what you meant, you wont get a creationist answer out of me, thats for sure. If you want my view of creation search for the phrase "super substance" on here. I take a more pantheistic view of GOD that reconciles my beliefs with science. Some of it is speculative and does require faith, but so does the physicists who claim eventually we will know what happened prior 1 millionth of a second prior to the big bang. I still think the main question about GOD is not about creation, but whether the GOD has a consciousness , which that same post inquires about.

  495. @@eireannach666

    Thanks for the Physics lesson, but I am not sure why you directed that at me. I am aware of Newtons laws of motions that formulate the mechanisms for classical mechanics.Maybe I asked something I forgot about or did I say something incorrect?

    @ Achems Razor

    You beat me to it!..LOL. I was going to post that matter is really just energy so in fact everything is energy. But I will go a step further and say underlying everything is vibration ;) Although the only force not totally accountable in terms of vibration is gravity, but there are some theories out there (gravitons, LQG, etc).

  496. @eireannach666

    Yes I agree that Jesus did have Buddhist (I actually think Jesus was a Supreme Buddha) Hindi, Taoist is a possibility too,influence and was raised Jewish.

    There is speculation that he traveled the east during "the lost years" which would account for his teachings, knowledge, wisdom, etc. The bible makes a few mentions of his childhood ( in which he is very adept in philosophy and Jewish scriptures)up till 12 years old and then just all of a sudden shows up to get baptized at 30 with just one line explaining away 18 years by saying " he grew in stature and wisdom".

    Its funny when you ask fundamentalist about the lost years, all they say is we shouldn't know or it doesn't matter. WOW....Jesus formative teen and young adult years don't matter? Yet his birth and childhood are very very very important to mention.

  497. Eireannach:

    He steps to the water and plunges in..?

    Ahh.. Epicurus.. such a wise man..

  498. @ eireannach666:

    Enjoying your posts! Where is our (CEO) @ Randy, Now, I am worried!

    Your last post, "Meaning all mass are just objects" true, but the objects are energy first, that forms matter. So you can say everything, RE: objects, are energy.

  499. We as are anything , the cosmos , plants , stars , planets etc.. , just another object. Meaning all mass are just objects

    Go figue that.
    (Math "mass"ive" humor.

  500. @oli

    Ok , Ill start with it ,
    Newton's Laws- 3 very basic laws. Maths in which , explain observations.When a force acting on an object is zero, the object'momentum never changes . No acceleration or velocity change there.

    Total force acting on anything is equal to the X of the objects (M) mass/ acceleration.Net force = mass pi * acceleration. All force ends up in a reaction. Which is equal in contracting , of course , and is a reverse of the push of the applied force. If a force is alone or by itself, then you have to think about rationing momentum- the momentum of any object changes as a supporting and opposing way to the object at hand.

    Newton ,

    Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force. It may be seen as a statement about inertia, that objects will remain in their state of motion unless a force acts to change the motion. Any change in motion involves an acceleration, and then Newton's Second Law applies; in fact, the First Law is just a special case of the Second Law for which the net external force is zero.

    Second law as applies,
    Law enables us to compare the results of the same force exerted on objects of different mass.

    Next, as applies All forces in the universe occur in equal but oppositely directed pairs. There are no isolated forces; for every external force that acts on an object there is a force of equal magnitude but opposite direction which acts back on the object which exerted that external force. In the case of internal forces, a force on one part of a system will be countered by a reaction force on another part of the system so that an isolated system cannot by any means exert a net force on the system as a whole. A system cannot "bootstrap" itself into motion with purely internal forces - to achieve a net force and an acceleration, it must interact with an object external to itself.

    See also. hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/newt.html

    Look up

  501. Well , I guess , "Only parts of the corpse have been removed."

    Where is that from?

    @DK
    Because I respect your opinion "You don't develop courage by being happy in your relationships everyday. You develop it by surviving difficult times and challenging adversity.”-  Epicurus

  502. Who wants to give me a fact of science that proves creation ? Not asking for biblical quotes , just a debate of proof.PHYSICAL proof. Please , no prophetical mumbo jumbo. Or biblical quotes. Just facts and maths. On your godly terms.

    Just facts and maths.

    OK, go.

  503. Well , moving on,

    @Epicurus and Oli ,
    I think the buddhist were probably jesux 's base , but I will sugest, if you like a different view ,( buddhism as Epicurus stated , ) Or what I seem to take note of , Tao/ Dhaoism. Very wisdomish( for lack of a better word) . Is not all means of morals a common law, in which we should all be conscience of as standard for living amoungst others ? Religion makes things unbarable to those which already know the principles and morals of life. We all know what is good , s o why do we have to have a god to explain ethnics?

  504. @Randy

    Where you at? Dont make me ponder, brotha. Are you alright?
    Slainte.

  505. @Randy

    Oh and up there where it looked like I just mixed a bunch of letters , that was Gaelic. But my rambleings were still under the "influence".

  506. Hi, Randy! how are you dong now? are you feeling better?

  507. @Oli, as far as epicurus' famous quote goes. you just compared gods abilities to that of a parent. if any parent had half the power god is claimed to have their child would live a much more pleasant life.

    the Maha Purana text was inserted during british rule and is a complete fabrication.

    The Tacitus report is not very positive. if jesus did the things the bible claims, there is no way Tacitus would have called them superstitious. all it mentions is there were christians and they followed someone who was crucified. that doesnt lend any credence to his divinity. it really does the opposite. ESPECIALLY not mentioning the resurrection. which certainly would have been talked about all over the land.

    Julian was 300+ years after Jesus.

    Suetonius writes; “Because the Jews at Rome caused constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus [Christ], he [Claudius] expelled them from the city [Rome]....however this would mean Jesus was instigating riots at least 50 years after his death as Suetonius' life was 69-140 A.D.

    Lucian was also very harsh and also existed about 200 years after christ so is not any first hand account but also only knows of this through the stories passed around.

    the writings in the Talmud were from 6th century AD and do not admit of jesus divinity but only that he was being tried for committing sorcery. which just means he or his followers claimed to have performed magic of some kind.

    also keep in mind the virgin births and resurrection stories were common myths back then....

  508. Fair enough.

    Thanks for answering the questions.

  509. @Epicurus

    Is the questionable texts that of Josephus? There are a few uotes and translations..I ignored the potentially christian embellished transcribed version and adhere to the Jewish translation taken from an arabic text citation.

    As for the others off the top of my head: The Talmud, Lucian,Suetonius (sp?),Julian the apostate, Bahisva(sp?) Maha Purana.

    Even though I think Jesus was more than just some smart guy, one naturally admires those who he aligns his philosophy , virtues, and characteristics with.

    As for Epicurus some of his practical philosophy falls apart rather quickly ( for instance his famous quote about GOD..apply it to parenthood and letting a child learn a life lesson, and you see how it falls apart)., Diogens had some great insight but he was kind of a clown ( albeit on purpose for satire, I actually think he would have been fun to hang out with he reminds me of Stephen Colbert or John Stewart). Democritus was very smart and very observant, but man he seemed like a pompous ass. i dont know anything of Epictetus

    @D-K and Epicurus.

    I very much appreciate the questions! Some are actually things I never thought about or were phrased in a way that made me evaluate things a bit.

    We can continue, but I think we are getting into the divinity aspect of all this too much, which is fun and interesting and all, but of course is based on faith. Since you side with Epicurus(the philosopher) I think you would agree its pointless arguing something you would consider metaphysical and what I have known to be real ;)

  510. @D-K

    I actually do believe in a soul and afterlife. What I meant by transcendence is spiritual transcendence. I think Hell, Purgatory, Heaven ( and the varying degrees of such)are not physical places but planes of existence based on the "evolution or de-evolution" , if you will, of your soul.

    By saying "It also goes directly againts Jesus’ entire (supposed) philosophy, of attaining harmony and an existence without sin to gain your soul a ticket to eternal bliss." Do you mean going into heaven through him for he has paid for your sins? Maybe you can ( or someone can) point to a scripture that says that in the Gospels. From memory I only remember things outside the Gospels in Bible mentioning you can only go to Heaven because of Jesus, in which case its jsut dogma. In the Gospels I remember reading that you have to become like Jesus to get into heaven(In which you would have to define Heaven and like I said i dont believe it to be a corner of the universe somewhere but a form of existence).Which to me means you have to aspire to be like Jesus; aka to "know him", or "believe in him" as it says in the Gospels, to reach the higher level of consciousness/spirituality, plane of existence.

    And when I read that he will sit on the right hand of the father, I think that means he is on the plane of existence just outside of the ALL prior to uniting with the ALL. Afterall...if he was GOD incarnate how can he sit on the right hand of himself? Or pray to himself in the third person prior to his crucifixion and during it? I think his final sacrifice, even with all the power and knowledge that he had, was a form of servitude that "evolved" his soul exponentially since he supposedly knew it was coming and could have avoided it but knew it was necessary.

    I have stated why I go against so much popular belief that goes into the Bible. One of the greatest eye openers for me was The Kingdom of GOD is Within you by Leo Tolstoy. I really thought I was a bit crazy thinking the way I did when I meditated deeply and came upon some epiphanies, but when I read that book it was nice to see someone else who is revered has thought up the same things before me. He points out a lot of the contradictions such as Jesus teaching growth of spirit ( better to pray in a closet by yourself than to make a big show of it)versus people doing all these pointless rituals in churches and preaching like a madman while committing tons of sins ( Haggard anyone?)...or another great one is that the GOD of the OT can not be the NT GOD Jesus was talking about.....or that the Jesus who walked on Earth and told to love all even your enemies, can not be the vindictive genocide evoking person that the book of Revelation talks about in the second coming.

    Even if you strip away his divinity he was a bit more than just some guy ;) But some of the biggest questions are that of his virgin birth and resurrection. I dont have any answers for those ( even though Yogananda believe Jesus did resurrect)my understanding of miracles so far is just that of healing and walking on water. Even though i do believe ( which is admittedly just faith and illogical) , I have no idea yet on the mechanisms to make a virgin birth or a resurrection possible. If my understanding come to me that its not possible , even in a mystical sense, then I will re-evaluate my beliefs accordingly. But as of yet I have not given it enough thought or research.

    I guess my "weklky wine" does lie with virgin birth and resurrection. I will see where that path leads me as I seek truth.

  511. @Oliarguello, you said: But I have looked into the legitimacy of the Gospels in contrast with what Indian, Chinese, Jewish, Roman, and Greek texts have said about Jesus. They affirm his popularity and teachings and his teaching styles.

    could you provide these external sources?

    I only hope you dont bring up the known fraudulent instances. Also even if there was mention of a smart guy in the middle east that wouldnt make him anything greater than say Epicurus, or Democritus, Epictetus or Diogenes...

  512. "Instead I think one of our main purposes is for self improvement for not only harmony with others but for transcendence. Which is what I believe Jesus did"

    Does this mean that you don't believe in a soul? Or the afterlife? You seem to reason from "the self", a concept I'm sure you're familiar with, but this is directly opposed to christian belief. It also goes directly againts Jesus' entire (supposed) philosophy, of attaining harmony and an existance without sin to gain your soul a ticket to eternal bliss. This philosophy trivializes "the self", a concept you appear to value (rightfully so). So by living like the interpretation of the man you idealize or according to his teachings, you actually negate his teachings.

    How do you explain this?

    Buddha, does indeed seem more like your cup of tea as he reasons from the self and harmonizes current existance with current reality, resetting the process with death. He is about self-improvement for the benefit of this life and those in it, rather than the motivation being to conform to a certain cloudy clubhouse's rules for admittance.

    Logically, all that jesus taught is trivial in the face of logic and fact, yet everything Buddha teaches is relevant and fits very neatly in you personal convictions.

    If you strip jesus of his divinity, he's just a guy with community spirit. Think about that.

  513. @Epicurus

    ***you believe in the stories told about a man. its really easy to paint someone in a nice light if you write the stories almost 100 years after they die. then you get a whole organization to ensure this person is seen positively.

    why not look into buddhism if you are so enamored with the character the bible portrays in Jesus. it is a much more positive and logic based belief system***

    I am not sure who you targeted that at, but it sounds like it might be towards myself, especially since it directly follows my post.

    And its true the history makers are written by the winners. But I have looked into the legitimacy of the Gospels in contrast with what Indian, Chinese, Jewish, Roman, and Greek texts have said about Jesus. They affirm his popularity and teachings and his teaching styles.

    I actually do study buddhism. When I said I study other religions and other philosophical doctrines that included Buddhism. In fact it was a sort of a relief in what I meditated about Jesus and science was mentioned in Buddhism. Buddhism re-affirmed the cause and effects I was contemplating ( spiritual enlightenment and performing of miracles)and furthermore supports my pantheistic view of GOD. I think Jesus was a Supreme Buddha.

  514. @Epi

    My last comment was concerning the link you provided, which was interesting as usual.

    thanks

  515. @Epicurus:

    The guy says a lot of stuff that has been said in these threads.

    The geo-sociological aspect, conditioning, inherent judging of skepticism and logic/rationality..

    The genetic fallacy bit hurts my head though

  516. you believe in the stories told about a man. its really easy to paint someone in a nice light if you write the stories almost 100 years after they die. then you get a whole organization to ensure this person is seen positively.

    why not look into buddhism if you are so enamored with the character the bible portrays in jesus. it is a much more positive and logic based belief system

  517. @D-K

    Excellent questions! I will do my best to answer them. But I think it is necessary to give the preface that I, obviously , dont know everything. That which I do know; I dont know if its absolute truth. I am on a journey seeking the truth, may the chips fall where they may. I think I must also re-iterate that I was raised in a religious household, became an atheist before, and my journey has lead me to where I am now. So I am not afraid of questioning, investigating, revisiting, and abandoning what i once thought was true.

    ****So basically, you’re an agnostic pantheist with christian aspirations? The whole thing confounds me a little as christianity is a belief structure in which one conforms to certain rituals to please a god with definable human traits. Yet the way you describe it (god), these character traits would not apply, or even be relevant.******

    I guess I am all of those things and then some since I try to learn as much as I can ( religions, philosophy doctrines,political doctrines, various scientific fields, etc), filter out things for the truth, and reconcile said truths.

    I dont really believe in rituals in that they have some sort of magical power, instead that some rituals are necessary in that they serve some psychological preparation. Most professional athletes can attest to that, not that a baseball player with a ritual of tying the left shoe first is going to be guaranteed a home run, but that it helps that batter get into his game face mode. So I see prayer for instance as a way of meditating and trying to get to a mental place where you feel your spirituality and then gain insight ( versus most people who pray and think some miracle will just happen).

    If GOD is what I think he/it is, it certainly doesnt need me to perform rituals to satisfy it, or build gold or marble statues or churches,....anything a human does to "satisfy" such a deity seems petty.

    Instead I think one of our main purposes is for self improvement for not only harmony with others but for transcendence. Which is what I believe Jesus did. I believe he was the epitome of what a man could be in terms of human perfection. Thats why I subscribe to parts of Christianity and I think most of the Bible muddies up his teachings. In fact early Christians didnt even have a Bible, instead the Bible was a project managed by a pagan turned Christian , as a consolidation of texts that were around and religions that were around.

    So I definitely believe Jesus was an enlightened being and a great teacher. I believe many of the things said about Jesus were true (for many reasons) but was he the son of GOD?....The way i see it that's a play on semantics. DO I think he was GOD incarnate? No that doesn't make sense, not only to me, but logically or even within the Christian doctrine.

    ****Christianity and pantheism are not mutually exclusive by definition, but they’re not exactly compatible either. By adopting a religion, you have pre-disposed your search for answers concerning this consciousness you speak of, with notions/religious fact concerning his properties/nature.****

    That is only true if you believe a religion is 100% true and infallible, which I dont think is true at all. As stated in my previous answer I open myself up to all ways of thinking and seek the truth and discard the lies ( although the "truth and lies" can be revisited with new knowledge or insight).

    ***It’s strange, you take a bold leap concerning God being anything and everything, without having evidence to back that up, confirming that you