Evolution 2 - Never-ending Debate

Man, you amaze me more with every post. BTW, you messed up your use of vB Code, I believe.

Now, first off, concerning your little essay on the expansion of the universe: let me ask you this: does all that not depend on the assumption that there's a steady rate here? What if it were started at a certain point of expansion? Is that amount of time measured in terms of how long it would take, if reversed, to shrink back into basically nothing?

Very blatant mistake on your part. Science is a way to try to ascertain knowledge through trial, error, refinement, and observation. My religion does not preach anything to the contrary of this. On the contrary, we are to fill the earth and subdue it, and you cannot subdue a place you do not know about. Are you saying it's the enemy of The Bible (the actual set of beliefs Christianity is based on), or are you saying that it is the enemy of Bible-thumping morons who fear change? They are NOT one and the same.

I didn't ask you if you cared, did I? I don't care if you don't care. I can indeed believe that something is absolutely wrong, and say so if it comes up. I'm not screaming on street corners, harassing people, and claiming I have undeniable proof. Quit wasting my time (and yours) with pointless statements.

As I've said before, I don't care if you don't care.

Yeah, uh-huh. Christianity will somehow be proven to be impossible after I die. If you say so. I guess that's easy to say now, since you won't be around then. Though, by then, you'll know for yourself.

Yes, of course. Instinct. You're missing my point: I'm asking you why you do illogical things if emotions are just chemical reactions. And, if you do do them, do you attempt to fight them? Your answer is that you're free to be illogical. That's not much of an answer. I'm telling you it makes no logical sense, you're saying you don't have to make sense if you don't want to.

Blanket? It's true. Are you thick? If all we are are cells and chemicals, than ultimate meaning does not exist. No right and wrong. Just opinion. Just a different chemical interaction from one person to another. Emotions are just chemicals. There is nothing evil. Just things your chemicals don't like.

That is a FACT. It's simple logic. I shouldn't have to explain it to a grown man like yourself. And I dunno what little rant you've got going on about American Indians...but I'm sure it's got something to do with more blanket generalizations (to use your own words) concerning Christianity.

I didn't say that. The fact that you resort to exaggeration doesn't speak well of your arguments.

What I said (I'll say it again now) is that if you only believe in things that have concrete proof behind them, you won't have much to believe in at all, and that I imagine there are plenty of things you believe without having concrete proof. I never CLAIMED to have concrete proof of God. Ever. So I dunno what you're on about.

To phrase it more accurately, you're putting your faith in man. The same species you rant over so often in these posts. Perhaps you have faith in man. I do, to a degree...but in the end, we don't know jack sh*t, and you know it.

Yeah, thousands of astrophysicists...I'm sure there are thousands of Christian scientists. Like you said: numbers don't make it so. And if people spending large amounts of money is somehow evidence, then you'll have to stand in awe of the money given every Sunday in this country alone through tithe to local churches.

So, you don't answer it? Uh huh. It's lame. I tell you it's not, and why. You say it's lame. How can I argue with that? You've persuaded me. I've explained it to you in detail, and you've got nothing to say. It's a question of logic. Let me know when you're ready to answer with something more compelling than "it's lame."

What makes you believe the Sun is older than the Earth? Did you read some research paper? And how do you know the entire thing isn't symbolic? I don't think those passages mention the Sun. Just the day. The light. Sounds pretty symbolic to me. There's plenty of debate as to how literal the beginning of Genesis is.

Laugh it up. It's true. You apparently think it's important when the followers mess up the original concept or idea that they follow. I think it's worth mentioning when the primary originators of the idea or concept are messed up themselves. So, do you have an argument, or what? Are you disagreeing? Got anything real to say in response, or just another acronym to represent amusement?

See above. I find it amusing that we go as far as to assume, for the sake of this argument, that God exists, and then we try to constrain Him to the physical laws of nature.

See, there's your problem: I didn't claim it as fact. Where'd you get that idea? Thinking of some other Christian again, are you? Lumping us all together because there's more to argue with that way. I am very content to practice my beliefs. I don't go out trying to convert people. But when someone starts talking about it, and they say something I disagree with, I speak up.

This idea of "forcing" a belief is ridiculous. Is forcing a belief on someone means disagreeing vocally when it comes up, and standing firm in your beliefs, oh yeah, then I force my beliefs on others. What it really implies, though, are people who berade you and harass you. As you can see, I'm not doing that here: takes two to dance, in case you didn't know.

Comedy Relief:

It takes two to tango.
It takes one to put in a lighbulb.
It takes two to push over a dairy cow in the middle of the night.
It takes close to seven to capture, main and rape a talking horse, like Ed.

That wasn't even that funny. At least it was light.
This thread is very heavy.

__________________
www.esotericrabbit.com

Originally posted by TWTCommish
Man, you amaze me more with every post. BTW, you messed up your use of vB Code, I believe.

Now, first off, concerning your little essay on the expansion of the universe: let me ask you this: does all that not depend on the assumption that there's a steady rate here? What if it were started at a certain point of expansion? Is that amount of time measured in terms of how long it would take, if reversed, to shrink back into basically nothing?

I'm not an astrophysicist but I found info to your original question. If you really want that info you can find it on the net like I did. I believe though it's answered in there, they measure the distance between known stars and then see how they move in relation to each other which gives the measurement of how fast or slow the universe is expanding.

Very blatant mistake on your part. Science is a way to try to ascertain knowledge through trial, error, refinement, and observation. My religion does not preach anything to the contrary of this. On the contrary, we are to fill the earth and subdue it, and you cannot subdue a place you do not know about. Are you saying it's the enemy of The Bible (the actual set of beliefs Christianity is based on), or are you saying that it is the enemy of Bible-thumping morons who fear change? They are NOT one and the same.

Where in religion does it say to ascertain knowledge or to question anything in the Bible through trial, error, refinement, and observation? The Bible is the word of God. How is it possible to question his word if he is all knowing?

I didn't ask you if you cared, did I? I don't care if you don't care. I can indeed believe that something is absolutely wrong, and say so if it comes up. I'm not screaming on street corners, harassing people, and claiming I have undeniable proof. Quit wasting my time (and yours) with pointless statements.

Saying that you believe something to be absolute when it can be easily questioned is what's pointless. Who ever heard of something so arrogant?!?

Yeah, uh-huh. Christianity will somehow be proven to be impossible after I die. If you say so. I guess that's easy to say now, since you won't be around then. Though, by then, you'll know for yourself.

Christianity is a religious practice that can't be proven right or wrong because there's no such thing regarding opinions, however, the belief of creation as fact most certainly can be proven wrong with proper scientific study and may be one day.

Yes, of course. Instinct. You're missing my point: I'm asking you why you do illogical things if emotions are just chemical reactions. And, if you do do them, do you attempt to fight them? Your answer is that you're free to be illogical. That's not much of an answer. I'm telling you it makes no logical sense, you're saying you don't have to make sense if you don't want to.

If I like chicken do I have to logically show you why I like chicken? My preferences and beliefs don't have to be logical, I have free will to believe and feel what I want regardless of how stupid or illogical it is. If it were 500 B.C. and I had no idea that emotions were just chemical reactions would that change your opinion on how logical it is to do illogical things? You're free to believe in God without any logical substantiation of God so why can't I like to be nice to people without providing a logical substantiation of why?

Blanket? It's true. Are you thick? If all we are are cells and chemicals, than ultimate meaning does not exist. No right and wrong. Just opinion. Just a different chemical interaction from one person to another. Emotions are just chemicals. There is nothing evil. Just things your chemicals don't like.

That is a FACT. It's simple logic. I shouldn't have to explain it to a grown man like yourself. And I dunno what little rant you've got going on about American Indians...but I'm sure it's got something to do with more blanket generalizations (to use your own words) concerning Christianity.

I have no idea what the heck you're talking about now. Ultimate meaning of right and wrong doens't exist. There is nothing evil. That is very simple logic. My little "generalization" isn't quite. American Indians lived perfectly moral lives without having ever read the bible, or having known your god, or even having known that feelings were simply chemical reactions. I guess they were just totally illogical bastards. LOL


I didn't say that. The fact that you resort to exaggeration doesn't speak well of your arguments.

So God isn't a mythic supernatural being? That's a pretty accurate depiction of what he's believed to be. I love to exaggerate but I surely didn't there.

What I said (I'll say it again now) is that if you only believe in things that have concrete proof behind them, you won't have much to believe in at all, and that I imagine there are plenty of things you believe without having concrete proof. I never CLAIMED to have concrete proof of God. Ever. So I dunno what you're on about.

I believe a whole bunch of crap that I don't have proof of. I however don't claim them to be facts as creationists do.

To phrase it more accurately, you're putting your faith in man. The same species you rant over so often in these posts. Perhaps you have faith in man. I do, to a degree...but in the end, we don't know jack sh*t, and you know it.

Yeah, thousands of astrophysicists...I'm sure there are thousands of Christian scientists. Like you said: numbers don't make it so. And if people spending large amounts of money is somehow evidence, then you'll have to stand in awe of the money given every Sunday in this country alone through tithe to local churches.

In the end we'll know more than we know now. Every day we know more, not less, and not the same. Where my faith lies doesn't matter. I just follow the evidence presented.

LOL You'll have to excuse me if I don't consider your example of Church donations for the next bible study group as equivalent to government funded NASA shuttle missions, the Hubble Telescope, and deep space exploration.

So, you don't answer it? Uh huh. It's lame. I tell you it's not, and why. You say it's lame. How can I argue with that? You've persuaded me. I've explained it to you in detail, and you've got nothing to say. It's a question of logic. Let me know when you're ready to answer with something more compelling than "it's lame."

It's irrelevant to the topic. You think a smooth rock on the moon is complex and is a relative example to the existence of the universe. Aww hell, that universe is awfully big and complex, it must have been some damn smart supreme being that conjured it all up because ain't no way in hell that'd could just happen. Your example isn't logical at all. It's an archaic way of thinking and not in line at all with accepted scientific methods. You even said it earlier, Science is a way to try to ascertain knowledge through trial, error, refinement, and observation. Where the heck in your definition does it say that science makes assumptions? Science don't make no stinkin assumptions based on nuttin.

What makes you believe the Sun is older than the Earth? Did you read some research paper? And how do you know the entire thing isn't symbolic? I don't think those passages mention the Sun. Just the day. The light. Sounds pretty symbolic to me. There's plenty of debate as to how literal the beginning of Genesis is.

Seriously take an Astronomy or Geology class. Let me ask you, how many planets have you ever heard of randomly soaring through space? Hopefully none and the reason that is that gravity from the SUN pulls mass into it's orbit to create what we call a planet. You can't have a stinkin planet without a solar system. Better yet here's the definition of the word planet of which Earth most certainly is. (hope we can agree on that one lol)

A planet is a nonluminous celestial body illuminated by light from a star, such as the sun, around which it revolves.

Of course it's symbolic, sure... Fruit trees are symbolic too huh? The Sea is symbolic and the two lights in the sky are symbolic even though it just happens the only two lights in the sky of relative size are the moon and Sun. Why is it that you get to choose what's symbolic and what's real? Please man...

Hey I got an idea, maybe creation is symbolic for the BIG BANG!!!! YEAH!!! Now that is a hell of a use of symbolism I tell ya!

Laugh it up. It's true. You apparently think it's important when the followers mess up the original concept or idea that they follow. I think it's worth mentioning when the primary originators of the idea or concept are messed up themselves. So, do you have an argument, or what? Are you disagreeing? Got anything real to say in response, or just another acronym to represent amusement?

It's hilarious for you to slander Darwin. I don't care if Darwin was a hermaphroditic necrophiliac drug addicted dwarf. It's not important who he is, just what he could substantiate. And more importantly, what those after him substantiate. You could prove Darwin to be the biggest jerkoff in history and that still doesn't make him wrong anymore than the Pope being the greatest person who ever lived would make him right about creation. C'mon now...

See above. I find it amusing that we go as far as to assume, for the sake of this argument, that God exists, and then we try to constrain Him to the physical laws of nature.

Oh boy, it's getting deep now. A buncha errors in Genesis so we'll just make God break all the physical laws of nature that he just created. This guy sure doesn't know how to build a universe I tell ya.

I'll tell you what's more logical than your assertion. It seems to me this Bible was written before science could ever know these things so basically the writers of the Bible had no friggin clue what came first or what came second and so on. They live on Earth so NATURALLY in the beginning there was the Earth. In actuality, in the beginning there were stars and 7 billion years later there was the Earth. They had no way of knowing that of course and that's why they screwed it up. A supreme being would never make such a silly mistake that he had to break the very laws he created.

See, there's your problem: I didn't claim it as fact. Where'd you get that idea? Thinking of some other Christian again, are you? Lumping us all together because there's more to argue with that way. I am very content to practice my beliefs. I don't go out trying to convert people. But when someone starts talking about it, and they say something I disagree with, I speak up.

This idea of "forcing" a belief is ridiculous. Is forcing a belief on someone means disagreeing vocally when it comes up, and standing firm in your beliefs, oh yeah, then I force my beliefs on others. What it really implies, though, are people who berade you and harass you. As you can see, I'm not doing that here: takes two to dance, in case you didn't know.

Christians have and do force their beliefs on people even if you don't do it personally.

You're thinking Jehova's.
Anywayz, I don't think that Christians really force their beliefs on to others, apart from school chaplains (I hate those guys) and Preists (who are paid by God to do so), most Christians quietly believe to themselves and let you do what you want. Not many are as openly vocal as Chris is, not that there's anything wrong with that. For example, I'm not extremley open about my believes (probablt 'cos I'm a paper Bible kinda guy, wrong thread but...)

Sure there were wars over forcing believes on others and missionary's tried to convert everyone on the face of the Earth at some stage or another, but in today's mul;ti-cultural society, there's basically no point for one and two, everyone's fine to worship and believe what they want, in their own way in they're own time -- regardless of how many other people believe what they believe.

I just think, and I'm not forcing this on anybody, that people who don't believe in anything are kinda cold, not unkind or uncaring, or loving or anything, just it must be so sad and cold having to live not expecting bliss and enlightenment and a higher plane of being after this one. It's something to almost look forward too. At the same time, perhspa not believeing makes you value life more, but I still value life as much as the next non-believer does. Maybe I'm talking nonsense, I just find not having something to grasp onto, some faith, is kind of said. That being said, myself and Chris and all the Christian's may be wrong -- in fact it's very likeley that we don't go anywhere. Our brains shut down and we rot in ground. At the same time, the thoughts, the faith, the hopes. Their nice to hold on to. Remember, Christianity isn't all God and belief about seemingly ridiculous things -- I'm a perfect example of that -- it's also about the laws for living. I'm not saying that people who don't believe don't have those rules and laws, but I don't know what I'm saying.

Christinaity isn't all about believing things that are written.
But at the same time, it's nice to have faith.

I suspected that: you just looked it up online, right? And why do you believe it? Did you do anything more than find some site with so and so's report? The simple fact is that those assumptions, as I clearly stated, make certain assumptions...and therefore do NOT contradict creationism at all. I find it interesting that you said you THINK it's explained in there. Did you read it? Did you follow it? If the answer to either of these is no, you're all wet, my friend. Maybe you're used to Christians who don't actually read scientific things like that. Maybe you thought I'd make some snap judgement and not even bother with it.

I have to repeat myself often, it seems: FILL THE EARTH AND SUBDUE IT. There are other passages I'm not going to go diving after now...that one is the one that first comes to my mind. You can't subdue the earth without studying it.

See, you're talking about The Bible -- this is a constant in all your posts: twist around what we're talking about. Try to find some way to get it BACK to the concepts you want to talk about, because you think they sound good and help to emphasize your primary points. It's a real waste of time, and very transparent.

I said that God wants us to study the Earth, and you make some comment about us not being supposed to study The Bible. How does that make sense?

I find it more arrogant to believe that over 90-95% of the population believes in something stupid and idiotic, and you've got it right.

Are you dense? Having it questioned does not stop it from being absolute. That's the flippin' definition of absolute, man. It's ABSOLUTE. It doesn't matter who believes it or questions it. Get a dictionary, will ya? I think the problem here is that you're failing to look at the world from the perspective of someone who believes in absolutes, so all you can do is rant on and on about how ridiculous it is. At least I can get myself into your frame of mind and understand what you think and why. But I feel like I'm talking to someone who's way of life and set of beliefs is unwavering to the point where they won't even let an alternative set to enter their mind...because apparently I have to explain the definition of absolute to you.

Like I said, that's easy to say now, because we both know, even if that does happen, neither of us will be alive to see it. The paragraph is mostly rhetoric, so that's all I've got to say in response.

I never said you couldn't be niec to people without having a reason for it. I'm glad that people like yourself are nice to people (well, assuming you are. You don't come off as all that nice, to be perfectly frank). But you're just repeating yourself now: I say it doesn't make sense, you say you don't have to make sense if you don't want to. But that's a real cop-out answer. If it makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense, why do you do it? Don't tell me you're allowed to do it, because we've established that. I want to know why. Are you a slave to your instincts even if you know them to be illogical?

You said there is nothing evil. You say that's logic. No, that's opinion. What's logic is that there is no absolute right and wrong if there is no God. Did I say that means there is no set of morals in existence? OF COURSE NOT. First you resort to exaggerations, this time to blatantly putting words in my mouth. I never said you had to believe in God to be a moral person, did I? Find me saying that and show it to me...back up your words here, why don't you?

You won't find it, because I didn't say it. Sure, morals can exist. My point is that an absolute right and wrong don't exist without some kind of God. That is the most basic of logical facts. Yet you continue to misunderstand. You think it means that people can't try to be nice, or good, or moral without God...which is not the case. What is the case is that nice, good, and moral are just words and no one can really say what is nice, good, or moral without God. THAT is the point. Without God, there is no meaning.

Nothing evil...hehe. Ok, fair enough. I sure hope you don't feel the same way towards, oh, say, the rape and murder of a village of people. Now, maybe I'm being some overzealous religious wacko here, but I think that's wrong, even if 50.1% of the electorate thinks it's okay. I think it's wrong, period. Perhaps you think that's ridiculous. I really don't care.

No, read the actual words. Try it, seriously: it's a great way to find out what the other person is trying to tell you. You said I was pushing my beliefs on people to believe in that. All I said was that it wasn't reasonable to assume this all came about through chaos.

Oh, and even your statement is wrong. Mythic means, basically, made-up. Not an accurate belief of what most believe Him to be.

So go talk to them. Why are you complaining to me as if I'm the one who claims it as fact? I've never defended that stance and I don't know if I ever will. Hey, a lot of Atheists I know think that Christians are all stupid and incapable of logic. So I guess I'll complain to YOU about them. That alright?

Go ahead, follow something that's constantly falling back on itself and that will be severely flawed when you die. I'll put my faith in something a little more timeless.

Uh, I have no doubt that far more money has been raised via churches than any of those organizations. By far. And let's not forget that "government funded NASA shuttle missions" are funded highly by the taxpayers -- the overwhelming majority of which believe in God. So even if you're going to use money raised as evidence (ridiculous...especially if you're not going to give the overwhelming majority argument any credit), religion would still win.

I am not talking to science. I'm talking to you. I'm asking you what you'd think of a stone like that. I swear, a 9 year old would've answered by now...but you're doing the hokey-pokey around this question. Don't jump to all kinds of conclusions about this or that, and don't waste time telling me what science is. Just answer the question: where would you think it came from? Would you think it got there by itself, or would you think an intelligent creature put it there?

If it's the latter, that means you think the stone implies intelligence, because of it's precise and orderly nature. This planet is a million times more precise, and yet this DOESN'T imply an intelligence behind it as well? That's the chain of logic...one that you don't seem to be able to face. You'd rather just rant about something mildly related.

BTW: scientists assume things all the time. It's called a theory. Some of these theories are even called fact...and published...and then recanted later. Why? Scientists are human. People in white coats are not transformed into infallible beings. "Science" is just made of men...I think people forget that sometimes.

Uh, no, I'd rather read about history and fulfill my other obligations than take an Astronomy class. I already talked about God and the physical world. Hang on, I'll repeat it below.

I didn't say it was symbolic. I said it might be. You have no clue if it is or not. How do you know Genesis is not meant as a fable of sorts? I don't think it is, personally, but you have no idea. I never said I got to choose what's symolic and what's real, now did I? You've really gotta stop doing that. Looks bad, wastes time.

Great, you don't care. I do...and I'm sure others do. I didn't say it made him wrong. But it's certainly worth noting that 4 of the world's pioneering Atheists all had severe family problems.

Who said when he created them? No, we won't "make" Him do anything. You don't understand. If we're assuming for the sake of argument that God exists, and are talking about how he created the universe, it makes absolutely no sense to nitpick physical laws. He is GOD, after all, in case you didn't know.

But, even then, perhaps he snapped his big ol' fingers and the whole thing came into being. Maybe the rest is symbolic of the way it was formed quickly, or the way He thought, or something. I don't claim to know the answer...but I do know that you're grasping at straws when you start misinterpreting someting in virtually every paragraph.

Silly mistake? Why would it be a silly mistake if He's God? If He can just stick it all in place in any order He wants for whatever reason He wants then it makes no difference. The rest of your rant is stuff you've posted before; I won't bother replying again.

"Christians"? What, some of them? Half of them? 64.8% of them? What do "Christians" do, and how many of them do it? Give me a break. If every set of beliefs were allowed to be tainted because of its crazier/craziest followers, they'd all look bad.

Priests are not paid to force beliefs on people, Matt. I think that's a joke, but I honestly can't say (no smilie!). And you don't have to say "and I'm not forcing this on anybody" just to please people who are all hyper-sensitive. People who, to put it as nicely as possible, b*tch about "forcing beliefs" are just people who don't even want to hear about it in the least. They want to avoid it, I'd imagine, whenever possible. They use the phrase "forcing your beliefs on me" because it's a tricky little exaggeration.

Sometimes I see something cra-zay on a message board like this, so I reply. And they reply, and I reply, and others reply, and we all reply. And we all disagree, quite often. And then someone accuses me of forcing my beliefs on them. Why? Because it's the only thing they've got to fall back on when the argument doesn't go their way.

Does that put this thread to rest? I mean MAN...you could write a small book.

__________________
"I was walking down the street with my friend and he said, "I hear music", as if there is any other way you can take it in. You're not special, that's how I receive it too. I tried to taste it but it did not work." - Mitch Hedberg

Rest? Oh, I doubt it. Timing will likely come back with more of the same. Yeah, I guess the posts are getting sort of long, eh? Just think of all the work I could get done with that time.

I figured Timing would contribute a few paragraphs. You should collaborate a book or something.

You know, like when two professors spar off with each other about their views.

Funny you should mention that, I thought of something just like that a few years ago...though with another friend of mine (who I'm sorry to say is very sick last I heard) -- I thought (and still think) it could be pretty interesting stuff. I mean, I'm spending all this time on it ANYWAY, right? Knowing me, I'll never get around to it, though. I am flattered at the mere suggestion, though. If I were going to write something like that, I'd probably do it with an Atheist who I knew fairly well and respected, etc.

Wouldn't even have to be a published book. Could be an e-book...ya know!?

Yeah...might be fun. I dunno, maybe I should try to get in touch with that friend of mine. I want to see how he's doing anyway. Again, I'm very flattered -- I guess I'll let you know if anything comes of it. Maybe, if I'm lucky, I'll be able to turn being agumentative as hell into a virute of sorts.

We are/were going through a book which took the science side and took the religion side and put them together. They would present the Scientific side of say...Darwinism and then compare that to Christianity. Very interesting needless to say. When we finish with it I might see about sending you the book.

That sounds very interesting. Do let me know how it turns out...it soods very worth reading.

Interesting? I've skimmed most of the posts!

Yes, T, of course God doesn't pay the preists.....

Originally posted by TWTCommish

I suspected that: you just looked it up online, right? And why do you believe it? Did you do anything more than find some site with so and so's report? The simple fact is that those assumptions, as I clearly stated, make certain assumptions...and therefore do NOT contradict creationism at all. I find it interesting that you said you THINK it's explained in there. Did you read it? Did you follow it? If the answer to either of these is no, you're all wet, my friend. Maybe you're used to Christians who don't actually read scientific things like that. Maybe you thought I'd make some snap judgement and not even bother with it.

I only quoted it off of a NASA website. I guess they're just a bunch of wackos making stuff up for kicks. I doesn't really matter if I believe it or not, which I incidentally do, but what I believe is irrelevant to what they can substantiate. And of course I friggin read it, that's how I answered your question about the rate of expansion. Maybe you should read it.

I have to repeat myself often, it seems: FILL THE EARTH AND SUBDUE IT. There are other passages I'm not going to go diving after now...that one is the one that first comes to my mind. You can't subdue the earth without studying it.

See, you're talking about The Bible -- this is a constant in all your posts: twist around what we're talking about. Try to find some way to get it BACK to the concepts you want to talk about, because you think they sound good and help to emphasize your primary points. It's a real waste of time, and very transparent.

I said that God wants us to study the Earth, and you make some comment about us not being supposed to study The Bible. How does that make sense?

How can you study Earth if it contradicts the word of God to find an answer other than what is written? That's a complete contradiction. How can God be proven wrong by our studies if he is a Supreme Being? Not possible according to your logic.

I find it more arrogant to believe that over 90-95% of the population believes in something stupid and idiotic, and you've got it right.

Yes of course it's arrogant because 90% of the world's population has never believed anything idiotic and we all know if something happened once it could never happen again.

Are you dense? Having it questioned does not stop it from being absolute. That's the flippin' definition of absolute, man. It's ABSOLUTE. It doesn't matter who believes it or questions it. Get a dictionary, will ya? I think the problem here is that you're failing to look at the world from the perspective of someone who believes in absolutes, so all you can do is rant on and on about how ridiculous it is. At least I can get myself into your frame of mind and understand what you think and why. But I feel like I'm talking to someone who's way of life and set of beliefs is unwavering to the point where they won't even let an alternative set to enter their mind...because apparently I have to explain the definition of absolute to you.


It is pretty damn evident you don't have a friggin clue about the defintion of absolute. Get a dictionary. Something absolute can't be questioned no matter how many times you want to rant on about it.

I never said you couldn't be niec to people without having a reason for it. I'm glad that people like yourself are nice to people (well, assuming you are. You don't come off as all that nice, to be perfectly frank). But you're just repeating yourself now: I say it doesn't make sense, you say you don't have to make sense if you don't want to. But that's a real cop-out answer. If it makes no sense, and you know it makes no sense, why do you do it? Don't tell me you're allowed to do it, because we've established that. I want to know why. Are you a slave to your instincts even if you know them to be illogical?

I don't have to have a reason why. They're my feelings and I don't have to prove why I feel what I feel. I just felt like it. No reason.

You said there is nothing evil. You say that's logic. No, that's opinion. What's logic is that there is no absolute right and wrong if there is no God. Did I say that means there is no set of morals in existence? OF COURSE NOT. First you resort to exaggerations, this time to blatantly putting words in my mouth. I never said you had to believe in God to be a moral person, did I? Find me saying that and show it to me...back up your words here, why don't you?

Well there is no God and there is no right and wrong so you're batting 1,000. What you said is that there is an absolute right and wrong, presumably because God makes it so. You even repeat it right below.

You won't find it, because I didn't say it. Sure, morals can exist. My point is that an absolute right and wrong don't exist without some kind of God. That is the most basic of logical facts. Yet you continue to misunderstand. You think it means that people can't try to be nice, or good, or moral without God...which is not the case. What is the case is that nice, good, and moral are just words and no one can really say what is nice, good, or moral without God. THAT is the point. Without God, there is no meaning.

The American Indian certainly said what was nice, good, and moral without your God. The savages!!! A moral code exists within all living creatures as a basis for orderly, successful existence. It's in the interest of every animal to live within a code of conduct in order to survive longer. A moral code distinguishes what is right and wrong for a given group, not God. Ants live an orderly existence without any comprehension of God, the Bible, your morality, or any believe in being rewarded in heaven.

Here we go with the definitions, you really should buy a dictionary

Morality is a set of customs of a given society, class or social group which regulate relationships and prescribe modes of behavior to enhance the group's survival.

Nothing evil...hehe. Ok, fair enough. I sure hope you don't feel the same way towards, oh, say, the rape and murder of a village of people. Now, maybe I'm being some overzealous religious wacko here, but I think that's wrong, even if 50.1% of the electorate thinks it's okay. I think it's wrong, period. Perhaps you think that's ridiculous. I really don't care.

I don't think that's ridiculous. I think that's a horrible terrible thing and it's totally wrong IMHO. I can't prove that to be universal however, and certainly don't claim it to be absolute which is what I would consider ridiculous.

No, read the actual words. Try it, seriously: it's a great way to find out what the other person is trying to tell you. You said I was pushing my beliefs on people to believe in that. All I said was that it wasn't reasonable to assume this all came about through chaos.

Oh, and even your statement is wrong. Mythic means, basically, made-up. Not an accurate belief of what most believe Him to be.

A myth is a traditional story originating in a preliterate society, dealing with supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serve as primordial types in a primitive view of the world

God is your supernatural being, Jesus is an ancestor, and let's just call Moses and Noah heroes. Primordial by the way is a basic principle such as the Ten Commanments. Possibly the only problem with that defintion is preliterate because there was written language at the time even if the vast majority of people were illiterate.

So go talk to them. Why are you complaining to me as if I'm the one who claims it as fact? I've never defended that stance and I don't know if I ever will. Hey, a lot of Atheists I know think that Christians are all stupid and incapable of logic. So I guess I'll complain to YOU about them. That alright?

So you're not a creationist or do you don't claim it as fact?

Go ahead, follow something that's constantly falling back on itself and that will be severely flawed when you die. I'll put my faith in something a little more timeless.

Thanks I will!!

Uh, I have no doubt that far more money has been raised via churches than any of those organizations. By far. And let's not forget that "government funded NASA shuttle missions" are funded highly by the taxpayers -- the overwhelming majority of which believe in God. So even if you're going to use money raised as evidence (ridiculous...especially if you're not going to give the overwhelming majority argument any credit), religion would still win.

No this isn't the money race. I was simply pointing out that billions of dollars have been invested by government in an effort to further explain the universe and theories of evolution/big bang. They're not hiring religious scholars to interpret the Bible in order to explain the universe or evolution now are they? There is no such investment currently being made to prove creation. Wonder why?

I am not talking to science. I'm talking to you. I'm asking you what you'd think of a stone like that. I swear, a 9 year old would've answered by now...but you're doing the hokey-pokey around this question. Don't jump to all kinds of conclusions about this or that, and don't waste time telling me what science is. Just answer the question: where would you think it came from? Would you think it got there by itself, or would you think an intelligent creature put it there?

What does it matter what I think? I'm not a scientist and I'm not an authority on smooth rocks or the moon. You want a scientific answer to a bogus question to legitimize your belief that since the universe is so large that it must have been created by a intelligent being. That ain't gonna fly man. If I saw a big rock on the moon I'd probably not think twice about it. If it were a refrigerator sitting on the moon then maybe that would peak my attention.

If it's the latter, that means you think the stone implies intelligence, because of it's precise and orderly nature. This planet is a million times more precise, and yet this DOESN'T imply an intelligence behind it as well? That's the chain of logic...one that you don't seem to be able to face. You'd rather just rant about something mildly related.

You want to talk to me about mildly related when you're using an absurd example such a smooth rock on the moon to relate to the complexity of the universe? Geeez....

Nature in itself is intelligent. So what?

BTW: scientists assume things all the time. It's called a theory. Some of these theories are even called fact...and published...and then recanted later. Why? Scientists are human. People in white coats are not transformed into infallible beings. "Science" is just made of men...I think people forget that sometimes.

Theoretical assumptions are based on a hell of a lot more than oh look a rock, an alien must have put it there.

Uh, no, I'd rather read about history and fulfill my other obligations than take an Astronomy class. I already talked about God and the physical world. Hang on, I'll repeat it below.

I didn't say it was symbolic. I said it might be. You have no clue if it is or not. How do you know Genesis is not meant as a fable of sorts? I don't think it is, personally, but you have no idea. I never said I got to choose what's symolic and what's real, now did I? You've really gotta stop doing that. Looks bad, wastes time.

Sure it might be symbolic, it might not be symbolic but you don't know. Great... it could be either symbolic or not or it just could be flat out wrong.

Great, you don't care. I do...and I'm sure others do. I didn't say it made him wrong. But it's certainly worth noting that 4 of the world's pioneering Atheists all had severe family problems.

Jim Baker and Tammy Fay are scumbags... and? Is that worth noting that people who preached to millions of Christians for many years are scumbags? Of course not.

Who said when he created them? No, we won't "make" Him do anything. You don't understand. If we're assuming for the sake of argument that God exists, and are talking about how he created the universe, it makes absolutely no sense to nitpick physical laws. He is GOD, after all, in case you didn't know.

But, even then, perhaps he snapped his big ol' fingers and the whole thing came into being. Maybe the rest is symbolic of the way it was formed quickly, or the way He thought, or something. I don't claim to know the answer...but I do know that you're grasping at straws when you start misinterpreting someting in virtually every paragraph.

Yes, when all else fails and you can't think of a logical answer he is GOD after all. He can make fruit trees grow without the Sun, he IS GOD after all. He can make the Earth before the universe and still make the universe older than the Earth if he really wanted to. Nitpick physical laws... that's funny for someone who is on the back of science to prove the Big Bang.

Silly mistake? Why would it be a silly mistake if He's God? If He can just stick it all in place in any order He wants for whatever reason He wants then it makes no difference. The rest of your rant is stuff you've posted before; I won't bother replying again.

Follow me here. You can't have a planet without a Sun. So unless you're going back to the "He is GOD after all and he can grow fruit trees and have planets without a sun if he wants to" card it's incredibly impossible to have a planet with fruit trees growing on it without a Sun.

"Christians"? What, some of them? Half of them? 64.8% of them? What do "Christians" do, and how many of them do it? Give me a break. If every set of beliefs were allowed to be tainted because of its crazier/craziest followers, they'd all look bad.

Yes, some of them and a lot of them. A measure of less than all and more than none which equals some of them and a lot of them both. Currently there is no census question for how many people of Christian faith are hassling and trying to convert other people but as soon as those numbers are ready I'll try to post them here.

I've read it twice, just so you know. You said you THINK it's explained there. Why wouldn't you KNOW? Anyway, as I already pointed out, it does not contradict creationism.

But it doesn't contradict the Word of God. The Bible does NOT tell us all the details, so we are to learn what we can. The basic point is that science and knowledge are GOOD things...not enemies of religion, despite what your biases against and blanket generalizations concerning Christians tell you.

Didn't say that. But it's one thing to believe something idiotic, and another to base major portions of your life around it. I never said it made it true, but seeing as how we're talking about arrogance, I decided to point out how arrogant that position of yours is.

The world absolute has many definitions. But no, something that is absolute can indeed be questioned. Even if God were right in front of you you could say "Hmmm, I don't think you really exist." Use some common sense. Just because it's absolute it doesn't mean everyone's going to acknowledge it that way. People don't have to KNOW of it for it to be that way. Absolute does not mean that everyone agrees with it and acknowledges it, it just means that it is completely correct, regardless of who acknowledges it as so.

Concerning a dictionary: I have a block of JavaScript code embedded into my IE links bar on both computers that prompts me for a word and takes me to to the appropriate listing on Dictionary.com. I also have a program in my system tray at least 90% of the time I'm using my computer called Babylon which allows me to hold on shift and right-click any word to have an definition pop up. I use one or the other of these, at the VERY least, a dozen times a day. So, thanks for your advice, but I've got it covered.

There you go again. I ask for a reason, your reply is that you don't have to give a reason. Well, duh, my friend. Of course you don't HAVE to. You don't HAVE to be logical, and you don't HAVE to use arguments that make sense...but you ought to. You ought to have reasons for most things. It makes no sense for you do these illogical things. So why do you? Do you even know?

Well, first off, it's batting "1.000," because you're actually batting 1 -- because the hits, if equal to the at-bats, will total 1 if the two numbers are one in the same.

Yes, we've established that you don't believe in an absolute right and wrong. I do. Anything else to add other than what was basically the equivalent of "nah-uh"?

LISTEN this time. I hope you REALLY read this paragraph, because I'm tired of having to explain it to you. I really am.

I am NOT is saying that you cannot have a set of your own morals without God. Okay? Get that out of your head, because I did NOT say that. I want that made clear right now. What I DID say, however, is that, without God, those morals are opinion, and are not absolute. Not wholly true. Why is that hard to understand?

BTW, I don't know if you think yourself clever for your non-so-subtle references to what some older Christians thought or think of the Indians, but you're not. It's a waste of time. I don't think they were savages, and I never said that order could not exist without the prescence of real, true Christianity (though the morals Christianity teaches through The Bible are, not-so-conincidentally, the same morals healthy societies adhere to, for the most part.)

I understand completely. I just want you to understand that, according to those beliefs, those things being wrong is opinion. I think it's more than opinion. I think it IS. I think there are some things that are wrong no matter how badly you or I or anyone else wants them to be acceptable. I cannot prove this, and I don't claim to be able to.

That's not necessarily true. There are several definitions. You chose one that fit your agenda best, I'd say. IMO, the majority of people tend to think of a myth as something that is untrue...they use this definition, instead:

A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

I am a creationist. I have little to no doubt that some kind of God is behind this. I don't claim it as fact. I personally believe it to be one, but I don't expect you to necessarily believe it, and I don't claim to have proof. So you can't complain about that here, to me.

Well, first off, that's incorrect. There are scientists being funded to try to, for example, disprove several scientific methods related to aging and such. So technically they do exist.

And by the way, there are plenty of religious leaders, and moral leaders (who's morals are almost always remarkably similar to those preached in The Bible, I'll have you know) advising the government and other large organizations, because morals, and where they come from (like it or not, we all use many Christian morals in our life), are an undeniable part of our lives.

Alright, first off, I've now asked you the question I think it's 3 times, and you haven't answered. There's no reason to say "I'm not a scientist" -- I know you're not. I asked you anyway. I'm asking you now.

Secondly, it's "pique," and not "peak." In your own words, go get a dictionary.

Thirdly: answer the blasted question. If you saw that rock, how would you assume it got there? Don't try to argue with the larger argument, because you've already done that. I'm asking you a question. So either answer it, or chicken out for some reason. Just PICK ONE, and we can get on with it.

Nature is not a thing. That's what. Nature cannot be intelligent -- nature is a word to describe many things.

It's not an absurd example. It's a simple logical chain demonstrated through the use of a hypothetical situation with religious bias removed from the equation. Yet even then you refuse to answer straight out.

Uh, yeah. This rock stuff wouldn't be such a big deal if you'd answer the question straight.

Exactly, it could be. So, in short, there is no "error." Just a question as to what's symbolic. Just as I've BEEN SAYING. If you'd acknowledged it before we could've both saved some time.

It depends on the context. The founder or Mormonism (Joseph something I believe. I've forgotten his name for the time being) was a very shady character. The origins of something are always worth noting. They do not negate or justify it, but they are always worth noting. Which is one of the reasons you like to go on and on about how The Bible showed up in a time when scientific theorem did not yet truly exist.

I'm not on their back. Not unless they claim it as fact, in which case I am. I'll say it again: if we're to assume God exists, it's ridiculous to constrain him to the laws he created and completey controls. Even a non-believer ought to be able to realize that.

See last post about symbolism. I'm not typing it again here.

You don't understand. Saying "Christians" do something is ridiculous. Some do, some don't. That's like saying "people are murderers." SOME people are...but it's as if you're implying that they all do it. You obviously have a tendency to lump, and them label. Stick them all in a huddled mass, and throw a blank over them with the word 'WACKO' smeared across it, even if .00001% of them are actually wackos.

Originally posted by TWTCommish

I've read it twice, just so you know. You said you THINK it's explained there. Why wouldn't you KNOW? Anyway, as I already pointed out, it does not contradict creationism.

It most certainly does contradict it, whether you want to admit it as such. The universe is much older than the Earth, PERIOD as you so quaintly like to say. Science doesn't have the luxury of claiming symbolism and whatever else to fit it's agenda.

But it doesn't contradict the Word of God. The Bible does NOT tell us all the details, so we are to learn what we can. The basic point is that science and knowledge are GOOD things...not enemies of religion, despite what your biases against and blanket generalizations concerning Christians tell you.

The universe being older than the Earth contradicts the word of God. If we're able to prove the Big Bang that contradicts the word of God. Micro-evolution and resulting macro-evolution contradicts the word of God.

Didn't say that. But it's one thing to believe something idiotic, and another to base major portions of your life around it. I never said it made it true, but seeing as how we're talking about arrogance, I decided to point out how arrogant that position of yours is.

The degree to which you believe something and incorporate it into your life doesn't make it any more or less accurate.

The world absolute has many definitions. But no, something that is absolute can indeed be questioned. Even if God were right in front of you you could say "Hmmm, I don't think you really exist." Use some common sense. Just because it's absolute it doesn't mean everyone's going to acknowledge it that way. People don't have to KNOW of it for it to be that way. Absolute does not mean that everyone agrees with it and acknowledges it, it just means that it is completely correct, regardless of who acknowledges it as so.

Pick any damn definition of asbolute, I don't care.

Not limited by restirctions or exceptions; unconditional

Not to be doubted or questioned, positive, certain.

Pertaining to measurements or units of measrement derived from fundamental relationships of space, mass, and time.

Complete and unconditional; have no encumbrances; final.

Something regarded as independent of and unrelated to anything else.

Pick any definition you want and you still can't claim right and wrong to be absolute.

There you go again. I ask for a reason, your reply is that you don't have to give a reason. Well, duh, my friend. Of course you don't HAVE to. You don't HAVE to be logical, and you don't HAVE to use arguments that make sense...but you ought to. You ought to have reasons for most things. It makes no sense for you do these illogical things. So why do you? Do you even know?

If I don't have to be logical then why do you keep asking the same question? Making sense is logical, however I have free will to not make sense. That's why it's illogical!!! Now I have to make sense because I ought to? Why should I? You gonna make me? LOL

Well, first off, it's batting "1.000," because you're actually batting 1 -- because the hits, if equal to the at-bats, will total 1 if the two numbers are one in the same.

So? 3 for 3 is batting 1.000% which is what I was referring to.

I am NOT is saying that you cannot have a set of your own morals without God. Okay? Get that out of your head, because I did NOT say that. I want that made clear right now. What I DID say, however, is that, without God, those morals are opinion, and are not absolute. Not wholly true. Why is that hard to understand?

It's hard to understand because you can't friggin prove that God exists so how the hell can he be giving morals absolution if you don't even know if he exists!? That's VERY friggin hard to understand.

BTW, I don't know if you think yourself clever for your non-so-subtle references to what some older Christians thought or think of the Indians, but you're not. It's a waste of time. I don't think they were savages, and I never said that order could not exist without the prescence of real, true Christianity (though the morals Christianity teaches through The Bible are, not-so-conincidentally, the same morals healthy societies adhere to, for the most part.)

Well since the American Indian existed far before Christianity maybe you just ripped off his stuff? Regardless, it shows that Christianity and the absolution that your God apparently seems to provide is not a necessity for living moral meaningful lives.

I understand completely. I just want you to understand that, according to those beliefs, those things being wrong is opinion. I think it's more than opinion. I think it IS. I think there are some things that are wrong no matter how badly you or I or anyone else wants them to be acceptable. I cannot prove this, and I don't claim to be able to.

Then you can't claim it to be absolute.

That's not necessarily true. There are several definitions. You chose one that fit your agenda best, I'd say. IMO, the majority of people tend to think of a myth as something that is untrue...they use this definition, instead:

A fiction or half-truth, especially one that forms part of an ideology.

The Bible is filled with half-truths and fiction and Christianity is certainly an ideology. Moses parted the Red Sea? For REAL!? Noah built an Arc for ALL living creatures? Even the ones he couldn't have the technology to see. Uh huh.

I am a creationist. I have little to no doubt that some kind of God is behind this. I don't claim it as fact. I personally believe it to be one, but I don't expect you to necessarily believe it, and I don't claim to have proof. So you can't complain about that here, to me.

Fair enough. It is however the word of God so hey.

Well, first off, that's incorrect. There are scientists being funded to try to, for example, disprove several scientific methods related to aging and such. So technically they do exist.

What does that have to do with Christian Science, evolution, and creationism? That's not on their agenda to my knowledge.

And by the way, there are plenty of religious leaders, and moral leaders (who's morals are almost always remarkably similar to those preached in The Bible, I'll have you know) advising the government and other large organizations, because morals, and where they come from (like it or not, we all use many Christian morals in our life), are an undeniable part of our lives.

Whoa whoa there, these religious leaders aren't on the payroll to research the existence of the universe and they're mostly there to guide those religious practitioners who are in power or government. It doesn't hurt that looking religious helps you get elected too.

Christian morals are an undeniable part of our lives yet they aren't pushed on ANYONE? Neat trick!!

Alright, first off, I've now asked you the question I think it's 3 times, and you haven't answered. There's no reason to say "I'm not a scientist" -- I know you're not. I asked you anyway. I'm asking you now.

Secondly, it's "pique," and not "peak." In your own words, go get a dictionary.

Thirdly: answer the blasted question. If you saw that rock, how would you assume it got there? Don't try to argue with the larger argument, because you've already done that. I'm asking you a question. So either answer it, or chicken out for some reason. Just PICK ONE, and we can get on with it.

LMAO I mispell one word over the course of these lengthy very boring exercises of answering all this stuff and now I need to get a dictionary. LOL

That's very mature. Don't chicken out, JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION! Hey T, what if you saw a big ole smooth rock floating around the Alpha Centauri system, what do you think about that!? LOL Geez... I've answered your question like twice already and a few times before when you asked me. I wouldn't think much about it. I'm not a geologist and I'm not an astronomer so I would think Hey look a big ole rock, cool. I wouldn't make any assumption that some intelligent life form carefully carved this stone and then traveled however many light years through space to come put it on the moon. No, I wouldn't consider it to have been placed by an intelligent life anymore than if I saw the Grand Canyon for the first time that it was carefully carved out.

Nature is not a thing. That's what. Nature cannot be intelligent -- nature is a word to describe many things.

The word nature is a noun, nouns are THINGS!!! In this case nature is someTHING encompassing all living THINGS.

It depends on the context. The founder or Mormonism (Joseph something I believe. I've forgotten his name for the time being) was a very shady character. The origins of something are always worth noting. They do not negate or justify it, but they are always worth noting. Which is one of the reasons you like to go on and on about how The Bible showed up in a time when scientific theorem did not yet truly exist.

Um, I didn't go on and on about the sexual habits of Jesus and Moses now did I? I spoke of what the writers of the Bible could NOT have known at the time they wrote it which is why I believe the errors occur in Genesis. What the writers of the Bible knew and what Darwin said on his death bed are so far different that I can't believe you seriously brought up whatever about Darwin. It would be like saying about someone contributing to the Bible, well that guy had family problems, was a drunk, and saw visions... that's crazy bastard. It's totally irrelevant.

I'm not on their back. Not unless they claim it as fact, in which case I am. I'll say it again: if we're to assume God exists, it's ridiculous to constrain him to the laws he created and completey controls. Even a non-believer ought to be able to realize that.

Anyone should be able to realize you can't take step 2 without taking step 1 as you're attempting to do.

You don't understand. Saying "Christians" do something is ridiculous. Some do, some don't. That's like saying "people are murderers." SOME people are...but it's as if you're implying that they all do it. You obviously have a tendency to lump, and them label. Stick them all in a huddled mass, and throw a blank over them with the word 'WACKO' smeared across it, even if .00001% of them are actually wackos.

Oooh... so touchy about your religious history aren't ya?

You're making a totally bad correlation in what I said and what you're trying to paint about what I said.

I said Christians have and do

I DID NOT say Christians are murderers or are heathens or anything else.

Christians have and do murder

People have and do murder

That's a huge difference from what you're trying to say that I said.

I'm gonna chill from now on about this topic. It's a little too time consuming and I get into debates with friends from time to time too so I'm burned out a little. I hope maybe the discussion has opened some interesting avenues of thought about evolution and stuff. Nobody ever addressed my micro-evolution example which I thought was pretty decent so hey! Later!

Round number: whatever. Surprised the ref hasn't called this one off yet.

Not true. I just read it again. It assumes a couple of things. First, it assumes that the rate of expansion is steady. That it is constant. Second, it measures the earth's age back to where it would have fully de-expanded into nothing. So, if the universe were CREATED partially expanded, the two would not contradict each other at all. All it says there is that the universe is expanding at a certain rate, and that if we're to simulate a reversal all the way back down into nothing, basically, we can guess how old it is. But that assumes that we're even supposed to go all the way back down to nothing.

Yes, that's right. We know how old it all is. Oh, wait, what's that? Oh yeah, scientists assume that the rate of growth is constant at all times, don't they? Well, that's a potential flaw, now isn't it? If they weren't around before, they don't know whether there was any increase. And since when do we know just how old the earth is? Carbon dating? Oh yeah, what a reliable method. So reliable that many acknowledge that anything over a certain age is incredibly reliant on guesswork. There's tons of controversy and disputes over carbon dating, radio dating, etc...at least according to everything I've ever read...and no, I'm not talking about biased crap in some Christian newsletter.

The same way some people blindly listen to the preacher on TV, others blindly listen to the guys who put out reports and wear white lab coats.

I didn't say it did. But the whole point here, in case you forgot, is that many, many people believe this. You pointed out that those same people, basically, have all done idiotic things. I'm saying that, yeah, they have, but it's a much more significant, and less likely mistake, to base your entire life around something idiotic.

Yeah, and pretty much all of them support what I'm saying. Like I ALREADY SAID: people could look into The Face of God and still say "I don't believe in you." Just because it's absolute and completely true, regardless of what people think, it doesn't mean they must agree with it. It just means they're wrong if they don't. Like one of those definitions: final. It's the final ruling. It doesn't mean people can't defy it, or try to defy it. Just that they're wrong.

I'm not gonna make you do anything. Even if I could, I wouldn't. That's not the point. I just think it looks awfully bad for you to say things like "I don't have to have a reason" when I ask you for one. If it's illogical, and you know it is, give me one good reason why you shouldn't try to fight it.

You wrote "1,000" I believe. Which is 1000 times more than 1. I was correcting a small mistake of yours. I knew what you were referring to.

I said I believe it. BELIEVE. If I believe it, that means, based on what I know, I think it's true. So, I think it's true, and I treat it as such. The time when I stop treating it as true/fact/whatever, is in reference to other people, who may not interpret things and reach the same conclusion. Do you see, now?

All historical records we have show The Bible coming from times much older than anything we have on the Indians right now. Even atheists acknowledge that Jesus was a real person and that The Bible was indeed written about many things that happened. The disagreements come in during some of the more, shall we say, outrageous happenings in The Bible. In some of the specifics.

And yes, I already said that you could be what I consider (and what most consider) to be a moral person without a belief in Jesus. Did you even read that? I already said it. And you're acting as if you're trying to convince me. What I did say, though, is that it's just their opinion. No God, no meaning. No absolutes. Only opinion, cells, chemicals. Love is nothing more than a chemical reaction.

That depends on what you mean by claim. I believe it is absolute, and if you ask me, I'll tell you it is. Because that's my conclusion. I won't claim to have proof, though, and I won't act as if you're ignoring concrete facts if you disagree.

Again, you go off-topic. A useless, obvious tendency. And a very rhetorical paragraph. I'm not interested in your childish belittlements of The Bible. I'm wasting enough time typing these replies as it is without you acting your shoe size with pointless remarks.

It's got plenty do with them. For one, I've no doubt that many of them are Christians...which is one of the reasons they're doing it. To see if they can justify their beliefs in the scientific arena. Some people want to get down and dirty like that. You asked why the other side (I think those were your words. Not sure) didn't have people being funded to look into these things, too, and I said that they did.

No trick. They're part of our lives because so many people who are NOT Christian still live by them. The morals that Christianity preaches are ones you largely adhere to, I'll bet. I imagine you dislike the idea of adultery, murder, rape, theft, etc. Almost everyone does. Even people who never run into some Bible-thumper. So why is it somehow an amazing trick for people to have those same morals as an undeniable part of their life and not have things pushed on them? I'll answer that for you: it's not. You just like to jump to conclusions and use sarcasm to try to form arguments.

No, they're not there to research the existence of the universe -- at least not in most cases. The point is that whether you give a crap about these people, lots of others do...and lots of people consider Christian morals to be important...and not always for superficial reasons.

Make that two: misspell has more than one "s." Actually, you've misspelled many words, from what I've seen. I just got bored enough to point one out.

Really? You'd assume that it got smooth then, just sitting there, how? I'm talking an exact rock. An even square. Not the smooth bottom of a riverbed here. You'd think that, due to some weather or some natural condition, it happened to be made smooth, like something built for a skyscraper, and happened to be an exact 10-foot cube?

So, rocks are intelligent? All of nature is intelligent? Care to be a little more specific here?

Who mentioned sexual habits? I don't think I said anything of the sort. If I did, accept my apologies, but I'm pretty sure that I did not.

You seriously can't believe that I brought up "whatever" about Darwin? Do you even know what it was I brought up? I don't think I got too specific. But apparently, even though you don't know what I was going to say, it's unbelievable anyway. Odd. I think it's worth mentioning. You don't. So be it. I happen to think it's more than a coincidence, though.

I'm not attemping to do anything of the sort. If God exists, well, it's cray-zay to try to assume he's bound by the physical world. And if you're going to ridicule The Bible, you need to assume, for the sake of that argument, that he exists in the first place...otherwise there's no point.

I'm only "touchy" when people like yourself fail to distinguish between Christians and Christianity...something you very clearly have not done.

I'm afraid I don't recall just what example you're referring to...and I'm in no mood to go digging for it.

If you want to spend less time on it, be my guest. I will not belittle you for it, because I know how frustrating the large consumption of thought and time can be. I'll be here anyway, though, whether you are or not.

I do not think I've learned much from you, though. I think you've been far too harsh and rude for that. Too heavy-handed and sarcastic. Too condescending. I've known atheists and agnostics before, so I do know what it's like to talk to someone who I disagree with, and still respect them, and learn from them. I'm sorry to say you make it very difficult for me to feel the same way about you.