Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Steve Zara


1051. Investigating Atheism

Comment #168351 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 4:31 am

I was going to give this site the benefit of the doubt, but a quick read has convinced me otherwise. The author seems to like to sneak in unqualified assertions as if they were facts. Such as this:

"In the middle of the seventeenth century it was still assumed that it was impossible not to believe in God."

Assumed by who?

1052. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #168344 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 4:22 am

Comment #168341 by Tagred

i need to learn and want to, so it does put me off a little when clever people find it difficult to empathise with others


I can't speak for clever people - I can only say what I think. I summarise that as follows:

1. Very respected scientist claims problems with evolution. My reaction - puzzled, want to look into it further.

2. Average scientist claims problems with evolution. My reaction - intrigued, but will wait for further comment from the scientific community.

3. Someone who knows about science, but isn't a scientist claims problem with evolution, but asks if their opinion is right. My reaction - interested, pleased that they are asking, and will try and explain.

4. Someone who knows about science, but isn't a scientist claims problem with evolution - my reaction somewhat intolerant. Why not a humbler attitude?

5. Someone who isn't scientifically literate, but claims problem with evolution, and asks if they are right - my reaction: glad they asked, will do my best to explain, but a bit puzzled as to why they feel they can state that there is a problem. Why not just ask "so, how does evolution work?"

6. Someone who isn't scientifically literate, but claims problem with evolution - my reaction: annoyance.

1053. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168319 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 2:24 am

Comment #168318 by epeeist

Fixed in "Bible 2.0" (TM)


Is that a "Web 2.0" application? Anyone can collaborate, put in their own bits, edit out others, and still say they are getting Bibley goodness?

(Much like the real thing then)

1054. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168316 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 2:18 am

Some of you starting to second guess your beliefs?


What possible basis could we have for doing so? You have shown profound ignorance of biology, evolution and genetics. You have asked questions and refused to accept the answers even though you could have found, and checked the answers yourself. You Pick a few scientists who back what you say as against the hundreds of thousands of scientists who don't, which means you have not the slightest idea of science, or how it works. You don't understand what mutations are. You don't understand how selection works. You don't understand how information can be added to the genome.

People here may be persuadable by evidence and reasoned arguments, but if you think that we will be persuaded by ignorance and misunderstanding (especially when that has been pointed out to you, and you have not managed to refute is), you must have a very strange view of people.

1055. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168311 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 2:12 am

Comment #168248 by Ty_Webb

If I may say so, an excellent and useful point. Creationist seem to trust theories we know are wrong about things that we don't know how they work.

Evolution is right, and we DO know how it works....

1056. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168310 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 2:08 am

Comment #168308 by Quetzalcoatl

I guess it depends on whether or not you remember to load the Soul Software.

1057. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168309 by Steve Zara on April 25, 2008 at 2:07 am

Comment #168280 by Dave(TX)

Bottom line from a Physics point of view is that at some point something had to come from nothing (scientifically impossible) or something had to have always existed (scientifically impossible).


No. This comes from a naive "flat-Earth" style interpretation of time. Time may not work like that at all.

1058. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168136 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:56 pm

Comment #168133 by Remnant

Admirable indeed. I have no reason to doubt what you say. If you have felt that I have insulted you personally in any way, I apologise. Intense debate can lead to such things.

I will continue to debate your personal ideas with vigour, but if that is your attitude to teaching, then I believe we would not differ that much in that area.

1059. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168132 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:46 pm

Comment #168124 by Remnant

I know how scientists like to disprove other's work but I also know about the censorship, peer pressure, and dangers to one's career for not towing the neo-Darwinian line.

You can pretend it isn't so, but it is.


Lynn Margulis, a biologist of great significance, isn't a neo-Darwinist. She believes gene transfer and symbiosis is the dominant mechanism of evolution. Far from being censored and threatened, she is widely respected.

Scientists have to come up with research plans and evidence to keep going in their careers. Neo-Darwinism is very well established because there is a hell of a lot of evidence for it. Anyone with contradictory ideas has to come up with damn good ideas and evidence. This isn't censorship - it is part of the near everyday battle scientists have to fight to stay in their jobs (I have a friend who is a research group leader, and she seems to spend most of her time writing research grants).

One has to ask - why are you so concerned about neo-Darwinian theory?

1060. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168125 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:38 pm

It shows such a mind-blowing lack of faith that you folks have to attack science to shore up your beliefs.


Well said Sir.

1061. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168121 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:34 pm

Comment #168118 by Remnant

I do not restrict my children reading list nor do I force them to read my suggestions. My children have literary freedom.


Admirable.

1062. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168113 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:28 pm

Comment #168112 by Remnant

And keep the atheist change agents' personal beliefs out of the science lessons as well.


Science isn't about personal beliefs. Anyone who "preaches atheism" in a science lesson is abusing their position. Atheism is a conclusion that many come to when they come to understand science, but it is by no means inevitable.

1063. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168110 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:22 pm

Comment #168106 by TheTruthID

I'm not qualified? If you are an expert, have you ever been in a debate? If so, do you have the transcripts or video?


Sure. I have been in many debates. Two of them have been on-line, and one is still on-going:

http://atheistandchristiandialogue.blogspot.com/

Ongoing, and far more philosophical and scientific:

http://bnonn.thinkingmatters.org.nz/?p=65

(This debate will more formally presented when finished)
(and it is Dr. Zara. Ph.D. in Biology, 1985).

1064. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168105 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:17 pm

Comment #168099 by Remnant

One thing about the Bible, whether one chooses to believe the Bible or not, reading it develops comprehension skills, vocabulary skills, and expressive writing skills.


Something you and Dawkins agree on.

The Bible should be read. It is an important cultural book, and contains sections of great beauty.

Just keep it the feck out of science lessons.

1065. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168102 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:13 pm

Comment #168097 by TheTruthID

There are many more highly qualified, educated, smarter scientists who absolutly disagree with you.


No, not many. That is the point. There are many, many, many, many scientists who are more highly qualified, educated and smarter than me who disagree with you. If this is going to be a battle of launching experts at each other, I win a thousand-fold.

What are your qualifications? What gives you the ability to pick a few outlier scientists and say that, against the majority view, they are right? Are you a kind of science talent-spotter?

1066. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168091 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:01 pm

Comment #168088 by annabanana

Not all. Some do it OK. Renée Zellweger did well in Bridget Jones' Diary.

1067. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168084 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 1:57 pm

Comment #168065 by TheTruthID

Erm, sorry. What is bogus? You can go study the gene mutations of Galapagos Finches for yourself if you like. Much science is like that - available to everyone.

I realise it can be quite shocking to have your cosy world where you know all you want to know about reality shattered, but if you are going to come to a site like this you are going to find people who are smarter than you. We all find that. It is part of the excitement.

Also, if you ask questions, you had better be prepared for the answers.

1068. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168073 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 1:53 pm

Anna-

Our British friend came to visit recently and we made him speak with an American accent just so we could giggle at him.


Hey, we fooled you with Hugh Laurie you know.

1069. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168058 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 1:41 pm

Comment #168053 by Remnant

For the umpteenth time, I am not advocating "teaching creationism". Re-read my post I explained my position quite throughly.


You are proposing teaching alternatives to the theory of Natural Selection. I don't care what you call it. You have to meet those criteria. I would be interested if you could describe how what you want taught (call it Idea X if you like) does meet those criteria.

1070. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168052 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 1:37 pm

Comment #168035 by TheTruthID

The mutations in Darwin's finches were in the genes that controlled bone morphology. These have frequent mutations that generate a range of beak shapes in a given population. Even if you isolate a birds with a single beak shape, variation will re-appear because of the mutation.

So, we have dealt with the "no successive positive mutations". Now we have dealt with the "it's just variation, not mutation". What's next?

1071. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168041 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 1:33 pm

Remnant-

What you have to do, you see, is to show how creationist ideas can be subject to the processes of science. They must be simple alternatives to other explanations. There must They must be testable, and falsifiable.

Unless you can do that, then you can't teach them in a science class as an alternative to any other theory. It is as simple as that. You can preach them all you like elsewhere.

1072. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168018 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 1:23 pm

Comment #168001 by TheTruthID

Actually no. It was a rodent. Just happened to be called a rat.

But it proves your "no multiple positive mutations" statement was a pile of poo.

1073. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #168014 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 1:21 pm

Comment #168011 by Epinephrine

Actually, it's exactly like that. Just like walking from Ottawa to Montreal is exactly like walking from my chair to the door, you keep doing it a little longer.


Brilliant! We should keep that as a quote.

1074. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #168012 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 1:19 pm

Then why are you advocating pre-existing eternal laws existing outside of the natural world when by definition, science limits itself to the natural world. that is a contradiction. Science should be about the search for causes wherever that may lead.


Who said that the pre-existing laws aren't part of nature? That is just you messing with words.

The search for causes has led some researchers to those pre-existing timeless (NOT eternal laws). They are a consequence of current approaches to String Theory, for example.

I said, that evolution and origins should be presented as theories


But here we get to the heart of the problem. "Origins" is not a theory. It is not testable. It is not falsifiable. It involves supernaturalism, which isn't science.

The problem is that evolution, a theory with more holes than swiss cheese, is taught in a way that leaves children with the false impression that it is a proven fact and the existence of God scientifically disproved.


Ah! So this is your problem. Allow children to learn science and they will discover the truth of evolution and they might find the Bible a bit silly and question theism?

I would like to point out one thing. You have clearly demonstrated that you don't have a detailed knowledge of physics or biology. That is nothing to be ashamed of. But it does make you look a bit silly if you are going to make statements about "holes in evolutionary theory". I suppose you feel equally qualified to discuss, say, chemistry do you?

1075. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167994 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 1:11 pm

Multiple concessive random positive mutations is different. It has never been proven.You confuse the issue by claiming these processes are one in the same. They are not.


You know something. You try even my patience. Why? Because what you say is so boringly wrong. I mean, honestly, how long does it take to do even a little research?

An example of multiple positive mutations is the origination of the Red Viscacha-Rat. This is tetraploid. It arose from a single litter (yes, a macromutation!) resulting from a mutation in the mother. Polyploidy normally results in sterility, but a second mutation occurred at the same time, which shed the excess sex chromosomes, resulting in a fertile tetraploid offspring.

So, we not only have a "macromutation" forming a new species, we have it as a result of two successive mutations.

1076. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167966 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 12:56 pm

Remnant-

I think that Christian children should be exposed to both sides of the debate and given evidence from both positions, just as should be done in the public indoctrination centers.


There aren't two sides. There are countless "sides". If you are going to allow in Creationism, then how about Hindu Cosmology?

But this is still missing a fundamental point.

Science classes are about science. Creationism isn't science. It shouldn't really matter if you believe that they are two compatible approaches to reality. It shouldn't even really matter if you believe that science is an incorrect approach to understanding reality. It is just plain silly not to teach science in a science class. Sure, teach creationism, but in a class on religion. What you must not do is call creationism an equivalent view to science.

If you want children to get along in the world, they will need to have an understanding of science, and how it is done. You might also say they need an understanding of religion. If you use science as a tool for understanding Nature, you end up finding out about evolution. If you use the Bible as a tool for understanding Nature, you end up with creationism. So be it. The issue is when religion is taught as science, or is used to challenge scientific ideas..

It is no more appropriate to teach what is in the bible as an alternative to science that it would be to teach metalwork as a form of cooking.

Creationism and science really aren't two sides of a debate when you come to teaching. They aren't related at all.

The only possible motivation for wanting creationism taught in science classes is if you don't want science taught in science classes. And that is worrying.

1077. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167925 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Comment #167907 by al-rawandi

I also love that grass because I went on a field trip as part of my A-level biology course, and was introduced to salt marsh ecology.

1078. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167920 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 12:24 pm

Comment #167901 by gr8hands

Time loops make more sense to me


Me too.

Comment #167903 by Remnant
Eternal, outside of the natural world, pre-existing laws…sounds a lot like the God of the Bible to me.


No, as it isn't "eternal". If their ideas are right, there is no time dimension at all.

If Gott's ideas are right, you don't need a creator because time loops.

1079. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167897 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 12:11 pm

Comment #167885 by Quine

As you look into the models of the early Universe, I am interested to hear your take on when (going back in time) the average energy level and space time curvature exceeds our current empirical data from colliders, cosmic ray detectors, observations of exploding stars, gravity wave detectors,


I have no take on it. My understanding (and I need to be careful here, considering past discussions) is that no-one really does. The LHC is exploring what may be the last really exciting area of energies of the models that we have so far come up with. But at energies much above that, there is nothing new predicted until we get the the proposed Grand Unification energies, when the strong force and weak force and electromagnetism have the same strengths. But that is so many orders of magnitude of energy above anything we have any prospect of building in the forseeable future, that we may be reaching the limits of experimental physics, at least for a very long time.

On the other hand, things could get fun, and we discover entirely new physics.

1080. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167887 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 12:04 pm

Comment #167877 by gr8hands

This states there was something before the beginning, or before the Big Bang, which is saying there is no beginning only in different words.


In that case, I was using words carelessly. What I meant was that some timeless framework independent of our spacetime from which our spacetime arose - some framework which itself had no time dimension.

I freely admit that in this particular area, I really don't have much idea of what people are talking about. I can deal mentally with ideas like Gott's time loop origins of our universe, but when I read about space and time arising out of some other systems in which there is no time, my mind just gives up. I guess everyone else's probably does too, and they just trust the math.

1081. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167876 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 11:53 am

gr8hands -

I am happy to agree to differ, if you are. My only real quibble with you was with the definiteness of your assertion that the universe had no beginning. Part of the fun of science is that what is thought to be virtually certain one decade is sometimes found to be quite wrong the next :)

1082. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167872 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 11:50 am

Comment #167862 by seeker_of_truth

One reason macro-evolution requires such large amounts of time is for the random influx of genetic information to form functional sequences to produce changes which lend themselves to improved fitness.


No. If you are willing to accept the formation of a new species, with members which only breed within their own group, and which are structurally different from other organisms, as "macro" evolution, then it can, and does, happen in a single generation in both plants and animals.

1083. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167868 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 11:45 am

Comment #167834 by Bonzai

You are right. There is a real skill involved in reviewing a subject to assess the current status of ideas. I used to teach this as part of a "communication in science" course for degree-level students. I guess this is why I have a real chip on my shoulder when people "cherry pick" scientists who support their views (that was not directed in any way at gr8hands - the researcher, Turok, who originated the idea he refers to is highly respected).

1084. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167856 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 11:33 am

Comment #167817 by gr8hands

I have been researching physics and current understandings of models of the origin of the universe for decades.

The Ekpyrotic model is a minority opinion. It has been challenged in many ways over the past few years, with particular concern regarding whether or not it introduces singularities at the point of contact of the branes, and whether or not the parallel nature of the branes is a somewhat artificial constraint. Andre Linde has been a particular critic of this idea.

The originator of the Ekpyrotic model was Neil Turok. An article of his was posted on this site. Let me quote:

"Now, computational physicist Neil Turok is challenging that model -- and some scientists are taking him seriously."

My emphasis. That is clearly not an indication of an idea that is mainstream.

The issue could be somewhat resolved with near future readings of the cosmic background radiation, to check for the effect of gravity waves. There will be different effects if the brane idea is true or if inflation is true.

I do know what the consensus is - inflationary models.

But, even if it where a majority position, it would be inapproproate to declare that "the universe had no beginning". All models are provisional.

1085. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167813 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:55 am

Comment #167811 by Remnant

We have God's entire, complete, revealed Word, something they did not have. Are you starting to understand yet?


Something I have never understood is why Creationists believe that the only source of God's complete revealed word is the flipping Bible and a few prophets. Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that God would reveal his word in other ways? What about through rocks and fossils?

I mean, I think the idea of a theistic God is tosh, but if one assumed that he exists, it would seems very weird to shut yourself off from other sources of His message, and assume that he only ever used paper.

Comment #167811 by Remnant

Will you please just stop making things up about physics. The majority of physicists now DON'T believe the universe "came from nothing". The believe it came from a timeless state of pre-existing laws.

1086. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167810 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:49 am

Comment #167793 by gr8hands

I am currently collecting material for an article on the question of "fine tuning", so I have researched this area.

The ideas presented there are, I am afraid, not a continnum of ideas. They are a form of the Ekpyrotic idea, a distinctly minority opinion of how the big bang arose.

I am afraid I have an allergy to anyone saying that the universe "is definitely like this", especially based on such a minority view.

Amongst the many respected physicists who disagree with that view are Roger Penrose, Victor Stenger and Paul Davies.

I am sorry to contradict you in this matter, I hope you don't mind too much.

1087. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167804 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:42 am

Children respect their teachers and a comment like that can be blindly believed by a child that is not prepared to or motivated to seek the truth.


Indeed. This is why children should not be presented with views that aren't based on evidence.

Teach them science. Teach them rational thinking. Then present them with the Bible. And the Koran. And the Torah.

1088. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167783 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:29 am

The millions of people that choose not to believe in Him are dwarfed by the two plus billion that do.


Do you believe in General Relativity?

Guess how many have never heard of it.

1089. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167777 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:22 am

Annna-

First of all, there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution.


I am not even sure what "macro" evolution is supposed to mean. I am guessing "evolution in a big leap". We do occasionally see that. As I often mention, we get new species in a single generation by chromosome duplication.

However, what I suspect "macroevolution" is really intended to mean is "evolution in bigger steps than scientists have yet found", so it is goalpost-moving.

1090. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167766 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #167763 by seeker_of_truth

Micro vs. Macro evolution if you will.


No need to speculate. We have seen "macro" evolution and increases in genetic information.

1091. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167762 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:05 am

Comment #167748 by TheTruthID

So what you are saying is any credible evidence by qualified scientists who have discovered evidence for this are quacks?


Yes.

These are scientists in their respected fields, the experts. Only your so-called expertise qualifies as evidence?


Mine, and the hundreds of thousands of thousands of scientists who agree.

You really do need to learn how science works. You can't just go around and pick "My Pet Scientist". You have to go with the consensus. Any other approach is dishonest.

Science is not about hunting for the one or two who support your views. It is about humility and realising that the thousands who may disagree with you probably know what they are doing.

1092. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167757 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:01 am

Comment #167749 by gr8hands

I would be very careful about picking the speculations of one physicist and saying anything definite based on that.

1093. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167755 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:00 am

Comment #167751 by Remnant

The truth is not evil. Evil is destroying a child's faith and relationship with God and putting their eternal salvation at risk, just because you choose to disbelieve.


Is that one of the truths you have determined? Or is it just some kind of vague guess?

If you do believe in God, do you really think that He is going to condemn children to Hell because of anything I say? Is he that evil?

1094. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167747 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:55 am

What a bunch of malarkey! Current theory of the origin of the universe, the big bang, is consistent with the Bible. The science has shown that universe was created, not eternal, is expanding, not static, and space, time, energy, and matter began to exist, out of nothing.


I thought you said nothing could come from nothing?

I am against indoctrinating children by showing them only one side and censoring free and open discussion of opposing thought.


There are an infinite number of possible "sides". Which ones are you going to choose to teach them? I mean, there are only so many hours in the day.

As far as a school child's science education, it does not matter whether the universe was created or just happened. Is a belief in one or the other going to change things?


YES. The idea that the universe was created closes down thought. It says "we already have the answer". It stifles imagination. There are many wonderful and exciting ideas about how the universe could have arisen by itself, or from previous cosmoses. Saying "God stepped in here" shuts off all that.

1095. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167742 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:52 am

Comment #167738 by TheTruthID

Good morning. Question for you. Do you accept the fact that man walked with the dinosaurs?


No. The trick is to realise that The Flintstones was not a documentary.

1096. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167737 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:45 am

Comment #167734 by Bonzai

You are right. Putting fear of the supernatural and of eternal punishment into a child's mind is indeed the worse evil.

1097. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167735 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:43 am

Comment #167617 by seeker_of_truth

1) That it will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. Design is tested by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core."


That doesn't work. There isn't such a thing as a definite "irreducible core", as there is no telling how it might be reduced. In fact, defining any structure as irreducible may be virtually impossible. There could be almost uncountable possible routes to get to a structure, and all of those routes would have to be shown not to have happened.

I would say that irreducibility is pretty much impossible to demonstrate, as it is simply an argument from incredulity.

Sub list also includes;
2) Rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record.


This is pretty much impossible to show, due to the rarity of fossilization.

1098. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167726 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:36 am

I don't determine truth. God's revealed Word is truth. He has revealed it in His creation, through special revelation in the Bible, through fulfilled prophecy, through th risen Jesus Christ.


No, that doesn't work. You need to be able to determine that this is true.

1099. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167719 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #167711 by Remnant

Faith is in Christ is not ignorance, nor is it dangerous or wicked.

Your faith is ignorance, dangerous, and wicked. If you want to deny Christ, that is your free will choice but to try and destroy the faith of innocent children is evil. The Lord spoke about that and I am sure He will will have much more to say about that at judgment day.


I have no problem if children come to a faith in Christ in their own time and in their own way. That should be their choice. What I think is evil (yes, irate) is telling them that words written in the bible about the world and the universe are true in contrast to our scientific understanding. The future of our civilization depends on people having a true understanding of nature, so the consequences of our actions can be understood, and so we can deal with natural phenomena such as diseases. Your creationism poisons young minds. It handicaps children, and this is especially sad because we are living at a time when we know so much, and are finding out so much, about the world.

1100. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167705 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:21 am

Comment #167703 by Remnant

I will stick with the truth of the risen Jesus.


I thought you didn't determine truth?

I don't have enough brains to be an atheist.


Fixed for you.

More Pages: Previous | 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 | Next