401. Comment #72119 by BMMcArdle on September 20, 2007 at 11:39 am

From truthbeknown.com
A prayer: "God, protect me from your followers." Well, needless to say, it doesn't work, thereby providing concrete proof that God doesn't exist and that prayer doesn't work. And those who have squeaked through the supernatural protective net have expressed psychosis, which proves that religion creates it.
"I'll pray for you!" This comment sounds like an alien language to freethinkers. It comes out something like this: "BZZZPPFFFFTTT." When interpreted, it becomes clear that the person who is making such a comment feels quite smug and superior in that he/she has chosen the RIGHT god, compared to whatever it is you do with your consciousness, such that he/she now has a direct pipeline, whereas you do not, and he/she will put in a good word for you, you lowlife scum. Since the concept of "God" is completely arbitrary, we could respond that we will pray to the Cosmic Mickey Mouse that our well-wishers become intelligent. Naturally, we are not talking about loved ones who make this heartfelt prayer comment in times of true trauma. We are addressing the condescending offer presented by missionaries and proselytizing fanatics who have never even met us but who feel they know we are sinners who need prayer to their "Father in heaven." Theirs is a rather unctuous and smarmy mentality.

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

402. Comment #72123 by Bonzai on September 20, 2007 at 11:48 am

Revcort,

You said evo is "just a theory" because in your view there isn't enough evidence (You misunderstood the word "theory" in the scientific sense as others have noted and obviously are quite ignorant about the mount of evidence that do exist)

On the other hand the bible has not a shred of evidence in support of its claims. There is, on the contrary, a lot of evidence that a literal interpretation of the Biblical account of the world is definitely false, but you are willing to accept that just because "the scripture is clear". See how nonsensical your approach is? Citing scriptures is not a valid argument even for non literalist Christians who accept the Bible as merely the "inspired words" of God but definitely written by humans. The Bible holds absolutely no authority to those who don't accept your unfounded assumption that it is God's words. If it is indeed what you say it is, one can only marvel at the ignorance and pettiness of the supposed master of the universe.

P.S.

At the risk of repeating what others have already said, it is important to understand that science is not just a bunch or disembodied facts. It has a coherent, detail narrative and a robust procedure to update our narrative based on new evidence. That narrative is supplied by the "theories". In science, a "theory" does not mean a random guess or speculation. You are using the word in the lay person's way, wrong context. In science a theory is a coherent and specific model which has withstood a large number of empirical tests.

The lay usage of the word "theories", which essentially means wild speculations, describe perfectly the Biblical stories you consider as absolute truth.

Other Comments by Bonzai

403. Comment #72134 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 12:10 pm

From truthbeknown.com
A prayer: "God, protect me from your followers." Well, needless to say, it doesn't work, thereby providing concrete proof that God doesn't exist and that prayer doesn't work. And those who have squeaked through the supernatural protective net have expressed psychosis, which proves that religion creates it.
"I'll pray for you!" This comment sounds like an alien language to freethinkers. It comes out something like this: "BZZZPPFFFFTTT."

I absolutely agree with this, and here is the Scripture that backs that up...

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.1 Corinthians 1:18

Other Comments by revcort

404. Comment #72138 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 12:24 pm

Where do they clone people like revcort? Why does he quote the bible at us? His is the saddest form of fundie intellect. I like this verse when listening to biblical preaching "only a simpleton believes everything they are told" Prov:14:15

Hey, that's a great Scripture. Here's another from the same chapter: 27 The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, That one may avoid the snares of death. Proverbs 14:27

Other Comments by revcort

405. Comment #72140 by Robert Maynard on September 20, 2007 at 12:29 pm

revcort said:

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.1 Corinthians 1:18

That's an amazingly insightful quote, revcort. It's so versatile too, especially when one realises they can freely redefine the state of 'perishing' to mean whatever makes the statement true. Thus 'perishing' conveniently comes to represent 'anyone who disagrees with this statement, which is in itself words spoken in testimony of the word of the cross'
Irrefutable! ..and circular to boot!

I wonder though, if the Gospel is therefore unintelligible to certain people, in what sense can they be considered accountable for their non-saved status?

Other Comments by Robert Maynard

406. Comment #72144 by walk on September 20, 2007 at 12:33 pm

Seeing as how revcort mainly answers questions with "the bible says so" and has avoided answering my last three posts asking simply for ANY real evidence of the existence of his god, (and is obviously an irrational christian bigot when it comes to homosexuals) - (sorry), I appeal to the scientists here: Aside from the (admittedly limited) fossil evidence, doesn't DNA sequencing itself prove evolution?

Other Comments by walk

407. Comment #72152 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 12:41 pm

Homosexuals can of course reproduce. All you need for reproduction are healthy organs. Sexual orientation has nothing to do with it. Many gay men and lesbians do have children from previous marriages or through sperm banks etc. Most don't have children partly because they choose not to, just like many childless heterosexual couples. Others may want to but are thwarted by the barriers of homophobic laws.

Celibacy also produces no offspring but most religious people don't consider that a moral sin. In fact celibates who deny their sexuality are often held up as role models if they do it in the name of God. A "non practicing" homosexual is also acceptable to Christians (and Muslims). Now if failing to reproduce is the sin why is a non practicing, non reproducing homosexual any better than the ones who have sex (and probably have children)?

In any case the world is quite over populated as it is. It is actually very immoral and selfish to pop out 10 children like some religious fanatics do. Think of the resources you will deplete especially if you're in the developed world.

The issue is not "ability" to reproduce. The issue is that "together" they can't, and this is what makes it unnatural. Now, if you can show me how sodomy produces a baby, I'll completely change my mind about this.

Having many children or having no children is not a problem either, but the motive for either should be to give glory to God. As you point out, the earth no longer needs to replenished or filled, which was God's command to Adam and Eve. (see Genesis 1:22) Yet, the majority of people refuse to have children, not because of the earth's overcrowding or inability to support them, but because they are ego-centric. They simply selfishly don't want to bother with kids due to a desire to maintain their own standard of living. That's where God has trouble with it. I have no trouble with birth control as long as it comes from godly motives. I have 4 kids and we plan on stopping.

I will say this though: it is well possible that the desire of so many unregenerate people to be homosexual or to simply not have kids out of selfish motives, they are actually removing their own beliefs from the gene pool. That might be something to consider. Atheists unite for fertility! :D

Other Comments by revcort

408. Comment #72158 by brother john on September 20, 2007 at 12:50 pm

MrDArcy.
Thanks for courteeous reply. Very pleased to accept it.
You give a fair explanation. We all tend to "generalise" in this way.
Could I offer you this thought. There are as many kinds of Christianity as there are Christians, ie each one has his/her own colour, understanding of etc. Large areas of similarity, but areas too of difference. I'm sure its a bit the same for atheists.

You misread my point about the trump card. I absolutely disagree with the man. Facts, events are CRUCIAL to Christianity. Re-read my penultimate para. It is there.

Absolutely. We are members of the human race, therefore in my mind brothers and sisters. That's why I call myself "brother" john.... Though unfortunately some of the brothers and sisters hate other family members. Sad. Sad.

Keep well

Other Comments by brother john

409. Comment #72159 by walk on September 20, 2007 at 12:56 pm

Rev, you're just not going to touch my request for evidence, are you?

Other Comments by walk

410. Comment #72160 by Mr DArcy on September 20, 2007 at 12:58 pm

revcort says:

The fear of the Lord is a fountain of life, That one may avoid the snares of death. Proverbs 14:27

In other words, if you fear the Lord, you will have everlasting life. So we've got to fear and love the Lord at the same time. We must perpetually crawl around on our knees fearing divine smiting and at the same time love the thing that is about to smite us if we stray.

What a weird, twisted view of human beings, that they will only behave properly if they are afraid of eternal punishment. To believe in revcort's Lord, you have to be bribed with an afterlife and threatened with eternal damnation.

revcort you can keep your Lord, because He exists only in your immagination. You can be scared of Satan if you want, but he won't touch me.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

411. Comment #72161 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 12:58 pm

The issue is not "ability" to reproduce. The issue is that "together" they can't, and this is what makes it unnatural. Now, if you can show me how sodomy produces a baby, I'll completely change my mind about this.

I have already explained this. Nature does not care about whether any individual couple produce a baby... what matters is the propogation of genes.

Having non-breeding individuals who help raise offspring is widespread in Nature. Homosexuality (including sodomy) is also widespread. In some species (the bonobo) it is an important part of social interaction. In the bonobo chimp, sodomy does indeed help produce babies, as it part of a natural method of maintaining bonds in society, and defusing situations that would otherwise result in conflict, and even injury.

So there you go!

Other Comments by steve99

412. Comment #72162 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 1:01 pm

revcort said:

18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.1 Corinthians 1:18

That's an amazingly insightful quote, revcort. It's so versatile too, especially when one realises they can freely redefine the state of 'perishing' to mean whatever makes the statement true. Thus 'perishing' conveniently comes to represent 'anyone who disagrees with this statement, which is in itself words spoken in testimony of the word of the cross'
Irrefutable! ..and circular to boot!

I wonder though, if the Gospel is therefore unintelligible to certain people, in what sense can they be considered accountable for their non-saved status?

That's probably the best question that has been posed to me yet Robert. It's very insightful indeed, and it is a very tough one, both to explain and to understand. I've only recently begun to understand it myself. Actually, the Apostle Paul posed this question and answered it in Romans 9, but you probably won't like his answer.

18 So then He has mercy on whom He desires, and He hardens whom He desires. 19 You will say to me then, "Why does He still find fault? For who resists His will?" 20 On the contrary, who are you, O man, who answers back to God? The thing molded will not say to the molder, "Why did you make me like this," will it? 21 Or does not the potter have a right over the clay, to make from the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for common use? 22 What if God, although willing to demonstrate His wrath and to make His power known, endured with much patience vessels of wrath prepared for destruction? 23 And He did so to make known the riches of His glory upon vessels of mercy, which He prepared beforehand for glory,

So, the Bible's answer to this is that it is God's prerogative to make people in whatever way He chooses. Actually, the Scripture says that ALL people are sinful and ALL deserve judgment and hell, myself included. So, the fact that He saves ANY is purely by His grace. Therefore, the better question becomes, "Why does He save ANY?" Truly, the fact that anyone can be saved is purely by the mercy and grace of God.

Another reason God can hold us accountable is the VERY thing that has been discussed right here- Romans 1 says that all people are without excuse because God has made Himself clearly evident in what has been made- in creation itself. When a person, who merely exists by the will of God in the first place, looks at God's creation and says, "we all came to be based on random chemical reactions," that is flying in the very face of God.

Yet, there is hope for all who are reading here because God ordains not only the ends (the salvation of people) but also the means, which in this case COULD BE my being here to tell you the truth. That's the only reason I have continued here. I'm hoping and praying that God may use what I have said, even in the life of someone who is simply lurking but not posting, to awaken them by the truth of His Word.

Other Comments by revcort

413. Comment #72165 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 1:16 pm

Rev, you're just not going to touch my requst for evidence, are you?

The evidence is all around you my friend. Try looking in the mirror. Or better yet, if you have any children, try looking into their little faces. Or you might try going to the nearest window and looking up at the sky. (hopefully you don't live in a city where there is so much smog that you can't see the sky) Hey, this will make you mad- listen to what King David said when looking up at the sky: 1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands. 2 Day to day pours forth speech, And night to night reveals knowledge.

Look around my friend. The evidence is everywhere. Your request is like a kid standing in the middle of a candy store whining at his father for never offering him anything sweet while his father stands saying, "What would you like?"

Other Comments by revcort

414. Comment #72166 by Mr DArcy on September 20, 2007 at 1:20 pm

Oh dear!

Our Reverend is getting into full flow. He's on his home ground when quoting the scriptures.

He has done the usual theological sidestep of avoiding answering any serious criticisms of his faith, eg. the lack of historical evidence for Jesus, the overwhelming evidence for evolution, the impossibility of a 6500 year old Earth and universe, (See above) He has avoided any proof for his God apart from asserting the Bible. Well, his congregation may well like his style, but then they, like him have been conditioned through childhood to accept this excreta without question.

Preacher! thy seeds fall on stony ground.

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

415. Comment #72170 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 1:25 pm

Absolutely. We are members of the human race, therefore in my mind brothers and sisters. That's why I call myself "brother" john.... Though unfortunately some of the brothers and sisters hate other family members. Sad. Sad.

Keep well

The most hateful thing you can do is lie to someone about things of an eternal nature. It's like telling someone standing on a railroad track, with a locomotive barreling toward them, that their shoelace is untied and they might trip and fall, skinning a knee or even breaking a limb. When, in actuality, the deadly danger is only moments from totally destroying them.

In other words, who is truly doing anyone a favor brother john?

Other Comments by revcort

416. Comment #72171 by walk on September 20, 2007 at 1:26 pm

Rev, my friend, perhaps you misunderstood my question. When I look around at the incredibly beautiful and complex world we live in, I am in total awe. I feel a deep emotional response, I just don't attibute that feeling to anything supernatural. Aside from feelings and "faith", do you have any ACTUAL evidence for the existence of god? (And, thanks for responding).

Other Comments by walk

417. Comment #72175 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 1:37 pm

Rev, my friend, perhaps you misunderstood my question. When I look around at the incredibly beautiful and complex world we live in, I am in total awe. I feel a deep emotional response, I just don't attibute that feeling to anything supernatural. Aside from feelings and "faith", do you have any ACTUAL evidence for the existence of god? (And, thanks for responding).

Oh no, I know what you want. But what you have just said is the equivalent of standing next to Rembrandt, admiring The Abduction of Europa, and saying, "Wow, it sure is amazing the way this paint all just randomly fell on this canvas creating such a beautiful pattern!" And then turning to him and saying, "Chance is such an awesome thing, isn't it?" I wonder if he would be insulted by that?

Other Comments by revcort

418. Comment #72177 by walk on September 20, 2007 at 1:39 pm

Okay, I see you're not going to answer.

Revcort (416) "The most hateful thing you can do is lie to someone about things of an eternal nature."

Whew! I guess you'd better pray your concept of reality is true! Do you ever entertain the thought that being absolutely certain about something you can't prove could be a dangerous position?


On a side note, and I mean nothing disrespectful here, how would you respond if one of your children happened to be born gay?

Other Comments by walk

419. Comment #72178 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 1:41 pm

1 The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Actually, this is an interesting scientific point. The heavens are certainly not showing the work of anyone's hands. They show the effect of a long-distance attractive force (gravity) on a distributed mixture of hydrogen and helium containing quantum fluctuations which have been expanded by inflation, (probably of a Higgs field).

Other Comments by steve99

420. Comment #72181 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 1:49 pm

On a side note, and I mean nothing disrespectful here, how would you respond if one of your children happened to be born gay?

I've thought about that, believe it or not. Some might totally disagree that people are born gay, but I won't go down that road. I come from a long line of alcoholics, on my mother's side, so I could see that it might be possible.

So, here's what I would tell that child. I would say that being born a certain way is not a sin- and even having predispositions is not sinful. However, acting on this WOULD BE sinful because God has made that clear in the Bible. I would support my child and I would love my child. I would not condemn them, but I would not lie to them by saying it's ok. Even if that child decided to act on that impulse, I would not shun that child or exclude that child. I wouldn't even exclude their partner from family functions, though I would ask them not to engage in any overtly homosexual behavior in front of other children who might be present, and I would think they would respect that. I would pray incessantly for that child for their deliverance from this and I would encourage them to do the same and to fight every urge to act on this. I might even encourage them toward celibacy, which I would view as a good alternative if they have absolutely no attraction to members of the opposite sex.

By the way, this is not only the way I would counsel my own child, this is the way I would counsel anyone.

Other Comments by revcort

421. Comment #72186 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 1:53 pm

However, acting on this WOULD BE sinful because God has made that clear in the Bible.

No, he hasn't. There are plenty of things in the bible that are declared to be sinful that we now consider aren't... The fact that it needs human interpretation means that it certainly isn't clear.

Look.. you don't believe in slave-keeping (which is supported by the Bible), so who do you believe anything it says about homosexuality?

Other Comments by steve99

422. Comment #72187 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 1:56 pm

but what I still haven't seen is a half-lizard, half-bird in the fossil

now that revorts throwing scripture at us and is liable to be blocked from this forum too (revcort, remember that it was people throwing scripture that turned many from religion in the first place) I am going to go back to the reptile bird thing (damn i really need to brush up on this as theres so much NEW stuff to learn.

that whole MASSIVE misconception about these half creatures is so annoying. what creationists are expecting is this large turkey like dino monstrosity, oh a bit like this:

http://www.edugraphics.net/0-loe1/images/lg-Feathered_Dinosaurs.jpg

ok, artists rendition but no cameras back then. Anyway, to my mind it demonstrates the lack of imagination and sheer misunderstanding of the living kingdom.

Somehow they expect a nice set of perfect intermediates (actual descended individuals mind you!!) from what, a T-rex to a chicken?? Now if im not mistaken T rex could well have been surrounded by birds in its environment.

What creationists totally miss is that there were a whole menagerie of feathered dinosaurs big and small that were running alongside the more familar unfeathered ones, and way before the creataceous extinction the line that lead to modern birds were already 'birds', it just so happens that when the big extinction hit (thankfully for us!) the only feathered dinos to survive were those little ones that now are the modern birds.

the dino bird connection has been around for ages and with each extra fossil the notion that they evolved from a therapod dino has yet to be falsified, maybe it will, but that will take more of those incredible fossils. Anyway so much for the 'freak of nature' that is archaopteryx, revcort, poor old archie is not even the tip of the iceberg, merely one branch on a huge tree and one of the branches reaches out and surrounds us today (tweet, tweet). anyway for freak of nature awards, its possibly us as (possibly) giant overgrown sexually mature ape embryos that could get the crown, but thats another story.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

423. Comment #72188 by walk on September 20, 2007 at 1:56 pm

Revcort,

Given your beliefs, I think this would be a fairly kind, humane response. It's too bad that the child would go through life thinking that expressing the natural, biological urges he or she feels (which probably won't change during their lifetime no matter what you tell them) in a loving, committed relationship would be a sin punishable by god. Wouldn't this be a form of child abuse?

Other Comments by walk

424. Comment #72190 by Bonzai on September 20, 2007 at 1:59 pm

revcort wrote:

The issue is not "ability" to reproduce. The issue is that "together" they can't, and this is what makes it unnatural. Now, if you can show me how sodomy produces a baby, I'll completely change my mind about this.

Let me take a different angle from Steve99's excellent reply above.

Why is it that only sex acts which may result in pregnancy should be considered "natural"? So is it "unnatural" for post menopause women to have sex?

Even if homosexuality is indeed unnatural you still have to explain why it is wrong. Legitimacy and naturality are two separate issues. Civilization itself is probably "unnatural". On the other hand, non consensual sex, or "rape" in our "unnatural" jargon is probably quite natural in some animal species.

You are also contradicting yourself by saying you see nothing wrong in using contraceptives as long as it is motivated by the "right reason".

Why is it become acceptable to consciously prevent the "natural" fulfillment of the function of sex if the motive is to "glorify God"? I can think of other legitimate reasons to have sex other than procreation, but to "glorify God" by humping is quite a strange idea, to say the very least.

Instead of making excuses for your sinful lust you should pray to God to take away your sex drive by performing an invisible castration or something if you don't plan to have babies. At least the Roman Catholics are consistent in their madness.

Having many children or having no children is not a problem either, but the motive for either should be to give glory to God

Why? If we are to God like the amoeba is to man, whatever we do is simply meaningless to God. If you insist on each bacteria resides in your body to "glorify" you I would think that you are an egomaniac without parallel and counseling is definitely in order.

I will say this though: it is well possible that the desire of so many unregenerate people to be homosexual or to simply not have kids out of selfish motives, they are actually removing their own beliefs from the gene pool. That might be something to consider. Atheists unite for fertility!

I don't know if people actually "desire" to be homosexuals. If they do, then it is not genetic. But even if it is genetic, homosexuality apparently survives selection. All gay people have straight parents,--if they are not, their homosexuality has not prevented them from producing offsprings.

Other Comments by Bonzai

425. Comment #72192 by BillySands on September 20, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Walk
You asked about DNA, this link contains some nice examples (I also recomend his book)http://www.richarddawkins.net/article,232,The-Fact-of-Evolution,Sean-Carroll--NPR-Science-Friday
For creationists, this is pearls before swine.

Perhaps the good reverend can tell us who the father of joseph was
Matthew 1:16
and Jacob was the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
or
Luke 3:23
Jesus, when he began his ministry, was about thirty years of age, being the son (as was supposed) of Joseph, the son of Heli

Looks like Allah says Christians are off to hell(the family of Imran 3)3:4 Aforetime, for a guidance to mankind; and hath revealed the Criterion (of right and wrong). Lo! those who disbelieve the revelations of Allah, theirs will be a heavy doom. Allah is Mighty, Able to Requite (the wrong).

I dont think even Biz shows this level of fundamentalism where he thinks an argument can be won by quoting a piece of self contradicting bronze age mythology.
I think if the god of the bible existed he should kiss every human's arse and beg forgiveness for his many crimes against us

Other Comments by BillySands

426. Comment #72193 by walk on September 20, 2007 at 2:03 pm

Thanks, Billy.

Rev, BillySands link (426.) might interest you.

Other Comments by walk

427. Comment #72199 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 2:11 pm

Oh no, I know what you want. But what you have just said is the equivalent of standing next to Rembrandt, admiring The Abduction of Europa, and saying, "Wow, it sure is amazing the way this paint all just randomly fell on this canvas creating such a beautiful pattern!" And then turning to him and saying, "Chance is such an awesome thing, isn't it?" I wonder if he would be insulted by that?

back to square one, revcort, are you insinuating that living things came about by random chance? it is preposterous right? Yes, i'd agree, living things do not come about by chance. Natural selection is anything but random chance.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

428. Comment #72200 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 2:11 pm

the dino bird connection has been around for ages and with each extra fossil the notion that they evolved from a therapod dino has yet to be falsified, maybe it will, but that will take more of those incredible fossils. Anyway so much for the 'freak of nature' that is archaopteryx, revcort, poor old archie is not even the tip of the iceberg, merely one branch on a huge tree and one of the branches reaches out and surrounds us today (tweet, tweet). anyway for freak of nature awards, its possibly us as (possibly) giant overgrown sexually mature ape embryos that could get the crown, but thats another story.

Actually, I've just read some scientists that say that this creature was actually all bird, not half and half. But I'm still reading.

I'll post what I find here unless I do indeed get banned, which wouldn't necessarily offend me.

Other Comments by revcort

429. Comment #72202 by Goldy on September 20, 2007 at 2:14 pm

Golly! Well, rev, you've had answers by the bucket and we've had....scribblings from the Bible. Actually, we've had soundbites from the Bible. I have asked before to at least reference the whole thing so we can get the full meaning.
Reading what you've written - scribblings apart - I deduce that you have a crappy science teacher. Either that or you were already heavily influenced by religion to block all the information coming in. Sad. And I presume you're already influencing your children's minds with the same.
Use other sources, please, for quotations other than the Bible. It is already a discredited book here. Quoting ad nauseum isn't making it's veracity any greater. We can quote the soundbites too, but they're generally the ones you decided are allegorical or don't mean what they plainly say (that special bible filter must be damn useful!). You've also twisted the meanings of words to change the meaning (this, I find is a good one. How often have I been told that the original Greek/Hebrew/Latin actually was, and meant, something else that fits better with the "message")
We give you our theories - and we call them theories for they are such. We don't say "This is what is written, believe!" - we say that it is the current theory. I have a book at home on Biochemistry (Stryer, 2nd ed) which I used at university. By the time I got to my final year, most of the text was written over by me as new theories displaced old. Our words change because we become smarter and realise we're saying the wrong thing. The Bible has not changed (indeed, you praise it for being the same for thousands of years!!!) and you are telling us to believe it. Mohammed came and, we are told, proclaimed the word of God and you don't believe it - here we have an update for the Bible and you've decided to ignore it totally - indeed, condemn it!
You see why we mock you, rev? I know you have a Biblical scripture waiting for this - leave it. It's worthless. You probably have not read the references given to you, you've ignored the "missing links" (they live - what are your views on egg laying mammals?) and you complain that it is all hard ot understand....without even bothering to do the research.
And finally, I for one will not deign to follow something that has decided I'm fucked before I was even born. That's stupid.

Other Comments by Goldy

430. Comment #72204 by walk on September 20, 2007 at 2:20 pm

Rev, before you move on again, could you respond to my 424?

Other Comments by walk

431. Comment #72206 by BillySands on September 20, 2007 at 2:22 pm

I cant be bothered getting into a debate with a creationist at the moment, but only fundies claim Archaeopteryx was a bird. It was actually more dinosaur like than bird like http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html

Other Comments by BillySands

432. Comment #72207 by Bonzai on September 20, 2007 at 2:22 pm

The Bible is just the literary expression of the infantile neurosis, anxieties and fear of a primitive people. It is no different from other ancient mythologies and superstitions and it is not even that well written or edifying within the genre.

It is truly absurd to cite the Bible as an authority in any contemporary discourse. It would be like quoting Harry Potter to prove magic is real.

I can understand why some people would believe in a Deist God or a Pantheistic God. But the God of the Bible(or Quran)? Please.

Other Comments by Bonzai

433. Comment #72211 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 2:30 pm

revcort

Actually, I've just read some scientists that say that this creature was actually all bird, not half and half. But I'm still reading

cool, glad you are still reading.

now deciding if archaopteryx is 'just' a bird is a tricky one.

By saying its a bird (as in todays birds) what the scientist is technically saying is that ALL modern birds and archaeopteryx PLUS every other descendant from the common ancestor of birds and archaeopteryx are birds, now all that simply does is move the goalpost a bit and includes archaeopteryx and a lot of other tailed, toothed animals as birds.

as it stands thats not a problem, it does not in any way, shape or form change the ancestry of these things. You could by that process call all dinosurs 'birds' and that would still include modern birds, the definition of birds would change so it wouldnt include 'no teeth' and 'feathers'.

The nomenclature is irrelevant, its the ancestry thats critical, in the same vein (and vertebrate experts tell me if this is wrong), if we call a shark a fish and a goldfish a fish, then WE by definition also have to be fish, confused (maybe horrified)? go read up on cladistics (the way living things are grouped by common descent) names mean very little, they are merely there for our convenience.

Unfortunately revcort you are grasping at straws, by reveling in the fact that some scientist says that archaopteryx is just a bird afterall shows just how desperate you have become to believe your genesis.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

434. Comment #72216 by Goldy on September 20, 2007 at 2:36 pm

Actually, I've just read some scientists that say that this creature was actually all bird, not half and half. But I'm still reading.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/subjects/birds/Allaboutbirds.html tells me

Birds are warm-blooded vertebrate animals that have wings, feathers, a beak, no teeth a skeleton in which many bones are fused together or are absent, and an extremely efficient,, one-way breathing system. Flying birds have strong, hollow bones and powerful flight muscles.

Wonderful thng, research. So's Google! But you've been told all this already...

Other Comments by Goldy

435. Comment #72217 by Goldy on September 20, 2007 at 2:39 pm

Nad for the 1/2 way fossils you were asking about, rev, go to http://richarddawkins.net/article,1669,Fossils-Reveal-Clues-on-Human-Ancestor,John-Noble-Wilford#72214

Other Comments by Goldy

436. Comment #72220 by NormanDoering on September 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm

revcort,

You seriously believe the whole Bible?

You think there are demons and Jesus can cast them into pigs and they'll drown themselves?

You think that if you have enough faith you can move a mountain or walk on water?

Other Comments by NormanDoering

437. Comment #72221 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 2:41 pm

I will say this though: it is well possible that the desire of so many unregenerate people to be homosexual or to simply not have kids out of selfish motives, they are actually removing their own beliefs from the gene pool.

First, can I express some outrage? How dare you suggest that people have a 'desire' to be homosexual out of 'selfish motives'. That shows an level of crass insensitivity that is almost unbelievable. Gay people are subject to such hatred, prejudice and persecution throughout most of the world it is inconcievable that the majority of gay people would choose that sexual orientation.

Secondly, you are showing yet another misunderstanding of biology. Gayness is not a recurring single mutation that will be wiped out if gay people don't have children. There is almost certainly a genetic tendency for a proportion of the population to be gay that is universal in humanity.

Other Comments by steve99

438. Comment #72222 by Mr DArcy on September 20, 2007 at 2:42 pm

revcort's trying:

Actually, I've just read some scientists that say that this creature was actually all bird, not half and half. But I'm still reading.

I don't know if archeopteryx was a bird or a plane, but I don't think he was superman!

Clark Kent and T Rex, now there's an interesting idea for a fantasy!

Other Comments by Mr DArcy

439. Comment #72223 by BillySands on September 20, 2007 at 2:42 pm

Of course Goldy, Chickens sometimes produce toothed mutants. A fact Biz doesnt seem to like http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000E9965-99A6-13FB-99A683414B7F0000

Other Comments by BillySands

440. Comment #72225 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 2:44 pm

Actually, I've just read some scientists that say that this creature was actually all bird, not half and half. But I'm still reading.

revcort, oh and remember theres no such thing as a half and half creature, maybe in myths and childrens books, its a ridiculous notion made up by creationists. The nearest thing i guess to a half creature is any child to its parents as it contains half the DNA from each. the concept of crocodiles with duck heads (as one creationist likes to show as ridiculous, we agree!) simply shows a lack of understanding and imagination.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

441. Comment #72227 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 2:47 pm

Given your beliefs, I think this would be a fairly kind, humane response. It's too bad that the child would go through life thinking that expressing the natural, biological urges he or she feels (which probably won't change during their lifetime no matter what you tell them) in a loving, committed relationship would be a sin punishable by god. Wouldn't this be a form of child abuse?

Certainly, I'll answer that. (I've been reading elsewhere for a while- trying to come out of the "dark ages" in my evolutionary knowledge is hard work. :D )

I suppose some would call that child abuse, but I would call it child preservation. Now, of course, you have to put yourself in my shoes (which is equally as terrifying as what another just said in this thread- that humans are actually fish) Nevertheless, from my perspective, I would say that instructing the child in what God says while also supporting them as best as possible is my ONLY option. If I had a child who was a kleptomaniac, I would instruct them that stealing is wrong in God's eyes and that it will likely land you in jail one day. When they did, in fact, end up in the "big house" I would still go visit them. Of course, you would argue that the difference here is that society also views stealing as wrong, but homosexuality is becoming more and more widely accepted.

Then again, I don't really care what society widely accepts because it's painfully obvious that society is slipping more and more toward anarchy with each passing year.

Other Comments by revcort

442. Comment #72230 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 2:51 pm

Then again, I don't really care what society widely accepts because it's painfully obvious that society is slipping more and more toward anarchy with each passing year.

You know that is exactly the kind of thing many people said when society became less tolerant of slavery, and when it wanted to treat women as equals, and when black people were given the vote.

Of course, on all those occasions society was right, and the interpretations of the Bible were wrong, but, dammit, those gays are just perverted!

trying to come out of the "dark ages" in my evolutionary knowledge is hard work. :D )

Well, I honestly wish you luck. But you will find there are many more dark ages to come out of as well, such as an understanding of sexuality in Nature...

Other Comments by steve99

443. Comment #72231 by Goldy on September 20, 2007 at 2:52 pm

Heheheheh! cheers Billy - I can still remember that!

Then again, I don't really care what society widely accepts because it's painfully obvious that society is slipping more and more toward anarchy with each passing year.

Getting more religious too. Scary thought, eh?

Other Comments by Goldy

444. Comment #72234 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 2:55 pm

revcort

(which is equally as terrifying as what another just said in this thread- that humans are actually fish)

revcort, remember thats merely down to definitions, it doesnt mean we have gills and fins, it merely was a way to demonstrate that names are just that, mere labels and in the case of sharks and rays being erronously grouped with bony fish (like a cod for eg) as 'fish' means that EVERY animal descended from the ancestor of sharks and bony fish HAS to be included under the name fish, and that includes most of the vertebrates including us. Luckily for us the word fish is specific to a particular branch of the vertebrate line, namely those with bony skeletons, fins and scales. sharks are, well just sharks!! im hoping you find this way of seeing the natural word perhaps a bit more challenging/interesting than saying 'god did it'.

Other Comments by phasmagigas

445. Comment #72236 by captain underpants on September 20, 2007 at 2:56 pm

revcort wrote: The evidence is all around you my friend

Indeed. Parasitic wasps and AIDS viruses spring to mind. And then there's Onchocerca volvulus, a parasitic worm that lives inside humans and is the most common cause of blindness in central Africa. Yea verily, I say unto thee, wherever you look, the world is full of evidence of God's benevolence.

Other Comments by captain underpants

446. Comment #72237 by revcort on September 20, 2007 at 2:57 pm

First, can I express some outrage? How dare you suggest that people have a 'desire' to be homosexual out of 'selfish motives'. That shows an level of crass insensitivity that is almost unbelievable. Gay people are subject to such hatred, prejudice and persecution throughout most of the world it is inconcievable that the majority of gay people would choose that sexual orientation.

Actually, that was simply a grammatical error on my part, and failure to reread and edit. I did not intend to say that homosexuals choose to be that way. If you'll read what I said earlier, you'll see that I don't intend to make that presupposition. I've recently decided that is an unfruitful and even unsupportable theory. Even a well-known pastor I respect, John Piper, has said that there may well be scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality could be due to a certain brain development. So, forgive that insinuation. I admit, after re-reading, it does seem that's what I intended to say, but it was simply poor wording on my part.

My point there was to say that by choosing to have no kid or by "being" homosexual, that they are inadvertently not bequeathing their own ideas to a new generation.

Other Comments by revcort

447. Comment #72239 by phasmagigas on September 20, 2007 at 3:02 pm

Certainly, I'll answer that. (I've been reading elsewhere for a while- trying to come out of the "dark ages" in my evolutionary knowledge is hard work. :D )

revcort, there is a halfway house you know, theistic evolutionists. these creationists accept evolution but say that god guided the process, at least one doesnt have to ignore all that challenging evolutionary theory.

one could imagine that upon presenting the genesis bit of the bible to man, god realised that the writers 2000 years ago werent up on evolution so he just said he created all stuff, he didnt use the word evo as it was too confusing at that time. well, its just an idea. it does at the very least mean that reading up on evolution isnt a waste of time, as god did it!!

Other Comments by phasmagigas

448. Comment #72240 by Bonzai on September 20, 2007 at 3:02 pm

John Piper, has said that there may well be scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality could be due to a certain brain development. So, forgive that insinuation. I admit, after re-reading, it does seem that's what I intended to say, but it was simply poor wording on my part.

So is it a proof that God goofs up,--yet again?

Nobody argues whether a preference of curry is born or acquired. Nobody cares. Whether homosexuality is born is quite irrelevant except for the scientists. The point is, love and sex between consenting adults are morally neutral and it is none of your business.

Other Comments by Bonzai

449. Comment #72245 by walk on September 20, 2007 at 3:05 pm

Revcort, thanks for the answer.

You said, "I would say that instructing the child in what God says while also supporting them as best as possible is my ONLY option."

Your other option would be to say "If god exists as I BELIEVE he does, this is what I THINK he would say, but I want you to make up your own mind."

Other Comments by walk

450. Comment #72246 by steve99 on September 20, 2007 at 3:06 pm

So, forgive that insinuation. I admit, after re-reading, it does seem that's what I intended to say, but it was simply poor wording on my part.

Fair enough - well said. (This is however, why the 'choice' argument is so ridiculous.)

John Piper, has said that there may well be scientific evidence to prove that homosexuality could be due to a certain brain development.

Actually, when you think about it, what else could it be?

My point there was to say that by choosing to have no kid or by "being" homosexual, that they are inadvertently not bequeathing their own ideas to a new generation.

That is the beauty of human culture. We don't need pure parent to offspring transmission to spread ideas. We spread ideas through literature, through teachers, via the media and so on.

Other Comments by steve99