betsy

Most of my arguments on this topic are not my personal opinion...they came from scientists. Can you give me any sources that directly answers the arguments of the two scientists I cited above? I'm interested in what the Darwinian scientists have to say in answer to those criticisms.

I'd given some arguments - from highly educated people along the calibre of your now- tunnel-minded Dawkins! His theory is being refuted! By various sources. They clearly explained why! Some of these scientists who refute him have their own theories as well... Dawkins is "hawking" a theory more so because of his own agenda - pushing his own personal belief (his Atheistic belief) - instead of true science. He behaves just like any other religious fundamentalist he mocks. I thought this was a debate. I've been backing up my arguments with credible sources. You offer nothing. You're still the same Cybercoma I've tangled with long time ago. I'm not interested to hear your own ramblings or personal opinion....you say a lot but don't really say anything! And your comment above just show that you don't even read the arguments! Who wants to "converse" with someone like that? Anyway I thought we already stopped "conversing" quite a while ago? I haven't been posting here on this thread just because of you, you know. Let's just be clear on that. So bye-bye already. <waving>

deleted. Sorry. Clicked the wrong button.

It's a logic thing. I'm not talking about your opinion as to what characterizes any regime...peaceable or bellicose. I'm talking about the inability to logically support the argument that not having a characteristic can be argued to be the cause of an action, such as not being a Christian...or not being an Atheist...as the cause of a behaviour. It can be speculated upon but it can't be productively debated, let alone proven. Further there's no indication that any of those individuals that you've listed suspended disbelief, or belief, or anything else! They pursued a goal. What's this suspension of disbelief? What makes you say that the one thing they have in common is their capacity to suspend (dis)belief? Who says so? Where did you get that idea? What do you mean by suspending disbelief? Become a believer? And if you mean suspending belief, what evidence do you have that these men suspended belief in - I assume you mean - God , and then returned to it? Explain yourself and expose your sources.

You call that perfectly clear? Your response is no more clear than your understanding. I include Pol Pot along with Stalin and Hitler and others in response to the accusation, sometimes absolute and sometimes qualified, that religion is responsible for violence and war (Dawkins et al.) It seems to me that "warriors" (usually nations today) are responsible for wars regardless of whether they are religious. NOT BELIEVING in something as the cause of an action is a little difficult to argue. BELIEVING in something as a cause of an action can often be proven or disproven, or shown to be possible or probable or otherwise debated. Negatives are a different kettle of fish. No? In other words, it's reasonable - or at least logical - to argue that believing in Christ caused a certain action, but not NOT believing in Him. So, no.

Ooops. I didn't mean "accounting" Benny. I meant counting. Sorry. My bad.

That's an interesting theory Molly. Only trouble is you seem to forget that these incremental species, required by Darwinian evolutionists theory don't actually exists. So why would a creationist explain the non-existent? The many creations - as you put it - are not incremental changes of the same species, but unique and independent creations. We don't know the time between creations...we don't even know whether there was any time between creations.....we're relying on science to determine the timing. But we do know some of these creations are extinct, and some live on. Apparently, this pseudo-seal is a goner....extinct...non-existent...without fleshy form...bones...bye-bye....never to be seen again....in extinct species heaven.

Of course it was a bomb! He knew it and he used her! The hilarious part is when I envision Perez Hilton shrieking and having a fit while spewing his vile....man, he lost it! I agree with Borg. Kudos to Miss California for standing up to her principles even when she knew she was going to detonate that bomb!

The Bible says in Genesis 1 that, "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth." It doesn't specify how long ago that beginning was. In Geneses 1:2 the Bible states, "the earth became without form and void." There's no indication of the time period between the creation described in verse 1 and the earth becoming chaotic in verse 2. There's no specific time given in Genesis or anywhere in the Bible about the age of the earth or the universe. The time of the creation of man is derived from accounting back through the genealogies described in the Bible. Of course science has determined roughly the age of the universe, and earth.

Anyway, I just found out who this Perez Hilton is: a gossip journalist who thrives on controversial stuff. Another media gay described him as a "fame whore." So I guess asking this no-win question to the hapless Miss California was just a way for Perez to be in the limelight. And I fell for it. brother....

But it blew up in his face anyway. "Miss North Carolina Kristen Dalton was crowned Miss USA on Sunday, but the big story to come out of the normally politics-free telecast was Miss California's comments regarding gay marriage. When asked by judge Perez Hilton, an openly gay gossip blogger, whether she believed in gay marriage, Miss California, Carrie Prejean, said "We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised." Keith Lewis, who runs the Miss California competition, tells FOXNews.com that he was "saddened" by Prejean's statement. "As co-director of the Miss California USA, I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman," said Lewis in a statement. "I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family." http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,517137,00.html "After the show ended, Hilton vehemently ranted about Prejean in a video blog announcing that because she had given the "worst answer in beauty pageant history" she lost. We do remember Miss South Carolina Teen USA butchering a question about finding Iraq on a map, though. Remember that? "She lost not because she doesn't believe in gay marriage, Miss California lost because she's a dumb bitch," Hilton said in his angry diatribe of a vlog. "If that girl would have won Miss USA, I would have gone up on stage, I shit you not... snatched that tiara off her head and run out the door." Prejean used MSNBC and NBC's Today show to explain her side of the gay-straight coin. "I didn't give the answer that he [Hilton] would have wanted me to give," Prejean told MSNBC. "I said (to myself), 'You know what, I'm laying it out on the table, this is who I am and this is what I believe in and I'm going to stand by what I believe.'" She added that she has garnered mainly support from the public and amassed 4,000 friend requests on Facebook. Because, you know, that's the best form of support. Hilton, an openly gay man, went on Larry King Live Monday night to explain why he asked the question. "I was given this opportunity on this national platform to ask a question that I thought was relevant. And given the recent setbacks and advances that we've made in the fight for gay marriage I thought it was a very important question - for me specifically to ask," Hilton explained to Larry King. "It wasn't meant to be a big bomb, and I don't think it was that hard of a question either." Perez Hilton, a guy I've never heard of was - according to him - "given this opportunity on this national platform to ask a question that (he) thought was relevant. And given the recent setbacks and advances that they've made in the fight for gay marriage (he) thought it was a very important question for him to ask." And he blew it! Yes, it wasn't a hard question. Obviously Miss California didn't think so either....she had a very good response that not only made her stand up to what she believed in....but at the same time, be diplomatic in saying it. Perez should've prepared himself for an answer he didn't want to hear....whether he likes it or not, there are people who doesn't share his belief. Instead of being gracious about his disappointment with her response, Perez came out looking pathetically so full of himself, idiotic and vindictive.

"Geologists have now studied rock layers representing the last five hundred million years, and the fossils remain the same. Those long sought transitional creatures are as illusive as ever. If the fossil record is not at fault, then it must be the theory. Anyone can draw up an evolutionary chart; anyone can claim one life form evolved from another. But such stories are not science. There is no way to test or prove it. If fossils were allowed to vote, evolution would lose. Darwin could not count on a single vote. Question to Consider: Scientists have now examined 100,000 specimen from around the world covering fauna from the past 3,500,000,000 years. Does this fossil record demonstrate evolution, or the stability of species?" http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articl...ion-169225.html

"Professor Niles Eldridge of the Museum of Natural History also questions Darwinian evolution. In theory, natural selection produces a series of incremental changes slowly transforming one type of life into another. The problem has always been the fossil record. Intermediate fossils are missing. In the past, evolutionists simply dismissed the record saying it's incomplete. That, points out Eldridge, is no longer the case. " http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articl...ion-169225.html

"According to Darwin, new species arise by gradual accumulation of incremental changes over long periods of time. That's evolution in a nutshell. Can Darwin's hypothesis be tested? To find out, we turn to the only real evidence we have of prehistoric life, our bone and shell guide to the past - the fossil record. The critical question is: Does the fossil record support Darwin's gradual change theory? What do you think would happen if we put evolution to a vote, allowing the fossils themselves to decide the outcome? Sounds fair, sounds reasonable; even sounds democratic, doesn't it? Let's give it a try. We can start with the oldest life form of all . . . Bacteria: Taken from rocks dated 3,600 million years old, the oldest single-celled prokaryote is essentially the same as today's variety. That is a remarkably long period of stability. They have not evolved. Bacteria vote no to evolution. Peripatopsis: The South African "walking worm" genus of the Onychophora family. This creature has remained unchanged since the beginning of the Cambrian period. That is over 500 million years of stability. Consequently the peripatopsis votes no to evolution. Lingula: Commonly called the lampshell due to it's unusual shape, the Lingula is a genus of brachiopod. No fossils lead up to or away from the Lingula. This creature has remained unchanged since the Silurian period, 435 million years ago. The Lingula votes no to evolution. Neopilina and Nucula: Two genera of marine animals both have retained the same forms their ancestors had over 400 million years ago. They too vote no to evolution. Pyenogonum: A marine genus of fifty species which resemble spiders. They have not changed for 350 million years. These holdouts from the Devonian period vote no to evolution. Hutchinsoniella: A marine bottom dwelling genus of the cephocardia family has remained constant for 340 million years. Another no vote for evolution. Liphistius: Trap door spiders. Their ancestors are unknown. The first fossil remains were found in the Permian period 275 million years ago. Trapdoor spiders then were very similar to trapdoor spiders now. A wolf spider preserved in amber from the Eocene period, 55 million years ago, is identical to the modern day species. Again, we find creatures who appear suddenly in full form and stay the same to the present. Along with the bacteria, lampshells, and marine animals, spiders vote no to evolution. Nautilus: A genus of mollusks which has defied evolution for 270 million years. One more no vote for evolution. Anaspides: a Segmented genus of water bugs ...etc..," Plus more. http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articl...ion-169225.html

"The plant kingdom like the animal kingdom, offers little or no support for Darwin's theory. Charles Darwin was aware of the problem. In the Origin of the Species, he wrote: ". . . intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory [of natural selection]." David M Raup, former curator of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago, wrote in the January 1979 edition of Field Museum Natural History Bulletin: "Well, we are now about 120 years after Darwin and the knowledge of the fossil record has been greatly expanded. We now have a quarter of a million fossil species but the situation hasn't changed much. The record of evolution is still surprisingly jerky and, ironically, we have even fewer examples of evolutionary transition than we had in Darwin's time. By this I mean that some of the classic cases of darwinian [sic] change in the fossil record, such as the evolution of the horse in North America had to be discarded or modified as a result of more detailed information - what appeared to be a nice simple progression when relatively few data were available now appears to be much more complex and much less gradualistic." http://www.articlesbase.com/science-articl...ion-169225.html Note: David M. Raup is a University of Chicago paleontologist. Raup studied the fossil record and the diversity of life on Earth. Raup contributed to the knowledge of extinction events along with his colleague Jack Sepkoski. They suggested that the extinction of dinosaurs 65 mya was part of a cycle of mass extinctions that may have occurred every 26 million years. In addition to his time at the University of Chicago, Raup has taught at Caltech, Johns Hopkins, and the University of Rochester. He was also a curator and Dean of Science at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago as well as a visiting professor in Germany at Tübingen and on the faculty of the College of the Virgin Islands. Raup was heavily involved through his career in joint programs with biology and in promoting training of paleontologists in modern marine environments

Hold your horses.... Archaeopteryx, a star attraction "link" between reptile and bird has been refuted . Nature Magazine, Vol. 322, p677, "Fossil Bird Shakes evolutionary Hypotheses", reported this in 1986, "Fossil remains claimed to be of two crow-sized birds 75 million years older than Archaeopteryx have been found...a paleontologist at Texas Tech University, who found the fossils, says they have advanced avian features. ...tend to confirm what many paleontologists have long suspected, that Archaeopteryx is not on the direct line to modern birds." Australopithecus or "Lucy", another big star to the evolutionists' stage show, has also been discarded by many evolutionists. Even the Leakey's never believed it had anything to do with the evolution of man. With good reason, they considered it simply and extinct ape. It stood three feet tall, had arms that hung down to the ankles and had a brain one third the size of humans. Adrienne Zihlman, U.C. Santa Cruze, said, "Zihlman compares the pigmy chimpanzee to 'Lucy', one of the oldest hominid fossils known, and finds the similarities striking. They are almost identical in body size, in stature and in brain size...indicates that pygmy chimps use their limbs much the same way Lucy did..." Science News, Vol. 123, Feb. 5, 1983, p89 http://www.bible.ca/tracks/b-darwin-was-wrong.htm

Here is an excerpt: The Dawkins Confusion Naturalism 'ad absurdum'. Alvin Plantinga | posted 3/01/2007 “this claim of improbability can help us understand something otherwise very perplexing about Dawkins' argument in his earlier and influential book, The Blind Watchmaker. There he argues that the scientific theory of evolution shows that our world has not been designed—by God or anyone else. This thought is trumpeted by the subtitle of the book: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design. How so? Suppose the evidence of evolution suggests that all living creatures have evolved from some elementary form of life: how does that show that the universe is without design? Well, if the universe has not been designed, then the process of evolution is unguided, unorchestrated, by any intelligent being; it is, as Dawkins suggests, blind. So his claim is that the evidence of evolution reveals that evolution is unplanned, unguided, unorchestrated by any intelligent being. But how could the evidence of evolution reveal a thing like that? After all, couldn't it be that God has directed and overseen the process of evolution? What makes Dawkins think evolution is unguided? What he does in The Blind Watchmaker, fundamentally, is three things. First, he recounts in vivid and arresting detail some of the fascinating anatomical details of certain living creatures and their incredibly complex and ingenious ways of making a living; this is the sort of thing Dawkins does best. Second, he tries to refute arguments for the conclusion that blind, unguided evolution could not have produced certain of these wonders of the living world—the mammalian eye, for example, or the wing. Third, he makes suggestions as to how these and other organic systems could have developed by unguided evolution. Suppose he's successful with these three things: how would that show that the universe is without design? How does the main argument go from there? His detailed arguments are all for the conclusion that it is biologically possible that these various organs and systems should have come to be by unguided Darwinian mechanisms (and some of what he says here is of considerable interest). What is truly remarkable, however, is the form of what seems to be the main argument. The premise he argues for is something like this: 1. We know of no irrefutable objections to its being biologically possible that all of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes; and Dawkins supports that premise by trying to refute objections to its being biologically possible that life has come to be that way. His conclusion, however, is 2. All of life has come to be by way of unguided Darwinian processes. It's worth meditating, if only for a moment, on the striking distance, here, between premise and conclusion. The premise tells us, substantially, that there are no irrefutable objections to its being possible that unguided evolution has produced all of the wonders of the living world; the conclusion is that it is true that unguided evolution has indeed produced all of those wonders. The argument form seems to be something like We know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that p; Therefore p is true. Philosophers sometimes propound invalid arguments (I've propounded a few myself); few of those arguments display the truly colossal distance between premise and conclusion sported by this one. I come into the departmental office and announce to the chairman that the dean has just authorized a $50,000 raise for me; naturally he wants to know why I think so. I tell him that we know of no irrefutable objections to its being possible that the dean has done that. My guess is he'd gently suggest that it is high time for me to retire. Here is where that alleged massive improbability of theism is relevant. If theism is false, then (apart from certain weird suggestions we can safely ignore) evolution is unguided. But it is extremely likely, Dawkins thinks, that theism is false. Hence it is extremely likely that evolution is unguided—in which case to establish it as true, he seems to think, all that is needed is to refute those claims that it is impossible. So perhaps we can think about his Blind Watchmaker argument as follows: he is really employing as an additional if unexpressed premise his idea that the existence of God is enormously unlikely. If so, then the argument doesn't seem quite so magnificently invalid. (It is still invalid, however, even if not quite so magnificently—you can't establish something as a fact by showing that objections to its possibility fail, and adding that it is very probable.)” http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2007/m...21.html?start=3

Remember Pol Pot? Just to get a clearer perspective, numerous atrocities were commited not too long ago by people who don't believe in Christ (and religion), and some are still happening as we speak. Communist Body Count Scott Manning December 4, 2006 The following estimates represent citizens killed or starved to death by their own Communist governments since 1918. These numbers do not include war dead. The governments are sorted by body count (highest to lowest). All numbers are mid-estimates. While this list is as complete as I have been able to determine, it is evolving. Some numbers are incomplete and there are still five Communist countries that have the potential to kill more of their citizens. Over the next year, each government will be profiled in detail on this website. http://www.digitalsurvivors.com/archives/c...stbodycount.php

FRANK MORRISON I can't find much about Morrison. This review of his book, "Who Moved The Stone" gives some info about him. "Every Christian has their own story about how they came to know Jesus Christ as their personal savior. This is known as their testimony. Frank Morrison's testimony can be found in Who Moved the Stone? What makes this story compelling on many levels is that Morrison, an English journalist and one-time skeptic of Christianity, actually began this book as a means to disprove the very foundation of the Christian religion: the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He researched numerous historical documents including the four gospels found in the Bible and it became apparent that over the course of his research one question continued to plague him, thus the title of his book. What began as a narrative aimed at refuting the resurrection soon became a testimonial of how one man transformed from skeptic to follower. Rather than argue the case for the resurrection with faith alone, Morrison uses logic and reason to discount the counter-theories that he once believed to hold the truth. For example, why would the Jewish high priests hide Christ's body when the resurrection itself poses such a substantial threat to their power? Why would the disciples do the same and not immediately proclaim that Christ had risen, knowing that not doing so would risk the movement running out of steam as had been the case with other philosophic and religious leaders at the time? Instead, they waited months before doing so, perhaps because they were asking the same question that Morrison was asking. And if the resurrection were false, how could such a large following have developed on its heels? If you're a Christian, you will enjoy the pure and simple reason that Morrison applies to the trial, conviction, execution and resurrection of Jesus Christ. If you're searching for spiritual answers, Morrison may very well have provided them." Debunks the common claims against Christ, October 9, 2006 By John Washburn http://www.amazon.com/review/R3A88NU5BEQ064

I am not denying that there are probably a whole lot of people who turn away from Christianity than those who voluntarily embrace it in their adulthood. Why is that any surprise at all? Did you read the Parable of the Seeds in my other topic, "UPON THIS ROCK?" People have their own reasons why they turn away from Christianity. There's a lot of reasons to be used as an excuse. We can blame the cruel God who turns a blind eye on sufferings, we can point out what we percieve as the "flaws" of God (his inconsistencies, his hard-to-understand-book, his pettiness, etc..), and like Scorpio we can point out all the atrocities made by men using the name of Christ (from the Crusaders and Inquisition to the molestations of children, young lassies and young lads)... Let's face it it's harder to be a true Christian, all the more now when we're bombarded and surrounded by all kinds of temptations, distractions and confusions.... It is far easier to turn away ....than to follow Christ. In my opinion, it's harder for an Atheist who's used to lead his own life at his own terms to follow a belief that requires an adherance to Christ. It proves that with all their success and knowledge.....Something was missing. A Christian who's looking for an excuse to get out of Christianity will read all kinds of books that claim to prove God does not exists....that the Bible is a fantasy book...that Christians are being duped...anything to "confirm" that he is doing the right thing in dropping his belief in God. After all, non-believers will attest that christians have been "indoctrinated" and "brain-washed"...therefore, a Christian who wants to be "de-programmed" will no doubt gobble up as many of these books as he can. They need everything they can get to bolster their confidence that they've made the right decision. They need something to replace the old belief with a new "indoctrination"....the one that reassures them that there is no God. On the other hand, if an atheist already knows and confidently believes that there is no God....why does he needs to prove that God does not exists? Why can't he just simply go on with his life knowing that there is no God? In my posted article about Francis Collins, it stated that working with dying patients was the reason how he started thinking of religion. I'm not saying the walk-in-the-woods you mention above is not true (or true, for I haven't read anything about him other than the one I googled)....but I would certainly believe that it is not the only reason why he decided to believe in God. Francis Collins, with all his qualifications, is most likely not the kind of guy who'll suddenly change his belief just like that without much contemplation. I agree with you, he must already been thinking of religion....and who knows, God in His own way had "spoken" to him. When I say "spoken" I don't mean the sudden booming voice that say "Behold!" Believers will understand what I mean. I've thought about that part about the dying patients. A terminal person goes through several stages (denial, anger, resignation...). I've always thought that those who knew they're dying have the golden opportunity to embrace God without any more multiple distractions....for it is in the darkest hour when we usually cling to Him. To have the time to humble one's self, confess and own up to all sins, to sincerely repent. Collins must've seen the transformation in those patients. When one sincerely believes, there is no fear. That is the POWER that was promised upon the Resurrection of Christ. The power over death. For a believer, death is not the end. Why does Dawkins write books? Doing the lecture circuit? Why's he on about the non-existence of God? Is it not to convince Atheists what they want to hear? Dawkins to McGrath: Hey buddy, let's make more money. I'll go for the Atheists and you go for the religious people. I'll sell the theory of evolution and you sell creationism. I'll even go the extra mile by attacking religion and God! You defend them. Collins: Count me in! Count me in! I'll shun evolution and creationism. I'll sell Theo evolution! Frankly speaking, I haven't read any books writen by apologists. I don't even know about McGrath or Collins and the other atheist-converts until I started this thread googling for info about C.S.Lewis and Strobel (names that were given to me by a co-worker!) I'm curious....how many true Christians really buy and read these books compared to Atheists? I bet more Atheists read Dawkins books than Christians reading Collins or McGrath! Argument of authority in the sense that these guys - being highly educated and highly accomplished in their fields, with reputations at stake - are not so gullible and easy to convince! We find God on our own. I did by reading the Bible, and with the help of Charles Price, who introduced me back to the Bible. After Christ had died and risen, his Apostle Thomas did not believe that it was Him. Come Thomas, and touch my wounds. See for yourself that it is Me. If you truly read the Bible, you'd see that all throughout the New Testament, the Apostles had their moments of doubts! Their faith flickered. That even after Christ was crucified and buried, they were conflicted.....they did not know what Christ was on about talking about His death and resurrection while He was with them. They grouped together...afraid...and maintained a low profile, fearing that the mob will go after them now that their leader is dead! Of course we know that after Christ had appeared to them all in that room which was their hide-out, behind their locked door, and showed Thomas His wounds....that the transformation in their belief was so pronounced. The Book of Acts showed their re-newed faith...and this time, boy....did they ever have faith! Defying and courting death in their mission to spread the Word! So where's the paradox? Who says you can't have faith by reading and learning or by proofs? How much more faith can these highly accomplished men show - risking reputation and scorn from colleagues - by embarking on a mission to tell the world about their found Faith?

So you know that atrocities were...and are being done....as you agree with what I've been saying in other threads - under the guise of Christianity! In other words, you'd rather throw your credibility away just to do a senseless smear. You're pinning the blame on the victim, - in this case unless you don't get it - Christianity. So now we've cleared that up let's get back on topic.

WIP, I'm not ignoring you but I have to go. Will be busy for the next couple of days...I'll try to get back as soon as I can.

Get back in the game, Scorpio. Your comment would make for a lively discussion. You should start a thread on that if that line interests you so.

Irrational ranting! Amusingly out-to-lunch... And I've got the evidence to back it up.

Is this about numbers? Score points? Maybe you missed that part what this is all about? Skipped over it perhaps? If you've read the whole thread and still can't tell....what can I say?