- Home
- Politics
- Entertainment
- Sports
- Health
- Religion
- Society
- Tech
- Money
- People
- Science
- Galleries
Politics
Thanks for Ruining the Planet, Climate Change Deniers!
Here’s the thing about climate-change deniers: these days before they sit down to write their blog posts, they have to turn on the AC. After all, it might as well be July in New York (where I’m writing this), August in Chicago (where a century-old heat record was broken in late May), and hellat the Indy 500. Infernos have been raging from New Mexico and Colorado, where the fire season started early, to the shores of Lake Superior, where dry conditions and high temperatures led to Michigan’s third largest wildfire in its history. After a March heat wave for the record books, we now have summer in late spring, the second-named tropical storm of the season earlier than ever recorded, and significant drought conditions, especially in the South and Southwest. In the meantime, carbon dioxide (and other greenhouse gases) continue to head for the atmosphere inrecord quantities. And in case anyone living in a big city doesn’t know it, heat can kill.
It’s true that no single event can be pinned on climate change with absolute certainty. But anyone who doesn’t think we’re in a fierce new world of weather extremes -- and as TomDispatch regularBill McKibben has suggested, on an increasingly less hospitable planet that he calls Eaarth -- is likely to learn the realities firsthand soon enough. Not so long ago, if you really wanted to notice the effects of climate change around you, you had to be an Inuit, an Aleut, or some other native of the far north where rising temperatures and melting ice were visibly changing the landscape and wrecking ways of life -- or maybe an inhabitant of Kiribati. Now, it seems, we are all Inuit or Pacific islanders. And the latest polling numbers indicate that Americans are finally beginning to notice in their own lives, and in numbers that may matter.
With that in mind, we really do need a new term for the people who insist that climate change is a figment of some left-wing conspiracy or a cabal of miscreant scientists. “Denial” (or the more active “deniers”) seems an increasingly pallid designation in our new world. Consider, for instance, that in low-lying North Carolina, a leading candidate for disaster from globally rising sea levels, coastal governments and Republicans in the state legislature are taking action: they are passing resolutions against policies meant to mitigate the damage from rising waters and insisting that official state sea-level calculations be made only on the basis of “historic trends,” with no global warming input. That should really stop the waters!
In the meantime, this spring greenhouse-gas monitoring sites in the Arctic have recorded a startling first: 400 parts per million of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It's an ominous line to cross (and so quickly). As in the name of McKibben's remarkable organization, 350.org, it's well above the safety line for what this planet and many of the species on it, including us, can take in the long term, and heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere are still on the rise. All of this is going to get ever harder to "deny," no matter what resolutions are passed or how measurements are restricted. In the meantime, the climate-change deniers, McKibben reports, are finally starting to have troubles of their own. Tom
The Planet Wreckers
Climate-Change Deniers Are On the Ropes -- But So Is the Planet
By Bill McKibbenIt’s been a tough few weeks for the forces of climate-change denial.
First came the giant billboard with Unabomber Ted Kacynzki’s face plastered across it: “I Still Believe in Global Warming. Do You?” Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, the nerve-center of climate-change denial, it was supposed to draw attention to the fact that “the most prominent advocates of global warming aren’t scientists. They are murderers, tyrants, and madmen.” Instead it drew attention to the fact that these guys had over-reached, and with predictable consequences.
A hard-hitting campaign from a new group called Forecast the Facts persuaded many of the corporations backing Heartland to withdraw $825,000 in funding; an entire wing of the Institute, devoted to helping the insurance industry, calved off to form its own nonprofit. Normally friendly politicians like Wisconsin Republican Congressman Jim Sensenbrenner announced that they would boycott the group’s annual conference unless the billboard campaign was ended.
Which it was, before the billboards with Charles Manson and Osama bin Laden could be unveiled, but not before the damage was done: Sensenbrenner spoke at last month’s conclave, but attendance was way down at the annual gathering, and Heartland leaders announced that there were no plans for another of the yearly fests. Heartland’s head, Joe Bast, complained that his side had been subjected to the most “uncivil name-calling and disparagement you can possibly imagine from climate alarmists,” which was both a little rich -- after all, he was the guy with the mass-murderer billboards -- but also a little pathetic. A whimper had replaced the characteristically confident snarl of the American right.
That pugnaciousness may return: Mr. Bast said last week that he was finding new corporate sponsors, that he was building a new small-donor base that was “Greenpeace-proof,” and that in any event the billboard had been a fine idea anyway because it had “generated more than $5 million in earned media so far.” (That’s a bit like saying that for a successful White House bid John Edwards should have had more mistresses and babies because look at all the publicity!) Whatever the final outcome, it’s worth noting that, in a larger sense, Bast is correct: this tiny collection of deniers has actually been incredibly effective over the past years.
The best of them -- and that would be Marc Morano, proprietor of the website Climate Depot, and Anthony Watts, of the website Watts Up With That -- have fought with remarkable tenacity to stall and delay the inevitable recognition that we’re in serious trouble. They’ve never had much to work with. Only one even remotely serious scientist remains in the denialist camp. That’s MIT’s Richard Lindzen, who has been arguing for years that while global warming is real it won’t be as severe as almost all his colleagues believe. But as a long article in the New York Times detailed last month, the credibility of that sole dissenter is basically shot. Even the peer reviewers he approved for his last paper told the National Academy of Sciences that it didn’t merit publication. (It ended up in a “little-known Korean journal.”)
Deprived of actual publishing scientists to work with, they’ve relied on a small troupe of vaudeville performers, featuring them endlessly on their websites. Lord Christopher Monckton, for instance, an English peer (who has been officially warned by the House of Lords to stop saying he’s a member) began his speech at Heartland’s annual conference by boasting that he had “no scientific qualification” to challenge the science of climate change.
He’s proved the truth of that claim many times, beginning in his pre-climate-change career when he explained to readers of the American Spectator that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life.” His personal contribution to the genre of climate-change mass-murderer analogies has been to explain that a group of young climate-change activists who tried to take over a stage where he was speaking were “Hitler Youth.”
Or consider Lubos Motl, a Czech theoretical physicist who has never published on climate change but nonetheless keeps up a steady stream of web assaults on scientists he calls “fringe kibitzers who want to become universal dictators” who should “be thinking how to undo your inexcusable behavior so that you will spend as little time in prison as possible.” On the crazed killer front, Motl said that, while he supported many of Norwegian gunman Anders Breivik’s ideas, it was hard to justify gunning down all those children -- still, it did demonstrate that “right-wing people... may even be more efficient while killing -- and the probable reason is that Breivik may have a higher IQ than your garden variety left-wing or Islamic terrorist.”
If your urge is to laugh at this kind of clown show, the joke’s on you -- because it’s worked. I mean, James Inhofe, the Oklahoma Republican who has emerged victorious in every Senate fight on climate change, cites Motl regularly; Monckton has testified four times before the U.S. Congress.
Morano, one of the most skilled political operatives of the age -- he “broke the story” that became the Swiftboat attack on John Kerry -- plays rough: he regularly publishes the email addresses of those he pillories, for instance, so his readers can pile on the abuse. But he plays smart, too. He’s a favorite of Fox News and of Rush Limbaugh, and he and his colleagues have used those platforms to make it anathema for any Republican politician to publicly express a belief in the reality of climate change.
Take Newt Gingrich, for instance. Only four years ago he was willing to sit on a love seat with Nancy Pelosi and film a commercial for a campaign headed by Al Gore. In it he explained that he agreed with the California Congresswoman and then-Speaker of the House that the time had come for action on climate. This fall, hounded by Morano, he was forced to recant again and again. His dalliance with the truth about carbon dioxide hurt him more among the Republican faithful than any other single “failing.” Even Mitt Romney, who as governor of Massachusetts actually took some action on global warming, has now been reduced to claiming that scientists may tell us “in fifty years” if we have anything to fear.
In other words, a small cadre of fervent climate-change deniers took control of the Republican party on the issue. This, in turn, has meant control of Congress, and since the president can’t sign a treaty by himself, it’s effectively meant stifling any significant international progress on global warming. Put another way, the variousright wing billionaires and energy companies who have bankrolled this stuff have gotten their money’s worth many times over.
One reason the denialists’ campaign has been so successful, of course, is that they’ve also managed to intimidate the other side. There aren’t many senators who rise with the passion or frequency of James Inhofe but to warn of the dangers of ignoring what’s really happening on our embattled planet.
It’s a striking barometer of intimidation that Barack Obama, who has a clear enough understanding of climate change and its dangers, has barely mentioned the subject for four years. He did show a little leg to his liberal base in Rolling Stoneearlier this spring by hinting that climate change could become a campaign issue. Last week, however, he passed on his best chance to make good on that promise when he gave a long speech on energy at an Iowa wind turbine factory without even mentioning global warming. Because the GOP has been so unreasonable, the President clearly feels he can take the environmental vote by staying silent, which means the odds that he’ll do anything dramatic in the next four years grow steadily smaller.
On the brighter side, not everyone has been intimidated. In fact, a spirited counter-movement has arisen in recent years. The very same weekend that Heartland tried to put the Unabomber’s face on global warming, 350.org conducted thousands of rallies around the globe to show who climate change really affects. In a year of mobilization, we also managed to block -- at least temporarily -- the Keystone pipeline that would have brought the dirtiest of dirty energy, tar-sands oil, from the Canadian province of Alberta to the Gulf Coast. In the meantime, our Canadian allies are fighting hard to block a similar pipeline that would bring those tar sands to the Pacific for export.
Similarly, in just the last few weeks, hundreds of thousands have signed on to demand an end to fossil-fuel subsidies. And new polling data already show more Americans worried about our changing climate, because they’ve noticed the freakish weather of the last few years and drawn the obvious conclusion.
But damn, it’s a hard fight, up against a ton of money and a ton of inertia. Eventually, climate denial will “lose,” because physics and chemistry are not intimidated even by Lord Monckton. But timing is everything -- if he and his ilk, a crew of certified planet wreckers, delay action past the point where it can do much good, they’ll be able to claim one of the epic victories in political history -- one that will last for geological epochs.
Bill McKibben is Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury College, founder of the global climate campaign 350.org, a TomDispatch regular, and the author, most recently, of Eaarth: Making a Life on a Tough New Planet.
Follow TomDispatch on Twitter @TomDispatch and join us on Facebook.
Copyright 2012 Bill McKibben
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
Comments
the earth goes through
the earth goes through heating and cooling phases, that is proven. Everybody calm down and stop pissing yourselves.
Here's a few things about
Here's a few things about Horus
Born of a virgin
Star in the east
Walked on water
Healed the sick
Restored sight,
Crucified
Dead for three days
Resurrected
Sound familiar?
Some of the others, born on December 25, 12 followers, son of a carpenter, turning water into wine, etc. were from Krishna, Mithra, Dionysus, and Attis.
There is not any contemporary account of your jesus, even though it was a common name then as it is in a Mexican Barrio today. Even here in Brazil, I personally know several people named "Jesus" although none can walk on water.
they are named Jesus after
they are named Jesus after the bible. Earth goes through heating and cooling phases that is proven.
[citation needed] The
[citation needed]
The neutrality of the above article by James Smith has been disputed. In particular, he may be posting about Horus here because he is a die-hard believer in the doctrines of the Church of Climatology, which claims to be the one true church.
where did that come from?
where did that come from? this isn't even a religious article.
I know the claims, but have
I know the claims, but have never seen evidence to support them.
More Al Gore concocted Kool
More Al Gore concocted Kool Aid. Anything to sell a book. Ho hum!
"Thanks for Ruining the
"Thanks for Ruining the Planet, Climate Change Deniers!"
Burden of Proof is on YOUR shoulders and must cover every millimeter of the cosmos as well as the realms of Time and Eternity, Little Toddler.
Thanks for Ruining the Planet, Deniers of The ALMIGHTY! For the REAL ruination is YOURS. (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1; John 14:6; Philippians 2:5-11; Revelations 20-22)
You foolishly worry about that over which YOU have NO CONTROL.
The LORD worries NOT for HE has never lost control. (Deuteronomy 32:39-40) :)
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
Only an imbecile would make
Only an imbecile would make this about religion. The Bible quotes are useless in this subject, except to show how ignorant Christo-fascists are about science.
The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously.
"10 We are fools for Christ's
"10 We are fools for Christ's sake, but ye are wise in Christ; we are weak, but ye are strong; ye are honourable, but we are despised.
11 Even unto this present hour we both hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffeted, and have no certain dwellingplace;
12 And labour, working with our own hands: being reviled, we bless; being persecuted, we suffer it:
13 Being defamed, we intreat: we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all things unto this day." (I Corinthians 4:10-13, KJV)
As long as individuals, like you are considered to be sane, I demand to be called INSANE. I refuse to ever be on the same side of an issue as your alleged truth.
When you call Christ, a fool, then I demand to be called a fool, too. I will always choose Christ, and I will always refuse your viewpoint, as long as it remains as it is right now.
The invitation for you to bow the knee to Jesus Christ of Nazareth is open as long as you breath, all things being equal, however, if you die in your unrepentant state, then Jesus Himself will force you to bow before Him as a defeated foe. (Philippians 2:5-11)
BTW, He would have me to inform you in agreement with His WORD that He doesn't need your help to "save the Earth." He created it in the first place, (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1) and He keeps it running just fine, according to His determinant WILL. (Deuteronomy 32:39-40)
Since it seems to be falling apart to you, then you may recognize that as His predetermined Justice against Original Sin.
Repentance and Faith TRUMPS "recycle and reuse" every time.
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
OK, you are insane,
OK, you are insane, delusional, and a fool. You quote passages from the babble without a shred of proof that any of it is true.
My viewpoint is based upon facts that can be independently proven. Your viewpoint is based upon brainwashing, myths and lies.
Faith is accepting something as true for which the is no evidence and even much evidence against.
THe fact that you attempt to inject religion into this only shows you are completely lost in your delusions.
Prove even one word you have said is true or prove anything I have said is not true. No, your babble quotations will not serve as proof unless you can support them with something other than insane ravings.
James, you said, "You quote
James, you said, "You quote passages from the babble without a shred of proof that any of it is true. My viewpoint is based upon facts that can be independently proven."
Your so-called proof demands the presence of a constant, which you don't have.
Where is your proof that the so-called science, upon which your religious faith rests, is 100% reliable, with regard to the unsubstantiated presupposition that all cosmological processes have remained extant and static for even the past 10,000 years?
If you can't prove this, then you are an unthinking religious believer in pseudo-science, decrying my factually-based belief in GOD, because I am an unbeliever in YOUR religion.
You further alleged, "Your viewpoint is based upon brainwashing, myths and lies. Faith is accepting something as true for which the is no evidence and even much evidence against."
You have just defined EVOLUTION to the ultimate degree. Even Darwin had his doubts, and Dawkins is just plain insane, for REAL.
You would do well to look in the mirror, Mad Man. If GOD doesn't Exist, then YOU have no reason to be upset.
However, to quote that great philosopher Shakespeare, from the mouth of his character, Hamlet, "Thou protestest too loudly."
Ergo, thou believeth in the Existence of GOD in the closet, and I am calling you "out-of-the-closet." ;) Glad I could help. (John 3:16)
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
You seem a bit confused.
You seem a bit confused. Science isn't a religion, but more like a method to obtain knowledge through verifiable means.
"Science isn't a religion,
"Science isn't a religion, but more like a method to obtain knowledge through verifiable means."
The allegedly-"verifiable means" that seems to hold your undying allegiance and reverence, (i.e. worship) is based on the presupposition that cosmological processes are reliably consistent, throughout the history of the world.
I hold a strong repudiation for that unproven claim.
Ergo, even the most pristine data, honorably collected, with the highest degree of quality given to maintaining its uncontaminated and original form is of no value, regarding the assessing of conclusions about that data, until the scientist doing the study leans in either the direction of evolution or creation.
This is the "putting-on of world-view glasses" by which the scientist can then interpret the evidence, based on the presupposition that evolution or that creation, (neither of which has any possibility of being proved, either for or against, using the Scientific Method in this lifetime,) is more believable in the heart of that scientist.
The Scientific Method allows for observations that are based on the actual presence of the scientist, during the original occurrence of some said event or stated concept/hypothesis, or during some recreation of the original event or concept/hypothesis.
No human was presence at either the Creation of the Earth nor at the alleged "Big Bang" of abiogenesis, upon which the hypothesis of evolution has a foundation of operations.
This means that evolutionary scientists and creation scientists both observe scientifically-obtained data, through "rose-colored glasses," if you will.
The observation of scientific data as well as every other aspect of the world and the cosmos, using a basis of operation, which seems to be most logical to the observer, even though the presupposition has no possibility of being proved, inside of the physical cosmological matrix, is in point-of-fact a meta-narrative by which all human beings have to operate in order to survive in this present world.
Meta-narratives are the foundational truths of all world religions. Ergo, evolutionary "science" is a religion.
FYI, Belief in The Creation does indeed "have a leg-up" on evolution, using the Scientific Method. Creationists cite The actual Eye-Witness of The Creation, Who communicated that Eye-Witness Report to the writer, Moses.
Jesus of Nazareth was Very GOD of Very GOD, before HE was Jesus of Nazareth, Incarnate. As Very GOD, Jesus Created Time and The Unified Cosmos, being The Eye-Witness of Creation, and the Eye-Witness against any alleged-"Big Bang," which never occurred. :) (Genesis 1:1; John 1:1)
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
Confusing science with
Confusing science with religion will get you nowhere. They are nothing alike. Science has results, technology for example. This is why we have computers and the internet.
Since we're on the topic, would you care to explain why there are two different creation stories at the beginning of Genesis?
Not only are they dissimilar, they have a completely different order of events.
Creation story 1: God creates light, then separates light from darkness. God creates a firmament to divide waters above from waters below, called "skies". God gathers waters, land appears. God commands the earth to bring forth grass, plants, and fruit-bearing trees. God creates the Sun, Moon, and stars. God creates sea creatures and birds. God commands the land to bring forth living creatures He makes wild beasts, livestock and reptiles. He then creates humanity (both male and female) in His "image" and "likeness" They are told to "be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it."
(This story makes slightly more sense when you consider plants, animals, then humans is the right order.)
Creation story 2: Before any plant or herb appeared, before rain: God made mist come up and water the earth. God formed man out of dust and breathed life into his nostrils. God planted a garden in Eden, put man there, and created trees and plants, including the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. God wanted to make a companion for man, so he created animals and had man name them. God realized none of the animals were a suitable companion so he took a rib from man while he slept and created the first woman.
These are in no way the same story.
NOTE: Chapter 1 refers to "Elohim" which roughly translates to "Gods", and Chapter 2 specifically uses YAHWEH.
Science, unlike religion, has
Science, unlike religion, has never claimed to know everything or that nothing ever changes. That's why scientific hypothesis and theories are always subject to change when new evidence is discovered.
My religious faith? You're being deliberately obnoxious. I discarded the absurdities of religion when I was 13 and learned to think for myself.
Science is 100% reliable? That's not only a deliberate lie, it's something so ridiculous that you should be ashamed to even propose it. As I said above, science is constantly changing and has long known that anything can change. Stephen Hawking himself said, "Things that we regard as physical constants may be no more than local phenomena. " Local meaning in this particular area of the universe.
"Unthinking believer in pseudo-science?" What BS. Your "factually-based belief in god?" That's a contradictory statement. Belief means accepting something as true with no supporting evidence and possibly even much evidence against it. Provide your proof of any god.
evolution is a fact. There are pieces of evidence for it in Universities, laboratories and museums all over the world. Show me one bit of evidence of creationism.
I am a mad man? You love to toss out accusations with no evidence. But that's how you can believe your religion. Forget evidence, facts, and rational thinking. Just accept delusional lies and pretend you know something.
I am not upset that people choose to accept religion. I am upset when you try to make it the law for everyone. I'll fight that every day.
You are a liar, a hypocrite and a fool. Provide your proof. Prove that anything I have ever said in regard to your religion is not true. I throw down the gauntlet.
When you quote babble verses, you are showing your own delusional beliefs in myths and lies. I can prove everything I say, can you?
John 3:16? How does that prove anything? "For god so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosever believieth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life." How does that prove anything? It's just more babble BS and has no meaning or validity at all.
You said, "...scientific
You said, "...scientific hypothesis and theories are always subject to change when new evidence is discovered." However, you claim to have proof that the cosmos came into being, without being created by GOD.
You claim that science is knowledge of reliable status. Yet, you claim that your truth is not absolute. Atheists name themselves by the very Person that they disbelieve. Agnostics hold themselves up as experts in the realm of science, using the term that professes to "know nothing." At least they claim to "know nothing for certain about GOD." However, no human can be knowledgeable about any existence, if that human has no absolute standard, upon which to base their search for Truth, of Whom GOD is the Ultimate TRUTH.
Ergo, I have very little confidence in No Nothings, who demand to teach the next generation of human beings.
You said, "My religious faith? You're being deliberately obnoxious." You atheists are consistently obnoxious to me, when you deny the universal fact that all humans are indeed religious. Religion is not limited to some organization with an organized set of dogmatic statements any more. Haven't you heard? Any human's ultimate standard of operational truth, upon which that human operates every day, with or without proof that said premise can be proven is in fact that human being's "working title" for "god."
You said, "You love to toss out accusations with no evidence." Just following your example, Sir. (Reference your first response to me.)
You said, "evolution is a fact. There are pieces of evidence for it in Universities, laboratories and museums all over the world. Show me one bit of evidence of creationism."
Your first sentence here is a profession of religious faith. Every alleged-piece of so-called proof to which you may choose to point in the defense of evolution is at the same time evidence for The Creation, which is clearly seen by those of us, who have not had our minds blinded by the so-called Enlightenment. (Romans 1-2; I Corinthians 1-2)
For the record, I DESPISE religion, since religion sends humans en masse to Hell. Satan will take atheists, catholics, Baptists, Mormons, JWs, Muslims, Hindus, anybody, who rejects Jesus of Nazareth as Almighty GOD.
I don't make the LAW. I simply tell you what it is. I do this because I know how to reverence SOVEREIGNTY, and I accept HIS WORD as revealed.
FYI, no archeological find has ever disputed it.
You said, "I can prove everything I say, can you?" Please, feel free to begin. You have yet to prove one thing, "beyond reasonable doubt."
You apparently believe evolution, which means that you more or less accept the words of writers, like Darwin, Dawkins, Hitchings, and modern evolutionists ad infinitum.
Quote them or not. Believe them or not. Believe something. Believe nothing. That is what you do best.
I have given you my proof, and I will continue to give you my proof. I quote The Holy Bible, since it is the world's ONLY TRUTH BOOK, that is never wrong.
You don't believe The Bible. THAT is your MISTAKE, not mine!
I trust the WORD of the Very ONE, Who Created everything in the first place, and then showed the home movie to Moses in order for him to be able to write it all down in black and white.
"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
"2 The same was in the beginning with God.
"3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
"4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men.
"5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not." (John 1:1-5, KJV)
There you have it.
More proof, and not a lot has changed, since the beginning because dudes, like you in "the darkness comprehend it not," even today.
If you go to Hell, then it will be YOUR fault because I have been sent here to warn you, "DON'T GO THERE!"
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
You love to distort things
You love to distort things until they are complete lies. You believe in a religion that was founded upon lies, so I am not surprised that you love lies more than the truth.
I never said I have proof how the cosmos came into being. The only ones that claim that are the religious. Science has a working hypothesis that fits available facts. Again you make up things that were never said. You do understand that all you are doing is proving you are a liar?
Atheists are obnoxious to you? Because we state the truth? Because we use your own comments to demonstrate how wrong you are? When it's the truth, it's not being insulting or obnoxious, it's only stating observed facts.
Evolution is a fact. There is evidence for it in all the places I named. What is the evidence for creationism? Produce it. Your bible verses are not proof unless you can back them up with independently verifiable evidence. Otherwise, they are nothing more that you quoting your favorite fairy tales.
No, you don't make the law because there is not law as you want it to be. In your arrogance, you believe you can tell me what to do. Theists often tend to be smug, arrogant jerks, like you.
No archeological find has ever confirmed the existence of any jesus. No wonder none has ever disputed it. It has to have some evidence for it before it can be disputed.
I can prove everything I post, where would you like me to begin? With evolution? Here you are. Yes, it is a copy and paste. If I did not do that, it would be no more than me spouting my opinion and it would be as worthless as your posts.
What is Evolution? Evolution is simply stated as change over time. Languages, societies, and knowledge all have the ability to evolve. In Biology, evolution refers to the change of genetic traits over time.
[ References: Wikipedia: Evolution ] What is Natural Selection? Natural Selection is one of the mechanisms which drives evolution. It is popularly characterized as "survival of the fittest," though that is not always the most accurate description. It is the tendency for life forms which are best suited to their environments to have a better chance to reproduce than those that are not. For example, in a cold environment, an animal with lots of fur is more likely to reproduce than a bald animal, since the bald animals will die more quickly.
[ References: Wikipedia: Natural Selection ] Isn't Evolution Just a Theory? Evolution is often criticized by opponents as being "just a theory." This argument is especially common in America, where the word "theory" usually means an unproven idea. However, in science a theory is the highest degree of certainty. Gravity is "just a theory." The Earth orbiting the Sun is "just a theory." By definition, a scientific theory is a hypothesis which has withstood rigorous testing and is well-supported by the facts. There is overwhelming evidence for biological evolution, just as there is overwhelming evidence for gravity.
[ References: Talk Origins: Evolution is a Fact and a Theory ] Why Isn't Evolution Considered a Law? This is an issue which often confuses the general public, as the two words have very different common meanings. But in science, their meanings are very similar. A theory is an explanation which is backed by "a considerable body of evidence," while a law is a set of regularities expressed in a "mathematical statement." This is why Newton's Laws of Motion are referred to as laws and not theories. They are expressed with simple equations (like f = ma for his 2nd Law of Motion). Evolution, and most of Biology, cannot be expressed in a concise mathematical equation, so it is referred to as a theory. A scientific law is not "better" or "more accurate" than a scientific theory. A law explains what will happen under certain circumstances, while a theory explains how it happens.
[ References: Kennesaw State University: Scientific Laws and Theories ] Has Evolution Ever Been Observed? Yes. Evolution has been observed both in the laboratory (diseases adapting to become resistant to drugs) and in nature (new species of flowers, mice, insects, etc. developing).
[ References: TalkOrigins: Observed Instances of Speciation, TalkOrigins: Some More Observed Speciation Events ] Isn't Evolution Totally Random? While it is true that new traits can appear through the accumulation of small random genetic mutations, it is the non-random process of Natural Selection that determines which traits to keep and which to discard. For example, a random mutation may cause a brown squirrel to be born white. But if the squirrel lives on a brown tree, its color will quickly alert predators to its existence. The white squirrel will not live long enough to reproduce and pass on the trait. In this environment, nature selects for brown squirrels, not white. If the process were random, then the white squirrel would survive just as well as the brown.
Don't Mutations Only Cause Problems, And Do Not Create New Information? While it is true that many mutations can cause problems for an organism, sometimes lethal, not all mutations are harmful. Most mutations are caused by single-point errors in the copying of a strand of DNA. For example, a strand of ATAGC may change to ATATC. This can have three major effects: a deleterious effect, a positive effect, or no effect at all. Deleterious effects, those which threaten the survival of the organism, will not accumulate, because they will kill the organism before it has a chance to reproduce. Conversely, mutations which cause no effect or a positive effect will accumulate in a population's genome. This is how Natural Selection works. It "selects" for positive changes in the genome, because only the positive changes will accumulate. Certain mutations can add new, large pieces of DNA at a time. See this question on Gene Duplication for more information.
[ References: TalkOrigins: Mutations adding information ] How Does Evolution Cause the Increases in Genetic Information Required to go from Single-Celled Life to Complex Animals? This is accomplished through a process called Gene Duplication, which is believed to play a major role in Evolution. Because of a mistake during meiosis, an organism may end up with two copies of the same gene. After this happens, the usual mechanisms of point mutation and natural selection can evolve one of the copies into coding for something completely new, while retaining the original gene. To test how quickly gene duplication can occur, an experiment was performed on yeast in 1998. After only 450 generations, it was discovered that the "hexose transport" genes had duplicated several times.
[ References: TalkOrigins: Mutations adding information, Wikipedia: Gene Duplication ] Aren't the Chances of Life Forming Randomly Less Than 1 in a Trillion? This claim is based on the calculations of all of the millions of molecules in a single cell forming by chance. No scientist believes this is how life formed. Instead, most theories of "abiogenesis" begin with simple self-replicating peptides. The smallest self-replicating peptide is only 32 amino acids long. It can and does form naturally, and has the ability to replicate itself, just like DNA. It is believed that a similar molecule formed the first stages of life. After many thousands of years of adaptations, all governed by the non-random process of Natural Selection, did the first microbe finally develop. For a somewhat more detailed explanation of the math involved, please see the article on this site titled The Probability of Life.
[ References: Probability of Abiogenisis Calculations (Talk Origins) ] Have Scientists Ever Created Life in a Laboratory? As of the time of this writing, no, scientists have never created cellular life in a laboratory from scratch. The technology simply does not yet exist to manipulate molecules with the precision required to create all of the inner workings of a cell. However, many of the important building blocks of life have indeed been created in a laboratory, including amino acids and self-replicating RNA molecules, which are profound steps toward the goal of one day creating life.
[ References: Life As We Know It Nearly Created in Lab - Live Science, Wikipedia: Miller-Urey Experiment ] What is the Fossil Record? The "fossil record" refers to the placement of fossils throughout the surface layers of the Earth. Older fossils are buried more deeply than younger ones. Scientists use the placement of fossils as a guide for determining when life forms existed, and how they evolved. For example, we know that flowering plants evolved from non-flowering plants because, in the fossil record, we see flower fossils becoming more and more primitive the deeper we go, until they disappear all together. There are no flower fossils below a certain depth. This shows us that flowering plants evolved from non-flowering plants, then began to diversify themselves. This kind of progression is found throughout the fossil record.
[ References: Wikipedia: Fossil Record ] Why Aren't There More Transitional Fossils? Transitional fossils bridge gaps between two species. Due to the difficulties in creating fossils in the first place, and the fact that speciation sometimes occurs very quickly in small groups, transitional fossils can be rare in the fossil record. However, even given these circumstances, there are still thousands of transitional fossils known to science, including those illustrating the evolution of modern fish, the transition of fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptiles, reptiles to birds, reptiles to mammals, and the evolution of human beings (as well as many other species). Please see this video for great examples of transitional fossils: http://www.evolutionfaq.com/videos/transitional-fossils
[ References: TalkOrigins: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, TalkOrigins: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution ] If Man Evolved From Ape, Then Why Are There Still Apes? Firstly, man did not evolve from modern apes. Man and modern apes share a common ancestor, which is extinct. However, the question comes from a flawed understanding of how evolution works. Evolution is not a straight line, where entire populations change into new species all at the same time. Often times, a small group breaks away from a population and begins to evolve independently of the source group. The source group does not need to go extinct, and is generally unaffected by the development of the smaller group. This is called "Allopatric Speciation," and it is just one of many ways that new species can evolve. There is nothing in evolutionary theory which states a source population must go extinct in order for new species to evolve.
[ References: Wikipedia: Allopatric Speciation, Wikipedia: Speciation Modes ] What About the Missing Link? The concept of a "missing link" between humans and apes arose in the 19th century, when the fossil record was largely incomplete. Large gaps separated species, casting doubt on the theory of evolution. But in the last 130 years, a plethora of fossils have been discovered, greatly narrowing the gaps between species. The Australopithecus afarensis fossil known as "Lucy" is considered to be a key fossil bridging the gap between humans and primitive hominids.
[ References: Wikipedia: Astralopithecus afarensis ] Can You Believe in God and Evolution at the Same Time? Of course. Many faiths accept evolution as the explanation for the current level of biodiversity, usually stipulating that a creator initially designed the Universe, or guided the processes of evolution. In fact, in 1996, Pope John Paul II reaffirmed the Catholic Church's position that evolution does not conflict with Christianity. Evolution does not contradict the overall philosophy of the Bible, Torah, Koran, or any religious text.
[ References: TalkOrigins: God and Evolution, TalkOrigins: Interpretations of Genesis ] Did Darwin Recant Evolution on his Deathbed? Darwin was very proud of his scientific discoveries, and it is highly unlikely he would have recanted them. There is no supporting evidence for this story, and Darwin's daughter, who was at her father's deathbed, refutes it. But even if it were true, it would not matter. Biological evolution has been experimentally proven many times over. The worth of a theory is measured by how well it is supported by the facts, not by who believes it.
[ References: Darwin's Deathbed Conversion - a Legend? (Mitchell, 2009) ] Isn't it True that Most Scientists Don't Believe in Evolution? No. According to Newsweek magazine, 99.85% of American earth and life scientists accept biological evolution as a fact. Gallup polls also show that 95% of all scientists accept evolution, though it should be noted that this figure includes scientists who study in unrelated fields, like Computer Science, Engineering, etc. The vast majority of scientists accept evolution as fact.
[ References: Public Beliefs About Evolution and Creation, TalkOrigins: Scientists Reject Evolution? ] How Old is the Earth? Based on the experimental data of numerous independent dating techniques, we know the Earth to be approximately 4.55 billion years old.
[ References: Talk Origins: The Age of the Earth ] Isn't Carbon Dating Unreliable? Radiocarbon dating is just one of many "radiometric" dating techniques. While contamination in the laboratory might happen on rare occasions, radiometric dating remains a trusted and reliable method of determining the age of a sample. The technique relies on the constant rate of decay of certain radioactive elements in the sample. For example, rubidium-strontium dating relies on the decay of rubidium-87 to strontium-87. Rubidium-87 has a half-life of 50 million years (the amount of time for half its mass to decay into strontium). Using this figure, scientists measure the amount of rubidium and strontium in a sample to determine its age.
[ References: Wikipedia: Radiometric Dating ] Doesn't Evolution Violate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics? The second law states that "In a closed system (one in which energy cannot enter), Entropy will not decrease." Since Entropy often refers to disorder, this law is often taken to mean that order cannot arise from disorder. How then would life, which is highly ordered, form naturally? The answer, simply, is that life is not a closed system. Energy is constantly being added to the Earth from the Sun, which fuels the plants, which in turn fuel other life. This is how plants, for example, can have more energy than the seeds they originally sprouted from. But life is not the only example of order from disorder. Snowflakes, crystals, lightening, and sand dunes are all examples of non-living matter organizing into complex structures.
[ References: TalkOrigins: Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution ] What is Intelligent Design? Intelligent Design (ID) is the hypothesis that a higher intelligence (ex: a god, space aliens, time travellers from the future, etc.) guided the course of evolution. Most often, Intelligent Design refers to a god, typically the Christian/Jewish/Muslim god, YHWH or Allah. In other words, God from the Bible. ID differs from traditional religions in that proponents recognize that biological evolution is responsible for the development and diversity of life on Earth. It is similar to traditional religions in that it typically posits a supernatural explanation for what guided the evolution of certain species (including humans). In this way, ID is similar to the 4th century BC belief put forward by Plato and Aristotle of a "prime mover," that is, a being which set the natural world in motion.
[ References: Wikipedia: Intelligent Design, Wikipedia: Unmoved or Prime Mover ] Is There any Evidence for Intelligent Design? This has been a hotly debated question in the media, classrooms, and many churches. According to authors like Michael Behe, there are certain structures in nature which he terms "irreducibly complex," which, he asserts, could not have evolved naturally. He gives bacterial flagellum and the eye, among others, as examples. If true, these might be evidence for Intelligent Design. However, the vast majority of the scientific community regards Intelligent Design as psuedoscience or "junk science." The structures that Behe and others give as examples have proven evolutionary histories. For an example, watch The Evolution of the Eye video on this site. Recently at the famous Dover trial, the court held that "Professor Behe's claim for irreducible complexity has been refuted in peer-reviewed research papers and has been rejected by the scientific community at large." To date, there has never been any evidence, agreed upon by the scientific community, to be proof of Intelligent Design.
[ References: Wikipedia: Intelligent Design, Wikipedia: Irreducible Complexity ] Isn't it True That the Bacterial Flagellum Could Not Have Evolved? This is a statement often asserted by proponents of Intelligent Design, but it is simply not true. The argument goes that since the flagellum (the tail-like structure many bacteria have which helps them "swim") is a very complext machine, it could not have evolved naturally. This is because if you remove any of the proteins that make up the flagellum's motor, it can no longer function. However, as this video beautifully demonstrates, the flagellum does function with fewer proteins, just not as a flagellum. Every part of the flagellum is made of proteins already in the cell, performing other functions. This is one of the most interesting aspects of Evolution: that adaptations can change roles, or combine with other adaptations to perform new roles.
[ References: Irreducible Complexity (bacterial flagellum) debunked [Video], Wikipedia: Evolution of Flagella ] Isn't Evolution Just Another Religion That Requires Faith? No. A religion is a set of beliefs based on the supernatural, which by definition is untestable and impossible to disprove (or "unfalsifiable"). Faith, in the religious sense, can be stated as "belief without evidence." No aspect of science works this way, including the Theory of Evolution. All scientific theories have been scrutinized through years of experimentation, and can all be falsifiable. For example, the Theory of Gravity can be proven false if a scientist can devise an experiment where two bodies did not attract each other. Likewise, the Theory of Evolution could be proven false if a scientist ever documents the evolution of a new adaptation to an organism which did not in any way benefit the organism's ability to survive, reproduce, or ensure the survival of its species as a whole. While scientists may place faith in a scientific theory, their faith is based on past evidence. For example, all scientists have faith that the Law of Thermodynaics will hold true during an experiment because there is overwhelming past evidence to support this belief. This is completely different than placing faith in a religious belief, which has no supporting evidence at all.
If the Sun is Losing 5 Feet of Diameter Every Hour, Wouldn't It Have Been Too Large Billions of Years Ago? This argument comes from a paper published in 1979 by astronomer John Eddy. After studying observations from 1836 through the 20th century, he found the sun had contracted 2 arc seconds. He had found proof of what atronomers had suspected and know for a fact today: that the sun's diameter oscillates in an 80 year cycle. It does not constantly shrink. Within the sun, and every star, there are 2 opposing forces: the intense gravity of the star, trying to crush it, and the intense heat of nuclear fusion, trying to blow it apart. As the gravitational field causes the surface to shrink ever so slightly, it builds incredible pressure inside the star, which speeds up the fusion reactions (think of a pressure cooker). The increased fusion then pushes the surface back out again, and the cycle starts over. Because the sun is truly gigantic, about 1 million times the size of Earth, this cycle plays out on what we would consider a slow scale: every 80 years.
[ References: The Legend of the Shrinking Sun (Till) ]
Yes, that's a lot, but you did ask for it. I am giving you a break and not posting all I could.
No, I do not accept the word of the writers you name. In fact, I have never read any of them. I accept the word of scientist that publish in peer-reviewed journals that can back up their statements with independently-veriviable proof. That seems to be something that you either do not understand or reject because it would destroy your beliefs.
You have given no proof at all. A few babble verses are not proof of anything except that you have no proof.
Not believing ion the bible is not a mistake. It means I have read it many times in several versions and recognize it for being a badly-translated, politically-edited collection of myths and lies. I have also posted a few of the many contradictions found in it. You have failed to address any of those except to say they were "taken out of context" even though no explanation or examples of that were given.
Those contradictions prove that it is not true and is often wrong. How can it say one thing in one place and the opposite in another and both be correct? Well, in your mind, perhaps, but not to any rational person.
There is no hell, no heaven, no god, no jesus, and you are a fool for believing any of it.
Your use of the verses from the bible only shows that you have rejected truth, rational thinking, and the evidence around you. That makes you a person not worth debating. All of those things are needed for a debate. Also, "You cannot reason a person away from a position they did not reach through reason." YOu're beliefs are nothing more than your desire to believe them even without supporting evidence. I have given you plenty of evidence against those beliefs. I know it will have no effect on you because you need to keep your beliefs. "A man's most precious possessions are his illusions. He will surrender his property, his family, even his life before his illusions."
Your jesus never existed. Show me a single contemporary account of that jesus character. I have posted all of that before and the myths jesus was stolen from. Do I have to do it again?
You said, "You believe in a
You said, "You believe in a religion that was founded upon lies, so I am not surprised that you love lies more than the truth." "Yea, hath God said...?" (Genesis 3:1)
Sorry, James, but you are not making your case very well by quoting same ol', same ol' from the original serpent in the Garden of Eden.
Satan, never changes his tactics because so many humans fall for his lies day after day after day.
"What is Evolution? Evolution is simply stated as change over time. Languages, societies, and knowledge all have the ability to evolve. In Biology, evolution refers to the change of genetic traits over time." That is a big lot of hypothetical presuppositions used to explain the cosmos, without GOD.
However, The LORD created seven billion humans from 46 chromosomes with information to spare. Genetic change has never been proven nor has it been necessary, since the entirety of Humanity's genetic information is extant in the original 46 chromosomes.
The following is an article that I wrote on April 23rd of this year to give credible reasoning as to why the existence of seven billion humans is plausible, using the original 46 chromosomes, and coming at the issue from a purely mathematical vantage-point. (Sorry to have to make it so long here, but I posted it on Facebook, due to being busy with other major projects at the time.
"The birth of an idea is marked on the day that the idea is conceived.
"How could it be wrong to consider the birth of a human in the same way?
"Therefore, the day that we are conceived is, arguably, the day of our birth as a human being, and the day that we are born marks our first glorious presentation to the world." (Jay O'Toole)
"26And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
"27So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
"28And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth." (Genesis 1:26-28, KJV)
GOD created Mankind as a unit-pair of man and woman to be the physical representation of the Godhead as a married couple during the concurrent-lifetime of both man and woman. This is the ONLY Divinely-sanctioned marriage, and as such is the only unit that is married by eternal LAW.
The human race is comprised of only one race of people, expressed in myriad ways from 46 originally-perfect chromosomes by The Greatest Artist of all existence, Jesus Christ.
Jesus, HIStory's Only Christ, inserted Himself into human HIStory for the purpose of buying back sinful humans.
This Jesus of Nazareth demonstrated greater love than the love of which any other human is capable, not once but twice.
He demonstrated His surpassing Love the first time, when He created Man, personally with His own Hands. To give humans physical life is more than we could ever deserve. (Grace is the gift of One of higher station to another of lower station, without the possibility of deservability.)
He demonstrated His surpassing Love the second time, when He restrained His Glory into a uniquely-created human body, placed into the womb of a chaste, virgin Jewish girl, who had no doubt passed through her Bat Mitzvah, and was now a "Daughter of the Covenant."
This beginning of His second demonstration of surpassing Love was followed by a well-lived, morally-perfect human lifespan of obedient child, excellent and trustworthy carpenter, faithful and eloquent rabbi, spotless sacrificial lamb, who died, who was buried, and who rose again on the third day as only the prophesied Messiah could rise again.
The final step of this second demonstration of surpassing Love took Jesus to the top of the Mount of Olives, where He "tied-a-bow" on the Gift of Himself-to-Mankind-in-physical-form by leaving this Earth in just as miraculous a manner as He had entered it.
He began to restore the usage of His Glory to full-strength by ascending in His Resurrected-to-New-and-Incorruptible bodily form to His Heavenly, Eternal Throne.
What is required of a different explanation for the existence of humanity on Planet Earth, that could plausibly be opposed to the one GOD, one human race world-view of Mankind?
Given the existence of humanity, throughout recorded history, a different world-view must explain the presence of mankind as a result of natural or supernatural causes, and the metanarrative must be plausibly consistent with the data recorded by multiple humans, and which allows for expansion of said-theory to accurately incorporate all new information revealed at some future date.
The Theory of Evolution is the most consistently-accepted oppositional viewpoint, which is being taught as fact in public schools and major colleges worldwide.
Is it really logical to believe that the Human race is only one race of people, with the genetic codes for 7,000,000,000 (or seven billion) people are completely extant in the originally-perfect 46 chromosomes of the very first human, named "Adam?" (This is apparently just a religious belief, since it is based on a presuppositional belief, that CAN never be proved.)
Is it more reasonable to believe that the Human race is comprised of multiple distinct races of people, who ascended from a sub-human race of exceptionally-advanced primate-humanoids? (This is apparently just a religious belief, since it is based on a presuppositional belief, that CAN never be proved.)
The Bible declares that The LORD gave Adam these originally-perfect 46 chromosomes, then HE took one rib's worth of the same 46 chromosomes, rearranging them on-the-spot to create the second human, Eve, as a unique, totally-different, and fully-complementary individual.
At that moment, (until this very day,) males have been blessed with millions of unique-groupings of 23 chromosomes, that are created and discarded multiple-times every month, while females are born with all of the egg-cells that they will ever carry.
When Adam and Eve became parents to sufficient boys and girls to bear the next generation of humans, these unique sets of 46 chromosomes would become foundational to the selection of multiplied millions of groupings of 23 chromosomes from each subsequently-new generation of man and of woman.
How many pairings of uniquely-selected sets of 23 chromosomes would be required to arrive at Humanity's current population-level of seven billion?
Let's brainstorm of a couple of ways that this might have been possible.
How many years would have been required to achieve the level of seven billion humans, if the original two parents had only two children, within the typical 20 years of duration for children in the contemporary home, and each of these had only two children, within their own set of twenty years, etc., for as long as the Earth exists in its present form?
2 X 2 = 4 (20 years) 4 X 4 = 16 (20 years) 16 X 16 = 256 (20 years) 256 X 256 = 65,536 (20 years) 65,536 X 65,536 = 4,294,967,296 (20 years)
Apparently, an exponential reproduction-curve would hit the 4 billion humans level in less than 100 years. (The first generation would have sired ten children. The second generation would have sired eight children. The third generation would have sired six children. The fourth generation would have sired four children. Finally, the fifth generation would have sired two children.)
Another way would be to consider how many unique sets of 23 chromosomes could be selected from the original 46, before the sets began to repeat some earlier set?
Using an online combination-calculator, I discovered that the original 46 chromosomes can be combined into newly-formed sets of 46 chromosomes by selecting 23 chromosomes at a time, without repetition, an amazing 8,233,430,727,600 times.
Put in layman's terms, the means the gametes may be selected, without repetition, more than 8 trillion times.
Considering the fact that Humanity passed the seven billion humans level, only last October of 2011, The LORD appears to be "messing-with-Humanity," mathematically-speaking, asking, "Why are you still consuming that 'hog-slop,' called 'evolution?' Anything you 'can do,' I can do BETTER!"
The odds are always in the favor of "the house" in casinos, like the ones that have made Las Vegas, Nevada, and Atlantic City, New Jersey, world-famous names.
The poor schmuck, who is desperate to win at the craps table, has the same chance of choosing the right number every time he/she places his/her money on the line.
What are the odds that he/she will win? One chance in a million or one chance in a billion or one chance in a trillion is the best for which he/she can hope.
When we deduct that slim chance of losing, "the house" owns all of those millions, billions, and/or trillions of chances to win.
I would say that gambling is a great investment...for the owner of the casino.
Evolution is the self-same type of crap-shoot.
The possibility of evolution, landing on a beneficial mutation by random chance, is at best one in a million. (Lose that round, and the human race would have no concept of existence, since humans could not exist.)
The possibility of evolution, landing on two beneficial mutations by random chance, is at best one in a billion. (Lose that round, and the human race would have no concept of existence, since humans could not exist.)
The possibility of evolution, landing on three beneficial mutations by random chance, is at best one in a trillion. (Lose that round, and the human race would have no concept of existence, since humans could not exist.)
These aforementioned numbers have not been arrived at scientifically.
They were achieved by educated-guess, the same way HIStory's great fiction writer, Charles Darwin, arrived at his fairy tale, The Origin of Species.
(The truth is that scientific-analysis of the odds against evolution would no doubt be significantly greater than my previously-stated guesses.)
Every bit of information, that is observable as well as that which is yet-to-be observed in every human being, that has been created in the birth, which is conception, is contained in the 46 originally-perfect chromosomes that The LORD Hand-Made in the first man, Adam.
On top of that a plethora of information has yet to be touched in the creation of the Human Race. The DNA usage required to create seven billion people from 46 chromosomes is less than 1/1000th of a percent of all possible potential-incidents of DNA usage.
Put another way, the current seven billion humans, throughout all of recorded history, would have to be increased 1100 times, before it could approach repetition-point.
C. S. Lewis said it best, "Aslan is not a tame lion, but He is good."
Whereas evolutionists are content to worship their god of chance at the craps table of random-mutations, I shall remain, fully-convinced and fully-secure, that there is Only One GOD, Who controls the Cosmos, Time and Eternity, refusing to be controlled by any human being, including me. (Philippians 2:5-11)"
Since you have given a great deal of minutiae, too, I won't blind us both from reading a detailed answer.
Bottom Line: Everything that you have posted is easily explained as supporting your world-view, based on my original premise in this discussion. Your bias toward evolution being fact blinds you from seeing my viewpoint that every one of your examples is also proof for The Creation, when the nose of the plane changes attitude and altitude just slightly. :)
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
"when you deny the universal
"when you deny the universal fact that all humans are indeed religious"
I am not religious. I guess your "fact" wasn't so universal after all.
"To believe nothing is to be
"To believe nothing is to be brainless. To believe anything is to be religious." (Winston Middlesbrough)
I do not allow anyone the status of being without religion, since every human believes something of which he or she will not compromise, which is that human's highest authority upon which he or she operates daily life, even if that highest authority is Self.
Ergo, to trust self as the highest of all authorities is to worship Self as god.
I WILL not compromise this foundational belief.
Therefore, all humans ARE indeed religious. End of story...
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
You seem to lack
You seem to lack understanding of what the words "religion" and "worship" mean in the English language. If you do not know English, I suppose it is the "end of story".
"I WILL not compromise this foundational belief." Not surprising.
Definition for "worship".
1 chiefly British : a person of importance —used as a title for various officials (as magistrates and some mayors) 2 : reverence offered a divine being or supernatural power; also : an act of expressing such reverence 3 : a form of religious practice with its creed and ritual 4 : extravagant respect or admiration for or devotion to an object of esteem
"To believe nothing is to be
"To believe nothing is to be brainless. To believe anything is to be religious." (Winston Middlesbrough)
I do not allow anyone the status of being without religion, since every human believes something of which he or she will not compromise, which is that human's highest authority upon which he or she operates daily life, even if that highest authority is Self.
Ergo, to trust Self as the highest of all authorities is to worship Self as god.
Frank, you said, "Also, I do 'believe' something actually. I do believe that logic and reason are our best tools for understanding the world around us." Ergo, as defined logic/reason hold the position of god in your heart.
"However, this is not a religion." That is YOUR opinion, YOUR belief, YOUR world-view, and I will not allow YOUR world-view, (aka religious belief) to circumvent my embracing of The TRUTH. (John 14:6)
As a believer in the religious viewpoint of logic/reason/human supremacy as the substitute for The Almighty Living GOD, I have quoted from your own version of the scriptures. I have received two dictionary definitions, which are nothing more than the expressions of the minds of men.
There are some men that I can trust, but most humans I distrust. The WORD of GOD is reliable. The word of Man is transitory.
Jesus is always RIGHT. I trust implicitly. (John 14:6)
I have been given no reason to do anything but to distrust both you and James.
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
Frank, you said, "Also, I do
Frank, you said, "Also, I do 'believe' something actually. I do believe that logic and reason are our best tools for understanding the world around us." Ergo, as defined logic/reason hold the position of god in your heart.
"However, this is not a religion." That is YOUR opinion, YOUR belief, YOUR world-view, and I will not allow YOUR world-view, (aka religious belief) to circumvent my embracing of The TRUTH. (John 14:6)
You could not be more wrong. You don't trust the dictionary for a definition? Really? Then you are lost beyond belief. Do they allow the mentally disabled to play on the internet? How have you arrived here?
You discard the dictionary because its nothing but "expressions of the minds of men". Who do you think wrote the Bible? Men. Who do you think went through the hundreds of stories and gathered what they thought was relevant? Men. Who chose what books would be in the Bible as we know it today? Men. Men who claim to have been divinely inspired. Men with claims. You choose to believe men with claims and call what they have written "the word of God". Astounding.
If I was not fully aware that
If I was not fully aware that The BIBLE is more than the words of mere men, and if the TRUTH that The BIBLE, which is clearly The Very WORD of GOD, were neither of which my sustaining life's blood in my spirit-man, then I would not be talking with you,...ever.
GOD is The Almighty is every way.
Mere novices at the violin could make a Stradivarius sound sweet, but the true master Violinist can take a beaten-up old fiddler, causing it to speak in tones that would make a Stradivarius weep, if it were alive.
Any human, who understands the rudiments of the process of writing, can write, but ONLY Almighty GOD can Breathe HIS Thoughts into the minds of human writers, resulting with precisely the WORD of GOD, retaining both the Personality of GOD and the personality of the man, concurrently. (Hebrews 4:12)
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
Also, I do "believe"
Also, I do "believe" something actually. I do believe that logic and reason are our best tools for understanding the world around us. However, this is not a religion.
re·li·gion/riˈlijən/ Noun: 1.The belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods. 2.Details of belief as taught or discussed.
As I expected, you're a liar.
As I expected, you're a liar. I never claimed to know how the cosmos came into existence. As far as I know, the only ones to ever do that are theists. That's from ignorance. "I don't know how it happened and it's too hard to think about, so god did it."
You love to insult me. You keep tossing the "religious faith" BS at me. Do you enjoy being an obnoxious jerk?
All your theist babble is unprovable, boring and only shows how determinedly ignorant you are.
There is not god, never was and never will be. Prove to me the existence of any god.
There also is not hell and despite your arrogant thinking, you were not sent here to warn me. You are only expressing threats to try to make me be as stupid as you are.
I will start off with one of
I will start off with one of my responses to Frank Zermeno.
"'To believe nothing is to be brainless. To believe anything is to be religious.' (Winston Middlesbrough) I do not allow anyone the status of being without religion, since every human believes something of which he or she will not compromise, which is that human's highest authority upon which he or she operates daily life, even if that highest authority is Self. Ergo, to trust self as the highest of all authorities is to worship Self as god. I WILL not compromise this foundational belief. Therefore, all humans ARE indeed religious. End of story..."
You said, "I never claimed to know how the cosmos came into existence. As far as I know, the only ones to ever do that are theists. That's from ignorance. 'I don't know how it happened and it's too hard to think about, so god did it.'"
By your very own words, you confess religious faith in science. You don't claim to know how the cosmos came into existence.
Ergo, your entire basis of operations, regarding science and life, is a presupposition that cannot be proved.
Presuppositions that cannot be proved require faith in order to be used on any level of operation or on any level of thought.
Presuppositions that require faith, (if indeed used by you) make you at least as religious a person as you or any other human might claim to believe that I am.
"Prove to me the existence of any god." There has never been any need to prove the Existence of GOD to any normal human being.
"Stubborn mules," who claim to be human, demand proof, that their wounded hearts already know KNOW to be true.
Remember that quote from Shakespeare through the mouth of his character, Hamlet? "Thou protesteth too loudly."
If you really didn't already believe in GOD, then you wouldn't have any emotion, regarding me. Stop lying to yourself. (Deuteronomy 32:39-40)
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
You're not only a liar, you
You're not only a liar, you are deliberately obnoxious.
How does my words "confess religious faith in science?" I require proof, something that you have discarded to accept any deity.
Yes, there is a need to prove the existence of any god. You claim there is not because you know you cannot provide it.
Ignorant fools believe (have faith) in the obviously untrue, unprovable and illogical because it makes them feel better about being willfully stupid.
I do not "protest too much". The actual quote is "Methinks she doth protest too much."
Again, you quote the babble is a pathetic attempt to prove your point. The only point you have is on the top of your head. As always, prove anything I have said is not true. Prove anything you say is true. Each time you evade that challenge, you're admitting I am right and that you are an intellectual and ethical coward.
"How does my words 'confess
"How does my words 'confess religious faith in science?' I require proof..."
THAT is how. You answered your own question.
Glad to be of assistance.
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
If English isn't your first
If English isn't your first language, I suggest you study it more before you continue to make a fool of yourself. If English IS your first language, stay in church. The world outside will be tough for you.
"The insanity principle is
"The insanity principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results. The far right, the far left, vegans, creationists and other extremists believe in the insanity principle, religiously." (Raptorcat)
The Insanity Principle is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results, especially when this same thing is endeavored upon a faulty foundation, incorrect presupposition and/or assumed-to-be acceptable length of time in which to wait for a result.
Christians have obeyed the commands of Jesus, HIStory's ONLY Christ for two millenia now, appearing to always be failing, while the real fools of the past two millenia are those, who still deny The LORD, failing to see the great advancements that He has made in this world, THROUGH the day-to-day momentary defeats, including physical deaths, of Christians.
You are way too narrow-minded, Raptorcat. Broaden the scope of what you choose to see, and you will finally, for the first time in your life, realize that YOU are on the losing side of the issue.
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
"Christians have obeyed the
"Christians have obeyed the commands of jesus?" Is that why they have engaged in torture, murder, hate, and intolerance?
Read the bible as if you had never heard of it and note the contradictions, mindless violence, and outright impossibilities in it. You're on the wrong side for truth and humanity.
BTW, all caps is shouting. If you have to shout, you must not have any facts to present.
You said, "BTW, all caps is
You said, "BTW, all caps is shouting. If you have to shout, you must not have any facts to present." Actually, I use all caps for emphasis, and to intentionally appear to be shouting, since I do indeed want the deaf and dumb to hear. (Classify yourself.)
BTW, the definition of all caps as always meaning shouting is an arbitrary choice established at some point in the past by one or more human beings, to bring clarity (at least in their minds) written communications.
If The Bible cannot be held up by me as being The Absolute TRUTH, then these internet typing cultists cannot demand that their literary dogma must be followed by me either.
BTW, both of your quoted statements above is merely one of your arbitrary beliefs, that bear the status of presupposition, since that is merely your opinion (or the opinion of those, who agree with you.)
This proves once again that you live by a double-standard. You disapprove of me making absolute truth-statements, and then you turn right around to make absolute truth-statements yourself. -------------------
You said, "...they have engaged in torture, murder, hate, and intolerance?"
If by this you mean the history of the past 2000 years, then you undoubtedly have mistaken me for being a catholic. Giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will choose not to be offended by that.
The catholic church is on-record as having killed many of my personal heroes of the faith, during this period. During the Dark Ages, my forebears dwelt in caves, remaining for all practical purposes, homeless.
You said, "...they have engaged in torture, murder, hate, and intolerance? Read the bible as if you had never heard of it and note the contradictions, mindless violence, and outright impossibilities in it."
Here you have mistaken me for a Jew, one of the Children of Israel. For THAT mistaken identity, I give you a thousand thanks. I would indeed be highly honored to be Jewish, but alas I am a mere "Gentile dog."
The Bible is a very Jewish BOOK, all 66 Books of It, (Genesis through Malachi, and Matthew through the Revelation.)
The Jewish nation is the specially-chosen, uniquely-loved nation, that has been Sovereignly chosen by GOD, without any human permission required and of which no humanly understood explanation can be demanded.
During the formative years of the Jewish nation, and throughout all of HIStory, the Jewish nation has been required to keep themselves separate from the contamination of Gentiles and our unholy belief systems.
This is the very reason that most of Humanity will pass eternity in Hell.
GOD's ways are too austere. GOD's ways are socially-unacceptable. GOD's ways don't set well with Mankind.
Now, you are getting it.
GOD is GOD. (Exodus 3:14) GOD is TRUTH. GOD IS THE STANDARD. GOD speaks. GOD reveals to the extent that HE wishes to reveal.
We accept and obey,...or...we are SOL.
End of Story...
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
I have not mistaken you for a
I have not mistaken you for a catholic. I have identified you as a smug, arrogant lying SOB.
You constantly dodge my request that you prove anything I have said is not true. That tells me more about you than you would like me to know.
Prove there is any god. Prove there is a heaven or hell. Prove that you are not a stubbornly stupid theists that evades direct questions, lies continually and is a disgrace to rational human beings.
You have to respond to my direct challenges or slink back to your rock and tell yourself some more what a superior person you re. You'll believe yourself because no one will demand you prove it.
Actually, James, my Momma has
Actually, James, my Momma has forgotten more information than you will ever know, but considered your apparent mental-state your slur against her character is to be expected.
I forgive you. ;)
James, you are not being given specific evidence for the Existence of GOD, Who is more real than you are...because you have given not attitudinal evidence that you are willing to believe the TRUTH, when it is presented, and I am not in the practice of forcing myself on others any more than to respond in the most topical way to those, who seem to be committed to their own positional world-view.
Those, who are avid atheists, like you appear to be, have blinded themselves on purpose, observationally and testimonially, from seeing the Evidence for GOD, that most humans see every day.
1. Step outside your back door. Look around. See The LORD's most excellent and imminently observable works of ART. 2. Touch your chest. Feel you heartbeat. Listen to the rhythm that The LORD Alone could create inside of you. 3. Think about seven billion humans, during the HIStory of the world. The LORD created every one of them, from 46 original chromosomes.
Need an article on #3? I wrote one recently. Need an article on the Young Earth that GOD created? I wrote about four years ago.
Need Evidence for the Existence of GOD? You need look no further than that silly little moniker, "atheist."
Atheist = not + GOD "Yep! We are the Not-GOD Dudes!" Man, that IS really STUPID!
If GOD does not Exist, then why are atheist foaming at the mouth?
Do people, who believe in GOD, really offend you THAT badly?
What is it? Do we have too much power? ROFLMHO! Do we have too much money? ROFLMHO! ROFLMHO! Do you hate the fact that you cannot control our thoughts, and make us shut-up? My word...
All these reasons mean that you atheists believe in GOD, and you hate HIM with frothing passion, (which means you all Christophobes,) or you are a bunch of thieves, who wish to rule the world, or BOTH.
Atheism without emotion, regarding GOD, proves itself to be genuine. Atheism, with hatred of GOD, confesses its own closet belief in GOD.
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
Your momma? What slur
Your momma? What slur against her character? WHen have I ever mentioned her mother. She may have forgotten more information than you will ever know, but you know next to nothing about me. Your statement is nothing more than another example of your own smug trust in your own willful ignorance.
I am not being given specific evidence of any god because there is none. What you want is attitudinal evidence that I am will int to totally suspend my disbelief in bronze-age myths and lies and bow in abject surrender to those myths and lies. I do believe in the truth because the truth is unafraid to be questioned, criticized, or to provide proof of itself.
Yes, you are in the practice of forcing your beliefs on others and you are doing it here.
I have not blinded myself to any evidence. You have failed, as have al others to provide any. I have often said that, if I were provided with undeniable proof of any god I would immediately change my position. How is that blinding myself?
I see the world far more clearly than you. You work with the "god of the gaps". If you can't understand why something is there, it's always, "God did it." That's placing your position upon an admission of ignorance and an unwillingness to learn.
Yes, you use all caps thinking it makes your text appear more authoritative. What it does is make you appear uneducated and determined to stay that way.
FYI, atheist only means the opposite of theists, one who says there is a god or gods. An atheists says there is not. You have not provided any evidence, as always.
Atheists are not "foaming at the mouth". You're projecting the theists position and assuming everyone must be as stupid as you are.
People believing in god does not offend me. People trying to force their beliefs into laws for everyone does offend me. What If I made my position into a law for you. That beliefs in a god and worshipping one was illegal. That you had to publicly state you did not believe in any deity before you could hold elective office, serve on a jury, or hold a position of trust? Such laws do exist for atheists.
Yes, you have far too much power. I just gave you examples, do you want more? You theists are offended because you cannot control the thoughts, speech, and actions of atheists. I have been told many times by theists to "just shut up." In fact, blasphemy laws do exactly that. So you have another example.
Atheists do not "hate god". That's another lie by the religious reich. How can we hate something that does not and never has existed? Do environmentalists hate Paul Bunyan for cutting down all those trees? What we do intensely dislike and resist are the above mentioned forcing of your sick, twisted beliefs into laws for everyone.
James, I have written you one
James, I have written you one last time, since you have stopped responding.
First of all, I would like to apologize for being intentionally obnoxious in a terribly socially-unacceptable way.
That is certainly not what the world thinks a Christian should be.
(Honestly, I had to give-up the thought long ago that I was much of a catch for The LORD Jesus. Ergo, the miracle, regarding my life, will be His Ability to do anything at all worth while in and through me. I have a very strong temper, and probably a worse temper than most people, who dare to call themselves Christians. Default for me has been, "It's easier to get forgiveness than permission.")
Secondly, as we part ways, and as I give you the opportunity to "save face," (if that was even necessary,) I would like to take this opportunity to point out a couple of issues that appear to be held in strong bas relief, both mentally and socially.
1. Contemporary Humanity decries the existence of Moral Absolutes.
However, you have stopped responding to me, after repeatedly pointing-out statements of mine that you consider to be "obnoxious" and probably offensive morally and socially on many levels. If THAT is not a Moral Absolute, then it is at least an operational standard by which many, (if not most) humans operate, and from which they would be loathe to depart.
2. Contemporary Humanity lives as though respect for other viewpoints is an Absolute Necessity, and is a non-negotiable, from which it will not depart.
This courtesy is extended to all points of view, that operate by the one Moral Absolute that social universalists seem to embrace on the deepest level, which is "All thoughts must be treated as bearing equal value in the public arena, even if one doesn't live that way privately." This courtesy is not extended to people, like me, who dare to state publicly that all thoughts are not of equal value.
3. Contemporary Humanity exercises faith in every day life, regarding the trust of other human beings, that is rarely verified, but which must be consistently assumed, due to the time constraints of operational expediency.
Examples? We eat-out exercising faith that we will not die from the food that we eat in public restaurants because we see the "A" rating sticker at the front door. (This requires faith in two sets of people, the inspectors and the cooks.)
We drive cars, trusting the manufacturers of tires, of internal parts, of petroleum processors, of myriad other things, since personal inspection of all of these things would be terribly tedious.
We trust the building construction contractors, who made our homes, our places of business, our social halls, our political offices of legislation, ad infinitum to create safe places to live and to work. We trust them to be of greater moral character than the ones,who created homes in South Florida, during Hurricane Andrew.
Why do we trust these people? Because we can see people, and the people that we can't personally see can be verified existentially by other human beings.
Bottom Line, James, is that it is human nature to trust that which we can understand with our human minds, and to distrust that which we cannot understand with our human minds.
Yet, much of our existence still remains beyond our understanding, since very little of the cosmos has as yet been discovered, has been comprehended by the human mind, or has been tangibly coded in any way in any science book.
Are you aware that during the Civil War many pregnant women and their babies were dying in great numbers in the hospitals that served the wounded soldiers.
How is this possible? Apparently, germs had as yet been undiscovered, and the same surgeons, who were amputating legs & arms, followed operations by doing topical autopsies on cadavers in the morgue, and then left the morgue to go delivery babies. All these tasks were completed without washing hands once.
Germs were killing people, who knew?
Considering all the myriad things that you and I do not know, and for which we as yet lack the proper tools to comprehend, is it not possible that GOD does indeed Exist, intentionally beyond the realm of comprehension by skeptical humans, but well within the range of belief by the simplest trusting mind?
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
You said, previously, "I have
You said, previously, "I have identified you as a smug, arrogant lying SOB." The letters SOB contain an offensive slur against my Momma.
You said, "Your statement is nothing more than another example of your own smug trust in your own willful ignorance." Back at you. Everything that you have said to me comprises just such a statement.
You said, "I do believe in the truth because the truth is unafraid to be questioned, criticized, or to provide proof of itself." I wish that this was indeed true with regard to TRUTH that cannot change.
Your attitude toward the search for TRUTH is actually not the bottom line to which I refer. Your attitude toward me is the crux of this issue.
Your colleagues of thought regularly lampoon me as being a "frothing-at-the-mouth" Christian. I am actually nowhere close to that, but I have learned to expect your side of the issue to be just as pompous, arrogant, and "frothing-at-the-mouth" from my perspective as I seem to be to yours.
You said, "Yes, you are in the practice of forcing your beliefs on others and you are doing it here." Listen, Girlfriend, YOU really need to Man-Up and disinfect your brain from all of that female-think that has infested too many male minds over the past half-century.
I am NOT forcing anything on you by stating what I believe.
THAT is how women think, and you would be wise to stop that in this conversation, if you wish to be considered a man by me. A real man would respond to me with the attitude, "Okay, that's what you believe. Well, I don't. Have a nice life."
"You work with the 'god of the gaps'. If you can't understand why something is there, it's always, '(Evolution) did it.' That's placing your position upon an admission of ignorance and an unwillingness to learn." I have edited your statement, slightly by replaced the word, GOD, with the word, Evolution. It is no my viewpoint toward.
You said, "What it does is make you appear uneducated and determined to stay that way." I have learned to expect such prejudicial slurs from your side of the conversation, since the inability to make Christians leave our solid and unflinching testimony seems to make you atheists resort to attack a Christian's character and the Christian's intelligence.
What that does is to make you appear immature and determined to stay that way.
Now, I am going to have to assume that you are an American. Ergo, let's set the record straight.
1. This country was created to operate on the principles and the beliefs that ONLY exist as a package-deal in The BIBLE. 2. This country will only be great as long as it operate on the principles and the beliefs of The BIBLE. 3. This country has ONLY succeeded, when the leaders of this country have prayed to the Almighty GOD, Whose ONLY Revelation IS The BIBLE. 4. This country has been abandoned to greater and greater degrees over the past century as the country has abandoned GOD, outlawed public displays of faith, begun to murder babies in the womb, embraced sexual libertinism, including the legitimizing of heinous, aberrant, unnatural, loathsome acts, like homosexuality, given greater credibility to every form of spiritualism but belief in Jesus of Nazareth, HIStory's ONLY Christ, and given credibility to abject LIES, that are eternally against intelligence, like atheism and the mythology of evolution.
I am NOT destroying the planet through the denial of the LIE of GlobalW. You and your thought-colleagues are destroying this (or whatever other country might be your home) by rejecting the ONLY GOD, Who has the ability to make you. (Psalm 14:1; Psalm 53:1)
I have just told you the TRUTH. (Hebrews 11:1) Now, believe or don't believe. Your choice but don't talk like a girl, saying that I am forcing my beliefs on you, simply by stating them.
Read the Book of the Revelation again, if you have already. You guys are about to get a little playtime from The LORD for your so-called Nirvana on Earth. I am starting to sense that it is getting a lot closer than ever before (in my lifetime at least) for atheists and universal spiritualists to forge something of a workable union for global government.
You will be given seven years to see what you guys can do with this world that you have always wanted to rule, while The LORD will have removed HIS Holy Spirit, (and Christians with HIM,) and The LORD will start to "pull-the-rug-out-from-underneath-you," and then what good will your so-called science be with earthquakes in weird places, Armageddon-like meteors that actually do hit the Earth, and people, who will jump-off cliffs in order to try to die but will not be allowed to die.
LAUGH NOW, but you will remember my word. The LORD Jesus will make sure of that.
At the end of the seven years, Jesus will "clean-house, " taking HIS rightful Throne in Jerusalem as King David's heir.
(O, and don't forget, Linus will finally see the Great Pumpkin. NOT! LOL! Just checking to see if you were still paying attention, since I knew that this would be your most predictable train of thought. Just wanted to beat you to the punch.) XO
I cannot make you believe The TRUTH, and I have yet to try to do this. (Your consistent railings, notwithstanding.) The LORD Alone can reveal Himself to you, and I will pray that HE does because I would really rather see you saved than damned.
"The battle is not with flesh and blood, but with (the spirit realm...)" (Ephesians 6:10)
"But I don't believe in the spirit realm. That is just foolish," I can already hear you say. That makes you such a wonderful cow to be led around by the nose-ring. If they can keep you in the dark, then they have one less step. They don't have to convince your mind that their thoughts are "yours."
GOD is eternally Spirit.
The Almighty ONE, Who does not participate in the physical realm cannot be proved, using physical tools.
The spirit realm can only be proved with spiritual tools. You have rejected the existence of the spirit realm, and with it you have tossed away the only tools that have any possibility of proving the Existence of GOD.
The atheists demand to prove GOD is just plain STUPID. You have no tools for this task.
Why don't you try to measure the weight of the oceans on a bathroom scale? That would make just as much sense as your demand for me to prove the Existence of GOD with impotent physical tools that have no possibility of measuring anything spiritual.
Steeped in doctrine, are we? Now, who is religious?
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
Not one thing you said is
Not one thing you said is true. Believe what you want. Expect mockery and derision when you cannot prove it.
For example:
In the case of the historical Jesus, there is not one contemporary record of his existence. The Romans, who otherwise kept very good records never mentioned a figure who was supposed to be socially, politically, and spiritually so significant as well as publicly performing many miracles; then was executed after a very public trial.
Not until the Gospel of Mark, written from 40 to over 100 years after the supposed crucifixion, (depending upon which biblical scholar you choose to believe) is there any mention of Jesus. If we look at the fables of Horus, Attis, and Mithra, we see amazing similarities. Born in low circumstances on December 25, 12 followers, executed at an early age, son of a god, the list goes on. It would appear that the early church, in need of a powerful central figure, "borrowed" from earlier myths to create a rallying point for their religion.
You said, "Not one thing you
You said, "Not one thing you said is true."
Burden of proof, Sir!
You have reason, devoid of substance, thinking that it is possible to have substance, devoid of GOD.
There is Only ONE Almighty GOD.
HE chose to reveal Himself to Man.
HE gave me the faith to see Revealed Truth, to believe Revealed Truth, and I have done just that to the great honor of my most unworthy soul.
You said, "In the case of the historical Jesus, there is not one contemporary record of his existence."
Your facts are tainted by personal bias, Sir.
Jesus of Nazareth, Who died, Who was buried HIStory's Only One-Use burial Time-Share, and Who rose to HIS Own Newly-Created physical human Existence, while still retaining HIS 100% Character, being GOD, by Whose Authority I now interact with you, and by Whose Authority all who would influence you from the spiritual realm must now remain silence (or deal directly with The One, Who Alone can rebuke them,) has not chosen to live physically in the presence of humanity,...yet..., during contemporary times.
Ergo, contemporary records would be necessarily nonexistent on purpose.
You apparently refuse to recognize the plethora of factual documentation, regarding the Presence of the Messianic Jesus of Nazareth, during the first century of our LORD, HIS very followers disseminated abundant accounts of HIS undisputed resurrected.
These include the extra-Biblical historian, Josephus; the unlocated/unproduced "bones of Jesus"; the Roman soldiers, who were charged with keeping the tomb of Jesus but did not, and who all the same retained their physical lives, even after such a heinous dereliction of duty; and 10 of the original 12 disciples of Jesus, who died martyrs' deaths because they knew personally that Jesus did indeed rise from the dead on the third day, (Remember Muslims die every day for something that they "hope to be true," but who would ever willingly die at any time for a Known LIE?)
(BTW, they tried to kill John, the Beloved, in a vat of boiling oil, but THAT tough, old bird survived THAT torture. Therefore, they exiled him to the barren rock of an island, known as Patmos, where he received the Revelation of Jesus, HIStory's Only CHRIST.)
Somewhere between 3000 to 5000 documents corroborate the Existence of and the Earthly work of Jesus of Nazareth, that are dated to within a century of HIS resurrection and Ascension back into Heaven.
Julius Caesar is the next best well-documented historical figure, with a scant 600-800 documents, the earliest of these are dated approximately 600 years after his death.
You do not believe the record of Jesus of Nazareth because you choose not to believe the facts.
You refuse the Truth because you are steeped in the brainwashing of your so-called scientific proof, which is nothing more than your much-worshiped religion.
The proof exists, but you do not believe because you choose to believe the fallible logic of dying human beings rather than to believe the Revealed Truth of The Only GOD of Existence, Who cannot die, Who cannot lie, and Who IS TRUTH! (John 14:6)
http://wn.com/Evidence__Jesus_Was_God_2_of_2__Lee_Strobel
(I am well aware that contemporary atheists seem to universally reject the testimony of Lee Strobel, who was himself an atheist, before being converted by Jesus to the Lordship of Christ. This is the very thing that increases his reliability in my mind. Jesus is rejected by atheists, who are by definition FOOLS. [Psalm 14:1] Lee Strobel is rejected by atheists. He is in good company. I am rejected by atheists. I like the company that I keep.) ;)
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
I agree about the burden of
I agree about the burden of proof. It is upon you. You're the one making the ludicrous claims. You must prove them. I have said many time that, given indisputable evidence of any god I would change my position. That evidence has never happened. All I ask is it be independently verifiable and not depend upon "faith."
Where are those documents? You give not a single citation. Furthermore, you admit that none of them are contemporary. Where are any eyewitness documents? There is not one. The rest of your post is also ludicrous lies. I'm not wasting any time on you are your posts. You're not even a good liar.
Here's my little essay on the subject of faith.
Let’s All Have Faith
If something cannot be proven, there is likely to be a reason for it. If something cannot be seen, it can still be proven. Gravity cannot be seen by any of our current technology. But its effects can be seen and measured. Just try dropping an iron weight on your toe. Or do you think that was a spiritual effect by god to punish you for being stupid enough to drop it on your toe?
Gravity can be measured, its actions observed and even predicted. I knew that weight was going to hurt your toe. You probably did too, so you decided not to drop it on your foot.
“But you must have Faith!” OK, I am willing to test that. Are you?
I invite you to the roof of my building. It’s not too high, between 25 and 30 meters (80 to 90 feet). I hand you a large belt and tell you to put it on. As you are buckling it, I explain that it is an anti-gravity belt I have built. I add that it repels gravitational force, just as ordinary magnets repel each other.
Like magnets, the closer it is to the earth, the more powerfully it works. So, when you first step off the roof, you’ll fall fairly fast. But as you near the concrete parking lot below, you’ll slow down until you stop a short distance above the ground. Way more fun than bungee jumping, right?
Now go on, step off the roof. What? You want to know how it works? The entire secret was revealed to me by a space alien in a series of visions. He also told me that drinking too much alcohol was bad for me. I know that to be true, so this has to be true, too. It’s too complicated for you to understand anyway. You need me to interpret its action for you and for you to have faith.
Yes, I’ve already tried it, now it’s your turn. Off you go now. Take a leap of faith.
James, I am sorry to have to
James, I am sorry to have to be the one to inform you but you are starting from a terribly faulty presupposition.
Science proves NOTHING.
Science is a discipline whereby thoughtful humans makes some sense of the physical realm. The physical realm is the only realm of existence about which science has any ability to make any assessment.
Science is hamstrung by the restriction of gathering and of assessing only the data, that is within its reach.
Science is only now beginning to grasp the heretofore-unrecognized material that fills the vast gaps between the celestial bodies in the cosmos. In other words, the thought that space is a vacuum of nothingness is slowly beginning to change to a desire to explore and to quantify the something that occupies Space's vacuum-no-more.
Science can prove only that which remains consistent the same, bounded by parameters, within a consistently changing cosmological realm.
For instance, even though you may be expected to minimize the importance of this example, neither of us have ever occupied the same space twice in our entire lifetimes.
Sitting in the same chair day after day after day is not the same as occupying the same space.
1. The Earth rotates on its axis at 1000s of miles per second to give us a 24-hour day. 2. The Earth journeys around the sun at 1000s of miles per second, once every 365 1/4 days. 3. The Solar System, of which the Earth is a member, journeys around the center of the Milky Way, and The LORD Only Knows how long that takes. ;) 4. The Milky Way journeys always further from the center of the cosmos, away from the Week of Creation as The BIBLE accurately describes "the Heavens unfolding like a curtain."
James, do you really think that the spirit realm doesn't exist? You have just offered me the same line that Satan offered Jesus, during the three temptations in the wilderness. "If you are GOD, jump off the temple. GOD will catch you."
Okay, Satan's representation, as Jesus said then, "Thou shalt not tempt the LORD, thy God." We don't put GOD to the test to prove our faith.
Any god, who can be proved, is automatically disqualified because physical tools would have been used to prove the Spirit-Being.
"Aslan is not a tame lion, but He is good." (C.S. Lewis)
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
I have come across many of
I have come across many of your posts since my time on this site, and usually agree with a lot of what you say.
But not once have I seen any shred of evidence that any story (e.g. that of Horus) contains those resemblances to the story of Jesus.
Jesus is SOVEREIGNTY. YOU are
Jesus is SOVEREIGNTY.
YOU are human.
The thing made has no right to question his Maker, especially in terms that are both impotent and fallible.
Science, as defined by evolutionists, is defined in human terms, that reject the extant POWER and AUTHORITY of GOD.
When GOD, Who is Omnipotent, demonstrates Compassion in Self-Revelation to help our finite, impotent minds to comprehend enough of HIS Divinity to Trust the rest of HIS Divinity, that we can never know in these corrupt bodies, during this finite epoch of existence, and a human being dares to reject GOD's Revelation because of the human's preconceived notion, that is based on sheer, ugly, heinous, human PRIDE, then that human being is an abject FOOL. (Psalm 14:1)
The problem is not the lack of scientific evidence to prove the Existence of GOD. The problem is the pride-filled selfish mindset of an allege-adult, who still has a two-year-old's brain.
"Do it my way or I will take my toys and go home!" The problem is that no human can escape the Presence of GOD, even though they can fool themselves into believing that they have in this life.
The same sun that melts wax, hardens clay.
The same scientific evidence that creates strong-but-humble Christians can create incorrigible, frothing-at-the-mouth atheists.
Classify yourself.
Evidence is much life a holographic image. One sees what one wishes to see depending on the perspective from which one looks at the evidence.
However, all evidence has only One meaning, that will be fully revealed in the Light of the Everlasting Son.
To prove me wrong, YOU will have to wait at least a 1000 years, but probably less.
Remember, the atheists said it best, "God probably doesn't exist. So, just enjoy your life." XO
To that, remember evolution probably isn't right. So, why do science. Just eat, drink, and be merry! For tomorrow we die.
Then you get to experience worm alimentary canal. O, Dude, my bad! You won't exist.
Have a nice...I-Never-Knew-That-I-Existed! :} NOT!!!!!!!!!!
"Pregnant Government births infantile Electorate." (Jay O'Toole)
If you can get off your usual
If you can get off your usual Jesus hobby horse for a moment, Jim, this seems to be an issue on which we disagree, and on which, for once, you are the true believer, and I am the arch-sceptic. Why is this? I mean, not why am I a sceptic (or skeptic). That's not fair. But why are you a believer?
If we crack this one together, maybe in 2,000 years there will be one or two surviving contemporary records of OUR existence, eh? Even if it is buried under all the ice that all this global warming is going to cause.
What are you saying? That
What are you saying? That the climate is not changing? That the ice caps and glaciers are not melting? You might want to show some proof of that if it's what you believe.
Or are you saying that there are contemporary records of a jesus character? I didn't introduce the religion stuff into this thread, In fact, I criticized the one who did and only responded to it.
My "usual jesus hobby horse?" Do you mean the statements that I have repeatedly challenged anyone, including yourself, to disprove? I have always been willing and able to back up what I say with verifiable evidence. The usual reaction to that is people either disappear or try to change the subject,
I have one right now (Gordon Cooper) that challenged me to provide any examples of biblical inconsistencies. I sent him pages of them in the email. He's vanished, too.
The ice caps are safe. They
The ice caps are safe. They are not melting. If you think they are, then YOU should provide evidence.
In the case of the southern ice cap, this has a continent underneath it. If THAT ice cap out of the two melted, then sea level might rise. But the temparature in Antarctica in the warmest of summer heat waves, is almost NEVER warm enough to melt ANY of the ice.
See: http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/about_antarctica/geography/weather/temperatures.php
They are not melting? Here's
They are not melting? Here's a story from CNN only this morning.
http://edition.cnn.com/2012/06/10/world/phytoplankton-mega-bloom-eco-solutions/index.html?hpt=wo_t4
I am astounded that someone normally as intelligent as you have been could even think they are not in the face of so much overwhelming evidence. Are you letting the religious habit of discarding anything that does not agree with your beliefs interfere in all areas?
You are completely wrong.
You are completely wrong. NASA photographs show the ice caps are shrinking. As you so often do, you only believe what you want to believe.
That does explain your position on religion, though. Believe what makes you feel good, and ignore any contradictory facts.