Printable Version of Topic

-Antievolution.org Discussion Board
+--Forum: After the Bar Closes...
+---Topic: The "I Believe In God" Thread started by didymos


Posted by: didymos on Oct. 31 2010,16:04

At the request of OgreMkV, I do hereby create this thread for IBIG. So....yeah.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2010,16:39

Well, let's see where we are now.

My current discussion with IBIG is in regards to the quote-mine featured on PT here: < Dembski vs. Evo-Devo >

IBIG maintains that this is a correct representation of the discovery article author's conclusion.

I maintain that it is (and remains since 2005) a quote-mine because it does not accurately represent the author of the original article.  If effect, it lies about what Elizabeth Pennisi said in her Science article.

Furthermore, I quote Psalms where it says, "There is no God." as an example of a quote-mine that is exactly the same as the discovery article.

Both quotes are taken out of context and result in a misrepresentation of the intent of the original author.

IBIG maintains that the discovery quote is legitimate, but my quote is a lie and that I'm a liar.  

So, IBIG, please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.

Over to you.
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 31 2010,16:51

A little IBIG background:

OK, I knew this guy was....prolific, but...WOW.  He got permanently exiled to PT's Bathroom Wall on < February 8, 2010 >, at which time it had filled 24 pages. The exile announcement started off page 25.  It's now on page 425!  Four-Hundred and Twenty Five!  All 400 pages largely to his "credit" as Prime Instigator, and that still doesn't include the posts that got BWed before the perma-exile, which go back to page  23. I have no clue how many comments he actually managed to slip onto normal threads.  Damn.  I said "Damn."
Posted by: Wolfhound on Oct. 31 2010,16:56

Yes, he has...stamina...
Posted by: Henry J on Oct. 31 2010,18:45

The word "absolute" is an adjective, not a noun. As such, to have meaning the type of object being modified by it has to be specified, and consistent.

Henry
Posted by: didymos on Oct. 31 2010,18:54

Quote (Henry J @ Oct. 31 2010,16:45)
The word "absolute" is an adjective, not a noun. As such, to have meaning the type of object being modified by it has to be specified, and consistent.

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, actually, it is a noun.  It can also be an adverb (fairly rare, that).  It's simply used most commonly as an adjective.
Posted by: mplavcan on Oct. 31 2010,20:15

He has stamina, and yet he STILL hasn't answered a single question. But I know enough people who think like he does to make the whole thread an illustration of why creationism persists.
Posted by: Flint on Oct. 31 2010,20:34



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It is extremely contradictory to make any claims that I, or anyone else is wrong about anything, because most if not all of you don’t accept that absolutes exist. You would also have to accept that there is no right or wrong answer or position about anything. I’m sorry but your worldview is irrational.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think it was Isaac Asimov who wrote that primitive people thought the earth was flat. They were wrong. Later, people thought the earth was spherical. They were also wrong, but MUCH closer. There are degrees of wrong. A worldview that holds that every claim must be absolutely right or absolutely wrong is inherently unable to distinguish the difference between a flat earth (wrong) and a spherical earth (wrong).

The scientific enterprise, considered altogether, is a method of approximating an understanding of reality, more and more accurately all the time. BUT one of the presumptions of science is that "perfectly, completely right" simply cannot exist. ALL scientific theories can be improved in some way, in principle.

So while there may be "no right or wrong answer or position about anything", there IS a vast gulf between unbelieveably stupidly wrong despite all available evidence, and "as close as we can get considering all currently available evidence." Claiming these are the same is one of those positions that is stupidly wrong, not even close.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2010,20:36

Quote (mplavcan @ Oct. 31 2010,20:15)
He has stamina, and yet he STILL hasn't answered a single question. But I know enough people who think like he does to make the whole thread an illustration of why creationism persists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree.  It's a fascinating subject.

They twist things so much and learn just enough to make uninformed statements.
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 31 2010,20:59

You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2010,21:20

Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.
Posted by: mplavcan on Oct. 31 2010,21:46

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20)
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt he will join this discussion. Assuming that he isn't a troll, and is sincere, then this forum is not public enough for him. He acts like a street preacher, and if he is real, probably thinks that he is witnessing and will turn souls to Christ. He is not interested in debate or truth -- only casting doubt and spreading the Gospel. Notice how every 20 pages or so he would revert to quoting scriptures?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Oct. 31 2010,21:55

Quote (mplavcan @ Oct. 31 2010,21:46)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20)
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt he will join this discussion. Assuming that he isn't a troll, and is sincere, then this forum is not public enough for him. He acts like a street preacher, and if he is real, probably thinks that he is witnessing and will turn souls to Christ. He is not interested in debate or truth -- only casting doubt and spreading the Gospel. Notice how every 20 pages or so he would revert to quoting scriptures?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If so, then he is the WORST witness for any religion I've ever heard of in my life.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Oct. 31 2010,22:30

IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010:
"Many here state that logic is a convention or a construct of man, so now let me ask these two questions:"
"Is big bang a convention or construct of man?"
"Is evolution a convention or construct of man? "

"I knew when I asked the questions about logic, that those here would state that logic was a convention or construct of man, which is what I really wanted to hear. I gave you all many opportunities to state otherwise, but to no avail. Now that you have stated that logic is a convention and construct of man, you must admit that big bang and evolution are a convention of man."

"Logic is absolute and not a construct of man, because before man gave a name to the law of non-contradiction it still existed. "

"It did not need a system to define it for it to have existed, the law of non-contradiction is absolute."

"'I am a man, and I am not a man' is this logical? would there be a lie somewhere in that statement, yet if we used fuzzy logic it would be valid, because it would not be completely wrong, at least 50% of the statement is correct."

"God’s logic will always lead to the truth!"

And on Sept. 7:
"I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"

Are you ready for some fun?

IBIG will teach you his "God's logic".
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 31 2010,23:48

Quote (OgreMkV @ Oct. 31 2010,21:20)
Quote (Badger3k @ Oct. 31 2010,20:59)
You guys weren't kidding.  Wow.  At least, from what I've read or skimmed so far, he hasn't started posting YouTube videos.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean recently?

That was his favorite tactic.  He'd disappear for two or three days when we really had him nailed to a tree (as it were), then reappear, post a totally unrelated youtube link and ask "So what about this?"

At which point, half of the group would fisk the hell out of the video, while the other half kept asking him about the previous discussion topic.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ok - I didn't want to try to read 240-odd pages.  I was thinking of bornagain7...something (damn memory, stuck on Fallout:New Vegas now and can't remember his number 777?) - you know who I mean, I am sure.  Coincidence, or just commonalities surfacing, do you think?
Posted by: Badger3k on Oct. 31 2010,23:56

Quote (prong_hunter @ Oct. 31 2010,22:30)
IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010:
"Many here state that logic is a convention or a construct of man, so now let me ask these two questions:"
"Is big bang a convention or construct of man?"
"Is evolution a convention or construct of man? "

"I knew when I asked the questions about logic, that those here would state that logic was a convention or construct of man, which is what I really wanted to hear. I gave you all many opportunities to state otherwise, but to no avail. Now that you have stated that logic is a convention and construct of man, you must admit that big bang and evolution are a convention of man."

"Logic is absolute and not a construct of man, because before man gave a name to the law of non-contradiction it still existed. "

"It did not need a system to define it for it to have existed, the law of non-contradiction is absolute."

"'I am a man, and I am not a man' is this logical? would there be a lie somewhere in that statement, yet if we used fuzzy logic it would be valid, because it would not be completely wrong, at least 50% of the statement is correct."

"God’s logic will always lead to the truth!"

And on Sept. 7:
"I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"

Are you ready for some fun?

IBIG will teach you his "God's logic".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not the "logic" argument!  There has to be an apologetics bingo somewhere (nothing on the first two pages of a google search, maybe further in?).  I can never understand how people can mix the descriptions we make about something (such as codifying the "laws of logic", so to speak, with the reality of such a thing.  There are logical absolutes that are a property of reality (as we have come to understand it).  These seem to be part of what is - there isn't any need to explain them, as far as I can tell.  But some people want explanations.

I can't figure out why some people, who want absolutes, believe that the things they want as unchanging are at the whim of their god.  "Logic comes from God" - who, by the way, can change it any time he feels like, which is ok, since he has all the power and gets to say what is what, what is just, and what the heck we have to do to stay on his good side or be tortured forever...

Whackadoodles
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 01 2010,06:06

Well, he really showed them on Panda's Thumb. Here's what IBIG said Oct. 31st 2010:
"No you are wrong, All along I have not just questioned whether there are moral absolutes, but I have also questions whether there are absolutes of any kind. It was said that there were no absolutes, which I clearly demonstrated was absurd, because if that were true then you could not state that there are no absolutes. If one is to state that there are no absolutes, then one would be making an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. So, evidently here you all only think there is one form of absolute, and that is that there is no absolutes:)"

"Go back and read my previous posts, because I clearly demonstrated that there are mathematic absolutes, and there clearly are moral absolutes also, I answered that. You again like to twist the truth to agree with you naturalistic view that there are no absolutes, but that is irrational. You are irrational!"

How can any one argue against 'logic' like that?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2010,07:01

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 01 2010,06:06)
Well, he really showed them on Panda's Thumb. Here's what IBIG said Oct. 31st 2010:
"No you are wrong, All along I have not just questioned whether there are moral absolutes, but I have also questions whether there are absolutes of any kind. It was said that there were no absolutes, which I clearly demonstrated was absurd, because if that were true then you could not state that there are no absolutes. If one is to state that there are no absolutes, then one would be making an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. So, evidently here you all only think there is one form of absolute, and that is that there is no absolutes:)"

"Go back and read my previous posts, because I clearly demonstrated that there are mathematic absolutes, and there clearly are moral absolutes also, I answered that. You again like to twist the truth to agree with you naturalistic view that there are no absolutes, but that is irrational. You are irrational!"

How can any one argue against 'logic' like that?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I once tried to argue with logic like that... then I gave up and married her.  She keeps the logic to a minimum though.

Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich.  You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.

I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit.




Posted by: fusilier on Nov. 01 2010,07:59

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,08:01)
[quote=prong_hunter,Nov. 01 2010,06:06]{snip}

Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich.  You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.

I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


May I nominate that for a Quip of the Week, if not POTW?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2010,08:34

OK, my questions for IBIG... which I'm sure he'll get to as soon as he registers.

Do organisms produce more offspring than can possibly survive?
What is life? (define, not examples)
Are those books previously mentioned true historical fact?
Why did you not discuss the echidna?
Why do you refuse an honest offer to learn about all the things you don’t understand?
Why did you steal works from other authors and not give them credit?
How long is the shortest RNA strand that acts as a functional catalyst for biochemical
reactions?
What is an opsin and why does it demolish your claim of no common descent?
Do you own and have you read the MIT book you linked to?
Do you own and have you read the Reese, Campbell Biology 5th Edition?
Why won’t you answer these questions?
Even if you disprove evolution, how does that help whatever your hypothesis?
Why do pro-science sites allow you to babble on, while pro-creationist sites do not allow
any scientists to comment?
Do you really think your comments here are original in anyway?
can you explain why I might think sympatric speciation is an example of evolution without mutation
Who wrote the Gospel According to John?
Why won’t you show that Jesus fulfilled all the prophecies of the messiah?
What evidence would convince you that common ancestry is correct.
Which group, AiG or the DI, is lying and why aren’t you taking them to task for “lying for Jesus”?”
What mechanism activates front-loaded genetics?
What, exactly, is the problem with mutation rates (include sources for your information)?
Do you believe in the flood of the Bible?
Do you take all the anti-biotics like the doctor tells you to?
(From DS)Why do dolphins have five digits early in development if they do not have five digits as adults?
(From DS) Why do dolphin embryos start out with the nostril on the front of the head if it is positioned on the top of the head in the adult?
(From DS) Why do dolphin embryos have pharyngeal gill pouches if they lack gills as adults?
(From DS) Why do dolphin embryos start to develop hind limbs if they do not have hind limbs as adults?
(From DS) Why do horse embryos have five digits if they have only one as adults?
(From DS) Why are there fossils intermediate between apes and humans?
(From DS) How old is the earth? How do you know?
(From DS) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla? (Hint: common design is not the answer).
(From DS) Why is there a nested hierarch of SINE insertions with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla, the exact same relationship revealed by the developmental and other genetic data? (Hint: common design is not the answer).
(From DS) Why are human and chimp chromosomes nearly identical gene for gene and band for band, including the extra centromeric and telomeric sequences found in human chromosome two? (Hint: common design is not the answer).
(From DS) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity for primates with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent in both nuclear and mitochondrial genes and also consistent with the fossil evidence and the chromosome banding data?

IBIG’s Answers*
I freely admit that IBIG has (kinda) answered some of these, but I think it's best we start over (it was only 2 questions) and then we can move forward.  




Selected Quotes from IBIG that he should be held to

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The evidence is not the prophecy of the old testament, but the precise fulfillment of that prophecy, these were not little vague prophecies. This is evidence that God did what He said that he would do. Evidence  that He does exist!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

my emphasis


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I’ll answer one now, but you are trying to change the subject.
It isn’t okay to lie for Jesus! It is never okay to lie!

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 01 2010,09:47

[quote=fusilier,Nov. 01 2010,06:59]
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,08:01)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 01 2010,06:06)
{snip}

Arguing with IBIG is like arguing with a two-day old tuna sandwich.  You can scream all you want, it's still gonna stink.

I'll post my list of unanswered (mostly) questions in a bit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


May I nominate that for a Quip of the Week, if not POTW?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely!  :p
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2010,17:55

Prediction verified.  He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us.  One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 01 2010,17:58

The record on Panda's Thumb is very interesting.

IBIG claims he is well-versed in God's logic.

He said this, "Let me ask everyone here, do you believe in the law of cause and effect?", June 25th in the PT thread ICR Hits A Snag.

When confronted with the fact that there is no "Law of Cause and Effect" in science, he simply ignores it and goes on in his unwavering, unshakable certainty.

When shown the error in his use of the response "there are no Absolutes" to prove there are absolutes, and thus God exits (they have to come from somewhere, right?), he simply ignores all appeals to formal logic - he knows better, don't confuse him with the facts.

The fact is that he cannot comprehend genuine scientific or logical arguments.  He's like a Taliban.

I can't imagine arguing with a Taliban, except that it must be like arguing with IBIG.

I will close with a few more choice quotes from Sept. 6th:
"The point of my little exercise on logic, is to demonstrate that logic will not work unless all facts are absolutely true," 9-6-10 BW282

"Logic is correct thinking, and the purpose of using logic is to find the truth, ..." 9-6-10 BW282

”… it is illogical to attempt to apply logic to see if God exists …” 9-6-10 BW282     (Holy Cow! Is this good, or what?)
Posted by: paragwinn on Nov. 01 2010,19:00

Quote (prong_hunter @ Oct. 31 2010,22:30)
IBIG said on Panda's Thumb, Sept. 4 2010:
<snip>

And on Sept. 7:
"I’ve not finished with logic yet, just wait and see!!! Be prepared!!!"

<snip>
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Posted by: mplavcan on Nov. 01 2010,19:06

Looks like IBIG has declared victory. Now, if we all stay veeeeerrrrryyyy still, maybe it will go away.
Posted by: mplavcan on Nov. 01 2010,19:25

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,17:55)
Prediction verified.  He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us.  One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 01 2010,21:24

Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 01 2010,19:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 01 2010,17:55)
Prediction verified.  He declared victory (more or less) and obviously feels that he has hit nerve with us.  One wonders what that nerve actually is, since he's the one that kept changing topics.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You aren't kidding.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 02 2010,11:40

hmm... IBIG is declaring victory and ignoring any requests to come here.

Who was it that said, he's looking for an audience?  

Of course, he doesn't want an audience of his fellow Christians since they will see what a lying hypocrite that he is.

To sum up: IBIG doesn't believe in the bible, nor he doesn't believe in science... yet he uses the trappings and tools of both to feed his own needy ego.

It's kind of sad really.  Ah well, I tried.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 02 2010,11:43

Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 01 2010,19:25)
Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He stands for everything that was overcome by the Enlightenment.  

He stands for everything that is wrong with religion.  

He stands for everything that our Founding Fathers stopped cold when they mandated our Government favor no Religion.  (Isn't it funny, our Democracy isn't founded on Christian Principles of religion as the far-right revisionists insist, but upon the clear mandate of separation of Church and State.  The Fathers knew exactly what happens when theocrats take over government.)

He has never accepted one argument on Panda's Thumb. He has never been 'wrong'. He says he has never lied, even when shown documentation of such.

In short, IBIG stands for intolerance, intransigence, inflexibility and his brand of theocracy ("to Hell with all the rest").

That's why it's important to stand up to him.

Thanks for your efforts.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 03 2010,06:12

I think IBIG may have resurfaced, with an alternate personality, named 'faith4flippers' on PT under the thread with the photo of the pelican.

He's goading Stanton, and making references to DS's dolphin arguments.  Anyone know how to contact them?

IBIG's not one to declare victory as he has, and fade quietly into the night.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Nov. 03 2010,08:29



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Whatever. He stands as a testimonial that there are people out there who are so calcified in their thinking that no evidence, no argument, no data, no documentation, not even written proof of their own illogic and hypocrisy, will convince them that they are wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And, thus, you describe FL, FTK, Behe, Dembski, Wells, Nelson, Meyer and so on.

Behe had to be taken to the mat publicly by grad student (never mess with her!) Abbie Smith before he would admit he "overlooked" data on Vpu in his book Edge of Whatever.

At least Kevin XI admitted he lied about Sternberg getting fired by the Smithsonian when he didn't even work for the Smithsonian.

Rather than engage in discussion, creationists run away, The Flounce, when backed into a corner.  How many times have we seen that around here, a thousand?  That's why it's so maddening.  These are not reasonable people.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,13:28



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Rather than engage in discussion, creationists run away, The Flounce, when backed into a corner.  How many times have we seen that around here, a thousand?  That's why it's so maddening.  These are not reasonable people.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alas, yes.  When we defeat them in detail, they move the goalposts.  When we defeat them on the merits, they dodge the issue.  And when we finally throw up our hands in exasperation, they claim that we cannot answer their poorly formed and incoherent objections...

Our special friend, the topic of this thread, has often brought to mind a painting I saw in Beijing.  It showed Confucius and a goose looking at each other--the philosopher had a weary expression of disdain on his face, and the bird looked as puzzled as any other goose.  Our guide explained that this was an illustration for a maxim that may be freely translated as 'not every student can be taught'.

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,13:57

Is he still babbling on at PT... even in his 'new guise'?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,14:07

He's not posting at the moment.  Confirmation or refutation may have to wait a few hours.

Although I can think of another reason why he might not be coming here!  The rules of this board do rule out some of his favorite tricks.

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,14:18

Like he's interested in following 'rules'...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,14:21

Almost certainly the truth.   :p

One wonders what he'll attempt next.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 03 2010,16:02

Hi ho, hi ho, it's off to move the goalposts we go...
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 03 2010,18:34

Matt Young answered on PT, when asked, "Do you have the ability to see if Flipper is another incarnation of IBelieveInGod?"

"Different e-mail address, different IP address, for whatever that is worth."

Thanks Matt.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,18:44

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 03 2010,18:34)
Matt Young answered on PT, when asked, "Do you have the ability to see if Flipper is another incarnation of IBelieveInGod?"

"Different e-mail address, different IP address, for whatever that is worth."

Thanks Matt.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Be that as it may, the tone and general attitude appear to be quite similar, so we could expect a similar pleasant experience trying to deal with this individual.

We'll need to run more tests.  Igor!  Fetch me my lightning-proof suit and warm up The Machine!

:p


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,18:49

Keep trying to redirect here.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,19:06

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2010,18:49)
Keep trying to redirect here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done!  Although I see you beat me to it.  ???

I would like to think I was sufficiently polite about it...


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,19:09

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:06)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 03 2010,18:49)
Keep trying to redirect here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Done!  Although I see you beat me to it.  ???

I would like to think I was sufficiently polite about it...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's a question of "will s/he be polite enough to come here" or will they continue to flood the PT Wall even after multiple requests to move the discussion elsewhere.

Time will tell.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,19:25

Alas, yes.

And now I have an old childhood memory stuck in my mind's eye: Les Lye, from You Can't Do That On Television, clutching his head and asking "where does the school board find them, and why do they send them here" in response to the kids' antics.

At the time, I thought that was pretty funny.  But then, at that time, all the jokes in Zorro the Gay Blade went whirring cheerfully way over my head.

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: mplavcan on Nov. 03 2010,19:34

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 03 2010,06:12)
I think IBIG may have resurfaced, with an alternate personality, named 'faith4flippers' on PT under the thread with the photo of the pelican.

He's goading Stanton, and making references to DS's dolphin arguments.  Anyone know how to contact them?

IBIG's not one to declare victory as he has, and fade quietly into the night.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This one does not sound like IBIG. But who knows?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,19:43

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:25)
Alas, yes.

And now I have an old childhood memory stuck in my mind's eye: Les Lye, from You Can't Do That On Television, clutching his head and asking "where does the school board find them, and why do they send them here" in response to the kids' antics.

At the time, I thought that was pretty funny.  But then, at that time, all the jokes in Zorro the Gay Blade went whirring cheerfully way over my head.

The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I had the biggest crush on Moose.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 03 2010,19:58

You, too?   :D

The ep where poor Moose got stuck behind nothing but a cue card at the very end because they'd bottomed out the wardrobe budget was particularly interesting.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 03 2010,20:32

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 03 2010,19:58)
You, too?   :D

The ep where poor Moose got stuck behind nothing but a cue card at the very end because they'd bottomed out the wardrobe budget was particularly interesting.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry for the derail... heh

< You Can't Do That on TeleVision >
Posted by: mplavcan on Nov. 03 2010,21:05

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 03 2010,13:28)
Our special friend, the topic of this thread, has often brought to mind a painting I saw in Beijing.  It showed Confucius and a goose looking at each other--the philosopher had a weary expression of disdain on his face, and the bird looked as puzzled as any other goose.  Our guide explained that this was an illustration for a maxim that may be freely translated as 'not every student can be taught'.

The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a colleague who worked in China and once showed a slide in a talk. It was a picture of a young woman kneeling and holding up a large silver platter behind a bull. Manure (BS) was streaming from the bull onto the platter. Pretty much sums up the average creationist.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,17:16

Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2010,17:18

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,17:37

Biggy finally found us.  Ogre, I owe you twenty spacebucks for lunch, gas, and tolls.

Quoting scripture apropos of nothing does not a valid point make, nor does it render an argument solid on the merits.  Quite the opposite.


Get back to us after you've read and understood at least two of the Gnostic Gospels and either the Analects of Confucius or the Tao Te Ching.  Then we'll talk.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,17:42

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?

I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2010,17:45

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?

I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.

Either discovery is lying or they are not.  Which is it?

I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion.  That is lying.

Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?

Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,17:47

Their culpability in this matter has already been established, if you were honestly paying attention.  Why do you continue making bald excuses for dishonest scholarship?

Your question about absolutes has also been answered, repeatedly and at length, by people who understand the entire matter far better than you do.  There is a fundamental (hah!;) error in your reasoning, which has also been pointed out to you.  (There is an even deeper problem with your question, but you are left to puzzle that out for yourself, if you are capable of doing so.)

Are you incapable of paying attention, or does your paycheck depend on your not acknowledging the facts in these matters?

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,17:49

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:45)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?

I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.

Either discovery is lying or they are not.  Which is it?

I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion.  That is lying.

Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?

Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It does not lead to a false conclusion. It is your claim that it leads to a false conclusion. Why do you think it leads to a false conclusion, give specifics?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,17:55



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It does not lead to a false conclusion. It is your claim that it leads to a false conclusion. Why do you think it leads to a false conclusion, give specifics?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Already been done.  Repeatedly.  But you weren't paying attention the first five times.

Why do you ask such silly questions if you aren't going to hold still for the answers?

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,17:58

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 04 2010,17:47)
Their culpability in this matter has already been established, if you were honestly paying attention.  Why do you continue making bald excuses for dishonest scholarship?

Your question about absolutes has also been answered, repeatedly and at length, by people who understand the entire matter far better than you do.  There is a fundamental (hah!) error in your reasoning, which has also been pointed out to you.  (There is an even deeper problem with your question, but you are left to puzzle that out for yourself, if you are capable of doing so.)

Are you incapable of paying attention, or does your paycheck depend on your not acknowledging the facts in these matters?

The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blah Blah Blah....everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT:)

You are the ones that are arguing as though there are absolutes, yet you don't even accept that such absolutes even exist:) Sorry, but it is irrational for you to argue anything, because if absolutes don't exist, then nothing could be said to be right, and nothing could be said to be wrong.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,18:02

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:45)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:42)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,17:18)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:16)
Jesus said, “If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples. Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, IBIG, was the discovery article telling the truth about what E. Pennisi said?

Please explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is wrong, while the discovery article quote-mine is OK.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has E. Pennisi ever stated that it was a quote-mine by Discovery.org? Clearly she could defend herself right?

I've already stated that it wasn't a quote-mine, clearly Discovery.org was arguing about the universality of these genes, and how it invalidated the grand claims for them. I don't see any quote-mine or dishonesty on the part of Discovery.org, but like I said earlier what does it matter to someone who doesn't believe in moral absolutes like yourself? You are arguing like you believe in moral absolutes, yet you claim that there are no such absolutes, you can't have it both ways:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The morality or lack thereof doesn't matter.

Either discovery is lying or they are not.  Which is it?

I have shown, upwards of 5 times, that the discovery article leads the reader to a false conclusion.  That is lying.

Why is that different from my bible quote, "There is no God" Psalms (something or other)?

Right now, I don't care about morality (except yours), what we need to know is why is one quote-mine OK and one it not OK?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How could someone lie if there is no absolute right or wrong, or true or false? Lying is to knowingly state something that is wrong or false. If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,18:05

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:58)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 04 2010,17:47)
Their culpability in this matter has already been established, if you were honestly paying attention.  Why do you continue making bald excuses for dishonest scholarship?

Your question about absolutes has also been answered, repeatedly and at length, by people who understand the entire matter far better than you do.  There is a fundamental (hah!) error in your reasoning, which has also been pointed out to you.  (There is an even deeper problem with your question, but you are left to puzzle that out for yourself, if you are capable of doing so.)

Are you incapable of paying attention, or does your paycheck depend on your not acknowledging the facts in these matters?

The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blah Blah Blah....everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT:)

You are the ones that are arguing as though there are absolutes, yet you don't even accept that such absolutes even exist:) Sorry, but it is irrational for you to argue anything, because if absolutes don't exist, then nothing could be said to be right, and nothing could be said to be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you'd better be prepared to hear it many, many times here as well, unless you present plenty of evidence that you actually do pay attention to and understand the answers you get.

Have you put your brain to work on the flaw in your question about absolutes, yet?  Or gotten ahold of anything by Kant?  You have some remedial reading ahead of you if you want to be taken seriously.

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,18:06

Accursed quote failure!  This system shall take some time to become second nature...

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,18:07

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 04 2010,18:05)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,17:58)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 04 2010,17:47)
Their culpability in this matter has already been established, if you were honestly paying attention.  Why do you continue making bald excuses for dishonest scholarship?

Your question about absolutes has also been answered, repeatedly and at length, by people who understand the entire matter far better than you do.  There is a fundamental (hah!) error in your reasoning, which has also been pointed out to you.  (There is an even deeper problem with your question, but you are left to puzzle that out for yourself, if you are capable of doing so.)

Are you incapable of paying attention, or does your paycheck depend on your not acknowledging the facts in these matters?

The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Blah Blah Blah....everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT:)

You are the ones that are arguing as though there are absolutes, yet you don't even accept that such absolutes even exist:) Sorry, but it is irrational for you to argue anything, because if absolutes don't exist, then nothing could be said to be right, and nothing could be said to be wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
everybody understands everything better then me...I've already heard that many times on PT
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And you'd better be prepared to hear it many, many times here as well, unless you present plenty of evidence that you actually do pay attention to and understand the answers you get.

Have you put your brain to work on the flaw in your question about absolutes, yet?  Or gotten ahold of anything by Kant?  You have some remedial reading ahead of you if you want to be taken seriously.

The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are there any square circles?:)
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,18:12



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you know why the answer to this question is what it is?  

Do you understand why this is not an intelligent question to ask?

Are you going to engage in any conversation here with the intellectual honesty your entire discourse from the Bathroom Wall lacked?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,18:21

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 04 2010,18:12)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you know why the answer to this question is what it is?  

Do you understand why this is not an intelligent question to ask?

Are you going to engage in any conversation here with the intellectual honesty your entire discourse from the Bathroom Wall lacked?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm asking to see if you believe in absolutes or not. If there were no such thing as a square circle, then that would be an example of one absolute now wouldn't it.

Now let me ask you this, is the earth really a cube?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 04 2010,18:25

Quote (mplavcan @ Nov. 03 2010,21:05)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 03 2010,13:28)
Our special friend, the topic of this thread, has often brought to mind a painting I saw in Beijing.  It showed Confucius and a goose looking at each other--the philosopher had a weary expression of disdain on his face, and the bird looked as puzzled as any other goose.  Our guide explained that this was an illustration for a maxim that may be freely translated as 'not every student can be taught'.

The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have a colleague who worked in China and once showed a slide in a talk. It was a picture of a young woman kneeling and holding up a large silver platter behind a bull. Manure (BS) was streaming from the bull onto the platter. Pretty much sums up the average creationist.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once, while working in India, I watched a bejeweled and coiffured local woman in a beautiful sari hurriedly place both her hands under the raised tail of a hunched water buffalo to catch the hot steaming manure issuing forth before it hit the ground!

She immediately slung her prize onto the low tin roof of her home where it would dry in the sun and be fuel for cooking tomorrow's meal.

It happened too fast for a photograph. Sorry I didn't get one. Still, it burned an indelible image in my mind that will last forever.

You gotta do what you gotta do to survive.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 04 2010,18:27

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:02)
If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's the difference between "wrong" and "absolute wrong"?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 04 2010,18:34

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More importantly, are You a square circle?

(You said you were absolutely certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate. How does absolute certainty of some arbitrary fact prove God? Don't you see the difference? Don't you see how foolish equating absolute certainty with Absolutes is?)
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 04 2010,18:45

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 04 2010,18:34)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


More importantly, are You a square circle?

(You said you were absolutely certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate. How does absolute certainty of some arbitrary fact prove God? Don't you see the difference? Don't you see how foolish equating absolute certainty with Absolutes is?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 04 2010,18:49

The more I read on Panda's Bathroom Wall the more amazed I become. Look at this post from someone named Dave Luckett:

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Alas, no special vocabulary - nothing Shakespearian - is required to describe Biggy. He’s far too ordinary.

Byers, the McGonagall of creationism, is frequently amusing. One can place bets about how often and with what violence he will shoot himself in the foot. FL’s towering hubris is awesome in a way, like finding Everest in the Ozarks, except that Everest is actually based on something. JAD, that walking bubble of ego, preens and prattles like a Little Miss World contestant. Even the rectal rhapodies of that bloke whose name I forget - you know the one, the poor lost soul who’s so deeply in the closet that he’s dropping off the far edge of the map of Narnia - can at least be said to be honestly, truly, howling-at-the-moon, pissing-on-the-floor, rolling-eyed, frothing-mouthed, barking insane.

Biggy, by contrast, is merely a pain. Not a grand, heroic, life-threatening pain. Not even a twinge, which has a certain acuity to it. No, he’s a dull, low-grade ache. His only unusual quality is his persistence.

Screwtape, that experienced devil, was right to tell his junior tempter nephew that there was no necessity to go for the great sins. The best road to Hell, said he, is the ordinary, the routine, the banal. And Biggy is certainly that. His logic-deafness, his invincible ignorance, his rampant Dunning-Kruger - they’re all so ordinary as to be dull as ditchwater.

But the joke is this: there is no Hell. There is only Biggy and those like him. Or is that a contradiction in terms?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 04 2010,19:02

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:45)
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're loosing me.

When you say you are certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate, I can accept that 'fact' just as our Government accepts it for the purpose of a Social Security number or a driver's license.

But when you say you are Absolutely Certain of your birthdate because of your birth certificate I say, 'okay', but I know that mistakes in recording can and have been made.  Your birth certificate may have a mistake.  You may be Absolutely Certain of your birthdate but I am not.

So, are you saying, that because you are Absolutely Certain that means God must exist? But because I have doubts about the absolute correctness of your birth certificate your certainty has no meaning for me.  Your Certainty doesn't prove God exists to me.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,19:39



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I'm asking to see if you believe in absolutes or not. If there were no such thing as a square circle, then that would be an example of one absolute now wouldn't it.

Now let me ask you this, is the earth really a cube?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Obviously, your answers to my three questions are 'no', 'no', and 'no'.

Go look up the word 'absolute' in a dictionary.  I'll wait.  There you will note, if you are paying attention to the details, that there are several different meanings of the adjective in question, all of which you are conflating.  (There is an application of the word as a noun, but it's a touch tautological.)

You are also conflating two different meanings of 'believe' in the process.

You're playing sophomoric semantic games while pretending to be clever.  Unfortunately for you, Alcibiades, we know this particular shtick.

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2010,20:21

IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 04 2010,20:51

What's especially precious is his constant use of a smiley emoticon after what he feels is a real hum-dinger of an atheist-stumping point.  Kinda' like the kid in school who ate paste, shoved crayons up his nose, and giggled at his own knock-knock jokes before he even got to the answer to the "who's there" query.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2010,21:09

IBIG, if you (or anyone else for that matter) is interested in the pre-biotic world then, ** you might like to attend this FREE workshop put on by NASA.

< NASA Workshop Without Walls >




** Provided you are willing to learn.
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 04 2010,21:34

It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2010,21:41

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:34)
It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very true.  What's interesting is that there has been no discussion of the ten commandments in his 'absolute morality' crap.

What's even funnier, is that if the Bible is 1100% correct and literal, then Jesus cannot be the messiah, which means the Jews were right all along... funnier and funnier.

He's also missed two avenues of attack on the discovery article quote-mine.  He just doesn't have the knowledge or critical thinking ability to see them.
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 04 2010,21:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,21:41)
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:34)
It seems odd that IBelieve would attempt to prove the existence of absolutes, and by proxy, prove that his (mis)interpretation of the Bible is 1110% correct and has to be worshiped as God immediately, by asking deliberately stupid and illogical questions.

It also seems odd that IBelieve wants us to obey him when he claims that God, via a literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible, is the absolute source of all morality, even though that would mean murdering children, and taking underaged girls as sex slaves is morally good.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very true.  What's interesting is that there has been no discussion of the ten commandments in his 'absolute morality' crap.

What's even funnier, is that if the Bible is 1100% correct and literal, then Jesus cannot be the messiah, which means the Jews were right all along... funnier and funnier.

He's also missed two avenues of attack on the discovery article quote-mine.  He just doesn't have the knowledge or critical thinking ability to see them.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wonder if the reason why he isn't mentioning the 10 Commandments because even he realizes that his demanding that we forsake science and logic in order to worship his misinterpretation of the Bible, thereby massaging his ego, would entail the breaking of no less than 3 Commandments (i.e., bearing false witness, taking God in vain, and worshiping something other than God).

Plus, wasn't IBelieve's argument concerning the parts of the Bible saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah was that a) those were some of the parts of the Bible that were up for interpretation, and that b) we weren't given permission to interpret the Bible?

Or am I confusing that with when IBelieve said that the Bible magically stated that a "prophetic year" was magically 360 days instead of 365(.257) because he said so?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 04 2010,22:03

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 04 2010,21:58)
[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 04 2010,21:41]
I wonder if the reason why he isn't mentioning the 10 Commandments because even he realizes that his demanding that we forsake science and logic in order to worship his misinterpretation of the Bible, thereby massaging his ego, would entail the breaking of no less than 3 Commandments (i.e., bearing false witness, taking God in vain, and worshiping something other than God).

Plus, wasn't IBelieve's argument concerning the parts of the Bible saying that Jesus wasn't the Messiah was that a) those were some of the parts of the Bible that were up for interpretation, and that b) we weren't given permission to interpret the Bible?

Or am I confusing that with when IBelieve said that the Bible magically stated that a "prophetic year" was magically 360 days instead of 365(.257) because he said so?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly.

He's (ahem) not being very forthright.  He chastises me for saying that the Bible is not inerrant.  Then he turns around and says it's open to interpretation.

Arguably, "open to interpretation" does not equal "errors", but you'd think that The Word Of God would at least not be vague.

Just think, thousands of CHRISTIANS have been killing each other over interpretations of The Bible.

And he says we're nuts...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 04 2010,22:15

[quote=OgreMkV,Nov. 04 2010,22:03][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Arguably, "open to interpretation" does not equal "errors", but you'd think that The Word Of God would at least not be vague.

Just think, thousands of CHRISTIANS have been killing each other over interpretations of The Bible.

And he says we're nuts...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That's it exactly, Blackadder!  Why, it's not only plainly obvious that there is no questioning scripture, it's equally plain and obvious that only some bits are truly infallible and without error...while others are equally and plainly meant to be taken as merely colorful stories.

All the spilled blood over the centuries is merely misguided squabbling about which bits are which and whose interpretation is the right one.  Merely an unfortunate set of details.  When in fact, the truth is so plain and obvious!  Plainly.  And Obviously.  No True Believer would ever do anything so misguided as to kill anyone over a simple misinterpretation unless of course it were to be divinely ordered...

Plain and obvious.  Can't argue with that, now, can we?

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 04 2010,23:36

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you even know what that refers to?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 05 2010,03:45

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,20:21)
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.

The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.

Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 05 2010,03:49

Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you even know what that refers to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it over your head?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2010,04:00

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What's your explanation then?
Posted by: didymos on Nov. 05 2010,04:04

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,01:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you even know what that refers to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it over your head?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just answer the question, jackass.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 05 2010,04:45

Deary me. Did one of these invitees actually turn up?

You know what that means? I WAS WRONG! Bugger. That means I really need to have that accumulator on the 3:30 at Kempton Park come good or it's back to the docks.

Crikey, they could strike a chap from the club books if this continues.

Louis
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 05 2010,06:24

When you said, "No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty? "

You've lost me.  Please help me understand what you are trying to say.

When you say you are certain of your birthdate because you have a birth certificate, I can accept that 'fact' just as our Government accepts it for the purpose of a Social Security number or a driver's license.

But when you say you are Absolutely Certain of your birthdate because of your birth certificate I say, 'okay', but I know that mistakes in recording can and have been made.  Your birth certificate may have a mistake.  You may be Absolutely Certain of your birthdate but I am not.

So, are you saying, that because you are Absolutely Certain that means God must exist? But I have doubts about the absolute correctness of your birth certificate so your certainty has no meaning for me.  Your Certainty may prove God exists to you but it does nothing for me.

I'm not Absolutely, absolutely certain of anything - not to that degree.  I can only say that something seems very certain, or highly probably.  I may use the word 'absolute' from time to time, but it is just hyperbole.

Is Newton's Law of Gravity an Absolute?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2010,07:11

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,20:21)
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.

The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.

Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry dude, they are taking the claim out of context and using it to argue a point that is not made by the original article = quote-mine.

Let me ask you this: What part of "The correctness or uncorrectness of EITHER article's conclusion" don't you get"?

You STILL haven't answer the only question that matters about this point.

Why is my quote-mine of the Bible wrong and discovery's quote-mine of Science OK?

The absolutes argument is just a Red Herring and has nothing to do with you supporting the lies of the discovery institute.

Why is it OK for them to quote-mine and it's not OK for me to say, "The Bible says "There is no God" Psalms 14:1?

If you say one is OK and one is not, then you don't believe in absolutes either.  If both are OK or both not OK, then you are supporting something that is lying.

Which is it IBIG?  I was really hoping you would answer questions.  I guess that's too much to ask of a Christian.

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible OK?

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible structurally the same as the quote from discovery?

Yes or No IBIG, then explain why...
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 05 2010,07:37

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the Discovery Institute is not guilty of quote-mining, then why is it that they were arguing that evolutionary development disproves evolution, even though this conclusion contradicts both the original statement, AND reality?

That, and tell us how this is supposed to prove that God and the Bible are the absolute source of absolute morality.
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 05 2010,07:41

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:49)
Quote (didymos @ Nov. 04 2010,23:36)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:07)
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Do you even know what that refers to?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Is it over your head?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Please explain to us why asking us about the existence or non-existence of square circles is supposed to demonstrate that the Discovery Institute has magically never lied, that your own literal interpretation of the English translation of the Bible is supposed to be the absolute source of God's absolute morality, and please explain to us how this is supposed to disprove Evolution, while proving that God magically poofed the world into existence 10,000 years ago using magic.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2010,08:10

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:02)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How could someone lie if there is no absolute right or wrong, or true or false? Lying is to knowingly state something that is wrong or false. If there are no absolute right or wrong, or true or false, then how would lying even be possible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Is your IQ like...1?

Whether there are absolutes of morality (e.g., "Right" and "Wrong") has ZERO to do with whether there are other opposites, such as "left" or "right", "hot" or "cold", "up" or "down", and "true" or "false".

That you either don't understand this or are intentionally equivocating demonstrates that your "Christian" position is worthless.

Lying (as you so easily demonstrate) is quite independent of one's views on morality. Clearly you don't think lying is "bad", but that doesn't stop you from stating falsehoods intentionally.

So, once again the proof is presented that you don't know what you are babbling about. Thanks for once again demonstrating what your particular brand of "Christianity" is really all about  - nonsense and dishonesty. Nice...
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2010,08:16

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:07)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not if one wishes to actually use language to communicate there aren't. But of course I suppose in your world, there's no difference between a man-made, culturally agreed upon definition to facilitate accurate understanding and an absolute. Such a shame...but then it explains why your posts tend to be rather incoherent.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 05 2010,08:21

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Nov. 04 2010,18:45][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, it is perfectly reasonable to state there are no absolutes when one is not trying to be disingenuous by equivocating words. There is an enormous difference between an absolute - i.e., something that will never change or vary - and an agreed upon definition for convenience and convention, something that actually does in fact CHANGE OVER TIME. Indeed there are thousands of terms that we use today that do not mean the same thing they did even 100 years ago, so clearly language and words are NOT absolutes.

So once again you point is shown to be absurd.

Edit - "no" is important in first the sentence above. Changes the meaning completely...
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 05 2010,08:42

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,07:11)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,03:45)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 04 2010,20:21)
IBIG, please tell me you can't be this dense.

The discovery article says (quoting Elizabeth Pennisi)
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But that raises a fundamental problem. Elizabeth Pennisi, in a report about evo devo for the journal Science, dated Nov. 1, 2002, stated the problem this way: "The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Now, when any sane person reads this, they are led to the conclusion that there is a fundamental problem with evo-devo.

However, the Pennisi article continues with:
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

   The lists gave no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different. And given the evolutionary distance between, say, a fruit fly and a shark, "there isn't really an experimental manipulation to let you get at what the genes are actually doing," says Rudolf Raff, an evolutionary developmental biologist at Indiana University, Bloomington (IUB).

   The solution, say Jeffery and others, is to focus on genetically based developmental differences between closely related species, or even among individuals of the same species. This is the stuff of microevolutionists, who care most about how individuals vary naturally within a population and how environmental forces affect this variation.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It then goes on to list three examples where the solution has been applied and shown to work.

Therefore, the discovery article is wrong.

Since, they the statement that leads to the correct conclusion of the article is the one immediately following the statement quoted, then they knowingly left out part of the quote.  

That is lying by omission, aka a quote-mine.

NOTE: The fact that it is a quote-mine has NOTHING to do with the correctness or incorrectness of EITHER article.

Let me give an example:

If a Daily Telegraph article says, "Doctor cures three-headed baby.  'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'  However, the operation went without a hitch and the baby is doing well."

Now, if I quote that article like this, "'It's a dangerous operation,' said one doctor, 'I only give if it a 5% chance of working.'"

I made a quote-mine.  I'm leaving off the part where the operation actually worked.

Is this example a quote-mine (yes or no)?

If yes, then why isn't the discovery article?

If no, then you are supporting lying.

Enough with the philosophical BS.  Just answer the question yes or no.

You know you can't, that's why you won't give us a straight answer.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here is the problem with you claim, first if it were true that Elizabeth Pennisi were quote-mined, she could have spoken out and stated the she was quoted inappropriately, which to my knowledge hasn't happened, correct me if I'm wrong. Second, the quote was not used out of context, Discovery is arguing against the grand claims of evo-devo, read the article again, they clearly stated that there were successes, but you seem to be implying that evo-devo has somehow proven evolution from common descent, and Discovery is purposefully quote-mining E. Pennisi to argue that it couldn't happen.

The quote was not to disprove that evo-devo doesn't have answers to changes that are observed, it was used to show the absurdity of the grander claims of evo-devo in regards to evolution by common descent. You are mixing the grander claims of evo-devo, with the actual small successes, i.e. spots on butterfly wings, legs in place of antennae, etc... Nothing new with evolutionists I might add, just par for the course. You are so blind that you couldn't see the truth, if it hit you in the face with a sledgehammer.

Again it is clear that Discovery is not guilty of quote-mining, and again you are arguing an absolute, which doesn't make any sense considering you don't even believe in absolutes!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry dude, they are taking the claim out of context and using it to argue a point that is not made by the original article = quote-mine.

Let me ask you this: What part of "The correctness or uncorrectness of EITHER article's conclusion" don't you get"?

You STILL haven't answer the only question that matters about this point.

Why is my quote-mine of the Bible wrong and discovery's quote-mine of Science OK?

The absolutes argument is just a Red Herring and has nothing to do with you supporting the lies of the discovery institute.

Why is it OK for them to quote-mine and it's not OK for me to say, "The Bible says "There is no God" Psalms 14:1?

If you say one is OK and one is not, then you don't believe in absolutes either.  If both are OK or both not OK, then you are supporting something that is lying.

Which is it IBIG?  I was really hoping you would answer questions.  I guess that's too much to ask of a Christian.

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible OK?

Yes or No IBIG, Is my quote from the Bible structurally the same as the quote from discovery?

Yes or No IBIG, then explain why...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2010,08:52

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Nov. 05 2010,09:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Elizabeth Pennisi, like virtually everyone else on the planet, cares not one whit what the Dishonesty Institute is lying about at any given moment?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 05 2010,09:12

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,08:52)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it? Here is the quote again, “The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different.”

I think you would agree that this quote is a factual quote, now read the part in bold, because that is the important part of the quote as related to the Discovery article. This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2010,09:15



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2010,09:18

Quote (Occam's Toothbrush @ Nov. 05 2010,09:07)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe Elizabeth Pennisi, like virtually everyone else on the planet, cares not one whit what the Dishonesty Institute is lying about at any given moment?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've just quoted IBIG out of context somwhere else. Good luck finding it, IBIG.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 05 2010,09:43

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2010,09:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.
Posted by: Richardthughes on Nov. 05 2010,09:46

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Nov. 05 2010,09:15)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And your explanation of what happened millions of years ago is what, exactly?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know believe there is someone something who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fixed that for you
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 05 2010,10:43



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Disregarding for the moment what others may say about evolution, I say that the evolution from wolf to dog took place in China around something like 14.000 years ago.

Have a nice day.
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 05 2010,10:51

It just struck me that a believer like you might enjoy pondering the issue raised here:

An interesting observation wrt our almighty G-O-D:

< Steve Zara > observes:

The words used to describe the deity seem at first sight to make sense. He (for it's almost always “he”) is all-powerful, all-loving, all-knowing. He is the source of morality, and will punish the wicked and reward the deserving for all eternity.
However, when unpacked, these phrases have no more meaning than Lewis Caroll's Jabberwocky. An all-knowing deity has no freedom, and therefore can't be all-powerful. Like Paul Atreides in Frank Herbert's novel Dune, God would be trapped within his own prophecy. A God that is all-knowing (especially one supposedly outside of time) can't help but know his own future actions. God can do no more than gyre and gimble in the wabe, and he has no freedom to do otherwise.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 05 2010,11:02

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes."

Newton was a Creationist, was he not?  He invented Calculus, did he not?  He taught us that the Whole is the Sum of the Infinitesimally Small Parts, did he not?

Why don't you accept Creationist Newton's calculus?

"I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years."

No, no, NO!  

I say evolution is happening NOW - everyday, all the time.  It's observable.  It's a fact.

It doesn't take millions of years as you state.

But it's been happening for millions of years (according to all the evidence of the Earth).


So, even though you are Absolutely Certain you were born on such and such a date, and thus convinced Absolutes therefore exit (proving God), why should I accept your Absolute Certainty when I am not certain about your 'facts'?

Is Newton's Law of Gravity an Absolute?

Please answer to help me understand.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Nov. 05 2010,11:06



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I guess in that world if you add up 100 cents you don't get a dollar...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 05 2010,12:06

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Nov. 05 2010,09:43]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I don't know what happen millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You may wish to go doublecheck the definition of the word 'knowledge' when you look up 'absolute'.  What you have is not knowledge in any meaningful sense: what you have is opinion, learned by rote and unsupported by any actual evidence.  (It is, in fact, naught but supposition for you to speak of the En-Sof in any terms whatsoever, but I'll let you go do your homework to discover the reasons why...if you are capable of doing so.)

This has been pointed out to you before, and you've ignored it completely.

Now, about those rural spinsters murdered by your co-believers...

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Amadan on Nov. 05 2010,12:11

The only absolute is Heat Death (Unless someone has evidence to the contrary?)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 05 2010,12:30

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,08:52)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,08:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.

Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo. They did give evo-devo credit for some successes, but there argument wasn't that there were no successes at all, but that the very universality of the conserved genes couldn't have resulted in all of the diversity of life, aka evolution from common descent. So, you are wrong, if they quoted Elizabeth Pennisi, and then used it to state that there were no successes, and that there would be no successes, then it would have been a quote-mine, but that is not what they did, and that is where you are wrong. If Elizabeth Pennisi was quoted out of context then why hasn't she spoke out?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Tell me something... what, exactly, was the conclusion from Pennisi's science paper?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it? Here is the quote again, “The lists [of conserved genes give] no insight into how, in the end, organisms with the same genes came to be so different.”

I think you would agree that this quote is a factual quote, now read the part in bold, because that is the important part of the quote as related to the Discovery article. This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hmmm... since the entire charge of quote-mining IS BASED on the conclusion of the original article, then how can it not be relevent?

Also, how can you say what Pennisi's article even said if you haven't read it?

Absolutes or not YOU CAN'T DRAW A CONCLUSION IF YOU HAVEN'T READ THE PAPER.

So, we'll just chalk this up to something else you don't know enough about to have a non-biased opinion.

ALong this same vein, you previously quoted an MIT monograph and a Campbell Reese textbook as supporting your position... have you read either?  or do you unquestioningly accept discovery?

If I could prove to you that they lied would you continue to support them?
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 05 2010,17:15

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:12)
...This is directly related to evolution by common descent, and not changes that have actually been observed. You see evolutionists see little changes, and then make grand claims from the little changes. I know you will say evolution takes millions of years, but then you are bringing speculation back into the argument, and not real science, as it is impossible to observed what happened over a million years.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So explain to us how we're supposed to believe you when you claim that God magically poofing the world into existence 10,000 years ago, using magic, with no physical evidence, is supposed to be more scientific than actual science.

Why do you constantly imply and insist that interpreting the English translation of the Bible literally is logical, sound and scientific, while simultaneously denouncing actual science and scientific investigation is useless speculation, devil worship conspiracy for genocide?
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 05 2010,17:19

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 05 2010,12:30)
...

If I could prove to you that they lied would you continue to support them?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Of course IBelieve would continue supporting and mindlessly repeating the Discovery Institute's anti-science soundbites and quotemines: that is what his handlers programmed him to do, under pain of eternal damnation.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Nov. 06 2010,05:49

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:42)
Here is the difference:

You quoted part of Psalm 14:1 "there is no God", from the scripture that states:

Psalm 14:1 (New International Version)

1 The fool says in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
They are corrupt, their deeds are vile;
  there is no one who does good.

Clearly the intent of the scripture is the opposite of what you quoted, now to the difference.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactly.

Most instances of quote mining work by removing the quoted material from the context in which it originally appeared, with the result that speaker intent is lost.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Discovery quoted Elizabeth Pennisi in the context of the universality of the conserved genes, which is correct because that was the entire point of their argument against the grander claims of evo-devo….
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The context that matters with respect to the correct inference of speaker intent is the context in which the original statement occurred, not the context into which the passage was later inserted by the DI.
   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It doesn't matter what her conclusion was because that would only be her opinion now wouldn't it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Her opinion" is that which she intended to convey - her intent as a speaker - and is therefore the only standard by which we can judge whether speaker intent has been lost or distorted by means of later quote-mine.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Nov. 06 2010,07:29

I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.
Posted by: DSDS on Nov. 06 2010,07:37

If anyone is interested in seeing a list of questions that "I believe in god"  (AKA IBIBS, AKA Ibigot) refuses to answer, or a list of things that he/she has been wrong about recently, I would be more than happy to post them.  Until then, perhaps IBIBS (AKA Ibigot) can tell us, in his own words, what is wrong with the following statements:

If lying is not always wrong, it is never wrong.

If murder is not always wrong, it is never wrong.

If Newton's laws are not always right, they are never right.

If, as I strongly suspect, he is also unable to answer this question, he can be safely ignored.

Man, that would really be low.   Being dumped to the bathroom wall.  Then being segregated from decent society at After the Bar Closes.  Then being completely ignored because you couldn't even follow a train of logic, even after you had been told many times what was wrong with your reasoning.

Well, now you can see what we have been dealing with for the last six months.  A character completely incapable of looking at evidence and yet fixated on "absolutes".  The only absolute I can discern is that he absolutely refuses to read a scientific article, or to admit when he is wrong, or to answer questions like an honest human being.  That is all.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 06 2010,08:08

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,18:45)
No, don't you see how foolish it is to state that there are no absolutes, when it is clear that there are absolutes?  Absolute Certainty?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You must be too busy to answer my questions to help me understand.  Oh well.

I had to go to Wikipedia for insight. I looked up "Absolute (philosophy)" and the second sentence said some people equate "Absolute" with "God".

So I guess that's what you're doing.

Except your attempt at logical proof is fatally flawed.

Your example of being Absolutely Certain of your birthdate may be all the evidence you need for God, but it convinces no one else. (If there's a typographical error on your birth certificate then which God does that prove?)

Your 'logic' trick - getting at least one Panda to say there are NO absolutes, and then turning that around to prove there ARE absolutes - is decidedly not a proof that absolutes exist.  I could go into great detail explaining it to you but you won't understand. You would ignore it just as you have ignored, apparently, every response to your 'non-sense' on Panda's Thumb.

In short, your 'logic' trick is simply asserting what you are trying to prove - that Absolutes exist apart from Man and therefore God must exist.

Did you learn it from Answers-in-Genesis? Have you read their "Arguments Creationists Should Not Use"? Better go back and read it again.

You said all the Pandas are irrational. Instead you have demonstrated You are the one who is irrational. (P.S. - That means "without Reason". All you have is your faith.)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2010,08:26

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 06 2010,07:29)
I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


yeah, yeah.  You lose and refuse to even fight the battle.  I accept that.

I know you don't think it's quote-mining.  But since you can't explain why my quote-mine of the Bible is different from discovery's quote-mine of Pennisi's article, then I'll feel free to use quote-mines against you from now on.

Alternately, we can both agree that quotes have no business in this discussion what-so-ever and not use them at all.  (Mainly because every quote you have presented is a quote-mine and you know it, because I have destroyed everyone... including the ones you stole that 'support' your view of the Bible.)

Anyway,

So tell me do you own and have you read the MIT monograph you quoted and the Reese/Campbell Biology book you quoted?

Do you trust discovery.org implicitly?
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 06 2010,09:56

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 06 2010,07:29)
I still find it folly that you are still stuck on an alleged quote-mine that the author of, hasn't even spoke out about. I still don't believe that it is a quote-mine, and you believe that it is, so why don't you move on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So how is this supposed to prove that the Discovery Institute has never lied?

The Discovery Institute claims to be at the forefront of developing and nurturing Intelligent Design and Scientific Creationism, and yet, why have they not produced a single peer-reviewed paper?

Why did the Discovery Institute lose at the Dover trial?
Posted by: DSDS on Nov. 06 2010,11:05

Well I told you he couldn't answer even the simplest question.  Here are some other questions that he has been avoiding for two months now:

1) Why do dolphins have five digits early in development if they do not have five digits as adults?

2) Why do dolphin embryos start out with the nostril on the front of the head if it is positioned on the top of the head in the adult?

3) Why do dolphin embryos have pharyngeal gill pouches if they lack gills as adults?

4) Why do dolphin embryos start to develop hind limbs if they do not have hind limbs as adults?

5) Why do horse embryos have five digits if they have only one as adults?

6) Why are there fossils intermediate between apes and humans?

7) How old is the earth? How do you know?

8) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

9) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla, the exact same relationship revealed by the developmental and other genetic data? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

10) Why are human and chimp chromosomes nearly identical gene for gene and band for band, including the extra centromeric and telomeric sequences found in human chromosome two? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

11) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity for primates with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent in both nuclear and mitochondrial genes and also consistent with the fossil evidence and the chromosome banding data?

12) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions in primates, with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent with all of the other fossil, morphological, developmental and genetic data sets? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

13) Why are there intermediates between terrestrial mammals and Cetaceans in the fossil record? Why are they in exactly the order predicted by descent with modification? Why are they precisely consistent with the developmental and genetic data?

14) Was there a world wide flood less than 10,000 years ago? How do you know? Why do no real geologists, paleontologists or archaeologists agree with you?

15) Why are there intermediates in the fossil record between horse ancestors with five digits and modern horses with only one? (Hint: you can’t get out of this one by redefining “digit” or “intermediate”).

16) Why is the human eye wired backwards?

17) Why must mutations for novel features be selectively advantageous from the time of their appearance? Why can’t they be selectively neutral or selected for other functions?

18) Exactly how many “kinds” of birds did god “create”? How do you know?

19) Why are there intermediates between birds and reptiles in the fossil record?

20) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with birds nested deeply within reptiles?

21) Why do birds have scales?

22) Why does nothing that is not a bird have feathers?

Now in all honesty he did at least try to answer a couple of these.  Like the time he tried to explain why dolphin embryos have hindlimb buds by denying that they exist, while looking at a picture of them!

Just a few more questions for IBIBS (AKA Ibigot):

If you have lied before, what hope is there that you will not lie again?

If you were wrong about everything so far, can you ever be right about anything?

If you cannot answer any of these questions, will you ever be able to answer any question?

If you have refused to read a single scientific reference so far, will you ever read one?

If you will not read the scientific literature, if you will not answer questions, if you will not admit to being wrong, do you think that anyone will care what you believe?
Posted by: phhht on Nov. 06 2010,15:27

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Nov. 06 2010,15:53

Quote (phhht @ Nov. 06 2010,16:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 06 2010,16:09

Quote (Wolfhound @ Nov. 06 2010,15:53)
Quote (phhht @ Nov. 06 2010,16:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 05 2010,09:43)

I don't know what happen[ed] millions of years ago, it would be speculation for me to say. I do know someone who does know though, and one day I will know exactly what happened. But, for the time being nobody knows and nobody will know in this lifetime.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You don't know what happened two thousand years ago, that's certain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Absolutely!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hmmm...

If science cannot be used to describe what happened in the past, then how can we know anything that has happened when we cannot see it?

Here's two questions for you...

IBIG, who actually wrote down the stories of Genesis (and any of the others for that matter)?  

How do you know your computer works?
Posted by: blipey on Nov. 06 2010,21:47

Useless.  IBIG may even be denser than FTK.  He will never grasp anything anyone says to him.  He did put forth the argument that quote mines cannot exist if the author being quote mined doesn't acknowledge it.  His argument is this is so Because and Only Because the author didn't acknowledge it.

So, IBIG, riddle me this if you can:

Someone--let's say Louis's mom--steals a jacket of mine.  I never acknowledge this fact (perhaps because I didn't notice that it was missing).  Does this mean that Louis's mom did not, in fact, steal my jacket?

Or, that she only stole the jacket at the moment I discovered it was missing?

Or, that she only stole the jacket at the moment I discovered it was she who took it?

Continuing posting here, though; it provided amusement.
Posted by: DSDS on Nov. 07 2010,12:20

Just in case anyone is interested, here is a short list of things that IBIBS (AKA Ibigot) has been wrong about recently:

1) Dolphin embryos (nostirls, digits, hind limbs)

2) Horses

3) Mutations

4) Selection

5) Novel morphological features

6) Biblical prophecies

7) The antichrist

8) God killing innocent babies

9) God committing genocide

10) Primate nasal bones

11) Primate footprints

12) Polyploidy in animals

13) Menton being a liar, fraud and charlatan

14) And all that crap about information (didn’t actually make any point, but still somehow managed to be wrong)

15) Neanderthals were not modern humans

16) The human eye is not irreducibly complex (and neither is anything else not man made)

17) There is no information front loaded into dogs, or anything else. (But then again, since IBIBS refuses to define the term “information” he never really had a chance with this one).

18) Earthworms already have photoreceptors, birds already have scales and dolphins sometimes have hind limbs (I’ll be generous and combine this all into one big thing)

19) Mutations for novel features need not be selectively advantageous from the time of their appearance

20)  There are absolutes!  (Wrong again master of wrongness)

Of course IBIBS (AKA Ibigot) was also completely wrong about the quote mine he tried to get away with.  He never did admit to being wrong about that.  Funny thing, he never did admit to being wrong about any of the above things either.  Now I wonder why that is?

I can make a list of things he lied about.  I can also make a list of papers he has refused to read, including a list of the ones he claims to have read.  Of course those lists would be pretty long, so I'll wait for now.  No wonder he is reluctant to continue the "conversation".
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 08 2010,07:44

I wonder why IBelieve is so reluctant to answer our questions?  I mean, he refuses to explain why it is folly for us to assume that the Discovery Institute lied when they were quoting that scientist, even though the Discovery Institute deliberately rephrased the author's words to imply that she was saying that evolutionary development magically disproves evolution, and that her original words claimed something completely opposite?

On the other hand, the moment IBelieve gets back, he's going to make some condescending excuse about how he interrupted his precious internet trolling time because he needed to do some errand for his alleged real life where he makes gobs upon gobs of more money that stupid evil scientists.

And then he's going to change the subject, and then mock us because he is physically incapable of answering any of our questions truthfully.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 08 2010,08:25

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 08 2010,07:44)
I wonder why IBelieve is so reluctant to answer our questions?  I mean, he refuses to explain why it is folly for us to assume that the Discovery Institute lied when they were quoting that scientist, even though the Discovery Institute deliberately rephrased the author's words to imply that she was saying that evolutionary development magically disproves evolution, and that her original words claimed something completely opposite?

On the other hand, the moment IBelieve gets back, he's going to make some condescending excuse about how he interrupted his precious internet trolling time because he needed to do some errand for his alleged real life where he makes gobs upon gobs of more money that stupid evil scientists.

And then he's going to change the subject, and then mock us because he is physically incapable of answering any of our questions truthfully.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I bet the new response will be a link to a youtube video and a "how about that"

It's almost a shame.  I really want to have a conversation, but when someone is as unpenetrably thick as IBIG, it's very difficult.

I'm thinking that I'll start laying out the evidence for Common Descent and let IBIG have at it.

I'd also really like a conversation on Flood geology.

What's it to be IBIG?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 08 2010,17:20

I too would like to discuss 'flood geology' with IBIG but I fear it is impossible. He seems incapable of original thought. He only parrots what he's been fed and what he chooses to believe, blindly. He sees neither the consequences of his statements nor the illogic of his arguments, yet he calls himself a master of logic. He cannot reason.

He declares victory on the Bathroom Wall after clogging it to a standstill with his 'effluent', justifying his existence, and proving he is 'right'.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Nov. 08 2010,18:26

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 08 2010,18:20)
I too would like to discuss 'flood geology' with IBIG but I fear it is impossible. He seems incapable of original thought. He only parrots what he's been fed and what he chooses to believe, blindly. He sees neither the consequences of his statements nor the illogic of his arguments, yet he calls himself a master of logic. He cannot reason.

He declares victory on the Bathroom Wall after clogging it to a standstill with his 'effluent', justifying his existence, and proving he is 'right'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This guy sounds very much like an AFDave style TARD.

how utterly boring.

If you've seen one TARDbucket, you've seen them all.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 09 2010,07:46

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 08 2010,18:26)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 08 2010,18:20)
I too would like to discuss 'flood geology' with IBIG but I fear it is impossible. He seems incapable of original thought. He only parrots what he's been fed and what he chooses to believe, blindly. He sees neither the consequences of his statements nor the illogic of his arguments, yet he calls himself a master of logic. He cannot reason.

He declares victory on the Bathroom Wall after clogging it to a standstill with his 'effluent', justifying his existence, and proving he is 'right'.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This guy sounds very much like an AFDave style TARD.

how utterly boring.

If you've seen one TARDbucket, you've seen them all.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, he's not as good as AFDave was.  He doesn't have a hypothesis.  He pretends to know about science, but I think he knows enough to know that he has an untenable position.

Between that and discovery quotemines... blech.
Posted by: DSDS on Nov. 10 2010,08:41

Well it looks like we have finally rid ourselves of the blemish on the butt of humanity that was IBIBS (AKA Ibigot).  As he sinks slowly into the west and becomes nothing more than the fading memory of hopeless incompetence, we bid a not so fond farewell to the undisputed master of wrongness, the sultan of illogic, the pinnacle of ineptitude.  

Too bad, it would really be fun to play poker with a guy who believes that, if a pair of aces doesn't always win, then it never wins!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2010,08:59

I declare victory.  Since IBIG hasn't answered any of our questions, then his religion is incapable of doing so and he's a poopy-head.

I submit that IBIG is the best evidence that god does not exist.  Who would knowingly have someone like IBIG supporting them?

The biggest problem is how to reach the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 10 2010,11:31

Quote (OgreMkV @ Nov. 10 2010,08:59)
I declare victory.  Since IBIG hasn't answered any of our questions, then his religion is incapable of doing so and he's a poopy-head.

I submit that IBIG is the best evidence that god does not exist.  Who would knowingly have someone like IBIG supporting them?

The biggest problem is how to reach the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations.  I agree, you won.

Having read the last few pages of the Bathroom Wall I see that IBIG declared (and I paraphrase), "All you Pandas don't believe in Absolutes (like me), therefore you cannot say I am wrong.  Therefore you and your worldview are irrational, and I declare Victory."

Pathetic, mindless beetle.

What bothers me is the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power really are smart as foxes.  They know exactly what they are doing.

Heaven help us. (Dont worry, it's just a cultural saying.)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 10 2010,11:50

Quote (prong_hunter @ Nov. 10 2010,11:31)
What bothers me is the dumb-as-bricks religious fundies that are in positions of power really are smart as foxes.  They know exactly what they are doing.

Heaven help us. (Dont worry, it's just a cultural saying.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know, I honestly can't decide whether I agree with this or not.

Without knowing the actual person involved, it's very (impossible?) to tell if they have a world mastery plan and are just using religion as their opiate of the masses or if they really are true believers (that also believe they can do whatever they want and use a 'I'm a weak person' get-out-of-jail-free card).

I have a hard time believing that these people are that smart (in the first case) or that dumb (in the second case).

The only other option I can think of, is pure brain washing.  They have been conditioned and when combined with Morton's demon and Krueger-Dunning, we get characters like IBIG, AFDave, Floyd, and fundie Republicans.

I'm also at a loss, because I prefer to vote conservative because I am a Constitutionalist, but the theocratic world they invision scares the crap out of me.
Posted by: phhht on Nov. 10 2010,18:41

This will be of interest to those who followed Poofster's attempt to discuss eyes:

< http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010....th-eyes >
Posted by: midwifetoad on Nov. 10 2010,19:02

Quote (phhht @ Nov. 10 2010,18:41)
This will be of interest to those who followed Poofster's attempt to discuss eyes:

< http://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2010....th-eyes >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, but what good are they?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 10 2010,19:24

Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 09 2010,00:26)
[SNIP]

TARDbucket

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Terry Pratchett introduced me to the idea of a "crab bucket". Fill a bucket with crabs, if one crab tries to leave, another crab is sure to grab him with a pincer and prevent him. As the crabs in the bucket are due for slaughter, this guarantees no crab survives because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other crabs.

I am wondering if an analogy can be made. Let me see...

Fill a bucket with humans, if one human tries to leave, another human is sure to infuritate him with meaningless TARD and prevent him doing something productive. As the humans in the bucket rely on each other to be able to do anything productive, this guarantees no human can progress because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other humans.

Nah, couldn't be right could it?

Louis
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 10 2010,21:18

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,19:24)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 09 2010,00:26)
[SNIP]

TARDbucket

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Terry Pratchett introduced me to the idea of a "crab bucket". Fill a bucket with crabs, if one crab tries to leave, another crab is sure to grab him with a pincer and prevent him. As the crabs in the bucket are due for slaughter, this guarantees no crab survives because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other crabs.

I am wondering if an analogy can be made. Let me see...

Fill a bucket with humans, if one human tries to leave, another human is sure to infuritate him with meaningless TARD and prevent him doing something productive. As the humans in the bucket rely on each other to be able to do anything productive, this guarantees no human can progress because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other humans.

Nah, couldn't be right could it?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if you examine crabs a little more closer (while still remaining out of reach), the "crab bucket" analogy fails, if only because a crab is capable of, and somewhat willing to shed a limb when the circumstance arises.  (In fact, ask my mother about any of the times I've tried to recapture escaping crabs from their bucket at the local supermarket)

On the other hand, what with humans being mostly incapable of, and largely unwilling to shed limbs (overly gory horror films notwithstanding), and given humans' often deliberately stupid behavior is often exacerbated in a crowd and or tight spaces, the "crab bucket" analogy fits humans to a tee.
Posted by: Henry J on Nov. 11 2010,13:23

Ah, so humans are harder to disarm than crabs are?  :O
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 11 2010,13:32

Quote (Henry J @ Nov. 11 2010,13:23)
Ah, so humans are harder to disarm than crabs are?  :O
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


By arthropod standards, that is our fatal flaw, even.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 11 2010,13:38

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,03:18)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 10 2010,19:24)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Nov. 09 2010,00:26)
[SNIP]

TARDbucket

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Terry Pratchett introduced me to the idea of a "crab bucket". Fill a bucket with crabs, if one crab tries to leave, another crab is sure to grab him with a pincer and prevent him. As the crabs in the bucket are due for slaughter, this guarantees no crab survives because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other crabs.

I am wondering if an analogy can be made. Let me see...

Fill a bucket with humans, if one human tries to leave, another human is sure to infuritate him with meaningless TARD and prevent him doing something productive. As the humans in the bucket rely on each other to be able to do anything productive, this guarantees no human can progress because of the thoughtless selfishness of the other humans.

Nah, couldn't be right could it?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, if you examine crabs a little more closer (while still remaining out of reach), the "crab bucket" analogy fails, if only because a crab is capable of, and somewhat willing to shed a limb when the circumstance arises.  (In fact, ask my mother about any of the times I've tried to recapture escaping crabs from their bucket at the local supermarket)

On the other hand, what with humans being mostly incapable of, and largely unwilling to shed limbs (overly gory horror films notwithstanding), and given humans' often deliberately stupid behavior is often exacerbated in a crowd and or tight spaces, the "crab bucket" analogy fits humans to a tee.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sorry but we are discussing the vagueries of TARD and thus creationists. You have brought an argument which involves FACTS. Are you quite stark, raving mad?

I can only refer the honourable gentleman to this counter argument:



I refute you THUS!

Hurrah!

Louis
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 11 2010,16:49

Awwwww, did he leave?  And we were going to crown him King of the Winter Carnival, too...(/Val Kilmer)

Eh bien.

Perhaps Biggy is simply taking a little time off, hoping that absence will make us fonder of him.   :p  Given the paucity of the arguments that seemed to impress our missing friend, it would not surprise me to find that such a thought had bubbled to the surface of his cranial cauldron.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2010,17:30

Doubt it... he's a coward.  He also wants an audience.
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 11 2010,17:33

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Nov. 11 2010,17:34

Here's Ken Ham recent blogging about some evil secularist:

"Now when it comes to the origins issue, there are many chat rooms and forums that are set up for people to debate this topic. However, some secularists aren’t content with that, as they just want to attack and disrupt Christian ministries.

When we first started the www.IamNotAshamed.org website, over a few nights some secularists left thousands of messages—thousands. They were spamming our site to try to totally disrupt it. We had to ban them."



Think he mentioned the likes of IBIG?  Noooooooooooooo.

Hyprocrite - evil, wicked hypocrite.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 11 2010,17:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Hyprocrite - evil, wicked hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What?  Ken Ham might not have the integrity and intellectual honesty to act in good faith on such a matter?  I am shocked. Shocked, I tell you.

Why, next you'll tell me that Biggy blithely ignored a ton of meaningful, content-laden responses to his...oh, yeah.  But I bet he never lied!  Oh, wait.  Uhm.  Surely he didn't excuse all manner of horrible acts simply because someone...

Awww, maaaaan.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 11 2010,17:54

I know...

lightening finally hit him.  Or maybe his nose finally punched through the sheetrock and now he's stuck in his room.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 11 2010,18:44

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
[quote=Louis,Nov. 11 2010,13:38][/quote]
Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis
Posted by: phhht on Nov. 11 2010,20:11

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,18:44)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be cautious, Louis.  The crab recipe may have scorpions in it, or worse, pumpkinated vodka.
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 11 2010,20:46

Quote (phhht @ Nov. 11 2010,20:11)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,18:44)
 
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be cautious, Louis.  The crab recipe may have scorpions in it, or worse, pumpkinated vodka.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worse, far worse...
It has sherry and tapioca flour...
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 12 2010,04:22

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 12 2010,02:46)
Quote (phhht @ Nov. 11 2010,20:11)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,18:44)
   
Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 11 2010,23:33)
   
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 11 2010,13:38)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't trifle with me, Louis, I know a recipe for crab that's so delicious that, if you spilled any on yourself, you'd spontaneously cannibalize the bodypart it spattered on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Crab trifle? Doesn't sound that good. Either way, I'm not intimi...imint...inimt...afraid. I have a picture of Robocop on a unicorn and I'm willing to use it.

Don't push me, man. I've had some lager.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Be cautious, Louis.  The crab recipe may have scorpions in it, or worse, pumpkinated vodka.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Worse, far worse...
It has sherry and tapioca flour...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sherry? Don't talk to me about sherry. I had my < sherry monocle* > on last night....

Louis

*HT to Hughes who introduced me to this bloke. Most amusing.
Posted by: Stanton on Nov. 16 2010,07:52

So, is this it?

IBelieveInGod declares defeat by slinking off and disappearing?

Louis is a roaring drunk?
(not that that has anything to do with the situation)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 16 2010,08:34

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 16 2010,07:52)
So, is this it?

IBelieveInGod declares defeat by slinking off and disappearing?

Louis is a roaring drunk?
(not that that has anything to do with the situation)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I guess so.  

What's with these creobots these days?  No stamina at all.  Heck AFDAve repeated his crap here for 6 months, probably longer, but I'm scared to delve that deep into ATBC.

Ah well, back to Amazon.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 16 2010,09:50

Quote (Stanton @ Nov. 16 2010,13:52)
[SNIP]

Louis is a roaring drunk?

[SNIP]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do not roar! Vicious lies!

Anyway, rather boringly, I am back on the health kick until the New Year. There was a temporary aberration due to birthday and rugby and such like. As such, I have 5 or 6 weeks of no drinking booze and more eating lettuce to go.

So there. With knobs on. Woe betide any foolish creationist or woo peddler who crosses my path in this time. They will feel the full brunt of my tired and underfed wrath, which, since it is tired and underfed won't be volcanic, but it might reach weak sarcasm.

Louis
Posted by: skeptic reborn on Nov. 16 2010,23:29

Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die.  So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 17 2010,05:43

Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 17 2010,05:29)
Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die.  So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


[Captain Kirk Bad Acting Voice]

Must....Not....Make....Series....Of....Vicious....Jokes....Must....Attempt....Niceness....

Must....Not....Obliterate....Obliviot....As....Usual

[/Captain Kirk Bad Acting Voice]

Oh fuck it...

Dear Skeptic (Inappropriate moniker noted AGAIN),

Whilst I certainly cannot speak for everyone, and naturally welcome a diversity of views on the subject, here's my view.

1) If your suggestion for "semi-rational theist" is yourself, erm, how do I put this delicately? Self awareness isn't your strong point is it? The clue should lie in the fact that you were restricted to the Bathroom Wall after many trips round the same Mulberry Bush.* Despite everything anyone said, nice, nasty, evidence based, biased, unbiased etc you left with precisely the same erroneous views, making the same error strewn claims you entered with. The fact that you have had to morph identities (badly and blatantly, perhaps a point in your favour I suggest) to repost here suggests a certain unwillingness to learn. "RE"born? Hardly. Merely "STUB"born.

Why the powers that be at AtBC permit you to thumb your nose at their restrictions (lightly and justly applied in my view, after great tolerance of moderate to major ignorance on your part) is their own affair. I'll admit to being in two minds about it. I like freely allowing anyone to speak, but there comes a point where treating every person that walks through the doors as if they were a sane/rational/productive (delete as unapplicable) person is.....impractical. And that's me being diplomatic. There's a difference between being in favour of free speech as a principle and allowing every nutter free reign on limited platforms. The two are not necessarily in conflict.

2) If it is someone of your acquaintance who you think would be a fun/useful poster (as opposed to a chew toy**) then send 'em along. If they are a clone of you (or you in a slightly better disguise) then don't bother pretending they will emerge from any other box than the one marked "briefly interesting, blinkered chew toy".

3) Everyone, theist or atheist, agnostic or gnostic, any permutation of any viewpoint, worldview, politics, faith, lack thereof or anything else is semi-rational. It's the underlying fact of the human condition. This might have been pointed out to you before. Rationality is not something someone has or has not, it is something we can all only tend towards. Snide false dichotomies and divisions like this demonstrate quite clearly you have learned five eights of fuck all since you were restricted. Old Mulberry Bush circles will be made again.

YECs are not, per se, irrational. Partially so, like anyone else, but not necessarily globally so. They have (typically) been raised in a cultural environment where YEC is common, are unlikely to have been given any accurate information about the relevant science, and have generally been "told"/conditioned to fear questioning the very things their YECism is predicated upon. In those circumstances it is not irrational to be, or pretend to be, a YEC regardless of the rationality of the actual claims of specific YECisms. What these chaps and chappesses care about is manifestly not the science. That's no crime, billions of people across the world couldn't give a shit about the scientific data. However, when they advance their claims as science, or as being factual and in conflict with the current scientific consensus regarding consilient data, then it becomes problematic. That's when the line between holding a demonstrably (factually) irrational set of views for perfectly (personally) rational reasons blurs into  holding a demonstrably (factually) irrational set of views for potentially (personally) irrational reasons. Mulberry Bush circumnavigation number 3000.

4) Theism is not opposed to evolutionary biology (allegedly the topic of this board, although knob jokes and LOLcats are the main traffic, I take full responsibility for this and am justly ashamed). Some specific, narrow subsets of specific theistic religions define themselves out of sane consideration by opposing blatant, observable reality and attempting to hand wave away the inherent problems but this is far from a universal case. Amazingly, neither you, nor any "semi-rational theist", nor even pizza boys of Lenny's acquaintance speak for theists or theism. Deal with that. And that is a re-circle of yet another Mulberry Bush.

5) This is not a promising thread. Why the Fishers of TARD do what they do is their own affair, it's not for me to pass judgement, it's a question of personal taste. As far as it applies I think de gustibus non est disputandum is fine here. Sure a new participant is a good thing, a new chew toy is a fun thing for a while, but like a firework comprised of pure stupid, they burn out after a brief flare of glorious dumb. Call me an old pissy, cynical, curmudgeonly git (or worse if you like) but I predict these threads will miss vastly more than they hit. I also predict the sun will rise in the morning. Either way, the Fishers of TARD have the right idea and I don't. They are right that one has to heave a lot of bricks before one hits a duck though.

6) We don't require anything other than basic intellectual honesty. It'd be nice to have the occasional discussion with someone bordering on intellectually honest and capable. It's happened on this issue, but by fuck it's rare. Let me just assure you, you weren't a deliverer of such rare treasures, and unless something has radically changed you are unlikely to be so. Harsh? Yes. Fair? Probably not. Do I give a flying fuck? Difficult to say really. Yes and no.

Bloody interesting that you post with an obvious troll about our requirements/intentions and not, you know, any relevant bit of science/reasoning that would undermine this wicked rationalism and scientism we naughty atheists allegedly love isn't it though? Rather strongly suggests that, as I have said, you've learned nothing and are just being a stubborn prick, trying to be let back in where you are demonstrably unwanted.

Predicting your response (if you manage to vomit one forth), I'll use the words of Bill Hicks "Your denial is beneath you, and thanks to the use of hallucinogenic drugs, I see through you".

Hope this helps. Have a nice day.

Louis

* I am bored of Mulberry Bushes. I am bored of games. I am, in a word, bored. This makes me nasty. I dislike boredom. There are a few new people around who might enjoy/benefit from you/a clone of you/a suggested friend of yours, but I seriously doubt it. Weren't you setting up your own blog? How'd that turn out?

** Chew toys are fun and serve their purpose. What that purpose is is up to whoever wants to chew them. Personally, like most things I flatly refuse to take seriously, I find them best ignored or thoroughly taken the piss out of. I think this place needs yet another a chew toy like a hole in the head***. But then others think it needs another pun cascade or LOLcat like a hole in the head. We're both entitled to those views, let a thousand flowers bloom on this issue sayeth I. How judgementally or pissily those views might be expressed is perhaps a different matter.

*** Wouldn't it be nice for once, just once, to have someone actually capable and serious to play with? I've often thought of trying to take the creationist case for the simple reason that there is no way I could fuck it up as badly as most creationists do. I'd feel dirty doing the Gish Gallop and other rheotical gambits that creationists use to hide how shallow their claims really are though. Once you've seen the man behind the curtain it's really hard to pretend the show is real.
Posted by: Seversky on Nov. 17 2010,06:21

Good try but you've still got a ways to go before you match outoffocus or lostitentirely for longwindedness.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 17 2010,06:23

Quote (Seversky @ Nov. 17 2010,12:21)
Good try but you've still got a ways to go before you match outoffocus or lostitentirely for longwindedness.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Haha! I wish. Longwindeness is a problem for me, I admit. Not one I'm working on, but...

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2010,07:49

Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 16 2010,23:29)
Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die.  So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nah, it's only fun if they're irrational.

On the other hand, adult discussions, with a real back-and-forth dialogue... I don't know if I've ever had one of those...
Posted by: skeptic reborn on Nov. 17 2010,17:42

Ahhh, Louis, some things never change.  I must admit, though, I was amazed at the volume of insight you were able to divine from two simple sentences.  Might I suggest that your next career be that of fortune teller?  Who knows, if you continue to hone your considerable talent you may end up on Oprah.

As to the name change, as I stated before, I reject the senseless restriction.  I simply did not and still don't have time for childish games.  My purpose here is to simply offer an alternative to the current doldrums.  Over the last few years I noticed increasing boredom and decreased actual discussion on this board so in sympathy I hoped to cheer some members up.  Take it as you will.  I have no interest in insulting generalizations but if any wish to discuss, that's just fine with me.

As a final note, I was intrigued by your professed tolerance of YECs.  Odd that we would disagree in this area, but I consider holders of those beliefs as competely irrational and ignorance is a poor defense.

As to actual content, I wonder currently as to the actual view of evo-devo within the scientific community and as an explanatory theory and whether it fulfills the promise of initial claims.  It's not my field so I'm interested in contemporary views.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2010,18:45

As far as evo-devo, I'd suggest you get Dr. Carroll's book.  It's the best primer that I've seen for the lay person.  If you have something more specific than 'does it meet the promise', then I'll try to help.  But that's a little too generic.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Nov. 17 2010,18:56

Yes, by all means, do float one of the promising "initial claims of evo-devo" so we have a bit of an exposed edge or something to get purchase on.  A good chew toy has to have a ripped seam or frayed edge before it can be diligently torn open, exposing the internal wadding, and then shaken violently until the stuffing is spread all over the living room floor, and all that remains is an unrecognizable, slobbered, empty shell of its former self.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 17 2010,19:10

Seems like < we won't see SR again >, or at least until he finds a new sock...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Nov. 17 2010,19:24

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 17 2010,19:10)
Seems like < we won't see SR again >, or at least until he finds a new sock...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Fair enough.  I can't imagine being so inane to get banned from this forum, so he must be really nuts.

Hmmm... is that an example of ID (Intelligent Decisions)?
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 18 2010,06:33

Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 17 2010,23:42)
Ahhh, Louis, some things never change.  I must admit, though, I was amazed at the volume of insight you were able to divine from two simple sentences.  Might I suggest that your next career be that of fortune teller?  Who knows, if you continue to hone your considerable talent you may end up on Oprah.

As to the name change, as I stated before, I reject the senseless restriction.  I simply did not and still don't have time for childish games.  My purpose here is to simply offer an alternative to the current doldrums.  Over the last few years I noticed increasing boredom and decreased actual discussion on this board so in sympathy I hoped to cheer some members up.  Take it as you will.  I have no interest in insulting generalizations but if any wish to discuss, that's just fine with me.

As a final note, I was intrigued by your professed tolerance of YECs.  Odd that we would disagree in this area, but I consider holders of those beliefs as competely irrational and ignorance is a poor defense.

As to actual content, I wonder currently as to the actual view of evo-devo within the scientific community and as an explanatory theory and whether it fulfills the promise of initial claims.  It's not my field so I'm interested in contemporary views.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Prediction confirmed. (BTW I know that Obliviot will read this even if he can no longer respond)

I got nothing from "two simple sentences". I got a great deal from interacting with you over a far greater period of time and {cough} "correspondance" here. I learned during that time it's better to shut your avenues of bullshit down early. You aren't interested in exploration or discussion (unless, like I said, something has changed. Fairly drastically in my opinion), you're interested in rationalising your preconceived notions about a variety of topics, evolutionary biology amongst them. Again, this was demonstrated by YOUR own conduct, posts and conversations, not by any presumption on anyone else's part. Those interested can hunt out the relevant threads. It's all there in black and white.

Also, the utter arrogance of your conviction that you of all people are some kind of conversational panacea is astounding. Yet again, you came in with certain views, spent a long time and a lot of electrons "discussing" them and left with those exact same views. You spent an awfully large portion of that time attempting to rationalise those views. Evidence and reason (such as was presented) didn't move you, neither did mockery or abuse, neither did kindness or any attempt at actual debate by anyone. You're an intellectual lightweight on a mission to validate his prejudices and you got found out. Why the dribbling donkey fuck would anyone care about your self aggrandising nonsense?

The comment re: YECs is a great case in point. You utterly missed the distinction between personal irrationality and the epistemological irrationality of a specific claim or method. The methods you've used to defend your claims in the past are precisely as epistemologically irrational as those the YECs use to defend their claims. The fact that your claims are ostensibly less in conflict with observable reality (less "irrational") than theirs is of interest only to you. It's a nice little narrative you can use to tell yourself that you are less personally irrational than they are. Well done you. The distinction here is between method of defense and the nature of the claim. I hope that's not too complex for you.

Oh and, as usual, reading for even basic comprehension escapes you, my "defense" of YECs was not based only on their ignorance. Ignorance is a factor but hardly the only one. And as is usual for shallow thinkers, you equate "understanding/explaining" with "justification/excusing". I think what YECs believe is understandable and explicable, I think how they defend it is also understandable and explicable. That doesn't justify what they believe or how they defend it. It also doesn't justify my pointing the finger and claiming these folks are horribly irrational, it's independent of both positions. Is does not equate to ought.

What does act as justification for condeming them (if that's what you're interested in, and it isn't what *I'm* interested in, even if I do it on occasion) is asking them about their views on honesty and morality and demonstrating that their defense of their claims, their chosen methodology, is at odds with their own claimed morals. It's possible to show the incoherent and logically fallacious nature of their own positions AFTER they claim to have a coherent and logically sound position, and to use their own moral/ethical standards as the measure by which they are to be judged. This is a distinction you have habitually missed in the past and miss now.

Back to denialism, the method here is what matters. A fact you have yet to understand, and let's be blunt there was an enormous thread where many people wasted a great deal of their time trying to get you to understand this. Mulberry bushes AGAIN. The point here is that it isn't simply the content of the claims being defended that matters, the methods used to defend them matters. Why "denialism" is a topic of study worth its own effort is because the same methods are used whether the topic is a tobacco company trying to deny the adverse effects of smoking, a Holocaust denier trying to hand wave away the atrocities of the Third Reich, an anti-evolution creationist trying to insert their deity into a classroom, a climate change denialist lobbying for no restrictions on emissions, a psychic trying to justify their claimed abilities, or a homeopath appealing to excerable testimonials to shore up their claims of efficacy, and many more examples from all realms of human endeavour. Why you are a worthless person to engage with on any issue is not because your claims are more or less irrational than those of a flat earther, the content is pretty irrelevant. It's because your methods of defending your claims are those of a dyed in the wool denialist.

I mean seriously, even your "offer of discussing actual content" is basically a request for someone to do your homwork for you. Pick a fucking book up. You claim to be a chemist, you should know something about how to search the literature. FInd a popular book or review article and work from there. It's what we ALL have to do, there's basically no shortcut to learning no matter how much we might wish there were. Why the hell would anyone who has encountered you here view your "request for substance" as anything other than a throwaway lazy self justification?

Lastly, you "reject the senseless restriction". Hahahahahahaha. Really? No time for childish games? REALLY? All you have ever done here is perform a series of childish games. You were restricted from posting here (IIRC you can post to the BW as Skeptic) because after years of effort you'd learned sweet fuck all! If that's not a childish game, nothing is. You are, quite blatantly, claiming that the owner of this website (Wes, and perhaps some other PT folks AFAIK) do not have the right to police a place they own and operate as they see fit. Erm, really? Are you that fucking stupid, blinkered and arrogant? Oh wait...I know the answer to that: Yes. We are all here at their sufferance...perhaps some of us cause more suffering than others! There is a whole internet out there for you to post on, just like there is a whole world out there for you to take a shit in. The fact that someone objects to you shitting on their living room carpet is no more a senseless restriction than them objecting that you post on a forum they own and operate. Fuck me but your sense of arrogant entitlement is nauseating.

Take my advice and stay gone. Find some other place to annoy people.

Louis
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 18 2010,09:29

Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 18 2010,10:26

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Nov. 18 2010,11:13

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,16:26)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't mastered symphony-for-fart-sounds enough yet to do Louis any justice.
Posted by: JohnW on Nov. 18 2010,11:35

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 18 2010,09:13)
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,16:26)
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't mastered symphony-for-fart-sounds enough yet to do Louis any justice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's this guy at a Texas bible school who can help you with that...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Nov. 18 2010,12:53

Bravo, Louis!

Imma put this in a file next to Dr. Lenski's retort to a certain other knucklehead who was "just askin' questions, man" as an example of relative diplomacy in the face of unrelenting willful ignorance.

Alas, I would have used far more of Brother William's seven classic four letter words and thus fueled someone's Worm Bucket*.

The MadPanda, FCD



* in reference to a campground song that goes something like 'nobody likes me / everybody hates me / I'm going to the garden / to eat worms'
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 18 2010,14:27

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Nov. 18 2010,18:53)
Bravo, Louis!

Imma put this in a file next to Dr. Lenski's retort to a certain other knucklehead who was "just askin' questions, man" as an example of relative diplomacy in the face of unrelenting willful ignorance.

Alas, I would have used far more of Brother William's seven classic four letter words and thus fueled someone's Worm Bucket*.

The MadPanda, FCD



* in reference to a campground song that goes something like 'nobody likes me / everybody hates me / I'm going to the garden / to eat worms'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Pfffffff hahahahaha.

I'm not laughing at you just at the idea that anything I have done thus far is in the same ball park as Lenski's efforts. Be it scientific or diplomatic! I fantasise about acheiving something on the order of what he and his group have done, or indeed being as diplomatic as he was to Schafly.

That was very kind of you, extremely generous, totally unnecessary and woefully inaccurate. Thanks very much! ;-)

Louis
Posted by: Quack on Nov. 18 2010,14:48

Modesty is supposed to be a virtue. There are situations in my life where I believe I should have been a little less virtuous, if that is the operative sense of virtue. I am no linguist.
Posted by: Robin on Nov. 18 2010,14:49

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,06:33)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Prediction confirmed.

(snipped- no repeat necessary)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I am SO getting this framed, Louis! Best read evah! Three pints on me and I'll pay for a lorry to take you home! Maybe even a taxi!

Ahh...must go wipe my eyes now... :D
Posted by: fnxtr on Nov. 18 2010,22:24

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 18 2010,09:13)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,16:26)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't mastered symphony-for-fart-sounds enough yet to do Louis any justice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Well when you're done out-humbling one another... seriously: "reject the senseless restriction"... "No time for childish games"..."Pick a fucking book up"

Hawkwind would snap up this lyrical gold in a heartbeat.
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 19 2010,05:02

Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 19 2010,04:24)
Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Nov. 18 2010,09:13)
 
Quote (Louis @ Nov. 18 2010,16:26)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Nov. 18 2010,15:29)
Schroedinger's Dog should set that to music, Louis. :-)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wouldn't poison SD's great music with my annoyance at Obliviot's bullshit. :-)

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I haven't mastered symphony-for-fart-sounds enough yet to do Louis any justice.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




Well when you're done out-humbling one another... seriously: "reject the senseless restriction"... "No time for childish games"..."Pick a fucking book up"

Hawkwind would snap up this lyrical gold in a heartbeat.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Except that I am far more humble than, well, anyone. In fact I'm so humble that if you look in the dictionary next to "humility" you'll see my photo. A small, modest photo that doesn't draw attention to itself of course.

Louis
Posted by: J-Dog on Nov. 19 2010,07:10

And with the Prize Money that comes with yourWinning Teh Internets Nobel, you can finally open that Home For Wayward Nymphomaniacs!

(Hint:  But don't piss off The Hitch)

edited for sp
Posted by: Louis on Nov. 19 2010,07:27

Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 19 2010,13:10)
And with the Prize Money that comes with yourWinning Teh Internets Nobel, you can finally open that Home For Wayward Nymphomaniacs!

(Hint:  But don't piss off The Hitch)

edited for sp
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only commited nymphomaniacs will be admitted. Surely wayward nymphomaniacs have strayed from the true path and become celibate?

I have a location for the centre picked out in the beautiful, relaxing, English countryside, near the coast for beach access during the summer*. I need job applications from people interested in becoming testers. Only the highest quality nymphomaniacs are to be admitted, rigorous testing standards will be applied.

Interviews begin on Monday, the end of the queue for applicants is currently in Moscow and working its way east at alarming speed.

Louis

*Actual summer may differ from that shown on the box.
Posted by: phhht on Dec. 01 2010,22:44

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 19 2010,07:27)
 
Quote (J-Dog @ Nov. 19 2010,13:10)
And with the Prize Money that comes with yourWinning Teh Internets Nobel, you can finally open that Home For Wayward Nymphomaniacs!

(Hint:  But don't piss off The Hitch)

edited for sp
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Only commited nymphomaniacs will be admitted. Surely wayward nymphomaniacs have strayed from the true path and become celibate?

I have a location for the centre picked out in the beautiful, relaxing, English countryside, near the coast for beach access during the summer*. I need job applications from people interested in becoming testers. Only the highest quality nymphomaniacs are to be admitted, rigorous testing standards will be applied.

Interviews begin on Monday, the end of the queue for applicants is currently in Moscow and working its way east at alarming speed.

Louis

*Actual summer may differ from that shown on the box.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I can mend the break of day, heal a broken heart, and provide temporary relief to nymphomaniacs.

                                       -- Jerry Lee Lewis
Posted by: BWE on Dec. 04 2010,06:22

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Nov. 04 2010,16:21)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Nov. 04 2010,18:12)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Are there any square circles?:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Do you know why the answer to this question is what it is?  

Do you understand why this is not an intelligent question to ask?

Are you going to engage in any conversation here with the intellectual honesty your entire discourse from the Bathroom Wall lacked?


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm asking to see if you believe in absolutes or not. If there were no such thing as a square circle, then that would be an example of one absolute now wouldn't it.

Now let me ask you this, is the earth really a cube?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe in absolutes. In fact, I'm having a debate on another forum (with a forum member here I believe) where I am supporting the statement: There is a perfect truth beyonh humanity's ability to attain. And It looks like I might have the upper hand at the moment.

Here is the link if you want to read it. I think one day it will hold a featured position in creationists arguments.

Sorry to be a drive by creationist here. :)

< http://talkrational.org/showthread.php?t=33218 >
Posted by: BWE on Dec. 04 2010,06:38

Quote (Louis @ Nov. 17 2010,03:43)
Quote (skeptic reborn @ Nov. 17 2010,05:29)
Hate to let a potentially promising thread just whimper and die.  So, do you guys require an irrational YECist to kick around or would a semi-rational theist do?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Hi Skeptic. Thanks for the best thread ever here for me anyway.
Quote (louis]
* I am bored of Mulberry Bushes. I am bored of games. I am @ in a word, bored. This makes me nasty. I dislike boredom. There are a few new people around who might enjoy/benefit from you/a clone of you/a suggested friend of yours, but I seriously doubt it. Weren't you setting up your own blog? How'd that turn out?
[/quote)
I got bored and upped the anti. How are you doing these days with the added weight?

[quote=loius]
*** Wouldn't it be nice for once, just once, to have someone actually capable and serious to play with? I've often thought of trying to take the creationist case for the simple reason that there is no way I could fuck it up as badly as most creationists do. I'd feel dirty doing the Gish Gallop and other rheotical gambits that creationists use to hide how shallow their claims really are though. Once you've seen the man behind the curtain it's really hard to pretend the show is real.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I moved on from creationists. (mostly). I went out and started searching the alternate physics theories and their proponents. I have a pretty good bag of woo now and I'm sorting out the fragile stuff by throwing it against scientists or otherwise bright people in debate-like formats. Quite a bit of it is serviceable enough. My rule is that I must concede lost points but I don't lose too many. Soon I will have a basket of indestructible woo.

I owe it to you, RBill and skeptic. Lenny really I guess. But I'd love to send you a copy of the manuscript to edit/read once work let's up on me for the holidays. Reciprocating bill too.

At any rate, it really biols down to the semi rational part you mentioned in this post but which i snipped. :)
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 04 2010,22:04

Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2010,07:38)
I owe it to you, RBill and skeptic. Lenny really I guess. But I'd love to send you a copy of the manuscript to edit/read once work let's up on me for the holidays. Reciprocating bill too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which I gather harkens back to discussions a couple years back.

Linky?
Posted by: BWE on Dec. 05 2010,02:05

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Dec. 04 2010,20:04)
Quote (BWE @ Dec. 04 2010,07:38)
I owe it to you, RBill and skeptic. Lenny really I guess. But I'd love to send you a copy of the manuscript to edit/read once work let's up on me for the holidays. Reciprocating bill too.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which I gather harkens back to discussions a couple years back.

Linky?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, it hearkens back a little further, but drastically changed directions after a thread started by louis called something close to "no reason for a rift between science and religion? Skeptic has a chance to prove his claim." I don't have it bookmarked on this machine but it's easy to search I think. It was the thread where Lenny quit.

I'm not sure if there was a specific post or even specific idea in it that changed the direction of my thinking. It was my approach to the Gould's idea of non-overlapping magisterial domains that changed and I don't recall the topic being explicitly discussed (although we were talking about many of the same elements.). I'd never considered some of the overlaps that turn out to be plenty evident when we look,

But after a few days of thinking about it, my internal  paradigm shifted as I began to blur a bunch of what used to be discrete ideas. Before that discussion, I'd never tried to imagine how many sacred cows were grazing covertly in each others' magesteria...  A few weeks after it ended, I tried. I found thwm all in the same pasture.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Dec. 05 2010,06:37

< Here > is that discussion, from 8/07 through 12/07.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 13 2010,09:13

I don't get it.  This clown fills up 400+ pages at PT and can't even get to eight here?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Dec. 13 2010,21:28

I can't believe it either.

I think he's morphed into flipper, or Kris, or AMDG, or darwinism.dogbarf()

I don't know, but I think after 400 pages he just can't keep his mouth shut.

What do you think?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 19 2010,16:58

Biggy just resurfaced over on Panda's Thumb, and of course he claims he took a little vacation from that site because the regulars were so mean to him (read: he ran away because he got his hide well tanned).

Lay you eight to five he won't bother to show up here.

Of course, I'm certainly not helping, since I greet him point blank with an honest assessment of his intellectual capacity... :p


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 19 2010,17:14

In my opinion, Mad, your assessment of IBelieve's intellect is severely sugarcoated.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 19 2010,17:19

Frankly?

Yes.  Yes, it is.  With sprinkles, even.

I admit it openly.  Just as I have been pulling my punches with another moron, not that they seems to appreciate the extra benefit of the doubt I've given them.

Biggy does not deserve the full eloquence of what wordsmithery I can summon when properly motivated.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 19 2010,18:58

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,17:19)
Frankly?

Yes.  Yes, it is.  With sprinkles, even.

I admit it openly.  Just as I have been pulling my punches with another moron, not that they seems to appreciate the extra benefit of the doubt I've given them.

Biggy does not deserve the full eloquence of what wordsmithery I can summon when properly motivated.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean like the time you killed a guy in a barfight with nothing but a bawdy limerick?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 19 2010,19:08

That was actually a misquote: it wasn't a dirty limerick.

I was quoting Cyrano de Bergerac at length, and the poor drunken fool thought to come after me with a blunt sonnet in the Italian vein.  So of course I had to resort to an unfortunate excess of e e cummings in self defense.  Nobody was killed, but the other fellow had to have fifteen stitches.

Since, at the time, I was dating someone who liked to improvise Gilbert and Sullivan patter-songs, it could have been far worse.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 19 2010,21:30

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,19:08)
That was actually a misquote: it wasn't a dirty limerick.

I was quoting Cyrano de Bergerac at length, and the poor drunken fool thought to come after me with a blunt sonnet in the Italian vein.  So of course I had to resort to an unfortunate excess of e e cummings in self defense.  Nobody was killed, but the other fellow had to have fifteen stitches.

Since, at the time, I was dating someone who liked to improvise Gilbert and Sullivan patter-songs, it could have been far worse.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sounds suspiciously similar to what Gilda Radner went through on the Muppets Show.

Especially the part where she was forced to join forces with a snotty, 7 foot carrot to tackle "Pirates of Penzance"
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 19 2010,22:27

If you want a rich field of semi-literate creationists, register for the < "The Shreveport Times" >.

Delightful southern hospitality.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 19 2010,22:51

Stanton, I must regrettably admit that I missed that episode, and also that my curiosity is piqued.  I shall have to go a-hunting for it, now.  Or just put Muppet Show DVDs on my wish list.

IRT our dear friend with the reading comprehension problem, Biggy, I have a feeling that he'll take my jesting proposal to start running practical experiments in maleficium seriously.  Unfortunately, even though it would be for posterity, I doubt he'd honestly report any little aches, pains, or mishaps that follow...   :D

Dumber than advertised, that boy.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Amadan on Dec. 20 2010,04:31

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 20 2010,01:08)
So of course I had to resort to an unfortunate excess of e e cummings in self defense.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is hardly a capital offence.
Posted by: J-Dog on Dec. 20 2010,07:49

Quote (Amadan @ Dec. 20 2010,04:31)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Dec. 20 2010,01:08)
So of course I had to resort to an unfortunate excess of e e cummings in self defense.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That is hardly a capital offence.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But it could lead to bigger things...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 20 2010,08:02

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 19 2010,22:51)
Stanton, I must regrettably admit that I missed that episode, and also that my curiosity is piqued.  I shall have to go a-hunting for it, now.  Or just put Muppet Show DVDs on my wish list.

IRT our dear friend with the reading comprehension problem, Biggy, I have a feeling that he'll take my jesting proposal to start running practical experiments in maleficium seriously.  Unfortunately, even though it would be for posterity, I doubt he'd honestly report any little aches, pains, or mishaps that follow...   :D

Dumber than advertised, that boy.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just remind Biggy that he has a thread here that he cowardly ran out on and then ignore him.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 20 2010,11:13

Just so!  Not that he'll have the guts to come over here, the poltroon...it's too scary!  We've read, like, books and stuff!

:p


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 20 2010,13:10

Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, < Gilda's Fiasco >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 20 2010,13:39

Oh yeah.  I forgot that it's the end of the semester (though this is very late... maybe quarter system?) and Dembski's clueless babies need to go preach to the heathens.

Don't they have any creativity?  "Stephen Meyer"?  Someone ought to e-mail Meyer and let him know he's being an idiot on PT.

Now that would be a laugh riot.

Meyer: Dude, at least tell your kids to use their own names or something when the attack a science forum.

Dembski: Are you kidding, I can't even get them to remember their own names.  These kids are dumb... must be the poor education here in the States.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 20 2010,15:18

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 20 2010,13:10)
Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, < Gilda's Fiasco >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Thanks, Stanton!  A little Muppetry always makes my day brighter.  Even better than listening to Biggy whimper like a flensed spleen.

Just call me MP, please  :)   And no, nobody ever calls me MISTER Panda.
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 20 2010,20:18

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 20 2010,15:18)
Just call me MP, please  :)   And no, nobody ever calls me MISTER Panda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We'll have to wait for that to get tacky, then.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 21 2010,08:54

From the Behe Paper thread on PT;

from Kris


---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It’s only absurd to people who think they know everything but can’t answer the questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Every question that you or Colin has asked has been asnwered.  Whether you like or approve of the answer or not, is not our problem.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And Colin didn’t bring up the comparison to speaking English. He also didn’t ask what sounds or language the first insects made or spoke.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are not getting it, and neither did Colin.  You cannot, no linguist can, point to a specific person, or a specific place, or a specific time and say "That is the first instance of English."  

Heck, without significant post graduate training it's almost impossible to read English writing or 400 years ago (say Chaucher for example).  Is that, therefore not English?  

Do you see the problem, English as a language is not fixed.  It is a continuum of changes throughout time and space (American English vs. British English for example).  Truly, when we say "English" or "insect" normally, we mean what is right now, not the continuum of all versions since there was anything that might be considered English or insects.

The best method for discussing these types of things is cladistics.

Personally, I also find it intellectually offensive, when someone comes in with a non-sensical 'gotcha' question, when merely typing that question into google would result in an answer much more easily than what we provide.

In 15 years of doing this, I have yet to run across a true 'gotcha' question from a creationist.

I do have, however, plenty of gotcha questions for creationists... depending on the flavor of their personal beliefs.  And that's exactly because all creationism (including ID) is based entirely on belief, not reality.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You guys use every trick in the book to side-step answering legitimate questions, just like you accuse the creationists of doing. You think you’re really different from them but you’re not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There were no sidesteps.  Again, the fact that you don't like the asnwer you get doesn't mean it wasn't answered or the answer given is wrong.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Even though science has some strong evidence or proof of some things, that doesn’t mean it (or you) have all the answers or even any evidence in many cases.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And the only people that say this are creationists.  The ultimate strawman.  

The only reason you think we have all the answers is because your 'gotcha' questions are so pathetic that a guy with a bachelor's degree in Earth Science can handily defeat them.

[QUOTE}
There are lots of things beyond what you or anyone else on Earth can figure out right now, and maybe forever. When you (or anyone else) come across as knowing everything about everything you just look like an arrogant, pompous fool. Yeah, you guys accuse the creationists of that too, and it certainly fits them in some cases, but it also fits most of you too.
[/QUOTE]

And no one disagrees with this point, except the pompus fool bit.

Do you honestly think that ANYTHING you have said or any questions you have asked (or Colin asked) are original in any way shape or form?  This website is full of people who have arguing with creationists for DECADES.

You are not unique.



IBIG



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Abiogenesis isn’t being tested! Science is attempting to actually CREATE life, which would be an example of CREATION, because it would demonstrate that intelligence was needed to create life. I don’t believe that science will ever create life though.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's truly hillarious how creationists think that anything done in a lab is 'designed'.  They truly don't understand simple concepts like chemistry.

Batteries are designed, it's true.  However, the chemical reactions that produce the electricty are not designed.  That chemical reaction will occur, even if the material is found lumped together in the wild with no intelligent agent EVER having been involved (note, I don't say this is likely to happen, I'm just saying that the chemical reaction WILL happen.)

In the same way, the chemical reactions that form the basis for the many hypotheses of abiogenesis happen.  If they are chemically possible, then they WILL happen under the proper conditions.  If we replicate the conditions of primitive Earth in the lab, then certain chemical reactions happen.  If they happen in the lab, then they happened, when (and if) the Earth had those conditions.

It's called Chemistry, and you better hope it always works that way.  Otherwise YOU won't work (or anything else in our world for that matter).

As far as creating life in the lab? Perhaps you are familier with the succesful attempts to use a hand made genome to run a bacterial cell?

Please note that the 'creating life' in the lab is a completely seperate practice from abiogensis.  Just because humans can do something doesn't mean that all instances of that event were designed by something.

I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.

I know you won't see the difference, because you have epically huge ideological blinders on, but, again, that's not my problem.  

Which reminds me, IBIG, I still don't really know why you have those ideological blinders.  You obviously (over the last 6 months of dealing with you) don't actually believe in the Bible and what it says, why are you a Christian anyway?
Posted by: Badger3k on Dec. 21 2010,10:30

OgreMkV - I like to refer to the < natural nuclear reactors > when they try that "designed" argument re:OOL.  

other refs: < Gizmodo - "This is a natural nuclear reactor" >

< Comparison of Oklo w/modern reactors (pdf) >

edited to add spaces around first link
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 21 2010,11:13

Well, now that Kris is being all Internet Tough Guy and answering comments aimed at Biggy (apparently on Biggy's behalf?) and squealing like a little brat who's been told that he can't have his dessert until after the liver and onions...

It's circumstantial, but Kris and Biggy seem to be each other's muppets*.  The wankery is getting deep, and in spite of Our Cybertank's firm invitation for them to come over here and face a more prepared audience, I have a deep suspicion that they'll both pull a Sir Robin while declaring victory.

(* Apologies to Kermit and associates for the unfortunate imagery, but I'm not feeling kind today.)

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Doc Bill on Dec. 21 2010,13:08



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Exactly right!

I can make bubbles in the bathtub and it doesn't prove that the early atmosphere was composed of hydrogen sulfide and methane.
Posted by: Robin on Dec. 21 2010,15:36

[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 21 2010,08:54][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Feh...waves are just God rockin' back and forth in the Pacific. For whatever reason, he rocks harder when the moon is new and full...
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 21 2010,18:38

Quote (Robin @ Dec. 21 2010,15:36)
[quote=OgreMkV,Dec. 21 2010,08:54][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Feh...waves are just God rockin' back and forth in the Pacific. For whatever reason, he rocks harder when the moon is new and full...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the ocean's rockin', don't come knockin'?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 21 2010,19:19

Quote (Kris @ on the Behe Thread)
That love, compassion, and justice from the six sources are just pouring out of you, Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocrite. LMAO!!

Oh well, what can one expect from someone who modifies their morals and belief system to fit whatever they want to get away with?

Ya know, you sound a lot like a catholic pedophile or a politician.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ring any bells?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 21 2010,20:00

Wow, another Christian accusing people of being evil just cause they think his God is nuts.
Posted by: sledgehammer on Dec. 21 2010,21:07

Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 21 2010,17:19)
 
Quote (Kris @ on the Behe Thread)
That love, compassion, and justice from the six sources are just pouring out of you, Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocrite. LMAO!!

Oh well, what can one expect from someone who modifies their morals and belief system to fit whatever they want to get away with?

Ya know, you sound a lot like a catholic pedophile or a politician.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ring any bells?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The double spacing between sentences is another dead giveaway.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 21 2010,22:43

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 20 2010,13:10)
Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, < Gilda's Fiasco >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have now seen the seven foot tall talking Carrot of Penzance and...it was, in a nutshell, more intellectually fulfilling and enjoyable than anything Biggy (or Steve P., or Kris, or FL, or...) has ever typed over at PT.


Thanks for the link, Stanton!  Quite enjoyable.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 22 2010,00:41

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 21 2010,22:43)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 20 2010,13:10)
Well, I reminded the nitwit of his cowardliness here, and, Mad, < Gilda's Fiasco >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have now seen the seven foot tall talking Carrot of Penzance and...it was, in a nutshell, more intellectually fulfilling and enjoyable than anything Biggy (or Steve P., or Kris, or FL, or...) has ever typed over at PT.


Thanks for the link, Stanton!  Quite enjoyable.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, you root for anything.  What about the time you started up that torrid affair with that parsnip?
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 22 2010,11:00

Some alternative reading for IBIG or Kris.  Fascinating to curious and investigative minds. Stuff by people that I dare say beats 'even' the Isaac Newton of Information theory, William Dembski. (Being a poor typist, I found I had actually typed Silliam but I did of course rectify that.)
< Alan Turing: >
< Ilya Prigogine: >
< Boris Belousov: >
And then some more food for thought:
< Mobile slime: >
< Organizing chaos: >

While creationism is static, science makes new, fascinating and intriguing discoveries every day. The end of science and the edge of evolution is nowhere in sight...

The world isn't quite the 'mindless' mechanistic collection of matter that creationists have set their mind on believing. Or believing in. No wonder they get it all wrong.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Dec. 22 2010,11:35

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 21 2010,08:54)
From the Behe Paper thread on PT;

from Kris
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

It’s only absurd to people who think they know everything but can’t answer the questions.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Every question that you or Colin has asked has been asnwered.  Whether you like or approve of the answer or not, is not our problem.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And Colin didn’t bring up the comparison to speaking English. He also didn’t ask what sounds or language the first insects made or spoke.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You are not getting it, and neither did Colin.  You cannot, no linguist can, point to a specific person, or a specific place, or a specific time and say "That is the first instance of English."  

Heck, without significant post graduate training it's almost impossible to read English writing or 400 years ago (say Chaucher for example).  Is that, therefore not English?  

Do you see the problem, English as a language is not fixed.  It is a continuum of changes throughout time and space (American English vs. British English for example).  Truly, when we say "English" or "insect" normally, we mean what is right now, not the continuum of all versions since there was anything that might be considered English or insects.

The best method for discussing these types of things is cladistics.

Personally, I also find it intellectually offensive, when someone comes in with a non-sensical 'gotcha' question, when merely typing that question into google would result in an answer much more easily than what we provide.

In 15 years of doing this, I have yet to run across a true 'gotcha' question from a creationist.

I do have, however, plenty of gotcha questions for creationists... depending on the flavor of their personal beliefs.  And that's exactly because all creationism (including ID) is based entirely on belief, not reality.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

You guys use every trick in the book to side-step answering legitimate questions, just like you accuse the creationists of doing. You think you’re really different from them but you’re not.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



There were no sidesteps.  Again, the fact that you don't like the asnwer you get doesn't mean it wasn't answered or the answer given is wrong.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Even though science has some strong evidence or proof of some things, that doesn’t mean it (or you) have all the answers or even any evidence in many cases.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And the only people that say this are creationists.  The ultimate strawman.  

The only reason you think we have all the answers is because your 'gotcha' questions are so pathetic that a guy with a bachelor's degree in Earth Science can handily defeat them.

[QUOTE}
There are lots of things beyond what you or anyone else on Earth can figure out right now, and maybe forever. When you (or anyone else) come across as knowing everything about everything you just look like an arrogant, pompous fool. Yeah, you guys accuse the creationists of that too, and it certainly fits them in some cases, but it also fits most of you too.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



And no one disagrees with this point, except the pompus fool bit.

Do you honestly think that ANYTHING you have said or any questions you have asked (or Colin asked) are original in any way shape or form?  This website is full of people who have arguing with creationists for DECADES.

You are not unique.



IBIG

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Abiogenesis isn’t being tested! Science is attempting to actually CREATE life, which would be an example of CREATION, because it would demonstrate that intelligence was needed to create life. I don’t believe that science will ever create life though.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's truly hillarious how creationists think that anything done in a lab is 'designed'.  They truly don't understand simple concepts like chemistry.

Batteries are designed, it's true.  However, the chemical reactions that produce the electricty are not designed.  That chemical reaction will occur, even if the material is found lumped together in the wild with no intelligent agent EVER having been involved (note, I don't say this is likely to happen, I'm just saying that the chemical reaction WILL happen.)

In the same way, the chemical reactions that form the basis for the many hypotheses of abiogenesis happen.  If they are chemically possible, then they WILL happen under the proper conditions.  If we replicate the conditions of primitive Earth in the lab, then certain chemical reactions happen.  If they happen in the lab, then they happened, when (and if) the Earth had those conditions.

It's called Chemistry, and you better hope it always works that way.  Otherwise YOU won't work (or anything else in our world for that matter).

As far as creating life in the lab? Perhaps you are familier with the succesful attempts to use a hand made genome to run a bacterial cell?

Please note that the 'creating life' in the lab is a completely seperate practice from abiogensis.  Just because humans can do something doesn't mean that all instances of that event were designed by something.

I can make a wave in the bathtub, it doesn't mean that every wave in the ocean is designed.

I know you won't see the difference, because you have epically huge ideological blinders on, but, again, that's not my problem.  

Which reminds me, IBIG, I still don't really know why you have those ideological blinders.  You obviously (over the last 6 months of dealing with you) don't actually believe in the Bible and what it says, why are you a Christian anyway?[/quote]
Don't tell me that scientists are attempting to replicate the conditions of ancient earth and are watching for Abiogenesis to occur, so they are going to wait a billion years for it to happen? If you think that what is done in a lab isn't designed then let me ask you this. Who decides what the chemical makeup and conditions ie. temperatures, if electricity is used, etc... of these Abiogenesis experiments? Intelligent Life does right? No one knows what the actual conditions, temperatures, etc... were on earth at the moment  Abigenesis supposedly occurred.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 22 2010,12:12

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 22 2010,11:35)
No one knows what the actual conditions, temperatures, etc... were on earth at the moment  Abigenesis supposedly occurred.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Assumption 1: The temperature of the earth at the moment " Abigenesis supposedly occurred" < the temperature of molten rock. I.E Lava.

Would you agree or disagree with that assumption?

I.E. that the earth was not a lava wasteland at the time of "Abigenesis*"?

If so, we can take if from there I think. Very slowly, to be sure. But at least we'll agree on something?

BTW, preview your posts before posting, you forgot to include a quote box.

* Was that not a Star Trek film?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 22 2010,12:12

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 22 2010,00:41)
Oh, you root for anything.  What about the time you started up that torrid affair with that parsnip?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't turnip any pics, it didn't happen.

The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: JohnW on Dec. 22 2010,12:47

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 22 2010,10:12)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 22 2010,00:41)
Oh, you root for anything.  What about the time you started up that torrid affair with that parsnip?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you can't turnip any pics, it didn't happen.

The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's on Youtuber.
Posted by: Michael_Behe on Dec. 22 2010,14:28

1. natural selection can destroy
2. therefore it can build

this is a fallacy
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Dec. 22 2010,14:33

Quote (Michael_Behe @ Dec. 22 2010,14:28)
1. natural selection can destroy
2. therefore it can build

this is a fallacy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Duh, liar.

if 1. had included the word "only" AND you'd proven it, you might have a point. Even "your" latest paper showed several examples of increasing complexity. Seems you don't even know what the people you are blindly following are saying.
Posted by: Robin on Dec. 22 2010,14:49

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Dec. 22 2010,14:33)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Michael_Behe @ Dec. 22 2010,14:28)
1. natural selection can destroy
2. therefore it can build

this is a fallacy
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Duh, liar.

if 1. had included the word "only" AND you'd proven it, you might have a point. Even "your" latest paper showed several examples of increasing complexity. Seems you don't even know what the people you are blindly following are saying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Just an FYI, Old Man, but "Michael_Behe" is Legion, for he is many. That is to say that the name is one of several sock monikers that some tard was using over at PT to toss up a bunch of irrelevant/strawman/question begging questions.

Just so you know.

And for the record, he's quite right in principle - there's no logical reason to conclude that a process that can destroy can also build. Of course, since no such assumption is made in evolutionary theory, is comment is rather moot as far as it goes.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Dec. 22 2010,14:53

Quote (sledgehammer @ Dec. 22 2010,03:07)
Quote (Lou FCD @ Dec. 21 2010,17:19)
 
Quote (Kris @ on the Behe Thread)
That love, compassion, and justice from the six sources are just pouring out of you, Mr. agnostic unitarian universalist hypocrite. LMAO!!

Oh well, what can one expect from someone who modifies their morals and belief system to fit whatever they want to get away with?

Ya know, you sound a lot like a catholic pedophile or a politician.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Ring any bells?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The double spacing between sentences is another dead giveaway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey!

I

Do

That

Too!

All the time*




*damn!
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 22 2010,15:20

Dear JoeG, IDGuy, Kris, Michael Behe, Fatheadedmoron, or whatever other name you're going by today,

This is a box of rocks:



It is smarter than you.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 22 2010,15:22

Ah, I see someone is bearing false witness.

Gotta love these people!  So very post-modern about their own lofty ethical standards.

Go read a proper science textbook, Trollish One, and do not return until thou mayst honestly profess comprehension of the contents thereof.  Thou art worth but a paltry 845XP divided amongst the party.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 22 2010,16:58

IBIG,

 No one knows EXACTLY what the prebiotic Earth was like.  However there are large variety of things that we DO know.  Furthermore, over the last 50 years many, many variations of these experiments all with slightly different conditions.

 If it is chemically possible, then it will happen.

Now do you (or "Michael Behe") have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design?

Do you even understand why these questions are important?

Do you know Demsbki's math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved?

Do you understand why these question are important?

Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can't be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don't accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say... why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let's get on with it.

You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.
Posted by: Michael_Behe on Dec. 22 2010,18:50

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 22 2010,16:58)
IBIG,

 No one knows EXACTLY what the prebiotic Earth was like.  However there are large variety of things that we DO know.  Furthermore, over the last 50 years many, many variations of these experiments all with slightly different conditions.

 If it is chemically possible, then it will happen.

Now do you (or "Michael Behe") have any evidence to support of any proposition of Intelligent Design? When did the designer last act? When did the designer first act? Did the designer only act once? Is the designer acting constantly (i.e. every living thing is uniquely designed)? Is the designer a meddler (i.e. acting capriciously or at whim)? How does the designer do his thing? What is the mechanism of design?

Do you even understand why these questions are important?

Do you know Demsbki's math? Can you calculate the CSI or FCI or anything else for an unknown? What values would mean design and what would mean evolved?

Do you understand why these question are important?

Do you accept that all of the leading proponents of ID have publicly stated that ID is religious? If you do, then why do you even care? ID is not science, it can't be taught in science classes, as an explanation for anything it is totally without merit. If you don't accept what Dembski, Behe, Wells, Meyer, Nelson say... why not? Do you know more about ID than they do? Good, then answer the above questions and let's get on with it.

You guys are making a statement that no one agrees with. Defend it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


im going to keep my response short because im on the road promoting my book the edge of evolution and i only have my iphone, thus i have to write using bad grammar, so it takes 10 times the length to write as usual.

evidence for design: if u see a bridge i can say with certainty that it required foresight. u cant build a bridge using trial and error. intelligence is the only thing that has foresight. the cell is like a bridge: all parts must work together to achieve a goal. as the bridge was being built the parts were put in place with foresight.

this is what coyne said while reveiwing my latest book:
1. i dont know how the immune system evolved
2. therefore i know that ns did it

hes just using a darwin of the gaps arguement
Posted by: Richardthughes on Dec. 22 2010,19:04

< http://www.naturalbridgeva.com/ >





I suspect that may not be the real Dr Behe.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 22 2010,19:10

Posting from the EU? I doubt it.

Posting privileges have been revoked. If the real Mike Behe wants an account (heh), I'll nuke the troll's account then.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 22 2010,19:26

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 22 2010,19:10)
Posting from the EU? I doubt it.

Posting privileges have been revoked. If the real Mike Behe wants an account (heh), I'll nuke the troll's account then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Good thing to Wes.  That guy was several orders of magnitude below pathetic.
Posted by: Lou FCD on Dec. 22 2010,19:32

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Dec. 22 2010,20:10)
Posting from the EU? I doubt it.

Posting privileges have been revoked. If the real Mike Behe wants an account (heh), I'll nuke the troll's account then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be epically funny.

...but having seen him in person (three years after the trial) repeat the same nonsense he spewed at Dover like the trial never happened and he'd never had his ass handed to him in Federal Court, I suspect there would be little reason to expect anything interesting or even novel from the real Behe.

So in the end, not very different from trollboy above.

ETA: Well, maybe a little more unjustified pomposity.


Posted by: Cubist on Dec. 23 2010,02:19

I find it amusing that "Michael Behe" replied to a comment that was directed at IBIG, as if he were just continuing a conversation, without so much as a "I'm not this 'IBIG' person, but..." disclaimer.
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 23 2010,03:06

I never even suspected that MB, at PT or at AtBc might be the real MJB; if nothing else, the lack of a  'J' between the M and B convinced me.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Dec. 23 2010,04:30

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 19 2010,22:27)
If you want a rich field of semi-literate creationists, register for the < "The Shreveport Times" >.

Delightful southern hospitality.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


There's a fellow at the ST who thinks that evolutionary science is not neutral concerning religion and thus should be excluded by the courts from being taught in school. I have this response over there:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

I assume public schools in your area teach that the earth orbits the sun, and not vice versa. This is historically "not neutral" to specific religious dogmas and has a documented history of objections from clerics.

I assume public schools in your area teach Newton's laws of motion underwriting orbital mechanics. This is historically "not neutral" to specific religious dogmas and has a documented history of objections from clerics.

Other things historically "not neutral" to specific religious dogmas include the shape of the earth, use of lightning rods, anesthesia, and evolution of language.

What happened in those instances? That's where you'll find your answer of what happens in any present instance of ongoing disconnect between religious dogma and intersubjectively testable reality. Minus the ability of the clergy to put people under house arrest seen in the first cited instance, of course; I'm pointing to the long-term outcome.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 27 2010,09:37

IBIG


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Moving the goal posts again? Doesn’t sound like integrity to me. All I am asking is for you to answer what should be extremely rudimentary questions. Which obviously you can’t answer them, so evidently the evidence doesn’t exist!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



IBIG, I haven't moved the goalposts.  They are exactly the same place they always are.

You are challenged to support your position (whatever that is, because you still haven't stated it, though I think you a YEC).

There is no evidence for ID.  There is no evidence that much of the Bible is anything more than myth.

There is no evidence for miracles or anything else.

As far as your questions, I've answered them, many, many times.  You REFUSE to discuss the papers I've provided you with.  It's not my problem if you can't handle the truth.

You have no position and you have yet to show any idea what science even is, much less be able to discuss it intelligently.  You define and defend a position and we'll talk about it.  Because you sure can't discuss evolution.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 27 2010,09:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
NICE DODGE!!! You can’t answer the questions, so you resort to your usual tactics of diverting attention, or attacking the person questioning. Just admit that you don’t know the answer to my questions and we will move on.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's not a dodge.  As I said, I have provided you with no less than 70+ papers regarding these topics.

Just because you don't read them or want to discuss them doesn't mean that I haven't provided them.

I have never said anything about you that wasn't observable fact either.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,12:41

Face it: we're dealing with someone who can't tell the difference between an evidence based statement that includes incredulity and the 'argument from incredulity' logical fallacy.

In fact, we're dealing with someone who can't tell the difference between a psychotic break and communion with his imaginary friend!  (Remember what he said he'd do if his god ordered it?)

I doubt he's even capable of having an intelligent and civil conversation over, say, whether or not the Analects of Confucius offer a superior moral and ethical model for society than Biggy's favorite magic book.  Not that utter ignorance of the Analects would stop him from spewing...


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 27 2010,14:28

IBIG



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Aren’t scientists attempting to create new manmade life in a lab? Wouldn’t that be proof of a type of ID? If science attempting to recreate Abiogenesis is a way of testing to see if Abiogenesis is possible, then science attempting to create a new manmade life form would also demonstrate that ID is possible. You can’t have your cake and eat it:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I love how creationists think if ANYTHING happens in a lab, then it was automatically designed.

That of course is totally wrong as any chemist or biologist would tell you IBIG.

Please, read this paper and tell me EXACTLY where the researchers designed the RNA:  < Darwinian Evolution on a Chip >

Failure to do this will mean that you concede the point and will not be able to use it again.  I will bring your cowardly refusal to do this up EVERY TIME you try to say anything that happens in a lab is designed.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 27 2010,15:24

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,12:41)
Face it: we're dealing with someone who can't tell the difference between an evidence based statement that includes incredulity and the 'argument from incredulity' logical fallacy.

In fact, we're dealing with someone who can't tell the difference between a psychotic break and communion with his imaginary friend!  (Remember what he said he'd do if his god ordered it?)

I doubt he's even capable of having an intelligent and civil conversation over, say, whether or not the Analects of Confucius offer a superior moral and ethical model for society than Biggy's favorite magic book.  Not that utter ignorance of the Analects would stop him from spewing...


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree... honestly, the only thing more appaling that IBIG's utter lack of scientific knowledge is his complete and utter lack of theological knowledge.

He doesn't even believe the bible.

Hey IBIG, who is the author of Genesis and when was it written?  When you answer that, then you can claim that you are being fair by requiring the same level of evidence you require for evolution.  

Of course, your faith doesn't require "that level of detail"... and funnily enough, neither does science.  We use the evidence and combine millions of pieces of evidence to develop a coherent picture of reality.

You combine one poorly edited piece of information and fear of death into a mind-twisting abomination.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 27 2010,16:47

IBIG

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL!!! You can’t answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can’t be answered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since you didn't get it the first time I posted this, I'll go ahead an post it again.  IBIG seemed to try to attack to categories of evidence, but failed.

CATEGORIES* of Evidence of Common Descent
I) Biochemical and Genetics
1) Phylogenetic Reconstruction
2) Comparative sequence analysis
3) Universal biochemical organization
4) Molecular variance patterns
5) Protein conservation
6) Psuedogenes
7) genome and gene duplication
8) common metabolic processes
II) Comparative Anatomy
9) structure of comparable organisms
10) Nested hierarchies
11) Homologous structures
12) Vestigial structures
13) Evolutionary Developmental Biology
14) Embryonic Development
III) Avatisms
15) designs that make no sense
IV) Paleontology
16) Fossils
17) Transitional Fossils
V) Geographical Distribution
18) Continental distribution
19) Island Biogeography
20) Endemism
21) Adaptive radiations
22) Ring species
VI) Observed Natural Selection
23) direct observation of natural selection
24) direct observation of speciation
25) Interspecies fertility and hybridization
26) Artificial selection
VII) Computational and Mathematical


So get started on that list.  If you put those terms into google scholar or PNAS, I'm sure you'll get enough reading material to keep you busy for years.  Get to work.






* Each category is comprised of hundreds to tens of thousands of individual pieces of evidence.  To discount the CATEGORY, you must successfully refute every single piece of evidence in the category.  Good luck
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,18:36

We should repost DS's list of questions as well, I suppose.  Not that Biggy has what it takes to handle them.

Biggy: living proof that duckspeaking* isn't just a verbal phenomenon.


The MadPanda, FCD



* Se habla newspeak.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Dec. 27 2010,18:39

Quote (OgreMkV @ Dec. 27 2010,16:47)
IBIG  

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
LOL!!! You can’t answer my questions! So much for Abiogenesis, and so much of evolution by common descent! As far as Genesis what does the date or who wrote it have to do with anything? Now this is supposedly a site defending the integrity of science, but there appears a real lack of integrity on this site. Now either answer my questions or just admit that they can’t be answered.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Since you didn't get it the first time I posted this, I'll go ahead an post it again.  IBIG seemed to try to attack to categories of evidence, but failed.

CATEGORIES* of Evidence of Common Descent
I) Biochemical and Genetics
1) Phylogenetic Reconstruction
2) Comparative sequence analysis
3) Universal biochemical organization
4) Molecular variance patterns
5) Protein conservation
6) Psuedogenes
7) genome and gene duplication
8) common metabolic processes
II) Comparative Anatomy
9) structure of comparable organisms
10) Nested hierarchies
11) Homologous structures
12) Vestigial structures
13) Evolutionary Developmental Biology
14) Embryonic Development
III) Avatisms
15) designs that make no sense
IV) Paleontology
16) Fossils
17) Transitional Fossils
V) Geographical Distribution
18) Continental distribution
19) Island Biogeography
20) Endemism
21) Adaptive radiations
22) Ring species
VI) Observed Natural Selection
23) direct observation of natural selection
24) direct observation of speciation
25) Interspecies fertility and hybridization
26) Artificial selection
VII) Computational and Mathematical


So get started on that list.  If you put those terms into google scholar or PNAS, I'm sure you'll get enough reading material to keep you busy for years.  Get to work.






* Each category is comprised of hundreds to tens of thousands of individual pieces of evidence.  To discount the CATEGORY, you must successfully refute every single piece of evidence in the category.  Good luck
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


These are not answers to my questions. Are you having trouble reading? Please go back to Panda's Thumb and read my questions again. The questions I asked should be very rudimentary if evolution from common descent is to have any credibility. All of the things you posted have other explanations. So, answer the questions that I gave you, or just admit that you don't know.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,18:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These are not answers to my questions. Are you having trouble reading? Please go back to Panda's Thumb and read my questions again. The questions I asked should be very rudimentary if evolution from common descent is to have any credibility. All of the things you posted have other explanations. So, answer the questions that I gave you, or just admit that you don't know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not so fast, buster!  You still have to answer ALL of DS's questions first.  You ran away from them a few months ago, but we haven't forgotten.  I would go so far as to ask why we should bother answering your questions when we already know that you will a) lie, b) dodge answers you don't like, c) change the rules if you start losing, and d) will not understand the answers you are given, but you finally had the intestinal fortitude to show up here so I'll leave those points for later.

You can throw your pity party here as well as at Panda's Thumb, and here you won't be off-topic.

You should provide actual evidence of alternative explanations as well, if you want such claims to be taken seriously.  And by evidence, we do not mean quoting your magic book, invoking your imaginary friend, anecdote, analogy, or hearsay.

Get to work.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Dec. 27 2010,18:56

I'm in a giving spirit, so I will post the questions again here to make it easier for you:

How did bacteria evolve? Please provide evidence that it evolved that way, and not your usual speculation!

What did bacteria evolve from? Again provide actual evidence and not conjecture or speculation!

How many generations are necessary for bacteria to evolve into a completely different life form? Provide actual observational evidence to support your claim, and include a link showing the life form it evolved into.

When did life go from using only photosynthesis for it’s nutrition and energy, to using other lifeforms for it’s nutrition? Please provide actual evidence and not speculation!

How did all of the necessary machinery evolve at once to allow that life to be able to use other lifeforms for it’s food supply, including the ability to ingest food, digest food, and eliminate waste? This one is a tough one, but it would be necessary for life to have evolve from a common ancestor. Again provide evidence!

Science it about evidence, and if you don't have observational, testable evidence then you have nothing be speculation, conjecture, presuppositions, etc...

You keep playing little games, so that you don't really have to answer these questions, but it won't work. If you can't answer these questions and provide real evidence and not conjecture, speculation, or presuppositions, then you have nothing.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,18:59



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You keep playing little games, so that you don't really have to answer these questions, but it won't work. If you can't answer these questions and provide real evidence and not conjecture, speculation, or presuppositions, then you have nothing.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is exactly what we've been telling you all along, Biggy.  You have yet to demonstrate an understanding of this, let alone implement it yourself.

Your projection is amusing and your mingled cowardice and ignorance are pathetic.

Get to work on DS's questions or admit that you don't have the authority to demand such rigor.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Dec. 27 2010,19:01

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,18:50)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
These are not answers to my questions. Are you having trouble reading? Please go back to Panda's Thumb and read my questions again. The questions I asked should be very rudimentary if evolution from common descent is to have any credibility. All of the things you posted have other explanations. So, answer the questions that I gave you, or just admit that you don't know.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not so fast, buster!  You still have to answer ALL of DS's questions first.  You ran away from them a few months ago, but we haven't forgotten.  I would go so far as to ask why we should bother answering your questions when we already know that you will a) lie, b) dodge answers you don't like, c) change the rules if you start losing, and d) will not understand the answers you are given, but you finally had the intestinal fortitude to show up here so I'll leave those points for later.

You can throw your pity party here as well as at Panda's Thumb, and here you won't be off-topic.

You should provide actual evidence of alternative explanations as well, if you want such claims to be taken seriously.  And by evidence, we do not mean quoting your magic book, invoking your imaginary friend, anecdote, analogy, or hearsay.

Get to work.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!!
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,19:04

In that case, not only do we not have to take you seriously, you have no standing to complain about anything in science.  Your blithering idiocy remains underwhelming.

Since you won't have the courage or intellectual honesty to actually do any homework, here's the big list of questions posted by DS as of October 22, 2010.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
1) Why do dolphins have five digits early in development if they do not have five digits as adults?

2) Why do dolphin embryos start out with the nostril on the front of the head if it is positioned on the top of the head in the adult?

3) Why do dolphin embryos have pharyngeal gill pouches if they lack gills as adults?

4) Why do dolphin embryos start to develop hind limbs if they do not have hind limbs as adults?

5) Why do horse embryos have five digits if they have only one as adults?

6) Why are there fossils intermediate between apes and humans?

7) How old is the earth? How do you know?

8) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

9) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions with Cetacea deeply nested within Artiodactyla, the exact same relationship revealed by the developmental and other genetic data? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

10) Why are human and chimp chromosomes nearly identical gene for gene and band for band, including the extra centromeric and telomeric sequences found in human chromosome two? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

11) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity for primates with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent in both nuclear and mitochondrial genes and also consistent with the fossil evidence and the chromosome banding data?

12) Why is there a nested hierarchy of SINE insertions in primates, with humans most closely related to chimps? Why is this pattern consistent with all of the other fossil, morphological, developmental and genetic data sets? (Hint: common design is not the answer).

13) Why are there intermediates between terrestrial mammals and Cetaceans in the fossil record? Why are they in exactly the order predicted by descent with modification? Why are they precisely consistent with the developmental and genetic data?

14) Was there a world wide flood less than 10,000 years ago? How do you know? Why do no real geologists, paleontologists or archaeologists agree with you?

15) Why are there intermediates in the fossil record between horse ancestors with five digits and modern horses with only one? (Hint: you can’t get out of this one by redefining “digit” or “intermediate”).

16) Why is the human eye wired backwards?

17) Why must mutations for novel features be selectively advantageous from the time of their appearance? Why can’t they be selectively neutral or selected for other functions?

18) Exactly how many “kinds” of birds did god “create”? How do you know?

19) Why are there intermediates between birds and reptiles in the fossil record?

20) Why is there a nested hierarchy of genetic similarity with birds nested deeply within reptiles?

21) Why do birds have scales?

22) Why does nothing that is not a bird have feathers?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Get to work, you lying bigoted cowardly excuse for a miserable ignoramus.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 27 2010,19:06

IBIG



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Really? Then post the links to the answers all of the recent questions that were posted here. Let me post the questions and you post the links.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Here we go again.  A bunch of nonsensical questions whose answers WILL NEVER EXIST.

Don't you get it yet IBIG?  I really don't know if you don't actually understand or if you think this is somehow a telling argument.

1) Even if you disprove evolution, it doesn't make ID (or the Bible) correct.

2) These questions are meaningless because, even we scientists know that there will never be an answer for them.  We can accept that.

3) You are a hypocrite by requiring so much more information from science than you require for your own pet notion.  Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it... I'll wait AND I'll continue to ask this every time you ask these nonsensical question.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

Here are the questions again:

How did bacteria evolve?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Define bacteria first.  Archea or Eubacteria?  Phototrophic or heterotrophic.?

Or do you really want to talk about the earliest life forms?

You could at least do enough research to ask sensible questions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

What did bacteria evolve from?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



See above... which bacteria do you want to talk about?

There are some 1,000,000,000 species of extant bacteria... probably 10-500 times that number of extinct species...

You're going to need to learn some stuff before asking valid questions.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How many generations are necessary for bacteria to evolve into a completely different life form?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Technically, 1... unless you don't want to talk about clines and ring species.

Define 'different life form'.  

There's about 400 million years between prokaryotes developing and eukaryotes developing.

If we assume a generation time of 24 hours (taking into account things like harsh periods where the organisms formed endospores etc), then we're talking 400 million * 365 generations.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

When did life go from using only photosynthesis for it’s nutrition and energy, to using other lifeforms for it’s nutrition?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who knows?  I suspect and have evidence to support that it wasn't so cut and dried as that.

In fact, my guess, based on current research, is that the earliest living things were heterotrophs and photosynthesis came much later.  But they weren't eating other organisms at first either.  Think mineralvores.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

How did all of the necessary machinery evolve at once to allow that life to be able to use other lifeforms for it’s food supply, including the ability to ingest food, digest food, and eliminate waste?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is just so pathetic a picture of what you think may have happened I don't even know where to begin.  

Any organism with a cell membrane (which forms easily in prebiotic conditions) has homeostasis.  It's one of the primary functions of the cell membrane.  So again, the processes of absorption and elimination predated photosynthesis by a considerable margin.  Again, this is based on what I've read.

Keep in mind that your simplistic view of things is preventing you from seeing some major issues.  For example, chemosynthesis and organisms that have lived near black smokers.  These have never, ever had a photosynthetic organism in their environment, so there's no way that a photovore came first.

Again, please, at least, learn enough to ask a coherent question.


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Post the links where every one of these questions were answered!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 27 2010,19:15

Here you go IBIG, start here.  Let me know if you have questions.

Please note that these are all older than 5 years, so if you were actually interested in this topic, there's really not much excuse for not having done some reading.

Gilbert, Walter (February 1986). "The RNA World". Nature 319: 618. doi:10.1038/319618a0.

Joyce, G.F. (2002). "The antiquity of RNA-based evolution". Nature 418 (6894): 214–21. doi:10.1038/418214a. PMID 12110897.

Hoenigsberg, H. (December 2003). "Evolution without speciation but with selection: LUCA, the Last Universal Common Ancestor in Gilbert’s RNA world". Genetic and Molecular Research 2 (4): 366–375. PMID 15011140. < http://www.funpecrp.com.br/gmr/year2003/vol4-2/gmr0070_full_text.htm. > Retrieved 2008-08-30. (also available as PDF)

Trevors, J. T. and Abel, D. L. (2004). "Chance and necessity do not explain the origin of life". Cell Biol. Int. 28 (11): 729–39. doi:10.1016/j.cellbi.2004.06.006. PMID 15563395.

Forterre, P., Benachenhou-Lahfa, N., Confalonieri, F., Duguet, M., Elie, C. and Labedan, B. (1992). "The nature of the last universal ancestor and the root of the tree of life, still open questions". BioSystems 28 (1-3): 15–32. doi:10.1016/0303-2647(92)90004-I. PMID 1337989.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,19:23



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, please, at least, learn enough to ask a coherent question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That may be asking too much of Biggy, Oh Cybertank.

Funny how he thinks he can run in the big leagues but needn't actually do any of the work required.  'Course, it's all the more reason to apply the Cattleprod of Mockery to his fundament on a regular basis.

(Granted, this is a vanishingly tiny probability...)


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 27 2010,20:09

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,19:23)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Again, please, at least, learn enough to ask a coherent question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That may be asking too much of Biggy, Oh Cybertank.

Funny how he thinks he can run in the big leagues but needn't actually do any of the work required.  'Course, it's all the more reason to apply the Cattleprod of Mockery to his fundament on a regular basis.

(Granted, this is a vanishingly tiny probability...)


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know MP.  I think I'm beyond mocking...e xcept for Joe, he deserves it.

But, I just will continue to point out that IBIG is a massive hypocrite. He's also completely clueless and doesn't even have a position.

Joe, is just a jerk.  Epic moron... this is the guy who told that obligate blood eaters prefer watermelon to cantaloupe or some such.

They are all cowards.  IBIG won't even pretend of have a position to defend.  Joe is too cowardly to define his pro-ID position.

It's sad, but I really learn a lot carpet bombing them.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,20:30

Point taken.

Impervious to evidence, reality, and common sense, that's our Biggy.  The worst part is, he won't ever learn, or admit a mistake, or even realize that he's a perfect argument against his precious beliefs (as your own sig points out).

Guess all we can do is keep pointing out the obvious to him until he gives up and pulls a Sir Robin again.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 27 2010,21:04

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01)
I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world.

And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Dec. 27 2010,21:09

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:04)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01)
I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world.

And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator.
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 27 2010,21:13

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:09)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:04)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01)
I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world.

And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is basing assumptions according to current scientific knowledge not scientific?

Why do you insist on saying that your belief in God is supposed to trump science?

How come you refuse to explain why saying God magically poofed everything into existence is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,21:16

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:09)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01)

Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01)

Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



This is a bald assertion without evidence: it may be rejected out of hand as nonsensical.  Insert any given deity for 'creator' and the utter absurdity of this statement becomes obvious.  (It borders on the 'tu quoque' fallacy as well.)

Why, exactly, do you think that you can say such a thing?  Be specific. Show the evidence that would give you credibility on this issue.

So far, all you have demonstrated is badly mangled rhetoric and willful ignorance, to say nothing of repeated assertions about your imaginary friend.  Make an effort to avoid fallacious non-logic.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Dec. 27 2010,21:18

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:13)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:09)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:04)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,19:01)
I don't have to answer anything. I'm not the scientist here, and I never claimed to be a scientist, but if you are convince me or anyone else that you are correct, then you would just answer the questions. If you don't answer the questions then you really come across as having no evidence. If you can't answer the simple questions that I posted, then you have just demonstrated how weak your evidence is for evolution from common descent!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And yet, you are the one who hypocritically claims to know more about science than all of the actual scientists of the world.

And you are also the one who hypocritically implies that God magically poofing the world and all of its inhabitants into existence, without any evidence whatsoever, is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet your assumptions are no more scientific then my belief in a Creator.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why is basing assumptions according to current scientific knowledge not scientific?

Why do you insist on saying that your belief in God is supposed to trump science?

How come you refuse to explain why saying God magically poofed everything into existence is supposed to be more scientific and more logical than actual science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let me say it again. An assumption is not EVIDENCE!!!
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 27 2010,21:20

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,21:16)
So far, all (IBelieve has) demonstrated is badly mangled rhetoric and willful ignorance, to say nothing of repeated assertions about your imaginary friend.  Make an effort to avoid fallacious non-logic.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


To ask that IBelieve refrain from using fallacious non-logic is an utterly impossible, implausible act tantamount to demanding that one fly to the moon in an empty tissue box.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,21:21



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me say it again. An assumption is not EVIDENCE!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Right.  But that's all you've ever had.  Only you call it a presumption and base it on some half-baked misunderstanding of someone else's magic book.

You aren't even wrong, here.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Dec. 27 2010,21:25

You the ones who require evidence, yet when you have none your assumption is perfectly acceptable to you. An ASSUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! That is the problem with origin science, and why I don't believe it is true science. There is no way of confirming anything, there will never be any more then assumptions, conjecture, speculation, presuppositions, etc... Your theories are built on a house of cards of assumptions stacked on assumptions:)
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,21:27

Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:20)

To ask that IBelieve refrain from using fallacious non-logic is an utterly impossible, implausible act tantamount to demanding that one fly to the moon in an empty tissue box.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alas, this is undoubtedly true.

He can't even tell the difference between basing an assumption on available evidence (which is not only reasonable but acceptable) and the fallacious use of assumption as evidence.  He does this a lot, I've noticed: elsewhere he's demonstrated confusion between an argument based on evidence, which leads to a state of incredulity...and an argument from incredibility, which is what he uses.

I'm not sure Biggy passed English Comp 101.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 27 2010,21:28

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:25)
You the ones who require evidence, yet when you have none your assumption is perfectly acceptable to you. An ASSUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! That is the problem with origin science, and why I don't believe it is true science. There is no way of confirming anything, there will never be any more then assumptions, conjecture, speculation, presuppositions, etc... Your theories are built on a house of cards of assumptions stacked on assumptions:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then how come you refuse to explain why "origin science" (sic) is less scientific than saying that God magically poofed everything into existence 10,000 years ago, even though there is no evidence for this latter statement, and plenty of evidence for Abiogenesis?

How come you refuse to explain why you have the magical ability to negate evidence you don't like by pretending it doesn't exist?
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 27 2010,21:32

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,21:27)
Quote (Stanton @ Dec. 27 2010,21:20)

To ask that IBelieve refrain from using fallacious non-logic is an utterly impossible, implausible act tantamount to demanding that one fly to the moon in an empty tissue box.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Alas, this is undoubtedly true.

He can't even tell the difference between basing an assumption on available evidence (which is not only reasonable but acceptable) and the fallacious use of assumption as evidence.  He does this a lot, I've noticed: elsewhere he's demonstrated confusion between an argument based on evidence, which leads to a state of incredulity...and an argument from incredibility, which is what he uses.

I'm not sure Biggy passed English Comp 101.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One gets the impression that his inability to distinguish between making an assumption based on available evidence and making an assumption without any evidence is deliberate.

As for his constant appeals to personal incredulity: they make him look like a lying hypocrite, especially whenever he denies claiming that he knows more about science than actual scientists.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,21:33

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,21:25)
You the ones who require evidence, yet when you have none your assumption is perfectly acceptable to you. An ASSUMPTION IS NOT EVIDENCE!!! That is the problem with origin science, and why I don't believe it is true science. There is no way of confirming anything, there will never be any more then assumptions, conjecture, speculation, presuppositions, etc... Your theories are built on a house of cards of assumptions stacked on assumptions:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Failed again, Biggy.

Science is not a matter of belief.  It is a matter of evidence.  You seem congenitally unable to grasp this.  This is your problem.

Yes, all 'truth' in science is conditional, pending new data.  That is the greatest source of strength for science, but you seem convinced that it's a weakness.  This is your problem.

You don't have anything else but empty word-games and rhetoric.  You never will.  You certainly don't have any evidence.  Now, if you were happy to stay in your own little room with your imaginary friend and play your silly little-child games, that'd be that.  Instead, you had to come out into the world, loudly proclaim that you're an idiot, and then get all upset when we treat you accordingly.

Reflect, repent, and depart, or pull out the cork and stop lying.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 27 2010,21:36

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,21:33)
Reflect, repent, and depart, or pull out the cork and stop lying.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Like I said, this is physically impossible for IBelieve to do.  It would be far easier to fly to the moon in an empty tissue box than for IBelieve to stop proclaiming that he knows more about science than all of the scientists in the world (because his FAITH told him so).
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 27 2010,21:52

IBIG, again, for the umpteenth time.  No, we will never know exactly what was the precursor to bacteria, but we don't have to.

That's not the only thing that evolution or abiogensis hinges on.

Let's go back to baby steps and see if IBIG is actually willing to learn.  You backed out the last two times IBIG.  Are you actually interested in learning this or do you just want to yell about how hard this is?

Do you accept that if something is chemically possible, then it will occur?  I'm just talking about a chemical reaction.  Do you accept that (for example) hydrogen gas and oxygen gas, when in contact with an ignition source, will produce a highly exothermic chemical reaction resulting in water?

In other words, do you accept chemistry (yes/no)  no equivocation.  Yes or no?
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 27 2010,22:16

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Dec. 27 2010,16:56)
How did bacteria evolve? Please provide evidence that it evolved that way, and not your usual speculation!

What did bacteria evolve from? Again provide actual evidence and not conjecture or speculation!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wait, did you actually entice this dumbfuck to post here?

Why? Really?

As for the origin of life, I put together a short outline. I called it < A Short Outline of the Origin of Life. >

I started with a short discussion about why the origin of life is not an essential part of the theory of evolution. After all, Newton's theory of gravity did not need to describe the origin of matter. (Darwin even alluded to this).

But, really- why invite shitdipped creationists here? Who will read the brilliant, and humorous rejoinders you will waste minutes composing. What I suggest instead is that you use your Google News to find articles about "evolution," "Darwinism," "creationism," and "intelligent design." Register over and over to the dozens of small town newspaper websites, and then with extreme care blast apart the creationist cretins. The only allowable tools are scientific data, and biblical scripture (augmented by quotations from appropriately revered dead theologians).

It really is good fun.

Re: bacteria,

I suggest starting with two, freely available, articles;

Woese, Carl
1998 “The universal ancestor” PNAS Vol. 95, Issue 12, 6854-6859, June 9

Woese, Carl
2002 “On the evolution of Cells” PNAS Vol. 99 13:8742-8747, June 25

In the 1998 article, Woese explains why this is a stupid question. I actually think he was wrong. But that does not impress many people.


Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 27 2010,22:25

It's simple, Doc.

This particular muppet-pastor (heh) basically bogged down the Bathroom Wall over on PT by posting the same stupid, boring, insipid, godbotting bullshit for something like three hundred and fifty pages worth, and now he's back after taking a brief vacation (read: licking his wounds) to spout more stupid and inane bullshit.

Rather than have him foul various threads up with his troll-age, somebody (OgreMkV, I think) implored the Powers What Are (that is, didymos) to open a thread so that Biggy could throw his temper tantrums without having to worry about getting shut down for going off-topic.

Obviously, he can't be arsed to stay here...let alone learn a damn thing.  (I, on the other hand, appreciate the occasional science lesson, being an interested amateur.)


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: didymos on Dec. 28 2010,01:11

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 27 2010,20:25)
Rather than have him foul various threads up with his troll-age, somebody (OgreMkV, I think) implored the Powers What Are (that is, didymos) to open a thread
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm no Power around here.  Ogre, for some reason, couldn't make a thread.  I saw his request, so I did it instead.

Aaaaand that rhymed (and the meter wasn't half-bad either).

OK, anyway: why can I make a thread and he can't? I have no idea.
Posted by: Dr.GH on Dec. 28 2010,01:27

Quote (didymos @ Dec. 27 2010,23:11)
OK, anyway: why can I make a thread and he can't? I have no idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am down as a "moderator" sort-of, and I don't know either.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Dec. 28 2010,02:33

Quote (Dr.GH @ Dec. 28 2010,07:27)
Quote (didymos @ Dec. 27 2010,23:11)
OK, anyway: why can I make a thread and he can't? I have no idea.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am down as a "moderator" sort-of, and I don't know either.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Has Ogre ever asked Lou or Wes for edit privileges? I think you need it in order to start a new thread, and you have to ask for it to get it.

It doesn't just "poof" into existence, ya know...*




*See what I did there?
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 28 2010,05:56



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wish I had a time machine and could go back to the centuries before it was written and listen to their palaver around the campfire.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 28 2010,09:06

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 28 2010,03:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wish I had a time machine and could go back to the centuries before it was written and listen to their palaver around the campfire.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was probably more akin to sitting around the table in Foreman's basement.
Posted by: Stanton on Dec. 28 2010,10:52

Quote (Quack @ Dec. 28 2010,05:56)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me again who the writer of Genesis is and when exactly he wrote it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I wish I had a time machine and could go back to the centuries before it was written and listen to their palaver around the campfire.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be an abominable waste of a good time machine.

Why not go back to the arcane era when globular hairstyles were still in fashion, and wild bellbottoms roamed free?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 28 2010,22:54

Still no further babbling from IBIG.  Ah well.  The real world has reared its ugly head.  I'll still check in from time to time... mostly during the work days when I'm not insanely busy.

After work and weekends will be strictly limited... besides, these idiots ore raising my heart rate too much.  I can't let go... "Someone is wrong on the internet."

Sigh... CDO... it's like OCD, but the letters are in the correct order.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 29 2010,10:04

He can't take the heat in this here kitchen.  He can't take the heat over on PT, either, but that doesn't seem to stop him from trying.

Where do they find 'em and why do they send 'em here?  You'd think he'd be happier just curling up into a ball and thnking happy thoughts about his imaginary friend, rather than trying to engage in a battle of wits with fully armed opponents.

Eh bien.

Too bad ignorance and stupidity don't hurt.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Dec. 30 2010,02:41

Is there anyone else who suspects that Kris and IBIG are either one and the same, or know each other directly? They have both been trolling in PT for some time and have operated almost like a wrestling tag team.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 30 2010,08:47

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Dec. 30 2010,00:41)
Is there anyone else who suspects that Kris and IBIG are either one and the same, or know each other directly? They have both been trolling in PT for some time and have operated almost like a wrestling tag team.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They have some of the same tools, but IBIG is all:

"I have faith, and science is just faith, too, y'know!, plus I bet you can't answer this question: who was the first man to get a haircut? Huh? Don't know, do ya? I win!",

whereas Kris is more:

"SYENTISTS R MEEEEEEEN!!! WHAAAH!!!"
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 30 2010,10:08

Methinks 'tis more probable that Kris is Joey's muppet than Biggy's.

But yes, Kris is under suspicion of being someone's alternative handle.  So is Johan, for whom Kris cheerled.  Thus far, Steve P. has avoided this fate.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Robin on Dec. 30 2010,10:46

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 30 2010,10:08)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Methinks 'tis more probable that Kris is Joey's muppet than Biggy's.

But yes, Kris is under suspicion of being someone's alternative handle.  So is Johan, for whom Kris cheerled.  Thus far, Steve P. has avoided this fate.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Has Johan reappeared since the 28th? I've not see any posts from him since then. 'Course, it may be a moot point since the thread on which he was getting rather lambasted is now closed.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 30 2010,12:11

So far as I am aware, Johan has not reappeared.  No big loss: he was impervious to information.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: DSDS on Dec. 30 2010,18:39

Well if IBIG, Kris, Johan or Steve P. want to have any "discussions" of science they can come her to do it.  If they are too chicken shit to do that, then why bother with them and their ignorance?  They all need to be segregated from decent society.
Posted by: SWT on Dec. 30 2010,19:24

FWIW, I think Steve P. might be in a different category than IBiG, Kris, Johan, etc.  His posts actually have some content, despite his deep misunderstanding of evolution.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 30 2010,20:20

Steve P. tries harder, I'll give him that.  He's just a little bit confused on the details.   :D


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Wolfhound on Dec. 30 2010,21:15

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 30 2010,09:47)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Dec. 30 2010,00:41)
Is there anyone else who suspects that Kris and IBIG are either one and the same, or know each other directly? They have both been trolling in PT for some time and have operated almost like a wrestling tag team.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They have some of the same tools, but IBIG is all:

"I have faith, and science is just faith, too, y'know!, plus I bet you can't answer this question: who was the first man to get a haircut? Huh? Don't know, do ya? I win!",

whereas Kris is more:

"SYENTISTS R MEEEEEEEN!!! WHAAAH!!!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah, I'll go with you here.  Joe G and Kris are pretty much identical in stupidity, lack of content, use and kind of insults liberally peppering his crap, threats of physical violence (what a fecking cowardly douche) when called out for the lying sack of shit that he is, and fixation on specific Pandas.

IBIG's debating skills are on par with a six year old child in the schoolyard.

Johan is sounding more and more like Kris/Joe G.  Personally, I'm for canning all three of the morons.  They're BORING.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 30 2010,21:15

Oh, I'm sorry, umabu, but the correct answer was 'The Battle of Crecy'.  Thanks for playing, what a sport.  But at least you get to keep the lifetime supply of Dwarf Bread!  Give him a hand, ladies and gentlemen...


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Wolfhound on Dec. 30 2010,21:17

Oh, and clean up, aisle nine.  They let David M out from the Nut Hut for the holidays, apparently.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Dec. 30 2010,21:27

Quote (umabu @ Dec. 30 2010,22:22)
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz4R0GHfM-Y& >

why does everyone always want to PUNCH you, shermer?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Shouldn't he be masterbating or something?

Oh, wait, he is...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 30 2010,21:30

Say the secret fnord and win a million zinc zlotys.

This good constable's too cunning to be understood.  Besides, Mabus has all the talent for disguise of a giraffe in dark sunglasses trying to get into a polar bears only swim club.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Dec. 30 2010,21:43

I just thought he has a dead uncle in Zaire and needed my bank account number to stash 36 trillion Yen for a few months while the authorities worked out who owns the diamond mine in Belgium.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Dec. 30 2010,22:06

You got one of those, too?  My dead uncle was from Qatar and his suspiciously masculine niece (Roger?  Who names a girl Roger?*) wanted a little help defrauding their government.


The MadPanda, FCD



(* Apologies to Roger Howard, Lady Sheffield, cousin to Elizabeth I of England and apparently quite the professional beauty.)
Posted by: Quack on Dec. 31 2010,09:59

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Dec. 30 2010,10:08)
Methinks 'tis more probable that Kris is Joey's muppet than Biggy's.

But yes, Kris is under suspicion of being someone's alternative handle.  So is Johan, for whom Kris cheerled.  Thus far, Steve P. has avoided this fate.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It has been suggested that Salvador Cordova might be involved. I am thinking along that line, since it cannot be denied that Sal aside from his silliness possess some savvy and might perhaps be capable of orchestrating a charade by acting like a puppeteer, enacting all the roles he has created.
Posted by: fnxtr on Dec. 31 2010,12:25

My response to Kris's latest screed about science and happiness.

Well, Kris, maybe if you backed up your unsupported "many people" assertion in the first place, we'd have some jumping off point for discussion. As it is, you made an unsubstantiated claim, you got disagreed with, and you went off the rails with "Are you saying... always...always...always...?"

No wonder people get annoyed with you. You're still "debating" like a 10th-grade chess club nerd.

Of course there are happy subsistence farmers in the world.

The point <i>you</i> missed is that trying to understand <i>how stuff works</i>, which is all science is really meant to do, has given most of the world longer, healthier lives.  A lot of people are happy about that.

If you want to get into distribution of wealth and cultural independence and the structure of societies and the meaning of "happiness" and overpopulation, that's an entirely different argument unrelated to <i>how science works</i>.

But if you have changed your argument from "scientists are mean" (My answer: Yup. Tough darts. Suck it up.) to "science doesn't have all the answers", well... duh.  Is Mozart better music than Einsturzende Neubauten? Not a scientific question.

Most of us here understand the boundaries of the scientific endeavour. I don't know what makes you think we don't.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 01 2011,22:52

Quote (fnxtr @ Dec. 31 2010,12:25)
Most of us here understand the boundaries of the scientific endeavour. I don't know what makes you think we don't.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



He'd have very little left of his initial attempts at throwing a fit were he to admit that. Says it all, really.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 04 2011,08:25

OK IBIG, I have a question and only you, with your epic knowledge of theology, can help me.

Why do you pray?

In several recent conversations with 'believers' (I'll explain the quotes in a bit), they have said that my request that God show himself by answering a prayer is inappropriate.  In fact, they use Jesus as the example, when he said, "Do not tempt God." (or something like that).

IOW (Damn you Joe), praying to ask that God do something that ONLY God can do is defacto evidence of God and then no belief in God can exist.  You wouldn't have faith, you would have evidence and God doesn't want worshipers who KNOW he exists, he wants worshipers that only HOPE he exists.

So, since you don't pray for things that would otherwise be impossible, you only pray for things that you think are possible.  "God helps those who help themselves."  

So, one of my students who prays for help on my test either does well or poorly.  If she does well, then she thanks God.  If she does poorly, then she blames herself for not studying enough.  But, if studying alone would have helped her, then why did she have to pray?  

And now we come to the central conundrum.  Many times, you have been presented with various Biblical quotes (including some from Jesus) that have said, "Whatever you pray for will be done" usually including something about 'truly believe'.

So God will do anything that anyone who truly believes asks of him, except show that he exists.  If my student had made a hundred on her test without studying or attending class and said it was because of prayer, then that would be proof of God's existance.  If God heals amputees or rheumetoid arthritus, then that's proof that God exists and God can't allow that to happen.

So, you only get prayers answered that you probably could have done anyway or would have been done anyway.  Any prayer that is answered is proof of God, which He can't allow. So why do you pray again?

Don't say to worship God.  I was a Christian remember, EVERYONE, ALWAYS asks for something.  Every time.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 04 2011,12:08

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 04 2011,08:25)
OK IBIG, I have a question and only you, with your epic knowledge of theology, can help me.

Why do you pray?

In several recent conversations with 'believers' (I'll explain the quotes in a bit), they have said that my request that God show himself by answering a prayer is inappropriate.  In fact, they use Jesus as the example, when he said, "Do not tempt God." (or something like that).

IOW (Damn you Joe), praying to ask that God do something that ONLY God can do is defacto evidence of God and then no belief in God can exist.  You wouldn't have faith, you would have evidence and God doesn't want worshipers who KNOW he exists, he wants worshipers that only HOPE he exists.

So, since you don't pray for things that would otherwise be impossible, you only pray for things that you think are possible.  "God helps those who help themselves."  

So, one of my students who prays for help on my test either does well or poorly.  If she does well, then she thanks God.  If she does poorly, then she blames herself for not studying enough.  But, if studying alone would have helped her, then why did she have to pray?  

And now we come to the central conundrum.  Many times, you have been presented with various Biblical quotes (including some from Jesus) that have said, "Whatever you pray for will be done" usually including something about 'truly believe'.

So God will do anything that anyone who truly believes asks of him, except show that he exists.  If my student had made a hundred on her test without studying or attending class and said it was because of prayer, then that would be proof of God's existance.  If God heals amputees or rheumetoid arthritus, then that's proof that God exists and God can't allow that to happen.

So, you only get prayers answered that you probably could have done anyway or would have been done anyway.  Any prayer that is answered is proof of God, which He can't allow. So why do you pray again?

Don't say to worship God.  I was a Christian remember, EVERYONE, ALWAYS asks for something.  Every time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Why do I pray?

To communicate with my Heavenly Father.

God wants a relationship with us, He doesn't want to just be an idol to be worshipped, but a Heavenly Father to be loved. When you ask God to prove Himself without believing, then you are essentially saying I don't believe you, therefore prove yourself to me. It would be a form of mockery to do so.

Hebrews 11:6 (New International Version)

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

If you don't believe that God exists, then there is no point in asking Him for anything, because He will not answer.

I think you missed the point about Faith, Faith means more the knowing or believing that God exists or not. Faith is to put one's complete trust in God. I know that God exists, because of all the things He has done in my life, and my family and friends lives, but I still need to have Faith (inward conviction and trust) that God will answer when I call His name.

I pray for what many would consider impossible things all the time, and have seen great things happen in my life. I'm not going rehash them all again, because it's obvious that you wouldn't believe that they actually occurred, so there is not point to that exercise. Anyway God does answer many so-called impossible things all the time. As far as "God helps those who help themselves." Let me put it this way "If we do the possible, then God will do the impossible." The problem with many is that they won't do the possible, yet expect God to do the impossible.

Now let me address "Whatever you pray for will be done". Let me start by saying that God will not answer a prayer that is out of His will, goes against His Word, or that fulfills our sinful nature. Many prayers do just that, so we have to pray according to His Word, His Will, and prayers that do not fulfill the lusts of our sinful nature.

1 John 5:14-15 (New International Version)

14 This is the confidence we have in approaching God: that if we ask anything according to his will, he hears us. 15 And if we know that he hears us—whatever we ask—we know that we have what we asked of him.

Now about worship, many times prayers are actually answered during worship.  Thanksgiving and Praise is how we enter into God's presence, and Worship is what we do while in His presence, therefore it would make sense that, once in His presence that prayers are more likely to be answered. The reason many pray without any answers, is because they have essentially turned God into an idol in there own hearts. God wants to be real to you, and wants you to come to Him believing, that He is who He says He is, and that He is able to answer your needs according to His riches in Glory.

My Grandmother was healed of Rheumatoid Arthritis, but I'm sure you would have an explanation other then a miracle anyway i.e. that it just went into remission by itself, so what is the point. Even if God performed a miracle in front of your eyes, you would still be skeptical that God did it, there would always be some other possibility other than God did it.

It's obvious to me that you never went to a Church that truly "Worshipped God In Spirit And In Truth", so IMO God was never real to you. You never really entered into His presence, where God would be able to reveal Himself to you. IMO you were more or less an outside observer.[I][/I]
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2011,12:18

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,12:08)
Anyway God does answer many so-called impossible things all the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name just one.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2011,12:20

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,12:08)
My Grandmother was healed of Rheumatoid Arthritis, but I'm sure you would have an explanation other then a miracle anyway i.e. that it just went into remission by itself, so what is the point. Even if God performed a miracle in front of your eyes, you would still be skeptical that God did it, there would always be some other possibility other than God did it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Why won't god heal amputees? >
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 04 2011,12:22

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 04 2011,12:18)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,12:08)
Anyway God does answer many so-called impossible things all the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name just one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already done that on Panda's Thumb bathroom wall. You wouldn't believe it anyway, so it would be a wasted of my time to rehash all of that again.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 04 2011,12:29

How big is gods' penis?
Does it fit the "god shaped hole in my heart"?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 04 2011,12:35

No IBIG, you have a personal anecdote about a woman in a hospital who was supposedly dead for some long period of time, then came back to life.

Can you differentiate between the hospital and the prayer?  Was she actually dead? Did you personally check her pulse, EEG, EKG, etc?  Nevermind.

I guess the question is then... WHY DO YOU REFUSE TO PRAY FOR THE SUFFERS OF RHEUMETOID ARTHRITIS?

You refused.  You didn't do it.  You said you didn't do it.  We all know you didn't do it.

Why not?  Because you know that God would never heal them or is it because you, yourself, lack the faith you need to make God do it?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 04 2011,12:36

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,12:22)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 04 2011,12:18)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,12:08)
Anyway God does answer many so-called impossible things all the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name just one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already done that on Panda's Thumb bathroom wall. You wouldn't believe it anyway, so it would be a wasted of my time to rehash all of that again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You said "many" and "all the time". I guess you could just name one of the "many" other things real quick?

It should be easy, no?
Posted by: Occam's Toothbrush on Jan. 04 2011,12:38



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
God wants a relationship with us, He doesn't want to just be an idol to be worshipped, but a Heavenly Father to be loved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awww, isn't that just so warm and fuzzy.

Of course, what kind of father wants to be not "just" worshipped, but also loved--then tells his child that if he/she does not love and worship him, the child will be subject to INFINITE TORTURE?

You're a sick bastard, f off and die slow.  Nobody gives a crap about your inane superstitions.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 04 2011,12:45

BTW, IBIG, could you pray to your gods concerning healing peripheral neuropathy?

I'm sure your prayers would do the trick and I promise to praise your gods of choice if I am healed.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 04 2011,12:50

Quote (khan @ Jan. 04 2011,12:45)
BTW, IBIG, could you pray to your gods concerning healing peripheral neuropathy?

I'm sure your prayers would do the trick and I promise to praise your gods of choice if I am healed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But see, that's why God WON'T do it.

He wants you to believe, not know.  Knowing that he exists removes the belief that he feeds on.

See, apparently IBIG doesn't know theology as well as he thinks he does and he doesn't believe in God.  According to IBIG, he KNOWS God exists.  That's not belief buddy.

You don't have a relationship with God.  He doesn't want you because you KNOW he exists instead of believing he exists.

That's the point of my question to you.  If you pray for something and it happens then you LOSE YOUR FAITH in God, by definition.

God shouldn't answer any prayer, because that would be a tactic admission that He exists.  So why bother praying?

BTW: You don't pray to have a personal relationship with God.  You pray to get a benefit or as a public display of personal faith and piety.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 04 2011,13:28

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,12:22)
 
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 04 2011,12:18)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,12:08)
Anyway God does answer many so-called impossible things all the time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Name just one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've already done that on Panda's Thumb bathroom wall. You wouldn't believe it anyway, so it would be a wasted of my time to rehash all of that again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If you're too scared to own up to your failed arguments and present them again, that's pretty telling.  They didn't work there, either.

Biggy, it should tell you something that your long-winded eloquence doesn't get you very far around here.  It should also tell you something that your imaginary friend and your magic book are not considered given factors in the discussion: you need to kick the reasoning up a notch if you want to be taken seriously.

But, as you have demonstrated so very clearly, you have no intention of discussing anything in good faith*...which again raises a questions you have fled every time it's been presented to you: Why Are You Here?


The MadPanda, FCD


* I suspect you are in fact pathologically incapable of doing so on account of your theological presuppositions.  It would be nice to have evidence to the contrary, but so far...
Posted by: khan on Jan. 04 2011,13:37

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 04 2011,13:50)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 04 2011,12:45)
BTW, IBIG, could you pray to your gods concerning healing peripheral neuropathy?

I'm sure your prayers would do the trick and I promise to praise your gods of choice if I am healed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But see, that's why God WON'T do it.

He wants you to believe, not know.  Knowing that he exists removes the belief that he feeds on.

See, apparently IBIG doesn't know theology as well as he thinks he does and he doesn't believe in God.  According to IBIG, he KNOWS God exists.  That's not belief buddy.

You don't have a relationship with God.  He doesn't want you because you KNOW he exists instead of believing he exists.

That's the point of my question to you.  If you pray for something and it happens then you LOSE YOUR FAITH in God, by definition.

God shouldn't answer any prayer, because that would be a tactic admission that He exists.  So why bother praying?

BTW: You don't pray to have a personal relationship with God.  You pray to get a benefit or as a public display of personal faith and piety.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


'Bout sums it up.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 04 2011,14:56

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 04 2011,12:50)
Quote (khan @ Jan. 04 2011,12:45)
BTW, IBIG, could you pray to your gods concerning healing peripheral neuropathy?

I'm sure your prayers would do the trick and I promise to praise your gods of choice if I am healed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But see, that's why God WON'T do it.

He wants you to believe, not know.  Knowing that he exists removes the belief that he feeds on.

See, apparently IBIG doesn't know theology as well as he thinks he does and he doesn't believe in God.  According to IBIG, he KNOWS God exists.  That's not belief buddy.

You don't have a relationship with God.  He doesn't want you because you KNOW he exists instead of believing he exists.

That's the point of my question to you.  If you pray for something and it happens then you LOSE YOUR FAITH in God, by definition.

God shouldn't answer any prayer, because that would be a tactic admission that He exists.  So why bother praying?

BTW: You don't pray to have a personal relationship with God.  You pray to get a benefit or as a public display of personal faith and piety.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Their is a difference from believing that God exists, and having Faith and full Trust in Him. God expects us to have Faith and full Trust in Him.

Read the scripture again.

Hebrews 11:6 (New International Version, ©2010)

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.[B]

God does not feed off of belief, but it is impossible to please God if we don't believe Him. You seem to think that just believing that God exists is enough to please God, but that isn't the case. Read the last part of the verse I posted "and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." It's important that we have Faith in God, that He will provide, heal, deliver, and take care of us. That is what is meant, and not just to only believe that He exists, which is what you imply.

I could state that "I believe that coach Nick Saban exists," but that is much different then if I were to state, that "I believe that Nick Saban is a fabulous college football coach, and I have faith that He can coach His team to another national championship again in the future." There is a big difference between the two statements.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 04 2011,15:09

WTF?

I can't believe in your penis god until I believe in it?

All I'm asking for is some evidence beyond your having experienced its penis.

Is that too much to ask?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 04 2011,15:33

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,14:56)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 04 2011,12:50)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 04 2011,12:45)
BTW, IBIG, could you pray to your gods concerning healing peripheral neuropathy?

I'm sure your prayers would do the trick and I promise to praise your gods of choice if I am healed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But see, that's why God WON'T do it.

He wants you to believe, not know.  Knowing that he exists removes the belief that he feeds on.

See, apparently IBIG doesn't know theology as well as he thinks he does and he doesn't believe in God.  According to IBIG, he KNOWS God exists.  That's not belief buddy.

You don't have a relationship with God.  He doesn't want you because you KNOW he exists instead of believing he exists.

That's the point of my question to you.  If you pray for something and it happens then you LOSE YOUR FAITH in God, by definition.

God shouldn't answer any prayer, because that would be a tactic admission that He exists.  So why bother praying?

BTW: You don't pray to have a personal relationship with God.  You pray to get a benefit or as a public display of personal faith and piety.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Their is a difference from believing that God exists, and having Faith and full Trust in Him. God expects us to have Faith and full Trust in Him.

Read the scripture again.

Hebrews 11:6 (New International Version, ©2010)

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.[B]

God does not feed off of belief, but it is impossible to please God if we don't believe Him. You seem to think that just believing that God exists is enough to please God, but that isn't the case. Read the last part of the verse I posted "and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." It's important that we have Faith in God, that He will provide, heal, deliver, and take care of us. That is what is meant, and not just to only believe that He exists, which is what you imply.

I could state that "I believe that coach Nick Saban exists," but that is much different then if I were to state, that "I believe that Nick Saban is a fabulous college football coach, and I have faith that He can coach His team to another national championship again in the future." There is a big difference between the two statements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you don't believe God exists.  You "know" he does.

Since you are using Bible verses as evidence, then we return the two previous questions:

1) Why do you not pray to heal all those with a particular affliction (you pick)?  If the Bible is true and in multiple places it states that whatever is done in God's name with sufficient belief (including cursing something) will be done.

2) If those Bible verses are not correct, then which verses are correct and how do you know?  In fact, how do you even know which books of the Bible are supposed to be included as canon?  Why do different churches have different Bibles?

Sorry, but your faith makes no sense.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 04 2011,16:15

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 04 2011,15:33)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,14:56)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 04 2011,12:50)
 
Quote (khan @ Jan. 04 2011,12:45)
BTW, IBIG, could you pray to your gods concerning healing peripheral neuropathy?

I'm sure your prayers would do the trick and I promise to praise your gods of choice if I am healed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But see, that's why God WON'T do it.

He wants you to believe, not know.  Knowing that he exists removes the belief that he feeds on.

See, apparently IBIG doesn't know theology as well as he thinks he does and he doesn't believe in God.  According to IBIG, he KNOWS God exists.  That's not belief buddy.

You don't have a relationship with God.  He doesn't want you because you KNOW he exists instead of believing he exists.

That's the point of my question to you.  If you pray for something and it happens then you LOSE YOUR FAITH in God, by definition.

God shouldn't answer any prayer, because that would be a tactic admission that He exists.  So why bother praying?

BTW: You don't pray to have a personal relationship with God.  You pray to get a benefit or as a public display of personal faith and piety.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Their is a difference from believing that God exists, and having Faith and full Trust in Him. God expects us to have Faith and full Trust in Him.

Read the scripture again.

Hebrews 11:6 (New International Version, ©2010)

6 And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.[B]

God does not feed off of belief, but it is impossible to please God if we don't believe Him. You seem to think that just believing that God exists is enough to please God, but that isn't the case. Read the last part of the verse I posted "and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him." It's important that we have Faith in God, that He will provide, heal, deliver, and take care of us. That is what is meant, and not just to only believe that He exists, which is what you imply.

I could state that "I believe that coach Nick Saban exists," but that is much different then if I were to state, that "I believe that Nick Saban is a fabulous college football coach, and I have faith that He can coach His team to another national championship again in the future." There is a big difference between the two statements.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But you don't believe God exists.  You "know" he does.

Since you are using Bible verses as evidence, then we return the two previous questions:

1) Why do you not pray to heal all those with a particular affliction (you pick)?  If the Bible is true and in multiple places it states that whatever is done in God's name with sufficient belief (including cursing something) will be done.

2) If those Bible verses are not correct, then which verses are correct and how do you know?  In fact, how do you even know which books of the Bible are supposed to be included as canon?  Why do different churches have different Bibles?

Sorry, but your faith makes no sense.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I do know that God exists, but you are confusing knowing God exists, with believing in God, trusting that He will take care of me, trusting that He will give me eternal life, trusting that He will heal me if I need it, trusting that He will provide for me. I don't know if you have a spouse or not, but what if you didn't trust anything about your spouse? What would your relationship be like? Would your spouse be pleased?

Jesus' disciples knew He existed, but did they believe He was truly the son of God? Peter did, and Jesus told him upon this rock I will build my church.

You seem to think that God should do things to get you to know that He exists before you believe, which would go against His very will. He wants you to come to Him by faith, and then He will reveal Himself to you. If you seek Him you will find Him, but if you don't seek Him will not find Him.

As far as praying for people, you seem to think that God should answer prayers for the strict purpose of proving His existence. Well He doesn't work that way. When we pray He knows the desires of our heart, and the reason for the prayer, He also uses trials and tribulations to work and build our patience.

God is not the one on trial, we are! We are the ones who have fallen short of the glory of God, and must be born again, and live a life of loving God with all our heart, mind, body and soul, and then to love our neighbor as ourselves.

I'm sorry that you can't see how simple it is to be a child of God, how wonderful it is, and how blessed it is.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 04 2011,16:42

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,17:15)
As far as praying for people, you seem to think that God should answer prayers for the strict purpose of proving His existence. Well He doesn't work that way. When we pray He knows the desires of our heart, and the reason for the prayer, He also uses trials and tribulations to work and build our patience.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What a ridiculous, bullshit cop-out!  Somebody sincerely praying for somebody else to heal or survive an ordeal is pretty fucking straight forward as far as the "desires of our heart and the reason for the prayer" go, as far as I and any sane, non-psychopath should be able to tell.  So, when your imaginary friend doesn't answer those prayers, you then excuse the sadistic lack of action on its part as "trials and tribulations to work and build our patience".  Your god is one sick bastard.

This comes down to you and those like you being stupid enough to keep plodding on.  For the terminally deluded, it's "heads god wins, tails god wins".  (Did I just Godwin this thread?)  That's right, little jackass, keep pulling that cart because somebody told you that there's really a carrot on the end of the stick.  You just can't see it, smell it or taste it, but believe me, it's really there 'cause somebody wrote about it in an old book.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 04 2011,18:04

I.B.I.G. is back!  Thanks for coming to the forum named in your honor.

I've been spending way too much time reading the Bathroom Wall at Panda's Thumb. It's been tedious, but enlightening.

IBIB was the central focus of the BW in 2010.  After thousands of posts, what was IBIG's point?

I think he finally posted it recently on Panda's Thumb, but here it is for those of you who haven't read it.

IBelieveInGod said: "I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn’t exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school."

That's what he was trying to convince everyone of, for an entire year. Not interest in hearing counter arguments, he fights science because he feels it exists soley to deny his God. And his fight is holy and his cause is just.

Evidently there's a US patent for abiogenesis, the object of his wrath.

What does that do to your argument IBIG? The government handed out a patent for abiogenesis. It must be real. I guess you were wrong.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 04 2011,18:51

And that, prong_hunter, is why I ended up prefacing so many responses to our learned associate with three rather pointed words.

The man is off the table and into somebody's pint of lager.  He is dense enough to sit down at a seven card stud game and ask to draw three cards, then wonder whose bid it is.  He's not even wrong.

But rather than accept the possibility that ikkle Biggy might not be up to snuff, he preaches at length and doesn't listen, then wonders why he gets smacked down repeatedly.  He won't even read the material so that he can at least understand what he's attacking (as has been demonstrated several times).

Stupidity this strong should hurt.

I'll give him points for finally stepping up and coming over here, minus a few more for having taken so long to do the right thing and minus several more for showing no sign of actual cogitation in the meantime.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 04 2011,18:58

Shorter version:  
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,14:15)
A bunch of stuff happened. I believe in God. Therefore GODDIDIT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well. Can't argue with that sort of reasoning now, can you.

Sheesh. (headshake)
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 04 2011,20:01

Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 04 2011,18:51)
"And that, prong_hunter, is why I ended up prefacing so many responses to our learned associate with three rather pointed words."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Go fuck yourself, you lying sack of shit!"

No wait, that's someone else (and it's 8 words).

Just what were your three words, I forgot?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 04 2011,21:43

My three words, which have the twin virtues of brevity and simplicity, are as follows:

"Fuck, you're stupid."

I occasionally managed a few more creative comments, but against the brick wall of Biggy's impious stubbornness in the face of reality, I confess my more vulgar tendencies came out with some gusto.

Amazingly enough, it wasn't until I'd called him 'delusional' a few times before he seemed to really respond to anything I said (by, ha ha, threatening me with legal action).  That was worth the chuckle.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 04 2011,21:45

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 04 2011,18:58)
Shorter version:    
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,14:15)
A bunch of stuff happened. I believe in God. Therefore GODDIDIT.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well. Can't argue with that sort of reasoning now, can you.

Sheesh. (headshake)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The truly embarrassing thing is, that's Biggy's "A-game".  That's as good as he can get, if his past performance is anything by which to measure his capacity.

He has yet to put away childish things, it seems.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 05 2011,01:28

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,16:15)
 
I do know that God exists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, you don't, so you just lied to everyone here. NO ONE knows that God exists.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 05 2011,08:45

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 05 2011,01:28)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,16:15)
 
I do know that God exists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, you don't, so you just lied to everyone here. NO ONE knows that God exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I know but my God is so far from anything dreamed up by IBIG and the rest of them so I am afraid it doesn't count.

I thought last night after going to bed - the time of day (or night) when my thinking is at is best, that I'd tell you all (or as much as I can) about that but as often is the case, I had second thoughts when I woke up this morning.

But given my age, I feel it is about time I told what little I know. But it is my modus operandi to think things over more than once and I don't always do what I later realize I should have done.

Besides, there's always the argument: What's the use?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 05 2011,08:51

hmmm... I didn't hear about IBIG's final admission of why he's here.

So, a scientific explantion of molecules (using known chemical processes) self assembling into structures that are able to reproduce (and therefore evolve) is against God.

But, a magic sky fairy breathing on mud and out pops a human being is OK.  Got it, thanks.

BTW: If the scientific explanation of chemistry is wrong, IBIG, do you pray every morning that your car will run and that all the chemistry that keeps you alive works correctly and that all the food you eat will miraculously turn into fuel and nutrients for your body?

If you don't, then you are a hypocrite.  But we all knew that already.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 05 2011,10:09

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 05 2011,14:45)
Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 05 2011,01:28)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,16:15)
 
I do know that God exists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, you don't, so you just lied to everyone here. NO ONE knows that God exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I think I know but my God is so far from anything dreamed up by IBIG and the rest of them so I am afraid it doesn't count.

I thought last night after going to bed - the time of day (or night) when my thinking is at is best, that I'd tell you all (or as much as I can) about that but as often is the case, I had second thoughts when I woke up this morning.

But given my age, I feel it is about time I told what little I know. But it is my modus operandi to think things over more than once and I don't always do what I later realize I should have done.

Besides, there's always the argument: What's the use?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well Quack, since you're probably descending from vikings and your god is most probably Thor, let's remind IBIG of this little factlet:

His lord was nailed to a cross, your god has a hammer. Let's make connections here!




ps: with regard to Louis taking a short break from posting here (or at least lowering his post rate), I find my reading pleasure renewed everyday by MadPanda's posts. Thanks, I need this...
Posted by: khan on Jan. 05 2011,11:00

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 05 2011,09:51)
hmmm... I didn't hear about IBIG's final admission of why he's here.

So, a scientific explantion of molecules (using known chemical processes) self assembling into structures that are able to reproduce (and therefore evolve) is against God.

But, a magic sky fairy breathing on mud and out pops a human being is OK.  Got it, thanks.

BTW: If the scientific explanation of chemistry is wrong, IBIG, do you pray every morning that your car will run and that all the chemistry that keeps you alive works correctly and that all the food you eat will miraculously turn into fuel and nutrients for your body?

If you don't, then you are a hypocrite.  But we all knew that already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I owned a British car in the '70s and this was not far from the truth.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 05 2011,11:12

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 05 2011,01:28)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 04 2011,16:15)
 
I do know that God exists...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, you don't, so you just lied to everyone here. NO ONE knows that God exists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, I don't mean to be contrary, but IBIG has responded to such posts before. (I've got to stop reading the BW at PT.)

In this forum IBIG said, "I've already done that on Panda's Thumb bathroom wall. You wouldn't believe it anyway, so it would be a wasted of my time to rehash all of that again. "

And to be fair, he has responded in this forum that he  witnessed a miraculous healing of his grandmother. You might not believe it was a real miracle. And I might not believe it. But to IBIG it was genuine.

I have to admit, if I had seen a seemingly genuine 'miraculous' cure, before my own eyes, I might start to wonder about 'things that cannot be seen.'

Furthermore, as I have learned from reading, IBIG claims the Holy Spirit within him. If I felt such a presence (and I do not), then maybe I would be as stubborn as IBIG.

Finally, IBIG has been convince that old Bible prophesies have truly been fulfilled.

This is how IBIG, for himself, 'knows' there is a God.

For those of us without such experiences, we are justified in saying, "there's no way you can 'know' that God exists."

IBIG's proofs will not hold-up in a scientific court of law. His personal experiences don't convince anyone else. Therefore he would like to change the definition of science to include the supernatural.

In a year's worth of arguing, no one at PT agreed with him. He convinced no one, declared victory, and left.

So I'm trying to be fair to IBIG.

I really want to know how that patent on abiogenesis affects his argument against abiogenesis.

What say ye, IBIG?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 05 2011,11:19

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 05 2011,16:09)
[SNIP]

ps: with regard to Louis taking a short break from posting here (or at least lowering his post rate), I find my reading pleasure renewed everyday by MadPanda's posts. Thanks, I need this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I am still here. And I am watching you all. But not in, you know, a pervy way. Well, not much of a pervy way.

Anyway, as someone who has occasionally done a bit of chemistry I have thought about discussing abiogenesis with our new chum but then tragedy struck. I watched the Paul Nelson video Larry Moran has up on Sandwalk and then read the comments. Paul Nelson's remarks in the comments, to the effect that because in the lab we have to purify compounds from crude reaction mixtures to characterise them somehow indicates a flaw with the original Miller-Urey experiments (plus a load of quote mined waffle) therefore ID is true, are so bad I have decided not to. This "argument" from Nelson is reducible to this:

Chromatography, therefore Jesus.

That simple wanking fucktardery annoyed and depressed me so much I had to go and have a lie down.

If anyone needs me I'll be in a darkened room with a cold, damp flannel over my head applying beer at regular intervals.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 05 2011,11:44

Louis,  one thing to remember is that, to an IDist, ANYTHING that happens in a lab or scientific experiment (but not including pure observation i.e. no manipulation) is, by their definition, designed and therefore proff of ID.

Of course, this just proves that they are idiots.  I've posted dozens of papers and asked IDists to specifically point out where the researchers 'designed' the results... and none of them have ever answered.



Prong,

I would further submit that any purely internal 'evidence' like that be subjected to an extensive battery of tests designed to make sure that one wasn't the victim of self-induced visualizations produced by ritual (or other means) that causes one to be in a suggestive state.

IOW (damn you Joe) making sure that it is an external influence not your own brain playing tricks on you OR you playing tricks on your own brain.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 05 2011,11:58

IBIG, let's explore our argument a little further.  I see two choices here, feel free to add another if you think of one.

We will assume that God is perfectly omniscient.
A) God either acts on this perfect fore-knowledge

-or-

B) God does not act on this perfect fore-knowledge

If A) is correct, then there is no free-will and your God has condemned those of us who don't believe in him to eternal death and torture (thereby making him evil).

The logic behind this is that an omnipotent God can do anything and can see the results of all of His actions in the myriad branching of realities.  So anything that He does would be removing the free-choice of other sentients.  If you think we have free-will, then God cannot act on his prescient knowledge.

If B) is correct, then again, why do you pray to God for things?  He cannot act on your prayers, because doing so would remove ones free-will.*

So far, we have established that God cannot answer impossible prayers or prayers that could otherwise be accomplished through other means.  We have also established that God cannot answer prayers without removing free-will.  And yet, God is supposed to be all-powerful, yet he can't do any of these things... indeed, He can't even show himself.

Further, as has already been established, IBIG does not believe the Bible is true.  Why are you a Christian IBIG?  You don't even believe the Bible?  

I really don't get the labrythine shallows of your mind... though I think that's a good thing.



* i.e. You COULD pray for me to become a Christian, since I will not, either God must not answer your prayer, must remove my free-will, or must tell you 'no' and send me to eternal torture.  Remember, my 'hard heart' has no bearing on the situation.  God could easily make me a Christian of whatever stripe he desires, especially if you believe enough that God will be forced to answer your prayer.

In any light, prayer is looking more and more like a totally ridiculous waste of time.
Posted by: khan on Jan. 05 2011,11:58

New International Version, ©2010

New
International
Updated
Re-translated
Misogynist
Holy War
etc
etc
etc
...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 05 2011,13:04

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 05 2011,10:09)
ps: with regard to Louis taking a short break from posting here (or at least lowering his post rate), I find my reading pleasure renewed everyday by MadPanda's posts. Thanks, I need this...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Merci beaucoup, Monsieur!

I do aim to please, and occasionally succeed.  I regret that most of what I can add is the equivalent of spitballs hurled from the peanut gallery, and take a certain blushing pleasure at hearing that my efforts at least amuse.  :)



The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 05 2011,16:25



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Well Quack, since you're probably descending from vikings and your god is most probably Thor, let's remind IBIG of this little factlet:

His lord was nailed to a cross, your god has a hammer. Let's make connections here!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a good one!

A cross in the sky and a hammer and nail in the sky, that figures!
Posted by: Albatrossity2 on Jan. 05 2011,16:53

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 05 2011,11:19)
Chromatography, therefore Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Brilliant!

But it might be a bit hard to discuss chromatography in the standard-issue church bulletin...
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 05 2011,17:38

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 05 2011,22:53)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 05 2011,11:19)
Chromatography, therefore Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Brilliant!

But it might be a bit hard to discuss chromatography in the standard-issue church bulletin...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Perhaps: "Magic sand make black stuff sparkly"?

Louis
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 05 2011,17:55

Quote (Albatrossity2 @ Jan. 05 2011,16:53)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 05 2011,11:19)
Chromatography, therefore Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Brilliant!

But it might be a bit hard to discuss chromatography in the standard-issue church bulletin...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Back in my former life as a grad student I had to TA a lab that involved gas chromatography.  The machine was in a closet with delusions of grandeur.  There were something like 20 students in there with me.  I have a nearly pathological fear of needles. Every time I turned around there was a freshman with a syringe pointed at me filled with the kind of organic soup that would give you super powers if you lived in a comic book.  I'm sure I included "Jesus!" amongst the responses I had each time this happened.  Therefore, Godditit.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 05 2011,18:37

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 05 2011,11:58)
IBIG, let's explore our argument a little further.  I see two choices here, feel free to add another if you think of one.

We will assume that God is perfectly omniscient.
A) God either acts on this perfect fore-knowledge

-or-

B) God does not act on this perfect fore-knowledge

If A) is correct, then there is no free-will and your God has condemned those of us who don't believe in him to eternal death and torture (thereby making him evil).

The logic behind this is that an omnipotent God can do anything and can see the results of all of His actions in the myriad branching of realities.  So anything that He does would be removing the free-choice of other sentients.  If you think we have free-will, then God cannot act on his prescient knowledge.

If B) is correct, then again, why do you pray to God for things?  He cannot act on your prayers, because doing so would remove ones free-will.*

So far, we have established that God cannot answer impossible prayers or prayers that could otherwise be accomplished through other means.  We have also established that God cannot answer prayers without removing free-will.  And yet, God is supposed to be all-powerful, yet he can't do any of these things... indeed, He can't even show himself.

Further, as has already been established, IBIG does not believe the Bible is true.  Why are you a Christian IBIG?  You don't even believe the Bible?  

I really don't get the labrythine shallows of your mind... though I think that's a good thing.



* i.e. You COULD pray for me to become a Christian, since I will not, either God must not answer your prayer, must remove my free-will, or must tell you 'no' and send me to eternal torture.  Remember, my 'hard heart' has no bearing on the situation.  God could easily make me a Christian of whatever stripe he desires, especially if you believe enough that God will be forced to answer your prayer.

In any light, prayer is looking more and more like a totally ridiculous waste of time.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You are a silly ignorant fool! I can say that because the Bible clearly says, "a fool says in his heart that there is no God."

You say that God either acts on perfect fore-knowledge or God does not act on perfect fore-knowledge.

What are you referring to? What perfect fore-knowledge are you referring to?

Every one of use have a free will, are you saying that it isn't your free will to be an atheist? You are an atheist by choice, and if you wanted you could be a follower of Christ right?  So, are you saying that God makes you be an atheist? Don't you see how silly your argument is? God can intervene in your life, but He chooses not to so that you do have your free will to be a believer or not, and you chose to not be a believer by your own free will. So, your argument is stupid.

God can and has answered prayers for supposedly impossible situations, I told of the my friend Patty whom God healed of inoperable terminal lung cancer, she was sent home to die and given six months to live, and that was in 1979.

Where did I say that I don't believe the Bible is true?

I can pray for you to become a child of God, and I am praying that right now, but God will not make you become a Christian against your own free will. What you don't know though, is that He can, and will use situations, tragedies, etc... to get your attention, but ultimately you are the one who would have make the decision on your own. You may have to end up in the pig pin like the prodigal son, before you come to a realization that you want something more in life, and that you are tired of living off of the leftover slop of the pigs. You know nothing about how God works. You must really live in a awful state of depression, bitterness, anger, hate! I feel sorry for you, you have no Joy, you have no Peace, and you definitely have no Righteous.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 05 2011,18:43

IBIG, you are one stupid, arrogant, deluded fucktard.  SRSLY.

(Hey, there's really not much point in going any deeper or even attempting a more elegant analysis, is there?)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 05 2011,18:55

Omniscience (pronounced /?m?n?si?ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is attributed to God.
(wikipedia)

That's the perfect fore-knowlege that I apply to God.

And yes, if God does exist, then I 100% blame him for me being atheist.  His followers are poor examples of Christian piety (which actually doesn't exist BTW, goes with that 'evangelical' thing).  He made His book WRONG and gave it to fallible, petty, power-mad men to control.

If we don't have free-will, then God decided my fate LONG before I came along, which isn't exactly fair.

Look, if God has omniscience and omnipotence, then either everyone or everything else does or does not have free will.

If we have free will, then God cannot be omniscient AND benevolent at the same time... especially considering his own followers.  If we have free-will, then you should be perfectly willing to pray for God to heal the (otherwise incurable) disease of your choice.  You don't because you KNOW that God will not answer such a prayer.

You can couch it in whatever terms you want, but you good and well know that He will not answer such a prayer.

You're too chicken to realize this.  You don't believe the Bible is true, because you either ignore what it says, or say that part is metaphorical.  You don't believe Matthew 17:20 where  Jesus says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Either no one is a good enough believer to truly use God's power or God doesn't exist.

He may exist, of course, and not give a rat's left testicle about this universe.

In any case I have presented, and you haven't presented any counter cases yet, prayer is effectively useless.  Either you can do it on your own (or with merely human help) or you won't get what you pray for.

If God exists, then He doesn't give a shit about you either.

IBIG, you couldn't be more wrong.  I am the happiest I have ever been in my life.  I am more than happy, too, to show the world how truly sick, evil, twisted, power-hungry, and moronic your religion is.  I enjoy it.

I don't hate God.  You can't hate something that doesn't exist.  I hate that it has turned many, many people (including you) into slabbering morons.  You have no concept of what it like to be free of the fears created by your religion.

I can do any positive thing you can do and I can do it better, because I'm not doing it out of fear (i.e. extortion), I'm doing it because I want to.  There is nothing that you can do to help this world that I can't do.  

But there are many, many thing you can do to destroy the world that I can't.  You can destroy science by perverting it and lying about it.  You can destroy families by converting one and having them shun the others.  You can destroy countries and peoples, even genocide, by converting governments into Theocratic monstrosities.  You can create slaves, even today, of young people, especially women telling them what they can and can't do, even with there own bodies and lives.

I can't do any of that.  All I can tell people is the truth.  And that simple truth is, if God is even real, He doesn't give a shit about this planet.

Heck, I'll stay an atheist, just to show you that you're God can't convert me.  Let's see who wins me or your God.

BTW: Do you believe Matthew 17:20 or not?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 05 2011,18:57

So Ogre, are you saying that if God knows everything about everything, then he know whether you will accept him or reject him?

And if you reject him, and he knows it, then you really didn't have a choice at all? It was predestined before the beginning of time that you would spend eternity in Hell?

So if God knows everything (omniscient is the word, I think), then there is no such thing as 'free will'.

And God is directly responsible for condeming so many souls to Hell.

That doesn't seem fair.

What do you say, IBIG?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 05 2011,19:29

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 05 2011,18:55)
Omniscience (pronounced /?m?n?si?ns/)[1] (or omniscient point-of-view in writing) is the capacity to know everything infinitely, or at least everything that can be known about a character including thoughts, feelings, life and the universe, etc. In monotheism, this ability is attributed to God.
(wikipedia)

That's the perfect fore-knowlege that I apply to God.

And yes, if God does exist, then I 100% blame him for me being atheist.  His followers are poor examples of Christian piety (which actually doesn't exist BTW, goes with that 'evangelical' thing).  He made His book WRONG and gave it to fallible, petty, power-mad men to control.

If we don't have free-will, then God decided my fate LONG before I came along, which isn't exactly fair.

Look, if God has omniscience and omnipotence, then either everyone or everything else does or does not have free will.

If we have free will, then God cannot be omniscient AND benevolent at the same time... especially considering his own followers.  If we have free-will, then you should be perfectly willing to pray for God to heal the (otherwise incurable) disease of your choice.  You don't because you KNOW that God will not answer such a prayer.

You can couch it in whatever terms you want, but you good and well know that He will not answer such a prayer.

You're too chicken to realize this.  You don't believe the Bible is true, because you either ignore what it says, or say that part is metaphorical.  You don't believe Matthew 17:20 where  Jesus says:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------

     For truly, I say to you, if you have faith as a grain of mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Either no one is a good enough believer to truly use God's power or God doesn't exist.

He may exist, of course, and not give a rat's left testicle about this universe.

In any case I have presented, and you haven't presented any counter cases yet, prayer is effectively useless.  Either you can do it on your own (or with merely human help) or you won't get what you pray for.

If God exists, then He doesn't give a shit about you either.

IBIG, you couldn't be more wrong.  I am the happiest I have ever been in my life.  I am more than happy, too, to show the world how truly sick, evil, twisted, power-hungry, and moronic your religion is.  I enjoy it.

I don't hate God.  You can't hate something that doesn't exist.  I hate that it has turned many, many people (including you) into slabbering morons.  You have no concept of what it like to be free of the fears created by your religion.

I can do any positive thing you can do and I can do it better, because I'm not doing it out of fear (i.e. extortion), I'm doing it because I want to.  There is nothing that you can do to help this world that I can't do.  

But there are many, many thing you can do to destroy the world that I can't.  You can destroy science by perverting it and lying about it.  You can destroy families by converting one and having them shun the others.  You can destroy countries and peoples, even genocide, by converting governments into Theocratic monstrosities.  You can create slaves, even today, of young people, especially women telling them what they can and can't do, even with there own bodies and lives.

I can't do any of that.  All I can tell people is the truth.  And that simple truth is, if God is even real, He doesn't give a shit about this planet.

Heck, I'll stay an atheist, just to show you that you're God can't convert me.  Let's see who wins me or your God.

BTW: Do you believe Matthew 17:20 or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the problem with your argument, you can just as I type on this computer can become a follower of Christ. It is a choice that you have and will have until you die. Now if you state that God knew that you would be an atheist, then I would agree that He did foreknow, but you like I were born in a fallen earth, and God chooses not to intervene in our lives until we let Him, so is there still hope for you, yes there most certainly is! God created man, and did it so that man would have his own mind, his own free will.

Again you seem to think that God is on trial here, that He must heal diseases just to demonstrate to you and everyone on Panda's Thumb that He is real. God is sovereign, and He can do anything that He wants. You and I are the ones on trial not God. If I'm wrong then I did and go to dust, but if you are wrong then you go to Hell for all eternity.

I am praying that God will use whatever is necessary to bring you to repentance.

Now let me ask you this: you state that you can't hate something that doesn't exist. Tell me, do you have complete knowledge of everything in the universe? Do you have complete knowledge that there is anything beyond the universe? If so it is irrational for you to make such a statement.

I don't do anything out of fear, I serve a God who loves me and I do everything out of love for Him. The only fear I have is being separated from Him, I would never want to live a life separated from His presence. That would be complete and total despair and misery.

I do believe Matthew 17:20, maybe this will help:

Matthew 17:20
Next Verse

And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.
Note 2 at Mt 17:20: The disciples' unbelief in this instance was not a disbelief that God's power could produce deliverance (see note 1 at Lu 9:41), but rather, it was a "natural" kind of unbelief that came from hardened hearts (see note 10 at Mr 6:52) that were more sensitive to what they saw (Mr 9:20) than to what they believed.

Note 3 at Mt 17:20: Jesus did not say that the reason these disciples could not cast this demon out was because they didn't have faith but rather because they had unbelief. On the contrary, Jesus stated that a very small amount of faith (the size of a "mustard seed") was sufficient to remove a mountain if no unbelief was present to hinder it.

Most of us have the concept that we either have faith or unbelief but that we can't have both at the same time. However, Jesus told Jairus to "believe only" (Lu 8:50) implying that faith and fear can operate in us at the same time. This was also the reason James said not to be double-minded (Jas 1:5-8). We can be thinking faith yet having thoughts of unbelief at the same time.

As explained in note 1 at Mt 17:19, these disciples did have faith to cast this demon out, and they exercised that faith but didn't see the same results that they had seen before. This was why they were concerned and asked Jesus what the problem was. They wouldn't have asked if they had not believed. They did have faith, the same faith that had effected many other deliverances. The problem wasn't their faith but rather their unbelief.

Every believer has been given "the measure of faith," but unbelief negates it. It's like hooking a team of horses up to a heavy weight and having them pull it. The weight will move. But if an equal team of horses is hooked up to the same weight and pull in the opposite direction at the same time, although great force may be exerted, the weight won't move. Likewise, unbelief counterbalances our faith. If we will just remove the unbelief, a mustard-seed amount of faith will be sufficient to move our problems.

Instead of trying to build huge amounts of faith to overcome our fears and unbelief, a simpler method is to remove our fears by cutting off their source; then our simple, "child-like" faith that remains will do the job. It doesn't take big faith, just pure faith.

Those of us who tolerate high levels of unbelief in our lives will never be able to build our faith big enough to overcome unbelief's negative force. The only way we can receive is to get others to mix their faith with ours or draw on one of the supernatural ministry gifts in someone else, such as the gift of faith (1Co 12:9). God's best is for us to receive directly from Him. We will only be successful at that when we not only build our faith but also destroy our doubts.

< http://www.awmi.net/bible/mat_17_20 >

From what you and others write on here, it is clear that you don't have Peace in your life, definitely no Joy, your life is full of bitterness, anger, and depression. You are living in the pig pin and don't even know it. I pray that one day that you will wake up and realize how lost you have been, and that you don't have to live a life of bitterness, anger and depression. You can live a life full of supernatural Joy, and Peace.

Romans 14:17 (King James Version)

17For the kingdom of God is not meat and drink; but righteousness, and peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

Clearly I can see that you are far from the kingdom of God, because you have no righteousness, peace, and joy in the Holy Ghost.

I pity you!!!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 05 2011,19:44

IBIG, I'm not the one that needs repentance.  I haven't ever lied.

"From what you and others write on here, it is clear that you don't have Peace in your life, definitely no Joy, your life is full of bitterness, anger, and depression. You are living in the pig pin and don't even know it."

It is you that are deeply confused.  Oh, and that's another lie.  You don't know anything about me.

BTW: So you don't even have the faith of a mustard seed?

God isn't on trial... You are.  You can't try something that doesn't exist.  You are on trial... by their works you shall know them.  I think it's pretty obvious... even the Christians on this site don't think very much of you.

As I said, if God exists and wants me to come to him, all he has to do is end the immoral behavior of his followers.  I'll accept that.  I refuse to be associated with people like you.

Finally... ah Pascal's Wager... how quaint.  To bad it's useless... because I see the horrors that religion creates.  How about that guy in Pakistan that was just killed by his own bodyguard because he opposed blasphemy laws?  And don't say that was Muslim and not Christian... in my experience, Christians are far worse than that.

You might want to consider the types of people you associate with.  Those religious people are truly insane... not to mention liars and hypocrites.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 05 2011,20:11

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 05 2011,19:44)
IBIG, I'm not the one that needs repentance.  I haven't ever lied.

"From what you and others write on here, it is clear that you don't have Peace in your life, definitely no Joy, your life is full of bitterness, anger, and depression. You are living in the pig pin and don't even know it."

It is you that are deeply confused.  Oh, and that's another lie.  You don't know anything about me.

BTW: So you don't even have the faith of a mustard seed?

God isn't on trial... You are.  You can't try something that doesn't exist.  You are on trial... by their works you shall know them.  I think it's pretty obvious... even the Christians on this site don't think very much of you.

As I said, if God exists and wants me to come to him, all he has to do is end the immoral behavior of his followers.  I'll accept that.  I refuse to be associated with people like you.

Finally... ah Pascal's Wager... how quaint.  To bad it's useless... because I see the horrors that religion creates.  How about that guy in Pakistan that was just killed by his own bodyguard because he opposed blasphemy laws?  And don't say that was Muslim and not Christian... in my experience, Christians are far worse than that.

You might want to consider the types of people you associate with.  Those religious people are truly insane... not to mention liars and hypocrites.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Clearly you don't know what repentance means! You evidently think it means to just ask forgiveness for something. Repentance means to choose to turn away from sin and to turn to God, which if you think you aren't in need repentance, then you must think that you are a Christian, or that you have turned to God. Very funny!!!

To Repent-"to Turn" or "Return":

The term shubh, is most generally employed to express the Scriptural idea of genuine repentance. It is used extensively by the prophets, and makes prominent the idea of a radical change in one's attitude toward sin and God. It implies a conscious, moral separation, and a personal decision to forsake sin and to enter into fellowship with God. It is employed extensively with reference to man's turning away from sin to righteousness (Deuteronomy 4:30 Nehemiah 1:9 Psalm 7:12 Jeremiah 3:14). It quite often refers to God in His relation to man (Exodus 32:12 Joshua 7:26). It is employed to indicate the thorough spiritual change which God alone can effect (Psalm 85:4). When the term is translated by "return" it has reference either to man, to God, or to God and man (1 Samuel 7:3 Psalm 90:13 (both terms, nacham and shubh; Isaiah 21:12; Isaiah 55:7). Both terms are also sometimes employed when the twofold idea of grief and altered relation is expressed, and are translated by "repent" and "return" (Ezekiel 14:6 Hosea 12:6 Jonah 3:8).

Repent-"to Change the Mind":

The word metanoeo, expresses the true New Testament idea of the spiritual change implied in a sinner's return to God. The term signifies "to have another mind," to change the opinion or purpose with regard to sin. It is equivalent to the Old Testament word "turn." Thus, it is employed by John the Baptist, Jesus, and the apostles (Matthew 3:2 Mark 1:15 Acts 2:38). The idea expressed by the word is intimately associated with different aspects of spiritual transformation and of Christian life, with the process in which the agency of man is prominent, as faith (Acts 20:21), and as conversion (Acts 3:19); also with those experiences and blessings of which God alone is the author, as remission and forgiveness of sin (Luke 24:47 Acts 5:31). It is sometimes conjoined with baptism, which as an overt public act proclaims a changed relation to sin and God (Mark 1:4 Luke 3:3 Acts 13:24; Acts 19:4). As a vital experience, repentance is to manifest its reality by producing good fruits appropriate to the new spiritual life (Matthew 3:8).

Repent-"to Turn Over," "to Turn Upon," "to Turn Unto":

The word epistrepho, is used to bring out more clearly the distinct change wrought in repentance. It is employed quite frequently in Acts to express the positive side of a change involved in New Testament repentance, or to indicate the return to God of which the turning from sin is the negative aspect. The two conceptions are inseparable and complementary. The word is used to express the spiritual transition from sin to God (Acts 9:35 1 Thessalonians 1:9); to strengthen the idea of faith (Acts 11:21); and to complete and emphasize the change required by New Testament repentance (Acts 26:20).

< http://refbible.com/r/repentance.htm >

Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.

I'm sorry that you have been let down by so many Christians, and if I have done anything I'm sorry, but I haven't lied. If I have spoken something that wasn't true then I didn't do it knowingly. I see bitterness in what you write, sure I don't know you, but I do read what you write.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 05 2011,20:18

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 04 2011,18:04)
I.B.I.G. is back!  Thanks for coming to the forum named in your honor.

I've been spending way too much time reading the Bathroom Wall at Panda's Thumb. It's been tedious, but enlightening.

IBIB was the central focus of the BW in 2010.  After thousands of posts, what was IBIG's point?

I think he finally posted it recently on Panda's Thumb, but here it is for those of you who haven't read it.

IBelieveInGod said: "I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn’t exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school."

That's what he was trying to convince everyone of, for an entire year. Not interest in hearing counter arguments, he fights science because he feels it exists soley to deny his God. And his fight is holy and his cause is just.

Evidently there's a US patent for abiogenesis, the object of his wrath.

What does that do to your argument IBIG? The government handed out a patent for abiogenesis. It must be real. I guess you were wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IBelieve demonstrates that he hypocritically hates science: if he doesn't hate science, why would he make up a ridiculous story of how the sole purpose of Abiogenesis is to turn children into God-hate atheists?

He's not interested in hearing counter-arguments, he's here to preen and satisfy his ego: Why else would he set up such painfully stupid gotcha games in order to exalt how he worships his own ignorance (which he mistakes for Jesus and God, no less)?  Why else would he lie so much, only to hypocritically turn around and accuse everyone of putting words into his mouth, or screech about how everyone who points out his bullshit is really an evil atheist out to get him?

And then there's how he refuses to explain how saying that God "spoke the laws into existence" is suppose to be science beyond him saying that his "FAITH" tells him so.

He even refuses to explain how God "speaking the laws into existence" is supposed to be different from God magically poofing everything into existence using magic.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 05 2011,20:29

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 05 2011,08:51)
hmmm... I didn't hear about IBIG's final admission of why he's here.

So, a scientific explantion of molecules (using known chemical processes) self assembling into structures that are able to reproduce (and therefore evolve) is against God.

But, a magic sky fairy breathing on mud and out pops a human being is OK.  Got it, thanks.

BTW: If the scientific explanation of chemistry is wrong, IBIG, do you pray every morning that your car will run and that all the chemistry that keeps you alive works correctly and that all the food you eat will miraculously turn into fuel and nutrients for your body?

If you don't, then you are a hypocrite.  But we all knew that already.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe IBelieve has bothered to answer this question of yours.

I wonder why.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 05 2011,20:47

Hell, it took us over 6 months to get to answer why he was here.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 05 2011,21:09

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 05 2011,20:47)
Hell, it took us over 6 months to get to answer why he was here.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That he wants us to repent our unforgivable sin of assuming science is science, and not a nefarious, evil atheist plot to mutate children into evil, God-hating zombie monsters in a deliberate attempt to spite IBelieve because he has "FAITH"?

Or, was it that we had to believe whatever bullcrap IBelieve says, under pain of eternal damnation, because IBelieve has "FAITH," and thereby knows more about science than all of the scientists in the whole wide world?

Or was it that "God speaking the laws into existence" is somehow, magically different from saying that "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic," despite a stark refusal to explain why?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 05 2011,22:46

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 05 2011,18:43)
IBIG, you are one stupid, arrogant, deluded fucktard.  SRSLY.

(Hey, there's really not much point in going any deeper or even attempting a more elegant analysis, is there?)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Exactement...

The deeper analysis happens because, dammitall, we're science-y types.  Tinkering with anomalous responses and busted stuff is part of what we do.   :D


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 05 2011,23:02

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 05 2011,18:57)
...if God knows everything about everything, then he know whether you will accept him or reject him?

And if you reject him, and he knows it, then you really didn't have a choice at all? It was predestined before the beginning of time that you would spend eternity in Hell?

So if God knows everything (omniscient is the word, I think), then there is no such thing as 'free will'.

And God is directly responsible for condeming so many souls to Hell.

That doesn't seem fair.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's it exactly, prong_hunter: theodicy trumps bible-babble.

Not that Biggy will ever admit this: he likes thinking of himself as one of the elect, forgetting that Calvin's imaginary friend is an asshole who does as he pleases.

If we must have gods, let us have gods like Sun Wukong, Ganesh, and Hanuman, who are relatively good-tempered, not usually inclined to smite, and who appreciate a swinging party. They don't claim omni-anything, either, and don't demand too much in the way of phony self-degradation.

Biggy, reflect on the following five words: tantum religio potuit suadare malorum.  They describe you and your entire theological assumption to a T.


The MadPanda, FCD


(apologies for the slight truncation of prong_hunter's original comment)
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 05 2011,23:20

Given IBIGs completely lame apologetics and his piss-poor knowledge of science, we can add a complete lack of knowledge of history (the old atheist countries/Christian countries BS put forth by some of the more pathetic organizations). Biggie, leaving out the advances in weaponry and the increasing population, if we look at the per capita death toll, of say Hitler's Christian Germany, or Christian Europe's assault on the Aztec and Inca (and all the other smaller civilizations), the Christian Americans on the native Americans, the Crusades....ah, forget it.  Christian countries don't persecute or kill people, so they must not have been Christians...even though they worship the same vague ideas of "God" as Biggie.  Pretty sad to ignore 2 millennia of violence and torture, all in the name of cheap apologetics.  

Dude, and I use that term loosely, people here have probably studied more history, archaeology, psychology, even higher criticism (biblical studies) than you have.  What you think are arguments aren't even getting out of the starting gate.  But do preach on.  We're all amused with street theater.

Tell us again how a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a fruit, when she knew the master wouldn't like it if she ate it (although she had no idea of what right and wrong even was, that was another tree that gave that)?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 06 2011,05:08

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 05 2011,23:20)
Given IBIGs completely lame apologetics and his piss-poor knowledge of science, we can add a complete lack of knowledge of history (the old atheist countries/Christian countries BS put forth by some of the more pathetic organizations). Biggie, leaving out the advances in weaponry and the increasing population, if we look at the per capita death toll, of say Hitler's Christian Germany, or Christian Europe's assault on the Aztec and Inca (and all the other smaller civilizations), the Christian Americans on the native Americans, the Crusades....ah, forget it.  Christian countries don't persecute or kill people, so they must not have been Christians...even though they worship the same vague ideas of "God" as Biggie.  Pretty sad to ignore 2 millennia of violence and torture, all in the name of cheap apologetics.  

Dude, and I use that term loosely, people here have probably studied more history, archaeology, psychology, even higher criticism (biblical studies) than you have.  What you think are arguments aren't even getting out of the starting gate.  But do preach on.  We're all amused with street theater.

Tell us again how a talking snake convinced a woman to eat a fruit, when she knew the master wouldn't like it if she ate it (although she had no idea of what right and wrong even was, that was another tree that gave that)?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh boy here comes the Hitler claims again!!! Okay let's discuss Hitler, it is claimed that He was a Christian, but was He really? Hitler believed in an "Aryan" Christ, which as you should know Christ was born as a Jew, a race hated by Hitler. Hitler was no more a Christian then you are! Many of our politicians over the years have claimed to be Christians to get ahead in politics, but I wouldn't consider them true Christians. Many have killed in the name of God, but that doesn't make them true followers of Christ, because if they had been true followers of Christ, wouldn't they would have kept His teachings. Hitler was a sick and evil man, and clearly there was no "fruit of the Spirit" in his life, the real sign for knowing whether someone is a Christian or not. The Bible says, "by their fruit you will know them".

Luke 6:27-36 (New International Version, ©2010)

   27 “But to you who are listening I say: Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you. 29 If someone slaps you on one cheek, turn to them the other also. If someone takes your coat, do not withhold your shirt from them. 30 Give to everyone who asks you, and if anyone takes what belongs to you, do not demand it back. 31 Do to others as you would have them do to you.
  32 “If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners love those who love them. 33 And if you do good to those who are good to you, what credit is that to you? Even sinners do that. 34 And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. 35 But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them without expecting to get anything back. Then your reward will be great, and you will be children of the Most High, because he is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. 36 Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.

Here is the fruit of the spirit, and the best way to know if someone is a Christian or not:

Galatians 5:22-23 (New International Version, ©2010)

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law.

Now if you can prove to me that Hitler had the above fruit of the Spirit, then I will admit that He was a Christian. Good luck proving that!!!

Talk about revisionist history, you are really good at revising history aren't you? I'm not defending the crusades but didn't the Muslims slaughter the Jews and take over their holy land first without provocation? I believe the crusades were mostly in the beginning an attempt take back the holy land from the muslim captures right? So, do you defend the current attempt by the Palestinians to war against Israel, to destroy Israel to take back land? Isn't that the same? The crusades were sanctioned and mostly fought by the Roman Catholic Forces. They weren't fought by me or any of my Christian friends, and they were fought in the last 100 years either.

Let's look at how many were slaughtered or starved to death in Atheistic non Christian regimes.

Mao Ze-Dong (China, 1958-61 and 1966-69, Tibet 1949-50)          49 to 78 million

Jozef Stalin (USSR, 1932-39)    23 million

Hideki Tojo (Japan, 1941-44)     5 million civilians

Ismail Enver (Turkey, 1915-20)  1,200,000 Armenians (1915) + 350,000 Greek Pontians and 480,000 Anatolian Greeks (1916-22) + 500,000 Assyrians (1915-20)

Pol Pot (Cambodia, 1975-79)    1,700,000

Kim Il Sung (North Korea, 1948-94)   1,600,000

Menghistu (Ethiopia, 1975-78)     1,500,000

Yakubu Gowon (Biafra, 1967-1970)  1,000,000

Jean Kambanda (Rwanda, 1994)   800,000

Suharto (East Timor, West Papua, Communists, 1966-98)    800,000

Saddam Hussein (Iran 1980-1990 and Kurdistan 1987-88)   600,000


Jonas Savimbi (Angola, 1975-2002)   400,000

Mullah Omar - Taliban (Afghanistan, 1986-2001)    400,000

Idi Amin (Uganda, 1969-1979)   300,000

Yahya Khan (Pakistan, 1970-71)     300,000


These are just in the last 100 years. I left out Hitler because you seem to think He was a Christian, but there are no such claims with any of the examples I give.


It's sad that you obviously haven't and don't understand the teachings of Christ, otherwise you would know that Jesus taught just the opposite what you claim that Christians do. True followers of Christ would hold to His teachings.

You really have no argument, and you can only attempt to revise history to support your point of view. Well history is as it is and can't be revised, and what I posted above proves that Atheistic, and Non Christian countries do commit evil atrocities. Atheistic countries are far more dangerous then religious countries, just look at how many were killed by Stalin, and Mao! Your argument is baseless, and has no foundation!!!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 06 2011,05:41



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheistic countries are far more dangerous then religious countries
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



England is now basically a secular country. If a secular country is the only requirement for atrocity could you let me know why there are none going on at the moment in the UK?

Mind, I've not looked out of the window yet so there could be some people hanging from the lampposts that were not there yesterday, but it's unlikely.

So I guess you think that if Jozef Stalin had let Christ into his heart none of those 23 million people would have died? Strange then how even those with (allegedly) Christ in their heart can kill without qualm.

I.E The last president of the USA talked about Jesus all the time but still laid the smackdown on an entire country, killing thousands of civilians, and the crusade he started is still ongoing.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 06 2011,06:21

Ahhhh the old "if they are not my sort of christian, or even not a christian at all, then it's all your fault you dirty non-christian, and I get to define who is a christian and who isn't" goalpost moving dissembling nonsense. Lots of uses of the word "true" too. I wonder if any of them put sugar on their porridge?

It never fails to amuse. Go on, IBIG, I'm laughing at least.

Louis

ETA: P.S. I doubt anyone would need to a) question the atrocities commited under a massive variety of regimes, including those listed, b) try to rewrite any history whatsoever. What people will do, and rightly so, is question your definitions, your diabolically bad logic (replete as it is with errors and fallacies), your asinine conclusions and sundry matters. THOSE are what defeat your claims, not any historical revionism. Just as a hint, you are claiming the moral high ground, the access to some moral authority, no one else is. It's up to you then to demonstrate that access. Pro tip, champ: Defining everyone naughty as "Not a True Christian™" won't achieve this. Nor will tu quoques, nor will weasel words, nor will goalpost shifts, nor indeed will any of the standard tricks dishonest shits like you continually pull.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,08:07

IBIG, learn some history before you start mouthing off about stuff you know NOTHING about.

Hitler hated Jews because they killed Jesus.

You really need to get off the apologetics websites and read some history, and science, and religious criticism.

You never have told me which parts of the Bible are true and which are not and how you know.

And you still haven't answered: Do you pray every morning that all your food will turn to fuel and nutrients and your car will run?

Do you, follow the instructions of your doctor and take medication or do you ONLY pray for healing?

Hypocrite.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 06 2011,08:10

IBelieve, you are a colossal moron if you are stupid enough to conflate "Muslim" with "Evil Atheist" simply because they are not Christian.

Or, explain to us in fine detail exactly why Mullah Omar is an atheist even though he did all those abominable things for God in Afghanistan.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 06 2011,08:22



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or, explain to us in fine detail exactly why Mullah Omar is an atheist even though he did all those abominable things for God in Afghanistan.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Same thing for Mulla Krekar, founder of Ansar al Islam. We are taking good care of him here in Norway lest he should be executed if we returned him to Irak. We'd do that for Osama bin Laden too if he should show up here, no chance for anybody else to lay hands on him unless we got assurance that no death sentence would be applied.

That's socialist atheism for you.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 06 2011,09:03

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,08:07)
IBIG, learn some history before you start mouthing off about stuff you know NOTHING about.

Hitler hated Jews because they killed Jesus.

You really need to get off the apologetics websites and read some history, and science, and religious criticism.

You never have told me which parts of the Bible are true and which are not and how you know.

And you still haven't answered: Do you pray every morning that all your food will turn to fuel and nutrients and your car will run?

Do you, follow the instructions of your doctor and take medication or do you ONLY pray for healing?

Hypocrite.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Very Funny Answer:):):):)

Clearly you know absolutely nothing about history, what a poor excuse for a scientist you are! I would have thought that you would have done more RESEARCH before posting such a wrong answer!

Where do I start? If Hitler only hated the Jews because they killed Jesus, then why did he hate the gypsies, blacks, and other races? Why did he hate and kill the mentally retarded and those with physical disabilities?



One of the foundations of Hitler's social policies was the concept of racial hygiene. It was based on the ideas of Arthur de Gobineau, a French count; eugenics, a pseudo-science that advocated racial purity; and social Darwinism. Applied to human beings, "survival of the fittest" was interpreted as requiring racial purity and killing off "life unworthy of life." The first victims were children with physical and developmental disabilities; those killings occurred in a programme dubbed Action T4.[152] After a public outcry, Hitler made a show of ending this program, but the killings continued (see Nazi eugenics).
Between 1939 and 1945, the SS, assisted by collaborationist governments and recruits from occupied countries, systematically killed somewhere between 11 and 14 million people, including about six million Jews,[153][154] in concentration camps, ghettos and mass executions, or through less systematic methods elsewhere. In addition to those gassed to death, many died as a result of starvation and disease while working as slave labourers (sometimes benefiting private German companies). Along with Jews, non-Jewish Poles, Communists and political opponents, members of resistance groups, homosexuals, Roma, the physically handicapped and mentally retarded, Soviet prisoners of war (possibly as many as three million), Jehovah's Witnesses, Adventists, trade unionists, and psychiatric patients were killed. One of the biggest centres of mass-killing was the industrial extermination camp complex of Auschwitz-Birkenau. As far as is known, Hitler never visited the concentration camps and did not speak publicly about the killing in precise terms.[155]
The Holocaust (the "Endlösung der jüdischen Frage" or "Final Solution of the Jewish Question") was planned and ordered by leading Nazis, with Heinrich Himmler and Reinhard Heydrich playing key roles. While no specific order from Hitler authorizing the mass killing has surfaced, there is documentation showing that he approved the Einsatzgruppen killing squads that followed the German army through Poland and Russia, and that he was kept well informed about their activities. The evidence also suggests that in the fall of 1941 Himmler and Hitler decided upon mass extermination by gassing. During interrogations by Soviet intelligence officers declassified over fifty years later, Hitler's valet Heinz Linge and his military aide Otto Gunsche said Hitler had "pored over the first blueprints of gas chambers." His private secretary, Traudl Junge, testified that Hitler knew all about the death camps.[citation needed]
Göring gave a written authorisation to Heydrich to "make all necessary preparations" for a "total solution of the Jewish question". To make for smoother cooperation in the implementation of this "Final Solution", the Wannsee conference was held on 20 January 1942, with fifteen senior officials participating (including Adolf Eichmann) and led by Reinhard Heydrich. The records of this meeting provide the clearest evidence of planning for the Holocaust. On 22 February, Hitler was recorded saying to his associates, "we shall regain our health only by eliminating the Jews".

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler >

Hitler and the Nazi party outlined in clear and unequivocal terms their racial enemies. Those races included Roma (Gypsies), Slavs, African Germans, and especially Jews. Like- wise, people with physical and mental disabilities, viewed as “hereditarily unfit” Germans, were deemed a biological threat to the health of the nation. As the Nazis framed it, the particular threat each so-called enemy posed to the collective whole was slightly different, but the essence was the same. Building on age-old prejudice and suspicion, Nazi rhetoric made a case for the segregation and exclusion of those whom they considered a danger to their racial purity.

In Hitler’s mind, no group was more dangerous and more threatening than the Jews. Because he defined them as a race, he argued that they were instinctively driven to increase their numbers and dominate others. At the same time, he insisted that their methods of expansion were fundamentally suspect. Because Hitler tied racial continuation to territo- rial acquisition, he believed the Jews, who had no land of their own, should not exist at all. In fact, he theorized that when the Romans expelled the Jewish people from Israel more than 2,000 years ago and scattered them across the empire in what has come to be called the Diaspora, the Jews should have begun a long decline, ending ultimately in extinction. So why did they continue to exist and even thrive? Hitler concluded that they must have adapted to their landless environment and cultivated traits—such as cunning, deviousness, and deceitfulness—that would ensure their survival. In so doing, their very existence in his view ran counter to nature and defied the intended course of human history. Specifically, Hitler believed that the Jews escaped extinction by migrating and attaching themselves to existing states or communities, always pushing their own interests and exploiting the native people whose territory they entered. According to Hitler, the Jewish nature was the opposite of the “Aryan” Germans’ nature. Whereas the Nazis prized racial hierarchies and purity of bloodlines, the Jews, in his view, sought race-mixing, assimila- tion, and equality; whereas the Germans valued national strength and loyalty, the Jews weakened states by cultivating international businesses and financial institutions that fostered interdependence among nations. Hitler presented Jews as parasites, who used devious means, such as financial profiteering, media control, and race-mixing, to weaken the “host” nation, dull its race-consciousness, and reduce its capacity to defend itself. He voiced his view in a speech in Nuremberg in January 1923: “The internal expurgation of the Jewish spirit is not possible in any Platonic way, for the Jewish spirit is the product of the Jewish person. Unless we expel the Jewish people soon, they will have Judaized our people within a very short time.”
Hitler believed that the Soviet Union was the first country in which the Jews had tri- umphed and that the Jews were using the Communist state to enslave the Slavic population. Like other Nazi leaders and right-wing nationalist politicians, he imagined that Jews were creating conditions necessary for a Soviet revolutionary takeover in Germany: massive unemployment, hunger, and homelessness. In his view, then, rather than a legitimate political and economic structure, communism was a tool devised by Jews to disguise their dominance and control of the Slav and so-called Asiatic peoples of eastern Europe and Eurasia. In the fact that two of every three European Jews lived in eastern Europe, Hitler found further corroboration for his view that the region had been infiltrated and taken over by the Jewish people.


< http://www.ushmm.org/educati....rt1.pdf >

For all the information about Hitler, and his hatred towards Jews, you obviously did no research whatsoever. I'm very disappointed in your lack of effort. If you truly are a scientist, then you are lazy at best, or incompetent, otherwise you would have done your research before making such a blatant error. You really make a fool of yourself! Again I pity your soul!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,09:49

All that work and not a single reference from Mein Kampf... fascinating.

It's called primary literature.  I suggest you read up on it.

All this is neither here nor there... just a way for you to avoid answering hard questions about your faith.

You claim that God can do anything.  You claim that you fully believe the Bible.  Yet you also take medication (developed by science)... interesting.

Do you also eat shellfish and wear clothing made of multiple materials?

Do you hate your parents?

Have you given everything you own away (obviously not, you have a computer and internet connection)?

Oh and to stem off your diatribe about these things not being required anymore, the New Covenant is NOT a replacement of the old laws.  The OLD laws of were replaced by CULTURAL CONVENTION, not Jesus.  Slaverly, as every human person knows, is wrong... yet Jesus does not state anywhere to no longer keep slaves.  The rest of the Bible is very specific about how to aquire, sell, and treat slaves.  Why is that?  (hint, that was the culture of the time)

BTW: Why do different Christian Faiths have different numbers of books in their Bibles?  Which Bible do you use and why?  Have you read the other Bibles and used your super-secret method for determining Teh Troof™ that you won't tell us about?
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 06 2011,09:55

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 05 2011,19:29][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the problem with your argument, you can just as I type on this computer can become a follower of Christ. It is a choice that you have and will have until you die. Now if you state that God knew that you would be an atheist, then I would agree that He did foreknow, but you like I were born in a fallen earth, and God chooses not to intervene in our lives until we let Him, so is there still hope for you, yes there most certainly is! God created man, and did it so that man would have his own mind, his own free will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope...that's not a problem with the Free Will argument. That there's (supposedly) and option to be a follower of some "Christ" doesn't change the dilemma for Free Will created by intervention of any kind.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now let me ask you this: you state that you can't hate something that doesn't exist. Tell me, do you have complete knowledge of everything in the universe? Do you have complete knowledge that there is anything beyond the universe? If so it is irrational for you to make such a statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You're missing the point IBIG - whether there's a possibility that your god actually exists or not does change the perception by some that no such entity exists. But really, that's just academic. The real issue is that if someone does not think something exists, there's no way to hate that thing, regardless of whether it does actually exist or not.

I can easily accuse you of hating Invisible Pink Unicorns because you refuse to talk to them, but does that mean you actually hate Invisible Pink Unicorns?

The rest of your post is meaningless drivel.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 06 2011,10:01

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 06 2011,10:09

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 06 2011,05:08][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Oh boy here comes the Hitler claims again!!! Okay let's discuss Hitler, it is claimed that He was a Christian, but was He really? Hitler believed in an "Aryan" Christ, which as you should know Christ was born as a Jew, a race hated by Hitler. Hitler was no more a Christian then you are! Many of our politicians over the years have claimed to be Christians to get ahead in politics, but I wouldn't consider them true Christians. Many have killed in the name of God, but that doesn't make them true followers of Christ, because if they had been true followers of Christ, wouldn't they would have kept His teachings. Hitler was a sick and evil man, and clearly there was no "fruit of the Spirit" in his life, the real sign for knowing whether someone is a Christian or not. The Bible says, "by their fruit you will know them".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nope...trying the old those folks who slaughtered in the name of Christianity couldn't have been Real Christians because Real Christians wouldn't do such a thing in my opinion is just the logical fallacy of question begging via No True Scotsman. By your argument, it can quickly be deduced that there actually are no Christians at all because we can all come up with things that No Real Christian would do. And I hate to break it to you, IBIGGY, but you don't have any authority to declare what a Real Christian is or isn't anyway. Check and mate there, IBIGGY.

Further though, this doesn't change the fact that actually no country has ever slaughtered anyone in the name of atheism, so your beliefs still look horrid by comparison.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 06 2011,10:12

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,05:08)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's sad that you obviously haven't and don't understand the teachings of Christ,
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Actually, what's sad is that you don't.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 06 2011,10:19

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 05 2011,20:11][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history >

Provide your sources the billions have been killed in the name of Christianity?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,10:23

To extend on something that Robin said and got me to thinking...

First, IBIG is correct (OMG, Satan just ordered a shitload of parkas), we don't know whether God exists or not, by defintion (at least of Christianity) no one CAN know whether God exists or not.

The extension of this, however, is very disturbing.  Let's say IBIG had some kind of 'experience' that convinced him that God was real.  What are the actual options... especially those that IBIG cannot distinguish among.

1) It was God.
2) It was Satan.
3) It was an alien or other telepathic entity
4) It was IBIG's own subconscious

IBIG has no method of determining which of these it actually is.  That's just one of the major problems I have with religion IBIG.  You have NO WAY to distinguish between 'God' and any and all alternatives that could describe your feelings.

For example, if either existed, I would be much more likely to attribute your 'conversion' or 'personal relationship' to Satan rather than God.  I mean, look at the damage you attitude and posts have done to your religion here.  You won't even consider this, because you "know" the truth, but an honest person would be forced to consider the results of his/her own actions... including the pushing away of potential converts due to one's own actions.

So, IBIG, please provide objective evidence that it is "God" talking to you rather than any of the other options I provided.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 06 2011,10:25

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,10:23)
To extend on something that Robin said and got me to thinking...

First, IBIG is correct (OMG, Satan just ordered a shitload of parkas), we don't know whether God exists or not, by defintion (at least of Christianity) no one CAN know whether God exists or not.

The extension of this, however, is very disturbing.  Let's say IBIG had some kind of 'experience' that convinced him that God was real.  What are the actual options... especially those that IBIG cannot distinguish among.

1) It was God.
2) It was Satan.
3) It was an alien or other telepathic entity
4) It was IBIG's own subconscious

IBIG has no method of determining which of these it actually is.  That's just one of the major problems I have with religion IBIG.  You have NO WAY to distinguish between 'God' and any and all alternatives that could describe your feelings.

For example, if either existed, I would be much more likely to attribute your 'conversion' or 'personal relationship' to Satan rather than God.  I mean, look at the damage you attitude and posts have done to your religion here.  You won't even consider this, because you "know" the truth, but an honest person would be forced to consider the results of his/her own actions... including the pushing away of potential converts due to one's own actions.

So, IBIG, please provide objective evidence that it is "God" talking to you rather than any of the other options I provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


moving the goal posts again?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,10:32

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:19)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history >

Provide your sources the billions have been killed in the name of Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Salem Witch Trials
Inquisition
Pakistan Governor
First Crusade 1095–1099
Siege of Jerusalem
Crusade of 1101
Norwegian Crusade 1107–1110
Second Crusade 1147–1149
Third Crusade 1187–1192
Fourth Crusade 1202–1204
Albigensian Crusade
Children's Crusade
Fifth Crusade 1217–1221
Sixth Crusade 1228–1229
Seventh Crusade 1248–1254
Eighth Crusade 1270
Ninth Crusade 1271–1272
Northern Crusades
Crusades of the Teutonic Order
Swedish Crusades
Wendish Crusade
Stedinger Crusade
Aragonese Crusade
Alexandrian Crusade
Mahdian Crusade
Crusades in the Balkans
Crusade against the Tatars
Hussite Crusade
Children's Crusade
Anti-Abortion Violence
Christian Yugoslav government led by the popular leader Slobodan Milosevic slaughtered huge numbers of ethnic Albanian Muslims

Biblical references
Worldwide Flood
Sodom and Gomorrah
Isrealite takeover of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:17)
Numbers 31:15-18
exodus, chapter 34, verses 11-14
leviticus, chapter 26, verses 7-9

How's that for a start?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,10:35

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:25)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,10:23)
To extend on something that Robin said and got me to thinking...

First, IBIG is correct (OMG, Satan just ordered a shitload of parkas), we don't know whether God exists or not, by defintion (at least of Christianity) no one CAN know whether God exists or not.

The extension of this, however, is very disturbing.  Let's say IBIG had some kind of 'experience' that convinced him that God was real.  What are the actual options... especially those that IBIG cannot distinguish among.

1) It was God.
2) It was Satan.
3) It was an alien or other telepathic entity
4) It was IBIG's own subconscious

IBIG has no method of determining which of these it actually is.  That's just one of the major problems I have with religion IBIG.  You have NO WAY to distinguish between 'God' and any and all alternatives that could describe your feelings.

For example, if either existed, I would be much more likely to attribute your 'conversion' or 'personal relationship' to Satan rather than God.  I mean, look at the damage you attitude and posts have done to your religion here.  You won't even consider this, because you "know" the truth, but an honest person would be forced to consider the results of his/her own actions... including the pushing away of potential converts due to one's own actions.

So, IBIG, please provide objective evidence that it is "God" talking to you rather than any of the other options I provided.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


moving the goal posts again?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nope, an extension.  

You say you have a personal relationship with God.

I'm pointing out that you don't know that it is God.  In fact, you can't know that it is God, by defintion.  You have faith it's God, but as they say "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."

You cannot distinguish between God's influence, Satan's influence, and your own subconscious.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 06 2011,10:56

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,10:32)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:19)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history >

Provide your sources the billions have been killed in the name of Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Salem Witch Trials
Inquisition
Pakistan Governor
First Crusade 1095–1099
Siege of Jerusalem
Crusade of 1101
Norwegian Crusade 1107–1110
Second Crusade 1147–1149
Third Crusade 1187–1192
Fourth Crusade 1202–1204
Albigensian Crusade
Children's Crusade
Fifth Crusade 1217–1221
Sixth Crusade 1228–1229
Seventh Crusade 1248–1254
Eighth Crusade 1270
Ninth Crusade 1271–1272
Northern Crusades
Crusades of the Teutonic Order
Swedish Crusades
Wendish Crusade
Stedinger Crusade
Aragonese Crusade
Alexandrian Crusade
Mahdian Crusade
Crusades in the Balkans
Crusade against the Tatars
Hussite Crusade
Children's Crusade
Anti-Abortion Violence
Christian Yugoslav government led by the popular leader Slobodan Milosevic slaughtered huge numbers of ethnic Albanian Muslims

Biblical references
Worldwide Flood
Sodom and Gomorrah
Isrealite takeover of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:17)
Numbers 31:15-18
exodus, chapter 34, verses 11-14
leviticus, chapter 26, verses 7-9

How's that for a start?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did you read the link that I posted?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 06 2011,10:59

Abortion? How many innocent babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade? try   49,551,703
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,11:10

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:59)
Abortion? How many innocent babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade? try   49,551,703
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another red herring... abortion is done by Christians as well as non-Christians.

So, you think it's OK to murder doctors who perform abortions?

So, you think it's OK to perform violence, including murder, to prevent abortion... which is the law of the land*?

* And don't start on "God's Law supercedes Man's Law", don't forget that the Bible says you should follow the Law of the Land... or is that metaphorical too?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 06 2011,11:18

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,11:10)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:59)
Abortion? How many innocent babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade? try   49,551,703
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another red herring... abortion is done by Christians as well as non-Christians.

So, you think it's OK to murder doctors who perform abortions?

So, you think it's OK to perform violence, including murder, to prevent abortion... which is the law of the land*?

* And don't start on "God's Law supercedes Man's Law", don't forget that the Bible says you should follow the Law of the Land... or is that metaphorical too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.

And no I don't agree with violence of any kind against abortion clinics, doctors, etc... So, tell me how many have been killed by violence against abortion clinics and doctors? I've already shown that over 49 million babies have been killed.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 06 2011,11:28

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,11:18)
So, tell me how many have been killed by violence against abortion clinics and doctors? I've already shown that over 49 million babies have been killed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, exactly, is the connection between those two things?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 06 2011,11:29

IBIG,
If abortion was illegal, as I presume you would like it to be, what would be your suggested punishment for those who have illegal abortions?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,11:53

Biggy, you are a historical ignoramus.

Besides all the openly religious wars, of which there have been a sufficient number presented, we may also include every war in which both sides declared that your imaginary friend was on their side.  Guess how many of 'em that was?

Christians have done an awful lot of killing in their time, and justified it by their faith.  There is no dodging that bullet at all, my son.

Hitler was Catholic, son.  There's no dodging that bullet, either.  Christianity is the primary source of Jewish persecution in history, period.  Go look at the Tsarist pogroms in the Ukraine in the 20th Century and tell me what separates those good Orthodox Christian boys from Hitler's SS.

But there is one black mark on the record that didn't make the list (albeit on a technicality): the T'ai Ping Rebellion, China, 1850's.  You can tell how bad it was because the estimates of the people killed by that range from a conservative low of 20 million up to 30 million or so.

That one was started by a failed bureaucrat who got a little of the Christian heaven on his mind.  It is spared association with your imaginary friend only because it also got filtered through enough Chinese assumptions that the result was more of a Joseph Smith / Reverend Moon thing...but if you'd asked his followers, guess what they would have told you they were?  Christians.  (This may have helped fuel the Righteous Harmony Fist's bad attitude a few decades later, but I have yet to find anything linking the two, and there was enough to spark the Boxer Rebellion as it was.)

Feh.  Even Confucius's goose would be better at this.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: brobotsb2 on Jan. 06 2011,12:15

Just for you, little traitors…



we're this far from nuking all of you....






< http://www.skepticality.com/forum....-1-2011 >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,12:36

Ah, IBIG, here's one of your fellow Christians now.

Why don't you explain to him how misguided he is... after all, he's promoting violence to remove atheism.  That can't be good and just and God's plan can it?

I've got a side bet that you will never engage whatshisface.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 06 2011,12:38

Ok. Enough of this happy horseshit. I've had it. Time for these religious folks to start telling the truth. I reckon they're hiding something. I reckon they know about who is REALLY running things on this planet. Time to stop beating about the bush. Come on IBIG, tell us about Satan and demonic influences. You know THAT is what is going on.

Tell us the truth man.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,12:40

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,11:18)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,11:10)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:59)
Abortion? How many innocent babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade? try   49,551,703
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another red herring... abortion is done by Christians as well as non-Christians.

So, you think it's OK to murder doctors who perform abortions?

So, you think it's OK to perform violence, including murder, to prevent abortion... which is the law of the land*?

* And don't start on "God's Law supercedes Man's Law", don't forget that the Bible says you should follow the Law of the Land... or is that metaphorical too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.

And no I don't agree with violence of any kind against abortion clinics, doctors, etc... So, tell me how many have been killed by violence against abortion clinics and doctors? I've already shown that over 49 million babies have been killed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how many babies died at Sodom and Gomorah?  And how many babies died during the Great Flood?

An entire planet's worth dude... an entire freaking planet...

and what's funnier than anything is that God's wrath and wiping the planet clean DIDN'T ACCOMPLISH ANYTHING.  It was a total waste of time, effort, and lifes... because God got pissed off... a perfectly benign, omniscient being got pissed off.  Very interesting.

IBIG, have you reflected on my question?  Have you asked youself how much damage you have done here to your own faith (not personal faith, but your religion as a whole)?  No, I'm shocked...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,13:29

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,12:16)
madpanda- we are going to torture you and get that atheism out of your deluded little head..
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're dumber than advertised, Mabus.  Have you tried reasoned argument instead of empty threats?  Didn't think so.

How are your headaches doing?  Should I have Igor up the voltage on the power drills?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 06 2011,13:30

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:19)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




< Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Well, that would be your opinion and that's not worth much.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Provide your sources the billions have been killed in the name of Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



< http://articles.exchristian.net/2002....-by.php >

< http://www.ctlibrary.com/ch/1996/issue49/4937.html >

< http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstat1.htm >

That's a good start. You can add up the numbers whenever you wish.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,13:32

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,12:36)
Ah, IBIG, here's one of your fellow Christians now.

Why don't you explain to him how misguided he is... after all, he's promoting violence to remove atheism.  That can't be good and just and God's plan can it?

I've got a side bet that you will never engage whatshisface.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For a change, I'm not going to tease Biggy about his reluctance to deal with the other idiot.  Even Biggy isn't so monumentally stupid as to imagine that there's anything to work with on the other end to that connection.  (That he cannot or will not recognize that there isn't a great deal of difference between his delusions and those of Mabus is beside the point.)

On the other hand, I didn't think Biggy would ever have the guts and integrity to come here instead of vomiting all over the BW, so I could very well be in error (again).


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 06 2011,13:38

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 06 2011,10:56][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you read the link that I posted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I read the error-filled link. The problem is, once again you aren't paying attention. Neither Mao Zadong nor Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Hitler, OTOH, actually killed in the name of Christianity.  D'Souza, once again, just demonstrates his ignorance.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 06 2011,13:45

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,11:18)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Abortion is not a "secular agenda" - what ignorance. Abortion is a medical procedure provided for health and well-being. It isn't even a "promoted" procedure, unlike say...plastic surgery and LASIK, so I have no idea what you're going on about.

And Ogre's right...the fact is Christians use the procedure, along with Muslims, Jews, Hindis, Buddhists, agnostics, deists, and atheists, among others. So your argument has no validity.

But of course this even completely misses the point - abortions are NOT done in the name of atheism so your claim is moot anyway.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 06 2011,13:48

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,11:45)
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 06 2011,11:18][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Abortion is not a "secular agenda" - what ignorance. Abortion is a medical procedure provided for health and well-being. It isn't even a "promoted" procedure, unlike say...plastic surgery and LASIK, so I have no idea what you're going on about.

And Ogre's right...the fact is Christians use the procedure, along with Muslims, Jews, Hindis, Buddhists, agnostics, deists, and atheists, among others. So your argument has no validity.

But of course this even completely misses the point - abortions are NOT done in the name of atheism so your claim is moot anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
Posted by: nmgirl on Jan. 06 2011,13:56

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,11:18)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,11:10)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:59)
Abortion? How many innocent babies have been killed since Roe v. Wade? try   49,551,703
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Another red herring... abortion is done by Christians as well as non-Christians.

So, you think it's OK to murder doctors who perform abortions?

So, you think it's OK to perform violence, including murder, to prevent abortion... which is the law of the land*?

* And don't start on "God's Law supercedes Man's Law", don't forget that the Bible says you should follow the Law of the Land... or is that metaphorical too?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.

And no I don't agree with violence of any kind against abortion clinics, doctors, etc... So, tell me how many have been killed by violence against abortion clinics and doctors? I've already shown that over 49 million babies have been killed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IBIG, you use the word "church" instead of Christian now.  I say a Christian is not a church.  Too many churches forget the meaning of Christ's message.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,15:04

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 06 2011,13:48)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,11:45)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,11:18)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Abortion is not a "secular agenda" - what ignorance. Abortion is a medical procedure provided for health and well-being. It isn't even a "promoted" procedure, unlike say...plastic surgery and LASIK, so I have no idea what you're going on about.

And Ogre's right...the fact is Christians use the procedure, along with Muslims, Jews, Hindis, Buddhists, agnostics, deists, and atheists, among others. So your argument has no validity.

But of course this even completely misses the point - abortions are NOT done in the name of atheism so your claim is moot anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Amen Brother!  




To further mngirl's comment. As there are reported to be approximately 38,000 Christian denominations. ( Christianity Today – General Statistics and Facts of Christianity Today)

Now, are there 37,999 denominations that are wrong?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,15:20

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,15:05)
there is only one way to deal with you fuckers...

SILENCING...

< [/B]]http://www.headlinezone.com/index.php?showtopic=18354[B][/b] >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What an exquisitely Christian answer to things you don't like.  Well done, lad, well done.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 06 2011,15:27

Now, that's a great idea!

Hey, IBIG, tell me how I can get a succubus.  Tall and blonde if you don't mind.

Thx.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,15:32

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 06 2011,15:27)
Now, that's a great idea!

Hey, IBIG, tell me how I can get a succubus.  Tall and blonde if you don't mind.

Thx.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


with large tracts of land.


Hey IBIG, you might want to explain to whatshisface how violence is wrong for a Christian...
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 06 2011,17:02

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,10:32)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:19)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history >

Provide your sources the billions have been killed in the name of Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Salem Witch Trials
Inquisition
Pakistan Governor
First Crusade 1095–1099
Siege of Jerusalem
Crusade of 1101
Norwegian Crusade 1107–1110
Second Crusade 1147–1149
Third Crusade 1187–1192
Fourth Crusade 1202–1204
Albigensian Crusade
Children's Crusade
Fifth Crusade 1217–1221
Sixth Crusade 1228–1229
Seventh Crusade 1248–1254
Eighth Crusade 1270
Ninth Crusade 1271–1272
Northern Crusades
Crusades of the Teutonic Order
Swedish Crusades
Wendish Crusade
Stedinger Crusade
Aragonese Crusade
Alexandrian Crusade
Mahdian Crusade
Crusades in the Balkans
Crusade against the Tatars
Hussite Crusade
Children's Crusade
Anti-Abortion Violence
Christian Yugoslav government led by the popular leader Slobodan Milosevic slaughtered huge numbers of ethnic Albanian Muslims

Biblical references
Worldwide Flood
Sodom and Gomorrah
Isrealite takeover of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:17)
Numbers 31:15-18
exodus, chapter 34, verses 11-14
leviticus, chapter 26, verses 7-9

How's that for a start?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But those weren't Real Christians!  He already said so.  Seriously, it sounds like he's getting his history from Barton, or Berlinsku (sp?).
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 06 2011,17:22

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 06 2011,11:28)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,11:18)
So, tell me how many have been killed by violence against abortion clinics and doctors? I've already shown that over 49 million babies have been killed.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What, exactly, is the connection between those two things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


49 million babies?  In what sense?  Is he counting blastocysts?  That's the usual way that these jokers do it.  I haven't heard of any abortions performed on babies, you know, the things that have been born and are out of the womb.  It has been preformed on fetuses of various stages of development, however, as well as blastocysts (and any other stages I might have missed, zygotes?).

I assume that Biggie is also against fertilization, as that results in a lot of dead zygotes.  I assume he would be against crimes involving women who may be pregnant, including women who smoke or drink (endangering the health of the "baby").  I can't see the death penalty as a penalty, though, since he is all "right to life"....right?

What about the biggest abortionist of all - God?  Billions of fetuses spontaneously abort every year (or even day, perhaps, if we include all the animals).  What is his punishment?  Oh yeah, to have Biggie as a worshiper and representative here on Earth...

ETA - I think the connection is that there is this moral relativism, or something like it.  Haven't read the responses yet, so I'm eager to see how this is justified.  It's like watching a Corman flick, or Sleepaway Camp.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,17:27

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 06 2011,17:02)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 06 2011,10:32)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:19)
 
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history >

Provide your sources the billions have been killed in the name of Christianity?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Salem Witch Trials
Inquisition
Pakistan Governor
First Crusade 1095–1099
Siege of Jerusalem
Crusade of 1101
Norwegian Crusade 1107–1110
Second Crusade 1147–1149
Third Crusade 1187–1192
Fourth Crusade 1202–1204
Albigensian Crusade
Children's Crusade
Fifth Crusade 1217–1221
Sixth Crusade 1228–1229
Seventh Crusade 1248–1254
Eighth Crusade 1270
Ninth Crusade 1271–1272
Northern Crusades
Crusades of the Teutonic Order
Swedish Crusades
Wendish Crusade
Stedinger Crusade
Aragonese Crusade
Alexandrian Crusade
Mahdian Crusade
Crusades in the Balkans
Crusade against the Tatars
Hussite Crusade
Children's Crusade
Anti-Abortion Violence
Christian Yugoslav government led by the popular leader Slobodan Milosevic slaughtered huge numbers of ethnic Albanian Muslims

Biblical references
Worldwide Flood
Sodom and Gomorrah
Isrealite takeover of Canaan (Deuteronomy 20:17)
Numbers 31:15-18
exodus, chapter 34, verses 11-14
leviticus, chapter 26, verses 7-9

How's that for a start?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But those weren't Real Christians!  He already said so.  Seriously, it sounds like he's getting his history from Barton, or Berlinsku (sp?).
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Biggy's qualifications to proclaim such a thing and have it accepted as valid are (how shall I put this?) not exactly possessed of either sterling quality or solid foundation.  He may bleat all he wishes, but his abuse of the No True Scotsman fallacy is too blatant to ignore.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 06 2011,17:37

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,13:38)
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 06 2011,10:56][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you read the link that I posted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I read the error-filled link. The problem is, once again you aren't paying attention. Neither Mao Zadong nor Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Hitler, OTOH, actually killed in the name of Christianity.  D'Souza, once again, just demonstrates his ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He used D'Souza?  Crap, that error-filled tome is strong enough to fertilize the Midwest, but the stench would take weeks to dissipate.  No wonder he's confused.
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 06 2011,17:45

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 06 2011,14:48)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,11:45)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,11:18)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
But abortion is a secular agenda, I have never seen abortion promoted by churches. You seem to think that just because there are Christians having abortions that it somehow makes not a secular agenda.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Abortion is not a "secular agenda" - what ignorance. Abortion is a medical procedure provided for health and well-being. It isn't even a "promoted" procedure, unlike say...plastic surgery and LASIK, so I have no idea what you're going on about.

And Ogre's right...the fact is Christians use the procedure, along with Muslims, Jews, Hindis, Buddhists, agnostics, deists, and atheists, among others. So your argument has no validity.

But of course this even completely misses the point - abortions are NOT done in the name of atheism so your claim is moot anyway.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"If you're against abortion, DON'T HAVE ONE!"  -- My bumpersticker
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 06 2011,17:46

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,16:05)
there is only one way to deal with you fuckers...

SILENCING...

< [/B]]http://www.headlinezone.com/index.php?showtopic=18354[B][/b] >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So sorry about your small penis.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 06 2011,18:13

IBIG!

You said, "Okay let’s see you create non-living matter from nothing, and then let’s see you create life from that non-living matter, and then I will talk with you:):):) If it is so easy for life to have come about from non-living matter without the intervention of a Creator, then it should be so much easier for science to CREATE life in a lab:):):) And I’m supposed to be delusional?"

How come the US government has granted a patent for ABIOGENESIS?

So talk to me. I've just shown you what you said can't be done.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 06 2011,18:28

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 06 2011,16:13)
IBIG!

You said, "Okay let’s see you create non-living matter from nothing, and then let’s see you create life from that non-living matter, and then I will talk with you:):):) If it is so easy for life to have come about from non-living matter without the intervention of a Creator, then it should be so much easier for science to CREATE life in a lab:):):) And I’m supposed to be delusional?"

How come the US government has granted a patent for ABIOGENESIS?

So talk to me. I've just shown you what you said can't be done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Holy crap that's stupid:

"We can't do it, so it must have been God."

That's about as enlightened as sacrificing virgins to the volcano god.

Of course, if/when life is ever created from primordial elements, we'll get the "Intelligence was involved" argument.

Yawn.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,18:41

Nope, IBIG is Teh Xstian.

There can be only one... and IBIG is what it is teh bomb.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 06 2011,18:53

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 06 2011,21:27)
Now, that's a great idea!

Hey, IBIG, tell me how I can get a succubus.  Tall and blonde if you don't mind.

Thx.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one understands that IBIG's REAL mission is to defeat the agents of Satan. I want to hear about it. I don't know why he's being so shy. Tell us all about it IBIG. Tell us about demonic influences.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,19:39

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 06 2011,18:53)
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 06 2011,21:27)
Now, that's a great idea!

Hey, IBIG, tell me how I can get a succubus.  Tall and blonde if you don't mind.

Thx.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No one understands that IBIG's REAL mission is to defeat the agents of Satan. I want to hear about it. I don't know why he's being so shy. Tell us all about it IBIG. Tell us about demonic influences.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, IBIG, tell us about the demons in your head telling you to convince people that religion is wrong.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 06 2011,20:51

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:14)
now we are going to bury you...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'm not exactly getting the buzz of credibility here...


Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,20:59

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 06 2011,17:37)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,13:38)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:56)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you read the link that I posted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I read the error-filled link. The problem is, once again you aren't paying attention. Neither Mao Zadong nor Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Hitler, OTOH, actually killed in the name of Christianity.  D'Souza, once again, just demonstrates his ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He used D'Souza?  Crap, that error-filled tome is strong enough to fertilize the Midwest, but the stench would take weeks to dissipate.  No wonder he's confused.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


D'Souza's qualifications on this entire topic are (how do I put this kindly?) less than stellar.  Quoting him on anything is like citing Deepak Chopra as an authority on quantum physics.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 06 2011,21:04

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:14)
you people really need to add comment moderation to your forum of BS...



now we are going to bury you...


And the lesson from all of this? DOUBLE!


< http://www.headlinezone.com/index.php?showtopic=18354 >

and the bottom!


Serves Em Right, eh, Randi...


< http://www.randi.org/site....ht.html >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Once again, so sorry about your small penis, Davey.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,21:09

Is 'small' a sufficient word for the organ in question?  I should think the words 'limp' or 'flaccid' as well as 'ridiculous' might apply...or so I hear from the few persons who count as credible witnesses whenever they can stop laughing long enough to answer questions.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 06 2011,21:17

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 06 2011,21:09)
Is 'small' a sufficient word for the organ in question?  I should think the words 'limp' or 'flaccid' as well as 'ridiculous' might apply...or so I hear from the few persons who count as credible witnesses whenever they can stop laughing long enough to answer questions.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Atrophied" is a far better descriptor.

We are talking about the brain, yes?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,21:19

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:09)
At least we're on the same page...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correction:

We are not on the same page, in the same book, on the same topic, in the same library.  You are an utter nutball, so far around the proverbial twist that we could use you to decant bottles of wine.  You give nobody more pleasure than when you fall silent and depart, and your presence here serves no purpose whatsoever beyond providing an extraordinarily easy target for those who delight in plinking away at a hapless moron squirming in a pool of his own noxious juices.

See someone about upping the meds you ought to be taking for your condition and leave the stupidity to the merely delusional like your muppet pastor Biggy.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,21:20

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 06 2011,21:17)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 06 2011,21:09)
Is 'small' a sufficient word for the organ in question?  I should think the words 'limp' or 'flaccid' as well as 'ridiculous' might apply...or so I hear from the few persons who count as credible witnesses whenever they can stop laughing long enough to answer questions.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Atrophied" is a far better descriptor.

We are talking about the brain, yes?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Uhm...yes?


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,21:24

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:21)
 
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 06 2011,21:19)
 
Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:09)
At least we're on the same page...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Correction:

We are not on the same page, in the same book, on the same topic, in the same library.  You are an utter nutball, so far around the proverbial twist that we could use you to decant bottles of wine.  You give nobody more pleasure than when you fall silent and depart, and your presence here serves no purpose whatsoever beyond providing an extraordinarily easy target for those who delight in plinking away at a hapless moron squirming in a pool of his own noxious juices.

See someone about upping the meds you ought to be taking for your condition and leave the stupidity to the merely delusional like your muppet pastor Biggy.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


madpanda... we are actually going to torture and exterminate you, fucker...

you were at the WRONG PLACE at the WRONG TIME...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Did I strike a nerve, you cowardly imbecile?  Is it possible you are scared of me for some reason, you miserable vomit-faced wretch?  Or are you simply the sort of sick small-minded religious fanatic who enjoys giving people a reason to reject his supposed fantasies?

Don't answer that.  I already know what you are.  Your reputation precedes you, and you live down to it very effectively.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 06 2011,21:28

LOL!  Crazy, stupid, dickless little fuckweasel creotard iz teh funeez!   :D
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 06 2011,21:37

Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 06 2011,21:28)
LOL!  Crazy, stupid, dickless little fuckweasel creotard iz teh funeez!   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot 'pathetic'.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 06 2011,22:12

Those who can... do.

Those who cannot... post unintelligible putrid masses of cowardly nonsense on anonymous internet forums because they are too cowardly to come out from behind mommie's skirts.

What are you gonna do big guy?  Sit on me?  Make me read AiG?  Make me watch porn?  Oh darn...
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 06 2011,22:24

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 06 2011,19:09)
Is 'small' a sufficient word for the organ in question?  I should think the words 'limp' or 'flaccid' as well as 'ridiculous' might apply...or so I hear from the few persons who count as credible witnesses whenever they can stop laughing long enough to answer questions.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


not to mention "lonely" and "forgotten".
Posted by: Steverino on Jan. 06 2011,22:28

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:30)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 06 2011,21:28)
LOL!  Crazy, stupid, dickless little fuckweasel creotard iz teh funeez!   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wolfhound - we're going to exterminate you as well...

you are going to be a martyr for ATHEISM....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dennis, when you look in the mirror, do you see the same pathetic individual that we do?

Honestly...failed photog career, people pointing and laughing behind your back, the inability to present a valid argument to support your emotional beliefs....

Must be awful...
Posted by: Wolfhound on Jan. 06 2011,23:13

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,22:30)
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 06 2011,21:28)
LOL!  Crazy, stupid, dickless little fuckweasel creotard iz teh funeez!   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wolfhound - we're going to exterminate you as well...

you are going to be a martyr for ATHEISM....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bring it on, Nutjob!  You and your Happy Henry vacuum cleaner don't scare me.  LAWL!

Seriously, does this dipshit actually think that his pathetic, empty threats and random links (I've never bothered to click on them, has anybody else?) in any way strikes terror into our hearts?  What a pathetic wanker.  Or, he would be had he a normal, functioning penis.  The pathetic part still stands (heh), regardless.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 06 2011,23:57

Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:30)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 06 2011,21:28)
LOL!  Crazy, stupid, dickless little fuckweasel creotard iz teh funeez!   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wolfhound - we're going to exterminate you as well...

you are going to be a martyr for ATHEISM....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do realize, you blasphemous nutcase, that you make your God look as crazy as you are.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 07 2011,00:03

Quote (Dale_Husband @ Jan. 06 2011,23:57)
Quote (brobotsb2 @ Jan. 06 2011,21:30)
 
Quote (Wolfhound @ Jan. 06 2011,21:28)
LOL!  Crazy, stupid, dickless little fuckweasel creotard iz teh funeez!   :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


wolfhound - we're going to exterminate you as well...

you are going to be a martyr for ATHEISM....
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You do realize, you blasphemous nutcase, that you make your God look as crazy as you are.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dave Mabus doesn't care one bit, so long as he gets to (try and completely fail to) intimidate us with his inane murder fantasies that he is totally incapable of fulfilling.

If he could make good on his empty threats, then, bully for God.  If he can't, then he'll still have internet access.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 07 2011,04:12

Mocking the mentally negligible is fun and all but I want to read about the demons. Tell us how Satan is decieving us, IBIG. You know you want to.

Louis
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 07 2011,07:12

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 06 2011,18:13)
IBIG!

You said, "Okay let’s see you create non-living matter from nothing, and then let’s see you create life from that non-living matter, and then I will talk with you:):):) If it is so easy for life to have come about from non-living matter without the intervention of a Creator, then it should be so much easier for science to CREATE life in a lab:):):) And I’m supposed to be delusional?"

How come the US government has granted a patent for ABIOGENESIS?

So talk to me. I've just shown you what you said can't be done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've never found where the US Government actually granted such a patent for abiogenesis, but even if it were true, why do you think it somehow proves abiogenesis actually occurred?

Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 07 2011,07:19

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Believe what you will, that is your right.

When you can provide actual evidence for your belief, let me know.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 07 2011,07:33

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,13:38)
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 06 2011,10:56][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you read the link that I posted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I read the error-filled link. The problem is, once again you aren't paying attention. Neither Mao Zadong nor Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Hitler, OTOH, actually killed in the name of Christianity.  D'Souza, once again, just demonstrates his ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Let's see, so if you kill groups of people for practicing their religion, then that is not killing in the name of Atheism? If a country prohibits the practice of any religion and kills any who do so, that is not killing in the name of Atheism? Next thing you will be supporting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad statement that the Holocaust never happen!!! You folks don't like history, and the fact that Atheist country do kill in the name of Atheism to create their not religious utopia, so you just revise it. You have to admit that people of faith in the USSR had to practice their religion in secrecy or be severely punished, it is still the same in China and many other Atheistic countries today.

Atheists like many here seem to think like John Lennon, that the answer to a utopia is no religion, therefore if it really came down to it many probably would have no qualms with doing whatever is necessary to stop people from practicing their faith, so that utopia would be possible.


The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. It is estimated that 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags by the Soviet government, not including torture or other Christian denominations killed.[63][unreliable source?]
Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals.[44][64] The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church. In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.[65]


Christ the Savior Cathedral Moscow after reconstruction
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. A very large segment of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. The widespread persecution and internecine disputes within the church hierarchy lead to the seat of Patriarch of Moscow being vacant from 1925-1943.


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians >
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 07 2011,07:51

You have to be an idiot to say that suppressing and oppressing other people because their religion offends you makes you an atheist.

You have ignored the very fact that the primary reason why Hitler was able convince so many people to help him commit genocide against the Jews was because there was a centuries old tradition of Anti-Semitism in place in German culture thanks directly due to the anti-Semitic rantings of Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism.

According to your inane logic, Martin Luther, and all Protestant Christians, and their offshoots, are all atheists.

Furthermore, we keep telling you that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Christians, not atheists.  For you to accuse us of agreeing with the Holocaust denial rhetoric of that moronic bigot of a puppet ruler of Iran is the depths of hypocrisy, what with you always screeching about we're allegedly putting words into your mouth.

And then there is the fact that Communist regimes suppress religion because the ruling elite establish cults of personality for their rulers, and see other religions as competition.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 07 2011,07:55

And IBelieve, you still haven't explained how abortions ties into with Atheism and the Nazis.

Among other things, because Adolf Hitler thought of "Aryan" women as being precious soldier factories, the Nazis prohibited abortion.  Also, being an atheist was grounds for arrest, and eventually, deportation to concentration camps.


And you haven't explained how or why Abortion is supposed to tie into Abiogenesis, either, beyond the fact that both offend your bigoted sensibilities.

Nor have you explained how or why Mullah Omar is supposed to be an Evil Atheist, despite the fact that it's a documented fact that he's a God-fearing Muslim.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 07 2011,07:58

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 06 2011,11:29)
IBIG,
If abortion was illegal, as I presume you would like it to be, what would be your suggested punishment for those who have illegal abortions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Miss this did you? It's all very well to say such things like abortion ==murder, but unless you are prepared to follow up with what the consequences would be then it's easy to assume the worst.

So, IBIG, unless you come out and say what punishment women who have abortions should receive I'll assume you want a biblical punishment.

I.E. Stoning.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 07 2011,07:58

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 06 2011,18:13)
IBIG!

You said, "Okay let’s see you create non-living matter from nothing, and then let’s see you create life from that non-living matter, and then I will talk with you:):):) If it is so easy for life to have come about from non-living matter without the intervention of a Creator, then it should be so much easier for science to CREATE life in a lab:):):) And I’m supposed to be delusional?"

How come the US government has granted a patent for ABIOGENESIS?

So talk to me. I've just shown you what you said can't be done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've never found where the US Government actually granted such a patent for abiogenesis, but even if it were true, why do you think it somehow proves abiogenesis actually occurred?

Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you still haven't explained to us why we must be forced to believe that you know more about science than all of the scientists in the whole wide world, simply because you "believe"

Explain to us why saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, and explain to us how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be different than saying "God magically poofed the world into existence"
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 07 2011,08:01

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 07 2011,07:58)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 06 2011,11:29)
IBIG,
If abortion was illegal, as I presume you would like it to be, what would be your suggested punishment for those who have illegal abortions?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Miss this did you? It's all very well to say such things like abortion ==murder, but unless you are prepared to follow up with what the consequences would be then it's easy to assume the worst.

So, IBIG, unless you come out and say what punishment women who have abortions should receive I'll assume you want a biblical punishment.

I.E. Stoning.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Ironically, according to the Bible, the punishment for abortion is to have the causer pay the pregnant woman 11 shekels for each month she was pregnant, or give her a livestock of equal value.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 07 2011,08:06

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:33)
The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion. Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It seems that religion is doing that right now to itself.

I mean, several < dioceses > are having to make themselves bankrupt due to having to pay for allowing child abusers to abuse children.

confiscated church property - Sold to pay victims of abuse - check.

ridiculed religion - Child abusers protected by the church? A better way to ridicule the idea of religion I've yet to see.

harassed believers - Church in-fighting is not exactly new now is it? Unless a believer believes exactly what you believe they are not a believer after all, right IBIG? And of course, churches are known to harass their own believers should they stray outside of the accepted norms by divorcing, having a child without being married etc. If anybody is harrasing believers it's other believers.

propagated atheism in the schools - Unlike of course the many documented instances of teachers promoting religion (usually a very specific religion) in school.

So, you lose sucka.
Posted by: phhht on Jan. 07 2011,08:17

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Once there was no life.  Now there is life. Therefore abiogenesis is not only possible, it has demonstrably occurred.

As usual, your contention is confused and your explication off the target.

I understand you to mean that abiogenesis could not occur without the
intervention of a magical power.  Is that more correct?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 07 2011,08:17

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 07 2011,08:06)
So, you lose sucka.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IBelieve already lost the very day he came to Panda's Thumb, screeching and picking fights about how he was able to magically disprove Abiogenesis by quotemining Wikipedia.

He's been bottoming out ever since.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 07 2011,08:28

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 07 2011,07:51)
You have to be an idiot to say that suppressing and oppressing other people because their religion offends you makes you an atheist.

You have ignored the very fact that the primary reason why Hitler was able convince so many people to help him commit genocide against the Jews was because there was a centuries old tradition of Anti-Semitism in place in German culture thanks directly due to the anti-Semitic rantings of Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism.

According to your inane logic, Martin Luther, and all Protestant Christians, and their offshoots, are all atheists.

Furthermore, we keep telling you that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Christians, not atheists.  For you to accuse us of agreeing with the Holocaust denial rhetoric of that moronic bigot of a puppet ruler of Iran is the depths of hypocrisy, what with you always screeching about we're allegedly putting words into your mouth.

And then there is the fact that Communist regimes suppress religion because the ruling elite establish cults of personality for their rulers, and see other religions as competition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You evidently have a problem with reading comprehension.

Read these:

"The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion."

"Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools."

"It is estimated that 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags by the Soviet government"

"Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals.[44][64] The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church. In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.[65]"

My logic? It was stated here that no country killed in the name of Atheism! I just proved that point wrong, and if you want I could continue on to more Atheist countries that have killed in the name of Atheism.

I have freely admitted that countries have killed in the name of Religion. So, don't try to change the subject with what you call my inane logic. The point of contention here was that no country has ever killed in the name of Atheism! And since I have freely admitted that countries have killed in the name of Religion, then it is inane for you to even bring up something in this argument that I agree actually happened. I freely admit that many have killed and done awful things in the name of Religion, so why are you even bring up such claims? Could it be that you are attempting to deflect from the fact that Atheist countries have killed in the name of Atheism?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 07 2011,08:53

Hey, IBIG,

You still haven't answered the question: Are those other 37,999 Christian religions all wrong?  Which Bible do you use and why?  Have you read any other Bible?

Now, let's see... so let's see if I understand your argument correctly... which of these is true...

1) Christians kill others (even after "Thou shalt not kill", "turn the other cheek", "Do unto others...", and the "peace of God")

2) Atheists kill others

3) Other religions kill others

4) It's OK that Christians have killed others because atheists have too.

5) There is not a higher standard for Christians that for non-Christians.  (Or, if you prefer, Christians don't have to live up to Christ's standards, they'll be forgiven after all.)

What's very interesting, IBIG, is you have totally destroyed your previous argument that there is a universal morality.  LOL

Thanks

As far as the Communist removal of religion.  I would disagree that it was based on atheism.  I would be perfectly willing to argue that Stalin wanted to get rid of religion for the sole purpose of cementing his control over the people.  His thoughts were that religion was 'another master' and that he would not be able to control people that also had religion (which, indeed, was true).

Again, I don't think it was a case of killing people solely because they were religious, but because they refused to denounce their religion in the name of the state... much like Christians in Rome were killed because they refused to recognize the god-hood of the emperor.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 07 2011,10:11

[quote=Doc Bill,Jan. 06 2011,15:27][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Now, that's a great idea!

Hey, IBIG, tell me how I can get a succubus.  Tall and blonde if you don't mind.

Thx.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Try < here >.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 07 2011,10:42

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 07 2011,07:33][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,13:38)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 06 2011,10:56)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Did you read the link that I posted?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I read the error-filled link. The problem is, once again you aren't paying attention. Neither Mao Zadong nor Stalin killed in the name of atheism. Hitler, OTOH, actually killed in the name of Christianity.  D'Souza, once again, just demonstrates his ignorance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Let's see, so if you kill groups of people for practicing their religion, then that is not killing in the name of Atheism? If a country prohibits the practice of any religion and kills any who do so, that is not killing in the name of Atheism?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Who are you referring to? Stalin's regime killed an unprecedented number of people, many of them atheists, so clearly he wasn't killing in the name of atheism. He was just a sociopath. Ditto for Mao. Yet Hitler was motivated by his twisting of Catholicism, which is still killing in the name of Christianity.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Next thing you will be supporting Mahmoud Ahmadinejad statement that the Holocaust never happen!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Umm...no...since such is actually supported by the evidence. Your claims about killing in the name of atheism, however, are not.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
You folks don't like history, and the fact that Atheist country do kill in the name of Atheism to create their not religious utopia, so you just revise it. You have to admit that people of faith in the USSR had to practice their religion in secrecy or be severely punished, it is still the same in China and many other Atheistic countries today.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I love history! I just like actual history that is...you know...supported by actual historic evidence and scholarly analysis. Claims of opinion made by people who wish to see something that isn't there, however, don't much attract my attention.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Atheists like many here seem to think like John Lennon, that the answer to a utopia is no religion, therefore if it really came down to it many probably would have no qualms with doing whatever is necessary to stop people from practicing their faith, so that utopia would be possible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Blah blah blahblblah...yawn.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The Soviet Union was the first state to have as an ideological objective the elimination of religion.

Toward that end, the Communist regime confiscated church property, ridiculed religion, harassed believers, and propagated atheism in the schools. Actions toward particular religions, however, were determined by State interests, and most organized religions were never outlawed. It is estimated that 21 million Russian Orthodox Christians were martyred in the gulags by the Soviet government, not including torture or other Christian denominations killed.[63][unreliable source?]
Some actions against Orthodox priests and believers along with execution included torture being sent to prison camps, labour camps or mental hospitals.[44][64] The result of this militant atheism was to transform the Church into a persecuted and martyred Church. In the first five years after the Bolshevik revolution, 28 bishops and 1,200 priests were executed.[65]


Christ the Savior Cathedral Moscow after reconstruction
The main target of the anti-religious campaign in the 1920s and 1930s was the Russian Orthodox Church, which had the largest number of faithful. A very large segment of its clergy, and many of its believers, were shot or sent to labor camps. Theological schools were closed, and church publications were prohibited. In the period between 1927 and 1940, the number of Orthodox Churches in the Russian Republic fell from 29,584 to less than 500. Between 1917 and 1940, 130,000 Orthodox priests were arrested. The widespread persecution and internecine disputes within the church hierarchy lead to the seat of Patriarch of Moscow being vacant from 1925-1943.


< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Christians >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yep...as a political strategy. By removing the "opiate of the masses", Stalin thought he could get people's need for such institutions to focus instead on the State. It partially worked too.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 07 2011,10:46

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 07 2011,08:53)
Hey, IBIG,

You still haven't answered the question: Are those other 37,999 Christian religions all wrong?  Which Bible do you use and why?  Have you read any other Bible?

Now, let's see... so let's see if I understand your argument correctly... which of these is true...

1) Christians kill others (even after "Thou shalt not kill", "turn the other cheek", "Do unto others...", and the "peace of God")

2) Atheists kill others

3) Other religions kill others

4) It's OK that Christians have killed others because atheists have too.

5) There is not a higher standard for Christians that for non-Christians.  (Or, if you prefer, Christians don't have to live up to Christ's standards, they'll be forgiven after all.)

What's very interesting, IBIG, is you have totally destroyed your previous argument that there is a universal morality.  LOL

Thanks

As far as the Communist removal of religion.  I would disagree that it was based on atheism.  I would be perfectly willing to argue that Stalin wanted to get rid of religion for the sole purpose of cementing his control over the people.  His thoughts were that religion was 'another master' and that he would not be able to control people that also had religion (which, indeed, was true).

Again, I don't think it was a case of killing people solely because they were religious, but because they refused to denounce their religion in the name of the state... much like Christians in Rome were killed because they refused to recognize the god-hood of the emperor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But to IBIG, they're the same thing.  By denying the Christian God and worshipping others, the Romans were atheists (even if they called the Christians the same thing - does that make the Christians who killed the Jews and Romans in their persecutions when they came to power "atheists" in IBIGs count?).  

Stalin basically had his own "religion" - an authoritarian religion-like ideology with himself as the god figure.  If we framed the argument as authoritarian ideology vs rationality/freethinking (or even just atheism as a subset of the latter), there would be no contest.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 07 2011,11:00

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 07 2011,08:28][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
My logic? It was stated here that no country killed in the name of Atheism! I just proved that point wrong, and if you want I could continue on to more Atheist countries that have killed in the name of Atheism.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You aren't using logic, IBIGGY - you're making claims out of your ass. Once again for your learning impairment, killing of people of a given religion doesn't make the killer an atheist. Indeed, Muslims and Jews have killed people for being Christian, so your "logic" fails.

And since Stalin actually wrote down why he implemented those policies, we don't have to guess. Such was a political power strategy, not one out of a desire for atheism.

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism_and_religion >

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Stalin >

"Stalin followed the position adopted by Lenin that religion was an opiate that needed to be removed in order to construct the ideal communist society. To this end, his government promoted atheism through special atheistic education in schools, massive amounts of anti-religious propaganda, the antireligious work of public institutions (especially the Society of the Godless), discriminatory laws, and also a terror campaign against religious believers. By the late 1930s it had become dangerous to be publicly associated with religion.[84]"
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 07 2011,11:15

For fuck's sake, what's a guy gotta do to get a religious lunatic to lay the demonic influences speil on him. Make with the Satan , god boy.

Now! Chop chop!

Louis
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 07 2011,11:20

You want Biggy to start blabbing about his imaginary friend's best frenemy forever?  I can't even get the wet facial tissue to tell me how his headaches are going so that I can tell Igor how to adjust the gain on the transmitter.

He spouts off when he would be better served by shutting up, and runs away and hides when we want him to be open and honest with us (for the sake of posterity, of course).  This explains much.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 07 2011,11:21

Louis, I maintain that IBIG's entire history of posting is (if they exist) demonically influenced.

IBIG can't show otherwise.  He can't show how to tell the difference between the influence of God, Satan, the subconcious, or time-travelling, telepathic alien cell-biologists.

Considering the massive damage he has inflected on one of the 38,000 Christian sects... it must be demonic influence.
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 07 2011,11:53

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 07 2011,09:15)
For fuck's sake, what's a guy gotta do to get a religious lunatic to lay the demonic influences speil on him. Make with the Satan , god boy.

Now! Chop chop!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree, Louis.  Given that IBIG thinks the Taliban are atheists, he's clearly too fucking stupid for a discussion on anything consequential.

Bring on Teh Devil!
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 07 2011,11:54

Au contraire, O Cybertank.  Biggy does damage to all 38, 000 sects by association.  :p

Okay, 37,999 of them.  Catholicism has its own set of PR issues right now, and his blather doesn't touch on them in any meaningful way (except for that No True Scotsman thing).

Given that his imaginary friend's best frenemy is supposed to have the better PR department, what with all the temptations and legions of succubi and so on, I would imagine that if Biggy were truly being influenced by the infernal he'd be doing a much better, smoother, more convincing job of slapping lipstick on his warthog.  Unfortunately, the results mean that either a) the assumption about better PR is wrong or b) Biggy's not being manipulated by the Department for Infernal Affairs.  (If there's an unfairly excluded middle here, I'm sure someone will be along to make apologies for it shortly.)

Biggy reduces nicely to plain ol' delusion, stupidity, willful ignorance, and the mind-rotting influence of an ideology that is nicely success-safe and reality-impaired.

Tantum religio potuit suadare malorum.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 07 2011,12:04

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 07 2011,17:53)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 07 2011,09:15)
For fuck's sake, what's a guy gotta do to get a religious lunatic to lay the demonic influences speil on him. Make with the Satan , god boy.

Now! Chop chop!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I agree, Louis.  Given that IBIG thinks the Taliban are atheists, he's clearly too fucking stupid for a discussion on anything consequential.

Bring on Teh Devil!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


FINALLY! Someone who gets it!

Look, this guy is a time wasting muppet of the first rank. And I do mean rank. Trading bible quotes with him is junior level TARD mocking. Let's get to the Executive Coffee Table Strength TARD. That stuff is Teh Funneh.

Ogre's right btw, everything Biggie does is the work of Satan. I know it is the case because Teh Baybee Cheeziz told me so. So tell us about demonic influences IBIG. I'm putting money on the fact that sex is involved. Hell, it's an outside bet that Harry Potter is involved.

Hurry up IBIG or I'll get bored...well more bored.

Louis
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 07 2011,12:07

Well, I can't argue the first bit... or the second bit.

But the latter, I mean, sure IBIG could claim to be a Christian, then sacrifice and eat small animals and young children on national TV, but even the dumbest person could see that he was... ummm... pushing the limit of modern Christian culture.

No, I think it's more nefarious than that, subtle even.  

Of course, I remain open to logical discussion (sorry IBIG) and further evidence (again, sorry IBIG).  And I freely admit that my hypothesis could use additional evidence and some refinement.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 07 2011,14:39

Is it too much to ask, IBIG, for a little help?  Do I need to beg?

I moved my bed to the center of the room and circumcised a pent-o-gram around it, chased down two Viagra with a Red Bull and waited for my tall, blonde succubus to "come."

Do you know how hard it is to wait, IBIG?  Like Christmas hard when I prayed for Santa to bring me a big bat.

Get with the program, IBIG.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 07 2011,14:50

Tell you what IBIG, I'll sell you my soul.  Then you can do what you want with it, send it to God, send it to hell, wrap it in plastic and put it in the freezer, play dressup with it, I don't care.

Say $10,000?  I'm easy and cheap (according to the missus).
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 07 2011,17:25

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
     
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 06 2011,18:13)
IBIG!

You said, "Okay let’s see you create non-living matter from nothing, and then let’s see you create life from that non-living matter, and then I will talk with you:):):) If it is so easy for life to have come about from non-living matter without the intervention of a Creator, then it should be so much easier for science to CREATE life in a lab:):):) And I’m supposed to be delusional?"

How come the US government has granted a patent for ABIOGENESIS?

So talk to me. I've just shown you what you said can't be done.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've never found where the US Government actually granted such a patent for abiogenesis, but even if it were true, why do you think it somehow proves abiogenesis actually occurred?

Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

Thank you very much for your response.

You need to look harder. The USPTO maintains a website. Find it and search on "creation of primordial life". That's abiogenesis, no?

It is true. It does exits. Go and read it.

Why would the US government, your government, grant a patent for something "impossible", as you say?

The USPTO won't grant patents for 'perpetual motion', nor for 'cold fusion', because they don't exist.

America is the greatest stronghold of innovation in the world. Other countries, not all friendly to us, record and analyze every US patent published.

You can be certain that foreign governments, that want to kill you and me, are using whatever they can divine from that patent to formulate weapons against us.

You can also be certain that pharmaceutical companies around the world are combing that patent for information so then can catch-up with the true authors and the company behind it.

So please, read the patent. And remember that companies threatened by competition will reveal just enough to patent something, but not so much as to give away everything their competitors need to know.

Thank you very much.

ABIOGENESIS (patented) is real! Deal with it.
Posted by: Steverino on Jan. 07 2011,17:50

Quote (mrobotsm6 @ Jan. 07 2011,17:23)
now we are going to bury you...


And the lesson from all of this? DOUBLE!
___


< http://www.skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29968 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, DogWarrior

....when you come out here every day...and see we have all not been smitted (sp?) because you mythical sky fairy was to busy flooding the islands of helpless, innocent women and children (men aren't innocent)...

..Doesn't it just piss the BaJeebus out of you!...I know!...Dog Damn!...what's up with that!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 07 2011,18:10

Double?

Double scotch?

Double Up (my BlackJack Bet)?

Doublemint Twins (yum)?

I actually don't drink scotch so, a double hot chocolate... Thanks, I think I will.
Posted by: Steverino on Jan. 07 2011,18:19

Dibs on the Twins!!!

mmmmm....I think that's actually the first time I've ever said that out loud.....
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 07 2011,22:07

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 07 2011,18:10)
Double?

Double scotch?

Double Up (my BlackJack Bet)?

Doublemint Twins (yum)?

I actually don't drink scotch so, a double hot chocolate... Thanks, I think I will.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Maybe he's (trying and failing miserably to) imitate Team Rocket's catch-rant?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 07 2011,23:07

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 07 2011,08:17)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Once there was no life.  Now there is life. Therefore abiogenesis is not only possible, it has demonstrably occurred.

As usual, your contention is confused and your explication off the target.

I understand you to mean that abiogenesis could not occur without the
intervention of a magical power.  Is that more correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Phhht,

Evidently IBIG is very busy, or at the least very hard to get a hold of.

I do not presume to put words into IBIG's mouth, but from having read almost the entire BW I think I can guess what IBIG would say.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 07 2011,23:15

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 07 2011,08:17)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Once there was no life.  Now there is life. Therefore abiogenesis is not only possible, it has demonstrably occurred.

As usual, your contention is confused and your explication off the target.

I understand you to mean that abiogenesis could not occur without the
intervention of a magical power.  Is that more correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Phhht,

Evidently IBIG is very busy, or at the least very hard to get a hold of (or it's just hard to get his attention).

I do not presume to put words into IBIG's mouth, but from having read almost the entire BW I think I can guess what IBIG would say.

I think IBIG would say that life on Earth didn't come from non-life but from God, who is alive. Thus life on Earth came from Life. And God has always been alive.

That position may not be acceptable to you and me, but I think that is IBIG's conviction.

Perhaps IBIG himself would like to clarify?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,00:10

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 07 2011,23:15)
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 07 2011,08:17)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 07 2011,07:12)
Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Once there was no life.  Now there is life. Therefore abiogenesis is not only possible, it has demonstrably occurred.

As usual, your contention is confused and your explication off the target.

I understand you to mean that abiogenesis could not occur without the
intervention of a magical power.  Is that more correct?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Phhht,

Evidently IBIG is very busy, or at the least very hard to get a hold of (or it's just hard to get his attention).

I do not presume to put words into IBIG's mouth, but from having read almost the entire BW I think I can guess what IBIG would say.

I think IBIG would say that life on Earth didn't come from non-life but from God, who is alive. Thus life on Earth came from Life. And God has always been alive.

That position may not be acceptable to you and me, but I think that is IBIG's conviction.

Perhaps IBIG himself would like to clarify?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We don't have to worry about whether or not we're going to put words into IBelieve's mouth, as he's going to accuse us of doing so even when we don't.

And I really doubt he will bother to, or is capable of clarifying.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,08:33

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 07 2011,07:51)
You have to be an idiot to say that suppressing and oppressing other people because their religion offends you makes you an atheist.

You have ignored the very fact that the primary reason why Hitler was able convince so many people to help him commit genocide against the Jews was because there was a centuries old tradition of Anti-Semitism in place in German culture thanks directly due to the anti-Semitic rantings of Martin Luther, founder of Protestantism.

According to your inane logic, Martin Luther, and all Protestant Christians, and their offshoots, are all atheists.

Furthermore, we keep telling you that the Holocaust was perpetrated by Christians, not atheists.  For you to accuse us of agreeing with the Holocaust denial rhetoric of that moronic bigot of a puppet ruler of Iran is the depths of hypocrisy, what with you always screeching about we're allegedly putting words into your mouth.

And then there is the fact that Communist regimes suppress religion because the ruling elite establish cults of personality for their rulers, and see other religions as competition.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The point is that Atheist regimes do, and have killed millions in an attempt to repress religion and/or eliminate it altogether. Stalin killed approx. 21 million Christians alone and most of those just because they were practicing their faith. Mao killed 49 to 78 million innocent people just because of their religion.

Without a belief in God, the value of human life is just a manmade concept. Without God right and wrong is just a matter of opinion, because there would be no real standard for judging right or wrong, it would just be a matter of opinion, or a standard set forth by the leaders of any particular country.

I do not know of a single Atheist regime that didn't persecute and kill people who practiced the religious faith.

I never said that killing people, because of their religion makes one an Atheist. My point is that Atheist leaders/regimes have killed to repress and/or eliminate religion altogether in the countries a very different point.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,08:50

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 07 2011,08:53)
Hey, IBIG,

You still haven't answered the question: Are those other 37,999 Christian religions all wrong?  Which Bible do you use and why?  Have you read any other Bible?

Now, let's see... so let's see if I understand your argument correctly... which of these is true...

1) Christians kill others (even after "Thou shalt not kill", "turn the other cheek", "Do unto others...", and the "peace of God")

2) Atheists kill others

3) Other religions kill others

4) It's OK that Christians have killed others because atheists have too.

5) There is not a higher standard for Christians that for non-Christians.  (Or, if you prefer, Christians don't have to live up to Christ's standards, they'll be forgiven after all.)

What's very interesting, IBIG, is you have totally destroyed your previous argument that there is a universal morality.  LOL

Thanks

As far as the Communist removal of religion.  I would disagree that it was based on atheism.  I would be perfectly willing to argue that Stalin wanted to get rid of religion for the sole purpose of cementing his control over the people.  His thoughts were that religion was 'another master' and that he would not be able to control people that also had religion (which, indeed, was true).

Again, I don't think it was a case of killing people solely because they were religious, but because they refused to denounce their religion in the name of the state... much like Christians in Rome were killed because they refused to recognize the god-hood of the emperor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did I state that it was okay for Christians to kill?

It is justifiable to kill in self defense.

The reason Atheist regimes repress/kill those who practice religion in their countries is, because they the leaders want to replace God or gods in their country, so the government must eliminate anything preventing them from imposing their evil, immoral, repressive laws on the people. If there is no moral standard and dissent, then they the government can set their own moral standard, since without God, morality is just a matter of opinion anyway, human rights are just a matter of opinion, the value of a human life is just a matter of opinion, then the government can impose any kind of evil and it is justifiable, because they the government have eliminated most if not all dissenters.
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 08 2011,09:02



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I never said that killing people, because of their religion makes one an Atheist. My point is that Atheist leaders/regimes have killed to repress and/or eliminate religion altogether in the countries a very different point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And the point of that is?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 08 2011,09:29

Yeah yeah, blah blah, heard it all before, refuted it twice. Now make with the demons. Come on, you know you want to.

Louis
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 08 2011,10:00

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,09:33)
Without a belief in God, the value of human life is just a manmade concept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if your belief in God is mistaken?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,10:18

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,08:50)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 07 2011,08:53)
Hey, IBIG,

You still haven't answered the question: Are those other 37,999 Christian religions all wrong?  Which Bible do you use and why?  Have you read any other Bible?

Now, let's see... so let's see if I understand your argument correctly... which of these is true...

1) Christians kill others (even after "Thou shalt not kill", "turn the other cheek", "Do unto others...", and the "peace of God")

2) Atheists kill others

3) Other religions kill others

4) It's OK that Christians have killed others because atheists have too.

5) There is not a higher standard for Christians that for non-Christians.  (Or, if you prefer, Christians don't have to live up to Christ's standards, they'll be forgiven after all.)

What's very interesting, IBIG, is you have totally destroyed your previous argument that there is a universal morality.  LOL

Thanks

As far as the Communist removal of religion.  I would disagree that it was based on atheism.  I would be perfectly willing to argue that Stalin wanted to get rid of religion for the sole purpose of cementing his control over the people.  His thoughts were that religion was 'another master' and that he would not be able to control people that also had religion (which, indeed, was true).

Again, I don't think it was a case of killing people solely because they were religious, but because they refused to denounce their religion in the name of the state... much like Christians in Rome were killed because they refused to recognize the god-hood of the emperor.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where did I state that it was okay for Christians to kill?

It is justifiable to kill in self defense.

The reason Atheist regimes repress/kill those who practice religion in their countries is, because they the leaders want to replace God or gods in their country, so the government must eliminate anything preventing them from imposing their evil, immoral, repressive laws on the people. If there is no moral standard and dissent, then they the government can set their own moral standard, since without God, morality is just a matter of opinion anyway, human rights are just a matter of opinion, the value of a human life is just a matter of opinion, then the government can impose any kind of evil and it is justifiable, because they the government have eliminated most if not all dissenters.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Moron, the vast majority of people killed by Christians were not killed in self-defense: they were killed because a) their very existence was deemed to be offensive to God, b) their deaths would be amusing, or c) they would not convert to a form of worship deemed suitable by their killers.

And what is your point?  That atheists are inherently more evil than Christians (and thus, Catholics being more inherently evil than either atheists and Christians), because atheists don't use God as an excuse to commit atrocities?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,10:22

Quote (Quack @ Jan. 08 2011,09:02)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I never said that killing people, because of their religion makes one an Atheist. My point is that Atheist leaders/regimes have killed to repress and/or eliminate religion altogether in the countries a very different point.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------

And the point of that is?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He's saying that atheists are evil because they don't use God as an excuse to disregard and or trample human rights, or otherwise commit crimes against humanity, in direct opposition to Christians, and other theists who use God as an excuse to commit crimes against humanity.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 08 2011,12:01

Methinks we are dealing with a slightly different logical fallacy, folks.  This isn't "No True Scotsman" so much as it's a serious case of "Not MY Nigel!"

Biggy can't handle the thought that his imaginary friend has been the cause of atrocity and must by needs project all that bad stuff onto other people and make excuses so that his delusion may remain pristine.  What else can we expect of a supposed adult with an imaginary friend who thinks that all truth is to be found in an ancient anthology of uncertain editing and obscure authorship?

Nothing to do put pat him on the head, give him his cookie,and send him to bed like a good boy.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 08 2011,12:23

Quote (Reciprocating Bill @ Jan. 08 2011,16:00)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,09:33)
Without a belief in God, the value of human life is just a manmade concept.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And if your belief in God is mistaken?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We could easily argue that belief in a god(s) is a manmade concept anyway. Or even an evolutionary trait, if we need to get technical*.

Yet again, it could be argued that everything particular to humankind (ie, not found in other species) is a manmade concept. Or it could be argued that manmade concepts are...manmade?

Does that make any sense or do I need to get drunker?







*Agreed, this is quite on-the-edge stuff, but still...
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 08 2011,12:25

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 08 2011,12:23)
Does that make any sense or do I need to get drunker?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You're making more sense than Biggy ever will, but by all means have another drink or five.   :D   No point in wasting a good buzz in hopes of making our learned friend understand his errors.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 08 2011,13:27

Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 08 2011,13:38

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, see, you got it wrong.  You're not a Real Atheist at all.  You just secretly believe in Jeebus in your secret heart (ya need to open them eyes of the heart, that's all), even while denying you even know that.

Or maybe IBIG's a moron.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 08 2011,14:18



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Or maybe IBIG's a moron.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Must...refrain...from...giving...high...five!
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,16:40

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably, IBelieve will simply assume that your good behavior is actually a nefarious Satan-inspired plot to make more people hate God, as he assumes is the norm with all atheists who do not go about raping, killing, cannibalizing and aborting babies willy-nilly.

After all, the only sort of "good behavior" is that inspired by the visceral fear of God sending you to Hell to burn forever and ever and ever for offending Him in some way.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 08 2011,17:44

IBIG, you keep thinking that you pushing 'atheists' killing other to eliminate religion will gloss over THE FACT that CHRISTIANS have killed more people IN THE NAME OF GOD than all the atheists ever.

SO keep telling yourself you are beyond reproach.  Keep telling yourself that you religion and your God are perfect.

You've spent a lot of time while ignoring 2-3 instances of God COMMANDING genocide... ignoring the Crusades... ignoring the killing of Muslims and Jews by Christians for about 2000 years (in some cases).

You can bitch about Stalin being an evil bastard and I'll stand right beside and agree.  If you refuse to bitch about any of those Christians also being evil bastards, then you are a hypocrite... but we knew that already.

I'll finally remind you of some things I've told you before, directly out of your Bible (or what I think is your Bible, since you won't tell me which Bible you use and why you ignore many of the books that are in other Bibles).

"I never knew you" - remember, actions speak louder than words... also, at many revivals this becomes "Don't just talk the talk, but walk the walk."  How many people have you prevented from coming to God because of your arrogance and stupidity?

How can you know that what you experience is God and not another entity talking to you (including you subconscious)?  Because, honestly, I think it is Satan (if he exists) in you instead of God.  You, through your actions in this forum, have done massive harm to the Christian faith.  That can only be caused by Satan... even if you are a Christian... you're actions here are much more reflective of Satan that God.

I encourage you to think on that, but I suspect that Satan will blind you to the truth.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,18:53

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,17:44)
IBIG, you keep thinking that you pushing 'atheists' killing other to eliminate religion will gloss over THE FACT that CHRISTIANS have killed more people IN THE NAME OF GOD than all the atheists ever.

SO keep telling yourself you are beyond reproach.  Keep telling yourself that you religion and your God are perfect.

You've spent a lot of time while ignoring 2-3 instances of God COMMANDING genocide... ignoring the Crusades... ignoring the killing of Muslims and Jews by Christians for about 2000 years (in some cases).

You can bitch about Stalin being an evil bastard and I'll stand right beside and agree.  If you refuse to bitch about any of those Christians also being evil bastards, then you are a hypocrite... but we knew that already.

I'll finally remind you of some things I've told you before, directly out of your Bible (or what I think is your Bible, since you won't tell me which Bible you use and why you ignore many of the books that are in other Bibles).

"I never knew you" - remember, actions speak louder than words... also, at many revivals this becomes "Don't just talk the talk, but walk the walk."  How many people have you prevented from coming to God because of your arrogance and stupidity?

How can you know that what you experience is God and not another entity talking to you (including you subconscious)?  Because, honestly, I think it is Satan (if he exists) in you instead of God.  You, through your actions in this forum, have done massive harm to the Christian faith.  That can only be caused by Satan... even if you are a Christian... you're actions here are much more reflective of Satan that God.

I encourage you to think on that, but I suspect that Satan will blind you to the truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe that Christians have killed more people then Atheists, but that was not the point of the argument. So, you admit that Atheists have indeed killed millions of people for practicing their religion?

I will accept that you have conceded, and now we can move on!
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,18:55

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 08 2011,19:04

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 08 2011,19:15

Two supremely stupid non-answers from Biggy.

Let's just take my usual three word response as given, shall we?

Yes, folks, this is his A-game.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,19:22

Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 08 2011,19:22

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,18:53)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,17:44)
IBIG, you keep thinking that you pushing 'atheists' killing other to eliminate religion will gloss over THE FACT that CHRISTIANS have killed more people IN THE NAME OF GOD than all the atheists ever.

SO keep telling yourself you are beyond reproach.  Keep telling yourself that you religion and your God are perfect.

You've spent a lot of time while ignoring 2-3 instances of God COMMANDING genocide... ignoring the Crusades... ignoring the killing of Muslims and Jews by Christians for about 2000 years (in some cases).

You can bitch about Stalin being an evil bastard and I'll stand right beside and agree.  If you refuse to bitch about any of those Christians also being evil bastards, then you are a hypocrite... but we knew that already.

I'll finally remind you of some things I've told you before, directly out of your Bible (or what I think is your Bible, since you won't tell me which Bible you use and why you ignore many of the books that are in other Bibles).

"I never knew you" - remember, actions speak louder than words... also, at many revivals this becomes "Don't just talk the talk, but walk the walk."  How many people have you prevented from coming to God because of your arrogance and stupidity?

How can you know that what you experience is God and not another entity talking to you (including you subconscious)?  Because, honestly, I think it is Satan (if he exists) in you instead of God.  You, through your actions in this forum, have done massive harm to the Christian faith.  That can only be caused by Satan... even if you are a Christian... you're actions here are much more reflective of Satan that God.

I encourage you to think on that, but I suspect that Satan will blind you to the truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe that Christians have killed more people then Atheists, but that was not the point of the argument. So, you admit that Atheists have indeed killed millions of people for practicing their religion?

I will accept that you have conceded, and now we can move on!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, IBIG, the point of the argument was that Christians... which should hold themselves to a higher standard routinely and for the last 2000 years have actively sought to remove those that appose them by violence.

Except for one example (Stalin's Russia and that was a POLITICAL CONTROL PLAY) there are no examples of atheists killing any members of religion... only for being religious.  You obviously have not read anything that anyone has posted on why certain groups used death to cement political power.  

So, I will accept your concession that Christians routinely kill those that disagree with them.

For example, YOU are here harassing us with your BS.  We are NOT on a religious forum harassing you.  

All the atheists I know would perfectly happy if Christians obeyed the law of the land and stayed the hell out of politics.  But they don't... so we have to fight them to prevent American from becoming a Christian version of Afghanistan.  Or did you miss the RECENT example of Christians hunting down and killing Muslims.

Further, your religion actively preaches death to those that just want to live their lives.  Your religion teaches fear and death and hate.  I talk about love and reason.

So again, I will accept that you have failed to understand the entire point of the argument.  
I will accept that you have failed to show how Christianity is a force for good in the world.  
I will accept that you have failed to show that you can convince me that you are under the influence of a benevolent and merciful God.  
I will accept that you can't even explain why your Bible doesn't have certain books.
I will accept that you are an epic hypocrite.  
I will accept that you have very little knowledge of your own religion.  
I will accept that you cannot apply the lessons of the Bible to yourself.

Those are the points, which you have failed to understand for the 6+ months that I have been talking to you.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 08 2011,19:23

So, IBIG, the Crusades never happened in your mind, or what?  Is this a "no one alive was there to see it" sort of thing?

Why do blatantly ignore the very things that you were told you were ignoring.  It's not like you didn't see them.  Really, I'd like an explanation.  You don't have to answer the actual question in point (the Crusades and Christians killing people), but I would appreciate it if you would enlighten me on the blatant ignoring thing.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 08 2011,19:27

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no religion, idiot, the UN Buildings in New York would still be standing.

If there was no god, I can imagine how good life on this planet would be.  Imagine a planet full of rational people who can think and critically analyze everything to reach the best possible answer.  Imagine a planet were gay people could live without fear.  Imagine a planet where nothing is impossible.

I cannot imagine how evil it would be, because there wouldn't be any need for evil.

IBIG, as far as God, you can't even convince us that it is really God speaking to you... which is a fundamental problem in your case.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,19:31

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 05 2011,20:11][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the post that started all of my posts about killing in the name of Atheism Ogre. Yes this was about Atheism Ogre you are wrong. You want to change the subject, because you are wrong. So, you can't handle being a miserable?

Let me ask this question, is the current war between the Palestinians and Israel and religious war? Or is it a battle over land?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,19:37

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,19:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no religion, idiot, the UN Buildings in New York would still be standing.

If there was no god, I can imagine how good life on this planet would be.  Imagine a planet full of rational people who can think and critically analyze everything to reach the best possible answer.  Imagine a planet were gay people could live without fear.  Imagine a planet where nothing is impossible.

I cannot imagine how evil it would be, because there wouldn't be any need for evil.

IBIG, as far as God, you can't even convince us that it is really God speaking to you... which is a fundamental problem in your case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back and read what I said! You must be having trouble with reading comprehension again!

I said if there were no GOD! I didn't say if there were no RELIGION. GOD is a BEING, and RELIGION is a SET OF BELIEFS. I believe that there is only one God, and muslims don't worship HIM. Yet you call me an idiot and you have no reading comprehension!!!
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,20:01

Let me also add, if there were no GOD, we wouldn't be here, nothing would exist:)
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 08 2011,20:07

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:37)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,19:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no religion, idiot, the UN Buildings in New York would still be standing.

If there was no god, I can imagine how good life on this planet would be.  Imagine a planet full of rational people who can think and critically analyze everything to reach the best possible answer.  Imagine a planet were gay people could live without fear.  Imagine a planet where nothing is impossible.

I cannot imagine how evil it would be, because there wouldn't be any need for evil.

IBIG, as far as God, you can't even convince us that it is really God speaking to you... which is a fundamental problem in your case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back and read what I said! You must be having trouble with reading comprehension again!

I said if there were no GOD! I didn't say if there were no RELIGION. GOD is a BEING, and RELIGION is a SET OF BELIEFS. I believe that there is only one God, and muslims don't worship HIM. Yet you call me an idiot and you have no reading comprehension!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Which is why religious wars exist, IBIG.  Because they say the same thing about you and your God.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 08 2011,20:10

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:31)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the post that started all of my posts about killing in the name of Atheism Ogre. Yes this was about Atheism Ogre you are wrong. You want to change the subject, because you are wrong. So, you can't handle being a miserable?

Let me ask this question, is the current war between the Palestinians and Israel and religious war? Or is it a battle over land?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right IBIG, you still can't say that atheists killed people because they were religious.  There were additional factors, unlike all the instances of Religious people killed other religious (or non-religious) people.

The history has been explained to you, you don't want to get it or think that it makes all the deaths by Christians OK.  That's not our problem IBIG.

Christians (and other religions) have killed waaaaay more than any atheists have ever even tried to.  You can't get away from this fact and it makes everything else, pretty much moot.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 08 2011,20:11

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,20:01)
Let me also add, if there were no GOD, we wouldn't be here, nothing would exist:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then what is the evidence that shows this?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,20:38

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,18:55)
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's because, unlike you, Ogre is not a pathological liar who lies for Jesus, and he does not hate the truth.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,20:39

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,20:11)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,20:01)
Let me also add, if there were no GOD, we wouldn't be here, nothing would exist:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then what is the evidence that shows this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because IBelieve says so, and if you don't believe him, he's going to command God to send you to Hell to burn forever for the unforgivably heinous sin of doubting him.

That's why. </snark>
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,20:44

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:37)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,19:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no religion, idiot, the UN Buildings in New York would still be standing.

If there was no god, I can imagine how good life on this planet would be.  Imagine a planet full of rational people who can think and critically analyze everything to reach the best possible answer.  Imagine a planet were gay people could live without fear.  Imagine a planet where nothing is impossible.

I cannot imagine how evil it would be, because there wouldn't be any need for evil.

IBIG, as far as God, you can't even convince us that it is really God speaking to you... which is a fundamental problem in your case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back and read what I said! You must be having trouble with reading comprehension again!

I said if there were no GOD! I didn't say if there were no RELIGION. GOD is a BEING, and RELIGION is a SET OF BELIEFS. I believe that there is only one God, and muslims don't worship HIM. Yet you call me an idiot and you have no reading comprehension!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you are an idiot, IBelieve, a colossal idiot.

There are several reasons, among them is the fact that you refuse to admit that Muslims worship the same God of Abraham, whom the Christians and Jews worship.

If that's not true, then tell us why Islam is considered to be one of the three Abrahamic Religions?  Evil atheist conspiracy for Satan?

Another reason you are an idiot is because you deliberately and incorrectly define Muslims as being atheists.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,20:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,20:10)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:31)
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the post that started all of my posts about killing in the name of Atheism Ogre. Yes this was about Atheism Ogre you are wrong. You want to change the subject, because you are wrong. So, you can't handle being a miserable?

Let me ask this question, is the current war between the Palestinians and Israel and religious war? Or is it a battle over land?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right IBIG, you still can't say that atheists killed people because they were religious.  There were additional factors, unlike all the instances of Religious people killed other religious (or non-religious) people.

The history has been explained to you, you don't want to get it or think that it makes all the deaths by Christians OK.  That's not our problem IBIG.

Christians (and other religions) have killed waaaaay more than any atheists have ever even tried to.  You can't get away from this fact and it makes everything else, pretty much moot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you can't say that Christians killed because they were Christian, there were other factors. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.

I'm sorry but you have no idea what actual history really is. You and your ilk revise history to you liking.

Stalin killed 21 million Christians, because He didn't want anyone to practice their Christianity, or any religion. You don't know what you are talking about. I believe if you were a dictator of a country, that you would outlaw all religions, and would eliminate those who broke your law by imprisonment or death. I really believe that you have that much hatred against the practice of ones faith.

I don't agree with you that Christians (and other religions) have killed waaaay more than any atheists have ever even tried to. Why do you back that up with actual verifiable numbers, and remember you have to demonstrate that these Christians were true Christians and not (wolves in sheep's clothing) "False Christians" out to devour.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 08 2011,20:56

I'm sorry, IBIG, you must have missed my earlier comment.  I understand, it was brief.  But, I'll repeat here.  I think this is an important point.  Can you tell us why you deliberately ignore comments?  It appears as if you ignore them based solely on your ability to answer any points brought up in said ignored comments.  If this is untrue, please tell me why.

It is obvious that you read them because on many occasions you address the points immediately in front of and following the one you ignore.  Is there a reason for this?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,21:01

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 08 2011,20:44)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:37)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,19:27)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
 
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no religion, idiot, the UN Buildings in New York would still be standing.

If there was no god, I can imagine how good life on this planet would be.  Imagine a planet full of rational people who can think and critically analyze everything to reach the best possible answer.  Imagine a planet were gay people could live without fear.  Imagine a planet where nothing is impossible.

I cannot imagine how evil it would be, because there wouldn't be any need for evil.

IBIG, as far as God, you can't even convince us that it is really God speaking to you... which is a fundamental problem in your case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back and read what I said! You must be having trouble with reading comprehension again!

I said if there were no GOD! I didn't say if there were no RELIGION. GOD is a BEING, and RELIGION is a SET OF BELIEFS. I believe that there is only one God, and muslims don't worship HIM. Yet you call me an idiot and you have no reading comprehension!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you are an idiot, IBelieve, a colossal idiot.

There are several reasons, among them is the fact that you refuse to admit that Muslims worship the same God of Abraham, whom the Christians and Jews worship.

If that's not true, then tell us why Islam is considered to be one of the three Abrahamic Religions?  Evil atheist conspiracy for Satan?

Another reason you are an idiot is because you deliberately and incorrectly define Muslims as being atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Muslims do not worship the God of Abraham. They claim that they do only to gain acceptance, but their's is a counterfeit God. If they worship the same God that Christians and Jews do, then there would be no need for them kill Christians and Jews for not converting now would there be.

Where did I state that Muslims are Atheists?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,21:05

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 08 2011,20:56)
I'm sorry, IBIG, you must have missed my earlier comment.  I understand, it was brief.  But, I'll repeat here.  I think this is an important point.  Can you tell us why you deliberately ignore comments?  It appears as if you ignore them based solely on your ability to answer any points brought up in said ignored comments.  If this is untrue, please tell me why.

It is obvious that you read them because on many occasions you address the points immediately in front of and following the one you ignore.  Is there a reason for this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What makes you think that I'm required to answer every comment that is made? Why haven't you answered every single comment that I have made?


STUPID!!!!!
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 08 2011,21:07

Stunning logic, IBIG.  Granting you this piece of idiocy, how does it explain Christians killing Jews?

Also, why do you ignore comments?
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 08 2011,21:09

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:05)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 08 2011,20:56)
I'm sorry, IBIG, you must have missed my earlier comment.  I understand, it was brief.  But, I'll repeat here.  I think this is an important point.  Can you tell us why you deliberately ignore comments?  It appears as if you ignore them based solely on your ability to answer any points brought up in said ignored comments.  If this is untrue, please tell me why.

It is obvious that you read them because on many occasions you address the points immediately in front of and following the one you ignore.  Is there a reason for this?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What makes you think that I'm required to answer every comment that is made? Why haven't you answered every single comment that I have made?


STUPID!!!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You've never asked me anything?  Other than that and the fact that the rest of your response completely fails to address the point, good job.

The point, as I made clear above, is that you apparently ignore comments based upon your ability to answer the points contained in said comments.  So, nice ignoring again.
Posted by: phhht on Jan. 08 2011,21:41

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:05)
What makes you think that I'm required to answer every comment that is made?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Which of these statements is wrong?

1.  Once there was no life.

2.  Now there is life.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,21:47

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 08 2011,21:07)
Stunning logic, IBIG.  Granting you this piece of idiocy, how does it explain Christians killing Jews?

Also, why do you ignore comments?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where in the Bible does it state to kill Jews?

If Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews, then why are Christians and Jews considered unbelievers by Muslims, and supposed to be killed according to their Koran?

I don't have any requirement to answer anything if I want, many times questions are posed to change the subject.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,21:56

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:01)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 08 2011,20:44)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:37)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,19:27)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
     
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no religion, idiot, the UN Buildings in New York would still be standing.

If there was no god, I can imagine how good life on this planet would be.  Imagine a planet full of rational people who can think and critically analyze everything to reach the best possible answer.  Imagine a planet were gay people could live without fear.  Imagine a planet where nothing is impossible.

I cannot imagine how evil it would be, because there wouldn't be any need for evil.

IBIG, as far as God, you can't even convince us that it is really God speaking to you... which is a fundamental problem in your case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back and read what I said! You must be having trouble with reading comprehension again!

I said if there were no GOD! I didn't say if there were no RELIGION. GOD is a BEING, and RELIGION is a SET OF BELIEFS. I believe that there is only one God, and muslims don't worship HIM. Yet you call me an idiot and you have no reading comprehension!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you are an idiot, IBelieve, a colossal idiot.

There are several reasons, among them is the fact that you refuse to admit that Muslims worship the same God of Abraham, whom the Christians and Jews worship.

If that's not true, then tell us why Islam is considered to be one of the three Abrahamic Religions?  Evil atheist conspiracy for Satan?

Another reason you are an idiot is because you deliberately and incorrectly define Muslims as being atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Muslims do not worship the God of Abraham. They claim that they do only to gain acceptance, but their's is a counterfeit God. If they worship the same God that Christians and Jews do, then there would be no need for them kill Christians and Jews for not converting now would there be.

Where did I state that Muslims are Atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Muslims don't worship the God of Abraham, then why do they claim descent from Abraham?  You haven't explained why Muslims don't worship the God of Abraham (who is the Same God worshiped by the Christians and the Jews), and yet, considered to be members of an Abrahamic Religion.  If you actually read about the history of Islam, they claim to worship the God of Abraham because they are all descended from Abraham.

Furthermore, if you deny claiming that Muslims are atheists, then why did you declare several Muslims, including Mullah Omar of the Taliban, as being evil atheists who murder in the name of Atheism?

Then again, you are an idiot who thinks that Catholics are not Christian, either, so it would be expected of you to deny that Muslims worship the same God as do Christians and Jews.

In fact, if you're so smart, IBelieve, then, if Christians and Jews both worship the same God, then can you explain why have Christians murdered Jews by the thousands and millions for the past 2,000 years for religious reasons?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,22:00

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:47)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 08 2011,21:07)
Stunning logic, IBIG.  Granting you this piece of idiocy, how does it explain Christians killing Jews?

Also, why do you ignore comments?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where in the Bible does it state to kill Jews?

If Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews, then why are Christians and Jews considered unbelievers by Muslims, and supposed to be killed according to their Koran?

I don't have any requirement to answer anything if I want, many times questions are posed to change the subject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That there is no specific commandment in the Bible to murder Jews has never stopped Christians from making excuses to murder Jews, such as the fact that Christians routinely blame Jews for the murder of Jesus, or the claim that Jews use the blood of murdered children to leaven matzo, or that Jews are really the spawn of Satan, among other things.

Of course, you always make up lame excuses to worm your way out of answering questions you lack the courage and intellect to answer.

Like, for example, what does abortion have to do with atheism, or abiogenesis, or why is saying that God "spoke the laws into existence" supposed to be better than science, or even why it's supposed to be different than saying God "magically poofed the world into existence using magic"?
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 08 2011,22:01

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:47)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 08 2011,21:07)
Stunning logic, IBIG.  Granting you this piece of idiocy, how does it explain Christians killing Jews?

Also, why do you ignore comments?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Where in the Bible does it state to kill Jews?

If Muslims worship the same God as Christians and Jews, then why are Christians and Jews considered unbelievers by Muslims, and supposed to be killed according to their Koran?

I don't have any requirement to answer anything if I want, many times questions are posed to change the subject.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe the Bible tells anyone to kill Jews, though I may be wrong.

Hmmm.  Unbeliever.  A word with so many possibilities.  In your opinion, do Jews and Christians worship the same God?  In your opinion, would Christians consider Jews unbelievers?  We'll start there and try to reach common ground.

And, finally, missing (ignoring?) the point again.  The point is that you deliberately ignore points that you can't answer, even on-topic queries.  Why do you think this is acceptable behavior?  Again, why do ignore comments?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 08 2011,22:17

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 08 2011,21:56)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:01)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 08 2011,20:44)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:37)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,19:27)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
   
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,19:04)
     
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,16:55)
     
Quote (fnxtr @ Jan. 08 2011,13:27)
Hey, IBIG, I'm an atheist.

I've never raped, killed or cheated anyone.

Or even wanted to.

I don't need your imaginary friend to keep me in line.

Why do you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't know if you have or not, all I have is your word for that, which according to many here is not good enough! Where is the evidence to support that you never did any of those things?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No answer, huh.

That's what I thought.

Coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no God, it is hard to imagine how much evil there would be on the earth. You fail to realize even if you aren't a believer that you were given a CONSCIENCE, which help keep you from committing such evils. It is possible to damage and destroy your conscience, by acting on your evil thoughts against your conscience.


God is not my imaginary friend, and you will find that out someday. There aren't any dead Atheists. Any I need God, because I love Him, He is my heavenly Father. I am so thankful for Him, for all that He has done for me, for healing me, for blessing me with a wonderful family, for the incredible financial blessing He has given me, and most importantly for Saving my Soul. I never deserved anything that He has done for me, but He loved me anyone, His son died on the cross for me, I am so incredibly thankful. I look forward to the future and what He has in store for me and my family.

I'm sorry for you, because this life you have in the here and now is the closest to heaven that you will ever experience, for me it is the closest to hell that I will ever experience. I hope that you come to the knowledge of the truth before you die and it's too late.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If there were no religion, idiot, the UN Buildings in New York would still be standing.

If there was no god, I can imagine how good life on this planet would be.  Imagine a planet full of rational people who can think and critically analyze everything to reach the best possible answer.  Imagine a planet were gay people could live without fear.  Imagine a planet where nothing is impossible.

I cannot imagine how evil it would be, because there wouldn't be any need for evil.

IBIG, as far as God, you can't even convince us that it is really God speaking to you... which is a fundamental problem in your case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Go back and read what I said! You must be having trouble with reading comprehension again!

I said if there were no GOD! I didn't say if there were no RELIGION. GOD is a BEING, and RELIGION is a SET OF BELIEFS. I believe that there is only one God, and muslims don't worship HIM. Yet you call me an idiot and you have no reading comprehension!!!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, you are an idiot, IBelieve, a colossal idiot.

There are several reasons, among them is the fact that you refuse to admit that Muslims worship the same God of Abraham, whom the Christians and Jews worship.

If that's not true, then tell us why Islam is considered to be one of the three Abrahamic Religions?  Evil atheist conspiracy for Satan?

Another reason you are an idiot is because you deliberately and incorrectly define Muslims as being atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Muslims do not worship the God of Abraham. They claim that they do only to gain acceptance, but their's is a counterfeit God. If they worship the same God that Christians and Jews do, then there would be no need for them kill Christians and Jews for not converting now would there be.

Where did I state that Muslims are Atheists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If Muslims don't worship the God of Abraham, then why do they claim descent from Abraham?  You haven't explained why Muslims don't worship the God of Abraham (who is the Same God worshiped by the Christians and the Jews), and yet, considered to be members of an Abrahamic Religion.  If you actually read about the history of Islam, they claim to worship the God of Abraham because they are all descended from Abraham.

Furthermore, if you deny claiming that Muslims are atheists, then why did you declare several Muslims, including Mullah Omar of the Taliban, as being evil atheists who murder in the name of Atheism?

Then again, you are an idiot who thinks that Catholics are not Christian, either, so it would be expected of you to deny that Muslims worship the same God as do Christians and Jews.

In fact, if you're so smart, IBelieve, then, if Christians and Jews both worship the same God, then can you explain why have Christians murdered Jews by the thousands and millions for the past 2,000 years for religious reasons?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Boy where do I start? Muslims aren't the descendants of Abraham, Arabs are the descendants of Abraham.

I don't have time tonight, but will address the rest of the post later.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 08 2011,22:32

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,22:17)
Boy where do I start? Muslims aren't the descendants of Abraham, Arabs are the descendants of Abraham.

I don't have time tonight, but will address the rest of the post later.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The very first Muslims WERE Arabs.

You don't like it when we call you an "idiot" or a "moron" and yet, you make stupid and stupidly false claims like this that scream of your pompous idiocy.

Or, do you think that Mohamed wasn't an Arab?  Are you that stupid of a stupid bigot to think he was actually an evil, Devil-worshiping atheist?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 09 2011,00:24

IMNSHO, if two religions both proclaim that there is a single entity in charge and that they worship that entity, then only a polytheist could seriously think that they are worshipping two different entities.

That's because a monotheist wouldn't expect there to be a second entity at that level of power.

Of course, to an atheist the question would amount to whether two versions of a fictional entity were actually about the same entity or not, and that sort of thing matters only within the context of a story.

As to whether Moslems have to be descended from a particular (and probably fictional) character or not - er, what the heck does that have to do with what God they acknowledge?

Henry
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 09 2011,00:32

Amazing, isn't he, folks?

Give the little deluded coward a hand, folks!  He's doing his best, but the handicap he's carrying is awfully heavy...such a brave lad he is.

Biggy, have you forgotten perhaps the many, many times you told us that (in essence) if your imaginary friend told you to kill someone, you'd do it?  And made excuses for the occasions when commands from on high were used as an excuse for various unpleasant historical events?  'Cause now you seem to be willing to say that murder isn't murder if it's ordained by your imaginary friend, which means that genocide isn't genocide so long as your imaginary friend said it's okay.  On top of that, you're claiming that it's the nonbelievers who have committed the greatest atrocities in history against not only the available evidence (D'Souza's revisionism doesn't count as credible, I'm afraid) but also common sense.  Even for a Troo BeLIEver (tm pat pend) that's pretty pathetic.

blipey, the Biggster ignores everyone who actually scores a point that he can't counter with empty rhetoric and talking points.  This is his A-game.  (shrug)


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 09 2011,00:38

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,20:01)
Let me also add, if there were no GOD, we wouldn't be here, nothing would exist:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yet another baseless and incoherent assertion, void of either logic or evidence.

When you feel like joining the adult world, Biggy, and put childish things behind you, let us know.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 09 2011,02:13

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,18:47)
I don't agree with you that Christians (and other religions) have killed waaaay more than any atheists have ever even tried to. Why do you back that up with actual verifiable numbers, and remember you have to demonstrate that these Christians were true Christians and not (wolves in sheep's clothing) "False Christians" out to devour.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And this, folks, is why this discussion is a waste of time.  Christians would never do anything like that.  So they weren't really Christians.

Does anyone on our side have IBIG's unfailing God-given ability to look into people's souls and see what they really believe?  Thought not.  I think we're done.
Posted by: phhht on Jan. 09 2011,02:29

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 08 2011,21:41)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:05)
What makes you think that I'm required to answer every comment that is made?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Which of these statements is wrong?

1.  Once there was no life.

2.  Now there is life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Too hard, huh Poofster?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 09 2011,04:02

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 09 2011,00:24)
IMNSHO, if two religions both proclaim that there is a single entity in charge and that they worship that entity, then only a polytheist could seriously think that they are worshipping two different entities.

That's because a monotheist wouldn't expect there to be a second entity at that level of power.

Of course, to an atheist the question would amount to whether two versions of a fictional entity were actually about the same entity or not, and that sort of thing matters only within the context of a story.

As to whether Moslems have to be descended from a particular (and probably fictional) character or not - er, what the heck does that have to do with what God they acknowledge?

Henry
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I doubt any serious scholar thinks Abraham actually existed - the evidence that the early "history" of Israel is legendary/mythical (origin myths, I think that class is called) keeps getting more and more extensive as we discover more about the region.  

But the polytheist angle...since Christians worship three gods (that are one, wink wink), they might as well come out and say they are polytheists.  When you add in Mary, Saints, Angels...well, the pantheon keeps getting bigger.  Of course, which of these things are worshipped or prayed to depends on what the particular Christian believes, so we can't really go beyond that.  The standard apologetic is that the person isn't praying to the Saint (even if they are), they are praying through the saint, as if their omniscient God has to screen his calls, and if they think the prayer is answered, the saint is just channeling the power of their god, not doing it themselves.  Six of one...

There isn't any commandment to kill Jews, but there was Martin Luther's famous "< The Jews and Their Lies >" - probably based (in part) on Matthew:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
27:24 When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it.

27:25 Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.  

(27:25) "His blood be on us, and on our children."

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That passage was probably written during the early Christian persecution of the Jews, but had been used as a justification for such persecution up to the present day.

ETA - don't forget the countless stories in the OT about God killing his own people (ie, the Jews) - the Golden Calf, the Census of David (IIRC), and others.  Nothing like a Middle Eastern Deity who would mete horrible punishment on his own people - it was the standard of the time and the conception of the gods at the time and place the myths developed.  Such lines have (perhaps) been used to justify some killings.

I'm also reminded of the famous "Kill them all, God will know his own" quote - from the Albigensian Crusade, I think, where a Christian general commanded his troops to commit genocide on a city where the "heretics" had been hiding.  Every man, woman, and child - slaughtered in the name of the orthodox dogma of Christianity at the time.  But, of course, they weren't True Christians, so they must have been atheists like the Muslims are.  ???
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 09 2011,04:26

Both Henry and Badger are raising a very interesting point about the polytheistic nature of Christian beliefs. In Italy, for exemple, Jesus is only #7 on the list of long-dead figures (real or mythical) being prayed to. #1 is Padre Pio, and I'll have to check what God scores.

But in effect, if IBIG really believes there's only one god, and the muslims believe there's only one god, then no matter how they worship said god, it is still the same god. It's simply a matter of logic*




*That may be where the problem comes from. IBIG=/=Logic...
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 09 2011,07:19

Suffice it to say that the common denominator of all these instances of carnage is that it is human carnage. Variability in that carnage is attributable to hugely complex factors with tangled historical and cultural origins (political, economic, technological, industrial, ethnic, ideological, religious, etc.). The difference in scale of the genocides of the 20th century relative to earlier instances reflects the onset of the modern state, industrialization, mechanization, transportation, efficient lethality, etc. making the numbers impossible to compare.

In all, neither religious or secular world views guarantee freedom from these horrors. As ever, "History is a nightmare from which I am trying to awake" (Joyce).

So, I don't see that much is accomplished by counting instances of genocides, or numbers within particular genocides, and then generalizing from these single, highly contingent instances to the world at large. Further, whatever causal parcel we can attribute to the presence of "Christianity" or "atheism" in particular instances says nothing about truth of either worldview.  

That said, IBIG, were it the case that your belief in God is mistaken, what value would human life have?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 09 2011,07:40

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 09 2011,04:26)
Both Henry and Badger are raising a very interesting point about the polytheistic nature of Christian beliefs. In Italy, for exemple, Jesus is only #7 on the list of long-dead figures (real or mythical) being prayed to. #1 is Padre Pio, and I'll have to check what God scores.

But in effect, if IBIG really believes there's only one god, and the muslims believe there's only one god, then no matter how they worship said god, it is still the same god. It's simply a matter of logic*




*That may be where the problem comes from. IBIG=/=Logic...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Illogical!

Just because one religion believes that there is one God, and another religion believes that there is one god, does not make that god the same God.

In order to understand if it is the same God you have to compare the nature of the God of each religion to determine if that is true.

So, let's compare Allah to the God of the Bible.

< Here is the source for the following information >

This study examines the crucial question that needs to be addressed which is whether the God presented in the Quran is indeed the same God revealed in the Holy Bible. The Quran alleges that the God of Islam, Allah, is indeed the God of Abraham and hence the God of Scripture, Yahweh Elohim. But is this the case?

Are we to assume that just because the Quran states that Allah is Yahweh of the Bible that both Jews and Christians are obligated to believe this to be true? Or do we examine the nature and attributes of Allah in order to compare them with the biblical portrait of Yahweh to find if this is the case?

This process of examination is essential since our objective is to discover the true nature of God, a process whose outcome entails eternal consequences in regards to man's future destiny in the afterlife. After all, if Allah is the God of Abraham then Jews and Christians are wrong for not embracing Islam. But if Allah is not Yahweh, then Muslims are not worshiping the same God only with a different name.

We will examine certain qualities of Allah as stated in the Quran and briefly compare them to Yahweh and see where the evidence leads us. The reason why we are comparing Allah to Yahweh as opposed to contrasting Yahweh to the quranic portrait of Allah, using the Quran as the standard, is due to the fact that it is Islam that claims to worship the same God of the Holy Bible. Thus, the burden of proof rests upon the Muslims to defend this contention since they believe Allah is the same as Yahweh.



AUTHOR OF EVIL

The Holy Bible teaches that God cannot be tempted by evil and neither tempts anyone with evil; evil being understood as referring to immorality and sin. James 1:13 (c.f. Psalm 5:4-5; Habakkuk 1:13)

Yet, the Quran teaches that Allah is the author of evil:

Verily, the hypocrites seek to deceive Allah, but it is He Who deceives them. And when they stand up for As-Salat (the prayer), they stand with laziness and to be seen of men, and they do not remember Allah but little. S. 4:142 Hilali-Khan
And (the unbelievers) schemed and planned, and Allah schemed also, and the best of schemers is Allah. S. 3:54

Are they then secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi)? None deemeth himself secure from Allah's scheme (makra Allahi) save folk that perish. S. 7:99 Pickthall

Remember how the unbelievers schemed against thee, to keep thee in bonds, or to slay thee, or get thee out (of thy home). They scheme and plot, but the best of schemers is Allah. S. 8:30

And when We make people taste of mercy after an affliction touches them, lo! they devise schemes (makrun) against Our communication. Say: Allah is quicker to scheme (makran); surely Our apostles write down what you plan. S. 10:21

And those before them did indeed scheme (makara), but all scheming (al-makru) is Allah's; He knows what every soul earns, and the unbelievers shall come to know for whom is the (better) issue of the abode. S. 13:42

So they schemed a scheme: and We schemed a scheme, while they perceived not. S. 27:50

The term for scheme in Arabic is makara which denotes one who is a deceiver, one who is conniving, a schemer. It is always used in a negative sense. Allah is thus seen as the best of deceivers, the premiere schemer and conniving one.

This is not simply a Christian perspective but one thoroughly endorsed by Muslim theologians as well.

For example Dr. Mahmoud M. Ayoub in his book, The Quran and Its Interpreters, Vol. II The House of Imran, brings up the question of "how the word makr (scheming or plotting), which implies deceitfulness or dishonesty, could be attributed to God." (Ibid. [1992 State University of New York Press, Albany], p. 165)

After listing several Muslim sources he quotes ar-Razi as arguing that "scheming (makr) is actually an act of deception aiming at causing evil. It is not possible to attribute deception to God. Thus the word is one of the muttashabihat [multivalent words of the Quran]." (Ibid., p. 166)

Moreover, here is how one of the earliest sources on the life of Muhammad interpreted Q. 8:30:

Then he reminds the apostle of His favour towards him when the people plotted against him 'to kill him, or to wound him, or to drive him out; and they plotted and God plotted, and is the best of plotters.' i.e. I DECEIVED them with My firm GUILE so that I delivered you from them. (The Life of Muhammad: A Translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah, with introduction and notes by Alfred Guillaume [Oxford University Press, Karachi, Tenth impression 1995], p. 323; capital emphasis ours)

In fact the Quran furnishes plenty of examples on some of the methods Allah adopts in devising evil:

Remember in thy dream Allah showed them as a few: if he had showed them to thee as many, ye would surely have been discouraged, and ye would surely have disputed in your decision: but Allah saved you: for He knoweth well the (secrets) of (all) hearts. S. 8:43
Allah is said to have shown the opposing fighting forces as few to Muhammad since if he had shown them as they actually were, the Muslims would have been afraid to fight. Hence, Allah had to use deception in order to encourage the Muslims to fight in his cause.

And when We desire to destroy a city, We command its men who live at ease, and they commit ungodliness therein, then the Word is realized against it, and We destroy it utterly. S. 17:16
Allah commands men to sin in order to destroy them completely.

They (Jinns- demon spirits) worked for him (Solomon) as he desired ... then when We decreed death upon him, nothing showed them his death except a little creeping creature of the earth, which gnawed away at his staff. And when he fell the Jinns saw clearly how, if they had known the unseen, they would not have continued in the humiliating penalty (of work). S. 34:13-14
Allah deceived the Jinns into working for Solomon by preventing the latter's death from being disclosed to them, otherwise they would have stopped their work.

Allah also deceived both Christians and Jews into thinking that Jesus was crucified when in fact "it was so made to appear unto them", seeing that he never was crucified or killed. S. 4:157

According to S. 9:51, nothing befalls Muslims except what Allah has ordained. And in S. 14:4, we are told,

"Allah leads astray whomsoever He will and guides whomsoever he will."
And,

"Whomsoever Allah guides, he is the one who follows the right way; and whomsoever He causes to err, these are the losers. And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; ... Whomsoever Allah causes to err, there is no guide for him; and He leaves them alone in their inordinacy, blindly wandering on." S. 7:178-179, 186
"If thy Lord had so willed, He could have made mankind one People: but they will not cease to differ. Except those on whom thy Lord hath bestowed His Mercy: and for this did He create them: and the Word of thy Lord shall be fulfilled: ‘I will fill Hell with Jinns and men all together.’" S. 11:118-119

Not only does Allah guide people astray, but also has created men specifically for hell. To make matters worse, he even ordains the evil one commits as we have already seen in S. 17:16 and further clarified by this Muslim tradition:

Abu Huraira reported Allah's Apostle as saying:
Verily Allah has fixed the very portion of adultery which a man will indulge in, and which he of necessity must commit (or there would be no escape from it)." Sahih Muslim #6421, 6422

To even imagine that Allah causes adultery is not only horrendous but disqualifies him from being the God of Moses.

A keen reader might raise the objection that the Bible itself indicates in several places that God had intended to do evil to certain nations and individuals such as Absalom in 2 Samuel 17:14. Or that Jeremiah had been deceived by God in Jeremiah 20:7:

"O LORD, thou hast deceived me and I was deceived." King James Version
Firstly, in regards to 2 Sam. 17:14 as we had noted earlier God does not tempt anyone with moral evil in the form of sin but brings upon man calamity as a consequence of their sins. In fact, the term which the King James translates as evil is the Hebrew ra. Accordingly, some Hebrew scholars see it as being derived from the word ra'a which means to "break, smash, crush." (Vine's Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testaments, p. 232)

Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible gives various meanings some of which include adversity, affliction, calamity, distress, evil, grief (#7451 of the Hebrew Dictionary Section).

Thus, the evil God poured out upon these individuals was not immorality like that of the Quran but judgement upon the wicked due to their persistence in sin and a refusal to come into repentance.

The Hebrew term for deceive used in Jeremiah 20:7 is pathath. Strong's lists it as #6601 in the Hebrew section with the following meanings; allure, enlarge, entice, deceive, flatter, persuade, silly. In light of the wide range of meanings, there is no reason to assume that Jeremiah meant that God was actually deceiving him.

In fact the context itself shows that the word can only mean "persuade" since Jeremiah is complaining that God is persuading him to continue his ministry, even though he doesn't want to:

"O LORD, You induced me, and I was persuaded;
YOU ARE STRONGER THAN I, AND HAVE PREVAILED.
I am in derision daily;
Everyone mocks me.
For when I spoke, I cried out;
I shouted, ‘Violence and plunder!’
Because the word of the LORD was made to me
A reproach and a derision daily.
Then I said, ‘I will not make mention of Him,
Nor speak anymore in His name.’
But His word was in my heart like a burning fire
Shut up in my bones;
I was weary of holding it back,
And I could not." Jeremiah 20:8-9 NKJV
God was therefore insisting that Jeremiah continue and did so by constant persuasion. This passage has nothing to do with deception whatsoever.

Another possible objection would be the King James rendering of Ezekiel 20:25 where God says to Israel that he "gave them also statutes that were not good, and judgements whereby they should not live." This strongly suggests that God is the author of evil.

The context of the passage is referring to Israel's reluctance in observing God's holy commands, which prompted God to hand them over to their own desires (all of chapter 20).

Scripture clearly teaches that when God sees that a nation refuses to embrace the truth he has revealed, the Lord then hardens their hearts that they might continue in their wickedness. This is done that he might bring upon them the judgement that they deserve for their evil (c.f. Romans 1:18-32; 2 Thessalonians 2:9-12).

Therefore, God does not give them unholy commands but allows them to embrace statutes which are evil. This is the meaning of the Hebrew text as accurately reflected in the New King James Version:

"Therefore, I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgements by which they could not live."
Yet, the Arabic makara does not allow for other possible meanings. And the Quran itself gives examples of Allah using deception and sin to fulfill his will.



AUTHOR OF ABROGATION

According to the Quran Allah reveals a verse only to have it canceled out a short time later:

None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten but We substitute something better or similar- Knowest thou not that Allah has power over all things? S. 2:106
When We substitute one revelation for another- and Allah knowest best what He reveals (in stages)- They say, "Thou art but a forger"; But most of them understand not. S. 16:101

This leaves us with the difficulty of having a God who does not remain consistent and often changes his revealed purpose. This being the case, how is one to know that the promises of such a Being in regards to eternal security can be trusted? Just as he changes his mind in relation to the revelation, he can also decide to change his mind in regards to the believer's ultimate destiny without anything stopping him from doing so.

This is different from Yahweh of the Holy Bible who does not change and as such can be totally trusted in fulfilling all his promises:

God is not a man that he should lie, nor a son of man that he should repent. Has he said, and will he not do? Or has he spoken, and will he not make it good? Numbers 23:19
For I, Yahweh, do not change. Malachi 3:6

If we are faithless, he remains faithful; he cannot deny himself. 2 Timothy 2:13

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Hebrews 13:8

Because the God of the Bible is immutable he can promise, "Heaven and earth will pass away but my words will never pass away" (Matthew 24:35).

Two responses can possibly be presented and often are by Muslims. The first is the fact that abrogation is not referring to the Quran but to previous scriptures such as the Bible.

Unfortunately for the Muslims making this argument, this interpretation cannot be defended in light of S. 87:6-8:

By degrees shall We teach thee (Muhammad) to declare (the Message) so thou shalt not forget, except as Allah Wills: For He knoweth what is manifest and what is hidden. And We will make it easy for thee (to follow) the simple (Path).
It becomes obvious that certain parts of the revelation given to Muhammad will eventually be caused to be forgotten, since Allah later willed it.

The second response often presented is that the Bible clearly speaks of God regretting to create man or having repented of bringing on a certain disaster which he had planned to do. (c.f. Genesis 6:6; Exodus 32:14)

There are basically two responses for this assumed Muslim allegation. First, both the Holy Bible and the Quran use anthropomorphic language in describing both the nature and acts of God. For instance, both books speak of God's eyes, hands and feet without implying that these things are to be taken literally. The purpose of using such language is to communicate certain incomprehensible truths of God in human language in order for man to grasp certain realities of the divine nature. Hence, statements such as God having regrets is used to communicate certain realities to man in relational terms, i.e. that God identifies with our human condition and grieves for man's fallen state, having compassion for him.

Secondly, the reason for indicating that God refrained from fulfilling an act he had decreed is an indication of his divine patience. God does not desire to destroy the wicked but to save them, desiring that they come into repentance:

Say to them: "As I live", says the Lord God, "I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked, but that the wicked turn from his way and live. Turn, turn from your evil ways! For why should you die, O house of Israel?" Ezekiel 33:11
Likewise, if a nation which has been promised prosperity turns to wickedness, God will also refrain from fulfilling his promises of blessing. This is pointed out in Jeremiah 18:7-10:

"The instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to pluck up, to pull down, and to destroy it, if that nation against whom I have spoken turns from its evil, I will relent of the disaster I thought to bring upon it.
"And the instant I speak concerning a nation and concerning a kingdom, to build and plant it, if it does evil in My sight, so that it does not obey My voice, then I will relent concerning the good with which I would benefit it."

An example of this is seen in I Kings 21:29 where God had sworn to destroy Ahab for his wickedness, but decided against it:

"See how Ahab has humbled himself before Me? Because he has humbled himself before Me, I will not bring the calamity in his days. In the days of his son, I will bring the calamity on his house."
Or God deciding not to destroy Ninevah after seeing their sincere repentance and humbleness:

"Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." Jonah 3:10

These examples indicate that certain warnings are given specifically to lead the person(s) into right standing with God, and are not given as a sign that the matter has been sealed and there is no averting the disaster.



AUTHOR OF HISTORICAL ERRORS

The Quran contains historical errors which implies that Allah is not an Omniscient Being, since an all-knowing Being would be able to accurately recall historical events. Below is a list of just some of the many problems we find in the Quran.

In S. 17:1 we are told that Muhammad was taken to the farthest Mosque, Masjid al-Aqsa. The problem with this is that the Aqsa Mosque had not been erected since Abd al-Malik only built it in AD 691. It cannot be referring to the Temple in Jerusalem since that was destroyed by the armies of the Roman general Titus in AD 70.
S. 18:9-26 alludes to several men and their dog who slept for approximately 309 years only to be awakened in perfect condition.
According to S. 18:83-98, Alexander the Great called Zhul Qarnain, "the Two Horned One," was a Muslim who traveled till he found the Sun literally setting in a muddy spring. When we keep in mind that the title "the Two Horned One" was a title given to Alexander in pre-Islamic times, the Muslim attempts of trying to deny this fact utterly fails.
According to S. 4:157 the unbelieving Jews boasted by saying, "We killed the Messiah Jesus the son of Mary, the apostle of Allah." The only problem with this is that the unbelieving Jews never admitted that Jesus was Messiah and would not have killed him if they had believed that he was their long-awaited Messianic Deliverer. The unbelieving Jews had Jesus killed because they believed he was a false Messiah:
"And they began to accuse him, saying, ‘We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and CLAIMS to be Christ a king.’" Luke 23:2 NIV
Christians are accused of worshiping Mary and Jesus as two gods apart from the true God:
And behold! Allah will say: "O Jesus the son of Mary! Didst thou say unto men, Worship me and my mother ... " S. 5:116

Christ the son of Mary was no more than an apostle- many were the apostles that passed away before him. His mother was a woman of truth. They had both to eat their (daily) food. See how Allah doth make His Signs clear to them ... S. 5:75

In blasphemy indeed are those that say that Allah is Christ the son of Mary. Say: "Who then hath the least power against Allah, if His Will were to destroy Christ the son of Mary, his mother, and all - every one that is on the earth..." S. 5:17

This presumes that since Mary ate food and could be destroyed by Allah she could not possibly be divine. This gives the misleading impression that Christians believe that she is more than simply human.

In fact, the Quran proceeds to accuse Christians of worshiping three gods:

"They do blaspheme who say: Allah is the third of three (inallaaha thaalithu thalaatha)" S. 5:73
"... so believe in Allah and His apostles. Say not three (thalaatha): desist: It will be better for you: for Allah is one Allah ..." S. 4:171

According to Muslim biographer Ibn Ishaq in his work, Sirat Rasulullah, a Christian deputation from Najran came to debate Muhammad on the person of Jesus. Accordingly, these Christians allegedly believed that Jesus, "is God; and He is the son of God; and He is the third Person of the Trinity, which is the doctrine of Christianity." (Alfred Guilliame trans., The Life of Muhammad [Oxford University Press, Karachi], p. 271)

He goes on to say, "They argue that he is the third of three in that God says: We have done, We have commanded, We have created and We have decreed, and they say, If He were one He would have said I have done, I have created, and so on, but He is He and Jesus and Mary. Concerning all these assertions the Quran came down." (Ibid., pp. 271-272)

The errors in the Quranic teaching on what Christians believe becomes apparent to anyone familiar with the basics of Christian doctrine. Firstly, Christians have never taken Mary as a goddess alongside God. Secondly, Christians have never said God is three or the third of three which is tritheism, three separate gods forming a unity; as opposed to Trinity, ONE God who exists in Three distinct yet inseparable Persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Thirdly, Christianity has never taught as part of its doctrine that Jesus is the third Person of the Trinity. Rather, he is the Second Person, with the Holy Spirit being the third Person of the Godhead. Matthew 28:19

Fourthly, Muslims believe that Allah of the Quran is the same as God the Father of the Holy Bible since they do not believe in God the Son, Jesus Christ, nor in God the Holy Spirit who to Muslims is the angel Gabriel. This again causes a problem since if Allah is indeed the same Person as God the Father then the Quran is wrong in saying that Christians believe that the Father is the third of three. Christians teach that the Father is the First Person of the One True Godhead, not the third deity of three gods.

And finally, Christians do not believe that Allah is the Messiah, or that God is the Messiah since this implies that Jesus is the entire Godhead, which would be modalism. The correct and biblical statement is that Jesus is God, since this suggests that although Jesus is fully God by nature he is not the only Person who shares the essence of Deity perfectly. The Bible also teaches that both the Father and the Holy Spirit are fully God.

Mary the Mother of Jesus is confused with Mary the sister of Aaron and Moses, the daughter of Amram:
Behold! The wife of Imran (i.e. Amram) said, "O my Lord! I do dedicate unto thee what is in my womb"... When she was delivered, she said: "O my Lord! Behold! I am delivered of a female child ... I have named her Mary... " S. 3:35, 36

"And Mary the daughter of Imran, who guarded her chastity.." S. 66:12.

"... They said: O Mary! Truly an amazing thing hast thou brought! O sister of Aaron! Thy father was not a man of evil, nor thy mother a woman unchaste." S. 19:27-28

"Then Mary (Heb. Mariam), the prophetess, the sister of Aaron, took the timbrel in her hand ..." Exodus 15:20

"The name of Amram's wife was Jochebed, the daughter of Levi, who was born to Levi in Egypt; and to Amram she bore Aaron and Moses and their sister Miriam." Numbers 27:59

This is an error of nearly 1400 years! How could Moses' sister Mary be Jesus' mother, making Moses his uncle?

Muslims give two responses in trying to deal with this anachronism. First, it is stated that the expressions "sister of Aaron" and "daughter of Amram" refers to Mary's lineage, i.e. that Mary was a descendant of Aaron and Amram of the tribe of Levi. Unfortunately for Muslims, this assertion cannot possibly be the case since Mary was a daughter of Judah and a descendant of David:

"Now Jesus Himself began his ministry at about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed the son of Joseph, the son of Heli ... the son of David ... the son of Judah." Luke 3:23, 31, 33
The words, "as was supposed," are given to clarify the fact that it is Mary's genealogy which is being presented, with Joseph acting as the male representative. This is supported by extrabiblical documents such as the Jewish tractate of the Talmud, Chagigah, where a certain person had a dream in which he saw the punishment of the damned. There, "He saw Mary the daughter of Heli amongst the shades." ( John Lightfoot, Commentary On the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica [Oxford University Press, 1859; with a second printing from Hendrickson Publishers Inc., 1995], vol. 1, p. v; vol. 3, p.55)

In the book of Hebrews we are told that, "it is evident that our Lord ( Jesus ) arose from Judah, of which tribe Moses spoke nothing concerning priesthood" Heb. 7:14.

And,

"I ( Jesus ) am the Root and Offspring of David, the Bright Morning Star." Revelation 22:16
It is therefore impossible for Mary to be a descendant of Levi, since both the orthodox Jewish understanding and the biblical record agree that Messiah would arise out of Judah (c.f. Genesis 49:10-12; Matthew 22:42-45).

Someone might interject at this point and suggest that the Bible calls Elizabeth a relation of Mary:

"Now, indeed, Elizabeth your relative also conceived a son in her old age..." Luke 1:36 NKJV
This seems to imply that Mary is of Levitical descent, since Elizabeth is addressed as one of Aaron's descendants. (Cf. Luke 1:5)

The term used for relative in the Greek is syngenes. Gerhard Kittel and Gerhard Friedrich define it as:

a. " The adjective refers to a person of common origin, i.e., belonging to the same family, race, tribe, or people. It can then mean 'related' in disposition, 'corresponding', 'analogous', or 'similar.'
b. The noun means 'relationship' by descent or disposition, then more broadly 'analogy' (e.g. between deity and humanity, or ideas and the senses, or the stars and human destiny), whether in philosophy or popular belief." (Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, abridged in one volume by George W. Bromiley [Eerdmans, 1985], p. 1097)

Hence, Elizabeth and Mary were related in the sense of being of the same race of people, i.e. the Israelites. But this meaning seems to be unlikely since this could be said about any other Israelite woman's relationship to Mary. It seems more likely that Elizabeth and Mary were blood relatives. This being the case, this still wouldn't prove that Mary was of the tribe of Aaron. All this would prove is that Elizabeth had Judean blood in her, since Levites were allowed to marry women from any of the twelve tribes:

"The woman he (the Levitical Priests) marries must be a virgin. He must not marry a widow, a divorced woman, or a woman defiled by prostitution, but only a virgin from his people." Leviticus 21:13-14 NIV
Ezekiel, in his vision of a restored priesthood and temple, further clarifies this point:

"They shall not marry a widow or a divorced woman, but only virgins of the offspring OF THE HOUSE OF ISRAEL, or a widow who is the widow of a priest." Ezekiel 44:22 ESV
The Holy Bible even provides an example of a priest who had married a woman from Judea, who was actually a descendant of king David:

"Now when Athaliah the mother of Ahaziah saw that her son was dead, she arose and destroyed all the royal family of the house of Judah. But Jehoshabeath, the daughter of the king, took Joash the son of Ahaziah and stole him away from among the king's sons who were about to be put to death, and she put him and his nurse in a bedroom. Thus Jehoshabeath, the daughter of King Jehoram and wife of Jehoiada the priest, because she was a sister of Ahaziah, hid him from Athaliah, so that she did not put him to death." 2 Chronicles 22:10-11
The foregoing demonstrates the plausibility of Elizabeth's mother being from the line of David, from the tribe of Judah, accounting for her being related to Mary.

Elizabeth could also be an aunt to Mary, see the entry on Luke 1:36 in the Bible Commentary section.

Muslims are not to be blamed for taking the phrase "brother of" as a reference to Mary's lineage since Muhammad also used a similar line of reasoning to cover up this error. In Sahih Muslim Mughirah ibn Shu'bah narrates:

"When I came to Najran, they (the Christians of Najran) asked me: You read ‘sister of Harun' (i.e., Mary), in the Quran, whereas Moses was born well before Jesus. When I came back to Allah's Messenger I asked him about that, and he said: ‘The (people of old age) used to give names (to their persons) after the names of Apostles and pious persons who had gone before them.'" #5326
Again,

Ibn Abi Ahaybah and Ahmad and Abdel Hameed and Muslim and At-Tirmidhi and An-Nassaa'I and Ibn Al-Mundhir and Ibn Abi Haatim and Ibn Hibbaan and At-Tabaraani and Ibn Mardaweih ans Al-Bayhaqi in ad-dalaa'il, narrated that Al-Mughirah Ibn Shu'bah said: "The Prophet of God (PBUH) sent me to the people of Najran. They asked me: DO you see what you read? O sister of Harun while Moses precedes Jesus with such a long time? He (Al-Mughirah) said: So I went back to the Prophet and mentioned that to him. He told me: "Would you tell them the folk used to be called after Prophets and pious people who preceded them?" (Jalaaluddeen As-Suyuti, Ad-durr Al-Manthur)
The only difficulty with Muhammad's statement is that the Jews before and during the time of Christ never used this phrase in this manner at all. Not one single reference from the Bible, either Old or New Testaments, the Jewish literature before the birth of Christ, or even the Jewish Talmud and Targums after Christ can be found to support Muhammad's assertion. This is simply a gross error which cannot be swept away.

The second argument is actually a clarification of the first in that it is suggested that both the Bible and the Quran furnish further evidence for the term "sister of" being used to imply ancestry:

"His (Zechariah) wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth." Luke 1:5
It is obvious that the term "daughters" is speaking of Elizabeth's lineage and is not to be taken to literally mean that her father was actually Aaron the brother of Moses.

Again it is unfortunate for Muslims that this argument does not help them, but actually serves to weaken their argument. Although the Bible does use the phrases "son of," or "daughter of" to refer to ancestry, it never uses the terms "brother of" or "sister of" to indicate this fact. A few examples of the former usage include:

"So ought not this woman, being a daughter of Abraham, whom Satan has bound- think of it - for eighteen years, be loosed from this bond on the Sabbath'?" Luke 13:16
"And Jesus said to him, 'Today salvation has come to this house, because he also is a son of Abraham." Luke 19:9

"And behold, two blind men sitting by the road, when they heard that Jesus was passing by, cried out, saying, 'Have mercy on us, 0 Lord, Son of David.' " Matthew 20:30

Scripture never addresses a person as a "brother of Abraham," or "sister of David" when wishing to imply lineage. Hence, the Muslim position cannot be defended biblically.

The second example is from the Quran where Salih is called Thamud's brother:

"We sent ( aforetime ) to the Thamud, their brother Salih ..." S. 27:45
The term brother here refers to kinsmen, not actual bloodbrothers, exemplifying the many different ways the term is used.

Once again the problem is far from being resolved since the term "brother" is used to address Salih's contemporaries, not his ancestors. This implies that to call Mary Aaron's sister meant that Mary and Aaron were contemporaries, living at the same time.

Unlike the Quran, the Holy Bible contains no historical errors. Most attacks on the Bible stem from arguments from silence, i.e. the fact that no independent archeological research has been discovered in support of certain recorded biblical events. Yet, such arguments only prove that as of yet archeology has failed to furnish evidence against an event reported in the Bible. Other attacks center on the precise dating of certain archeological findings which some see as contradicting the Holy Bible's chronology. Again, one cannot say that the Holy Bible is in error when archeologists themselves are divided over the precise dating of certain discoveries. This is especially so when one realizes that there are certain archeologists who provide evidence which they feel proves that the data corresponds perfectly with the Bible's chronology of the events in question.

This is far different from archeology providing evidence to show that certain events did not occur in the same manner in which the Bible says it did. In fact, not one archeological discovery has ever proven the Bible wrong; discovery after discovery has demonstrated the amazing historical accuracy of scripture. The following quotations from the world's leading archeologists affirms this fact:

"Nowhere has archeological discovery refuted the Bible as history." ( John Elder, Prophets, Idols and Diggers [New York; Bobs Merrill, 1960], p. 16 )
"Near Eastern archeology has demonstrated the historical and geographical reliability of the Bible in many important areas. By clarifying the objectivity and factual accuracy of biblical authors, archeology also helps correct the view that the Bible is avowedly partisan and subjective. It is now known, for instance, that, along with the Hittites, Hebrew scribes were the best historians in the entire ancient Near East, despite contrary propaganda that emerged from Assyria, Egypt, and elsewhere." (E. M. Blaiklock, editor's preface, New International Dictionary of Biblical Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Regency Reference Library/ Zondervan, 1983], pp. vii-viii)

The late William F. Albright, one of the world's foremost archeologists, stated:

"There can be no doubt that archeology has confirmed the substantial historicity of Old Testament tradition." (J. A. Thompson, The Bible and Archeology [Grand Rapids, MI; Eerdmans, 1975], p. 5)
Nelson Glueck, world renowned archeologist, concurs: "As a matter of fact, however, it maybe clearly stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or exact detail historical statements in the Bible." ( Norman Geisler & Ron Brooks, When Skeptics Ask; A Handbook on Christian Evidences [Wheaton, IL; Victor, 1990], p. 179)

It should be noted that both Albright and Glueck were not conservative Christians and did not believe in the inspiration of scripture. Their conclusions were based strictly on the archeological data, forcing them to make the above admissions.

This cannot be said of the Quran with all of its historical and scientific mistakes.



AUTHOR OF CARNAL PLEASURES

The Quranic paradise is totally different from the biblical portrait of heaven. In Allah's paradise, we find sexual and carnal pleasures for believers to engage in throughout eternity:

But give glad tidings to those who believe and work righteousness, that their portions is Gardens, beneath which rivers flow, every time they are fed with fruits therefrom, they say: "Why, this is what we were fed with before," for they are giving things in similitude; And they have therein damsels (Arabic - Houris ) pure (and holy); and they abide therein (forever)." S. 2:25
But to those who believe and do deeds of righteousness, We shall soon admit to Gardens, with rivers flowing beneath, their eternal home. Therein they have damsels pure and holy; We shall admit them to shades, cool and ever deepening. S. 4:57

Of a rare creation have We created the Houris, and We have made them ever virgins, dear to their spouses, of equal age with them for the people of the right hand. S. 56:35-38

But for those who fear Allah is a blissful abode, enclosed gardens and vineyards, and damsels with swelling breasts (Arabic - Kawa'eb), their peers in age, and a full cup. S. 78:31-34 (Arberry and Rodwell translate this part correctly, see also this overview page)

The orthodox Islamic understanding of these references are that Muslim men shall have a host of swelling breasted maidens to engage in sex with, who return to their virginal state after intercourse.

The paradise of Yahweh is one that is devoid of such carnality, being filled with the infinite love and joy of God instead. Hence, the believers' reward is to dwell with God forever in eternal glory:

"Jesus answered and said to them, 'The sons of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are counted worthy to attain that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry nor are given in marriage; nor can they die anymore for they are equal to the angels and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection." Luke 20:34-36
"The kingdom of God is not food or drink, but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit." Romans 14:17

"And I heard a loud voice from heaven saying, 'Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and He will dwell with them, and they shall be His people. God Himself will be with them and be their God. And God will wipe away every tear from their eyes; there shall be no more death, nor sorrow, nor crying. There shall be no more pain, for the former things have passed away." Revelation 21:3-4



AUTHOR OF FOREIGN WORDS

The Quran claims to be in pure Arabic speech:

We have sent it down as an Arabic Quran, in order that ye may learn wisdom. S. 12:2
"An Arabic Quran, wherein there is no crookedness..." S. 9:28

And We know very well that they say, "Only a mortal is teaching him." The speech of him at whom they hint is barbarous- and this is Arabic, pure and clear. S. 16:103

But according to Arabic scholars the Quran is not in pure Arabic, containing dozens of foreign words:

Abariq, S. 56:18, Persian

Adam, S. 2:34, Akkadian

Araik, S. 18:31, Persian

Firdaus, S. 18:107, Pahlavi

Fir'awn, S. 73:15, Syriac

Habr, S. 9:31, Hebrew (Haver)

Istabraq, S. 18:31, Persian (Istabar)

Sakina, S. 2:248, Hebrew

Sijjil (baked clay), S. 105:4, Persian

Taghut (idols), S. 2:257, Syriac (Teghutha)

Zakat, S. 2:110, Syriac (Zkhutha)

Zanjabil (ginger), S. 76:17, Pahlavi

Muslims respond by presuming that all living languages adopt words from other cultures, and it is therefore not an error for the Quran to contain foreign words. This argument only works in regard to imperfect human beings who continually adopt and adapt to other cultures and customs.

Unfortunately for Muslims, this argument will not work for an all-powerful Being who is the Originator of human language. Such a Being is capable of inspiring his word in perfect Arabic completely devoid of foreign words, especially when he himself states that the Quran is in pure Arabic. This is even more so in light of the claim that the Quran is the eternal speech of God, i.e. that the Quran existed (on an eternal tablet) before the creation of human language. How can God's speech contain foregin words when these foreign languages did not exist in eternity? As one Muslim writer stated:

The Qur'an itself repeatedly asserts that it is a unique and inimitable "Arabic Qur'an" (12.2, 13.37, 16.103) in order to communicate its meaning in a perfect manner to a people who took great pride in the expressive quality of their language. Much of the early discussion about the linguistic components of the Qur'an centred on the presence, or otherwise, of non-Arabic words in it - of course, based on the premise that it was essentially an Arabic text. The verses referred to above became the key supportive texts for those who argued that the Qur'an did not contain any non-Arabic terms. The earliest exegetes, particularly those associated with 'Abd Allah ibn 'Abbas (d. 68/67-68), a cousin of Muhammad, freely discussed a large number of non-Arabic words in the Qur'an. Hadith literature credits Ibn 'Abbas and "his school" with having a special interest in seeking their origin and meaning. Later eminent scholars of the Qur'an such as the philologist/exegete Abu 'Ubayd (d. 838), however continued to argue that the Qur'an contained foreign words. Others such as Ibn 'Atiyyah (d. 541/1146), Suyuti (d. 911/1505), and 'Abd al-Rahman al-Tha'labi (d. 1468) tried to reconcile theology with linguistic principles. They argued that the foreign words in the Qur'an came into Arabic through the ancient Arab's contacts with other languages in foreign travel and commerce but that they had been thoroughly Arabized by the time of the Prophet [Sam- If this were so then there would have been no need to highlight the fact that these foreign words had become part of the language since this would have been common knowledge to native Arab speakers like Ibn Abbas. That an explanation was needed to explain why foreign words appear in the Quran demonstrates how weak this Muslim claim actually is!] Various theories were evolved to resolve THE CONTRADICTION between the notion ascribed to Ibn 'Abbas and the one which subsequently gained greater acceptance, i.e., that the Qur'an does not contain any foreign terminology. To deal with the actual occurrence of words in the Arabic language that were also found in non-Arabic languages, some of these scholars, such as Muhammad ibn Idris al-Shafi (d. 204/819) and Tabari, developed the notion of tawafuq (coincidence). They argued that both Arabic and other languages employ the same words with identical meanings and that this uniformity of meaning was purely coincidental.
The idea of any language or discourse being absolutely free from expressions or words used in another language is alien to one of the most basic linguistic principles, i.e., the inter-relatedness of human speech. While this may sound trite, two factors, however, ensured that this notion was rejected by the "orthodoxy": first, the Qur'an IS NOT REALLY REGARDED AS HUMAN SPEECH BUT RATHER GOD'S AND GOD'S SPEECH CANNOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY LINGUISTIC PRINCIPLES. Indeed, as is commonly known, Qur'anic Arabic became the standard of Arabic grammar. (The problem of God's speech of necessity having to coincide with human speech for effect and meaning remains.) Second, for the "orthodoxy", God's own eternalness and self-subsistence fused with those of His revelation. The Qur'an and its language thus came to be viewed as equally timeless and independent of any "non-divine" elements, non-Arabic included. The fact of God's revelation occurring in Arabic (or any other language for that matter) alongside the insistence that this is the unmediated medium which was used by God raises an interesting question: If all comprehensible language and speech is the result of social interaction THEN DOES THIS IMPLY THAT GOD IS ALSO 'LIMITED' OR CONFINED TO THE LIMITATIONS OF LANGUAGE? If so, then WHAT DOES THIS IMPLY FOR THE ALL-POWERFUL NATURE OF GOD? (Farid Esack, The Qur'an - A Short Introduction [Oneworld Publications, Oxford 2002], pp. 68-69; bold and capital emphasis mine)



AUTHOR OF GRAMMATICAL ERRORS
Not only does the Quran contain foreign words, but according to Arabic grammarians it also contains grammatical mistakes:

The Qor'an contains sentences which are incomplete and not fully intelligible without the aid of commentaries; foreign words, unfamiliar Arabic words, and words used with other than the normal meaning, adjectives and verbs inflected without observance of the concords of gender and number- illogically and ungrammatically applied pronouns which sometimes have no referent- and predicates which in rhymed passages are often remote from the subjects ... To sum up, more than one hundred Qor'anic aberrations from the normal rules and structures have been noted... ( Ali Dashti, 23 Years: A Study of the Prophetic Career of Muhammad [Costa Mesa, Ca. 1994; Mazda Publishers], pp. 48, 50)
A few examples include the following passages:

S. 7:56 - "The mercy of Allah is near"
Arabic - "inna rahmata Allahi qaribun min al-mohseneen."

The word qaribun is the predicate of rahmata Allahi, and as such should match in gender. Since rahmata is feminine the word qaribun (which is masculine ) should be qaribah, its feminine form.

S. 7:160 - "We divided them in twelve tribes"
Arabic - "wa qata'nahom 'ethnata 'ashrata asbatan."

In Arabic, any noun which is counted by a number above ten should be singular, as is the case in S. 7:142; 2:60; 5:12; 9:36; 12:4. As such the Arabic asbatan should be sebtan.

S. 5:69 - "Surely they that believe, and those of Jewry, and the Sabians, and the Christians, whosoever believes in Allah and the Last Day, and works righteousness- no fear shall be on them, neither shall they sorrow."
Arabic- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'uuna wan-Nasaara man'amaana bilaahi wal-Yawmil Aakhiri wa 'amila saali-hanfalaa khaw-fun 'alay-him wa laa hum yah-zanuun."

According to scholars, the Arabic Saabi'uuna has been wrongly declined. Compare the same grammatical structure found in the following suras:

S. 2:62- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu wan-Nasaara was-Saabi'iina..."
S. 22:17- "Innal-laziina 'aamanuu wal-laziina haaduu was-Saabi'iina wan-Nasaara..."

In the last two suras the term was declined correctly, Saabi'iina, as opposed to Saabi'uuna. This is due to the word inna found in the beginning of the sentence causing a form of declension called "nasb" (as in the cases of accusative or subjunctive) with the "yeh" being the "sign of nasb". But the word Saabi'uuna is given the case of 'uu, a sign of "rafa" ( as in cases of nominative and indicative ). Accordingly, the verse in 5:69 is wrong.

S. 91:5 - "By the heaven and that which built it."
Arabic- "was-samaaa-i wa maa ba-naahaa."

The word ma is impersonal in Arabic. Yet, the subject of the verse is Allah, heaven's Creator. As such the word man, meaning "him who", should have been used instead of the impersonal ma.

It should be pointed out that it is not only Arabic scholars who have discovered dozens of grammatical mistakes within the Quran, but Muhammad's very own companions in the past have also admitted this fact. The Muslim scholar Ibn al-Khatib in his book al Furqan quotes Muhammad's wife Aisha as saying:

"There are three grammatical errors in the Book of Allah, they are the fault of the scribe: In 20:63 ... And in 5:69 ... And in 4:162." (Muhammad M. abd al-Latif Ibn al-Khatib, Al-Furqan [Dar al-Kutub al-Elmiyah, Beirut], p. 91)
After seeing the first standard copy of the Quran, Islam's third Caliph Uthman proclaimed, "I see grammatical errors in it, and the Arabs will read it correctly with their tongues." (Ibid., p.90)

For the Quran to be the word of Allah and for Allah to be God one should find no grammatical mistakes, especially since Muslims claim that the Quran contains no human element whatsoever. Muslim view is that the Quran was dictated word for word to Muhammad, which implies that Allah is the Author of these grammatical errors. This disqualifies Allah from being God, especially Yahweh God of the Holy Bible.

To avoid this problem, Muslims assert that the Quran was revealed in a style called balaagha, which is an eloquent method of expressing the Arabic. Due to this feature, the Quran is not required to be grammatically correct since its aim is at eloquence.

Once again this assumption serves to undermine the Muslim position. It may be true that a document written by man cannot be both grammatically correct and still retain an optimum level of eloquence, since a human writer most often sacrifices one literary feature over the other. But this cannot be said of God since he can easily produce a book which contains both perfect grammar and eloquence without ever sacrificing one for the other. This the Quran fails to do.



ALLAH AND OATHS

A real point of difference between Allah and Yahweh is that Yahweh swears by himself, since there is nothing greater for him to swear by:

For when God made a promise to Abraham, because He could swear by no one greater, He swore by Himself. Hebrews 6:13
For men indeed swear by the greater, and an oath for confirmation is for them an end of all dispute. Hebrews 6:16

Hence, every time God makes a pledge he swears only by himself to insure believers that he will do all that he promises:

"I have sworn by Myself; the word has gone out of My mouth in righteousness, and shall not return, that to Me every knee shall bow..." Isaiah 45:23
"I swear by Myself, says the LORD." Jeremiah 22:5

Yet, Allah swears by things less than him:

Swears by the Quran

By the Quran, full of wisdom. S. 36:2
By the Quran, full of admonition. S. 38:1

Swears by the sky and constellations

By the sky and the night visitant S. 86:1
Nay verily: By the moon, and by the night as it retreateth, and by the dawn as it shines forth. S. 74:32-34

By the star when it goes down. S. 53:1

Swears by the pen

By the pen and by the record which [men] write. S. 68:1
Swears by the city
Nay I do swear by this city. S. 90:1
Swears by the Creation

By the night as it cancels [the light]; by the day as it appears in glory; by the Creation of male and female. S. 92:1-3
The fact that Allah swears by practically anything and everything, while Yahweh swears only by himself, makes it very difficult for the two to be the one and the same God.



ALLAH IS NOT TRIUNE

The final proof that Allah is not Yahweh Elohim of the Holy Bible is that Allah is not a trinity. According to the Holy Bible, there is only One true God (Deuteronomy 6:4; Galatians 3:20).

Yet, at the same time Scripture affirms that this One God eternally exists in three Persons:

The Father

"...elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father..." 1 Peter 1:2
The Son

"... looking for that blessed hope and glorious appearing of our Great God and Savior Jesus Christ..." Titus 2:13
The Holy Spirit

"But Peter said, 'Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit... you have not lied to men but to God." Acts 5:3-4
Three in One

"... baptizing them in the Nam e(singular- implying unity) of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit..." Matthew 28:19
But the Allah of the Quran is not any of the three Persons mentioned above. For example S. 112 states,

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, The Eternal, Absolute-, He begetteth not, Nor is He Begotten; And there is none like unto Him. S. 112: 1-4
Allah does not "beget" meaning that Allah has no children either in a spiritual or carnal sense. Thus, Allah can never be the Father. Nor does he allow himself to be "begotten", i.e. does not take on human nature such as God the Son did when he became man for our salvation. Finally, in orthodox Islam the Holy Spirit is not God, but the angel Gabriel. This fact separates Allah from ever possibly being the same God that Christians worship.

Furthermore, we read in I John 2:22-23:

"Who is a liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? He is Antichrist who denies the Father and the Son. Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father either; he who acknowledges the Son has the Father also."
Thus, to the Christians Allah cannot be the biblical God since the inspired New Testament record teaches that anyone denying the Father and Son as God is Antichrist.

One common Muslim allegation needs to be briefly addressed before concluding. In Exodus 31:17 it says that after Yahweh created the universe, he rested on the Sabbath and was refreshed. This description is not befitting God since he never fatigues nor does he need to be refreshed.

In response to this, as we have already noted scripture often uses anthropomorphic language in describing God's relations with man. The context of this passage deals with the necessity of Sabbath observance as a sign between God and Israel, and as such God is speaking to his covenant people in relational terms.

Just as God rested on the seventh day, it is important for Israel to do likewise especially in light of the fact that they are the chosen people of God and must imitate him by observing all his commands.

Furthermore, the term for Sabbath in Hebrew is shabat. It is listed in Strong's as #7673 with the following meanings: to stop, to cease, to rest, to end. Also, the term "refreshed" doesn't necessarily mean that God needed to take a breather after creating the universe anymore than the expression "my heart was refreshed" implies fatigue. Rather, it refers to God rejoicing over the goodness of his creation.

Thus, these terms do not imply that God literally needed to rest and be refreshed. It simply means that after the formation of man God stopped his work of creation and rejoiced at the fact that all creation up to that point was very good. (c.f. Genesis 1:31)

This interpretation is consistent with the clear teaching of Scripture that God never fatigues:

"He will not allow your foot to be moved- He who keeps you will not slumber. Behold, He who keeps Israel shall neither slumber nor sleep." Psalm 121: 3-4
"Have you not known? Have you not heard? The everlasting God, the LORD, the Creator of the ends of the earth, neither faints nor is weary. His understanding is unsearchable." Isaiah 40:28

To then try and use Exodus 31:17 as a prooftext while neglecting the overall context of scripture is rather poor exegesis and unscholarly, since the Bible is clear that God has inexhaustible power and energy.

Our brief examination of Allah as presented in the Quran leads us to conclude that he cannot possibly be the same God worshiped by Abraham and as described in the Holy Bible. The contradictions in attributes and nature between Yahweh and Allah are too numerous to pass over, and cannot be reconciled.

With that in mind, we must point out another major difference between the two; namely that the God of the Holy Bible gives an assurance of salvation through Jesus Christ the Lord, something which Allah never guarantees:

For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son that whoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. John 3:16
Most assuredly, I say to you, he who hears my word and believes in him who sent me has everlasting life, and shall not come into judgement, but has passed from death into life. John 5:24

And if anyone hears my words and does not believe, I do not judge him; for I did not come to judge the world but to save the world. John 12:47

The Bible clearly teaches that there is no other way for man to be saved, since Jesus alone can guarantee eternal life, something which the Quran cannot promise any Muslim:

"Jesus said to him, 'I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No man comes to the Father except through me.'" John 14:6
"Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved." Acts 4:12

The reason why Christ alone can promise salvation is because he alone paid the penalty for sin which is death. By his death on the cross Christ provided the only acceptable sacrifice to God on behalf of sinners:

"Being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus; whom God displayed publicly as a propitiation) a sacrifice offered which satisfies the divine justice of God) in his blood ..." Romans 3:24-25
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Romans 6:23

It is therefore up to Muslims to decide whether to accept Jesus Christ as Yahweh's Son and the Savior of the world and receive the assurance of eternal salvation. Or continue to worship Allah of the Quran who never promises Muslims the joy of knowing that their sins have been forgiven, giving them the assurance of eternal salvation. The choice is left for the reader to decide.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 09 2011,07:59

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,19:22)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,18:53)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,17:44)
IBIG, you keep thinking that you pushing 'atheists' killing other to eliminate religion will gloss over THE FACT that CHRISTIANS have killed more people IN THE NAME OF GOD than all the atheists ever.

SO keep telling yourself you are beyond reproach.  Keep telling yourself that you religion and your God are perfect.

You've spent a lot of time while ignoring 2-3 instances of God COMMANDING genocide... ignoring the Crusades... ignoring the killing of Muslims and Jews by Christians for about 2000 years (in some cases).

You can bitch about Stalin being an evil bastard and I'll stand right beside and agree.  If you refuse to bitch about any of those Christians also being evil bastards, then you are a hypocrite... but we knew that already.

I'll finally remind you of some things I've told you before, directly out of your Bible (or what I think is your Bible, since you won't tell me which Bible you use and why you ignore many of the books that are in other Bibles).

"I never knew you" - remember, actions speak louder than words... also, at many revivals this becomes "Don't just talk the talk, but walk the walk."  How many people have you prevented from coming to God because of your arrogance and stupidity?

How can you know that what you experience is God and not another entity talking to you (including you subconscious)?  Because, honestly, I think it is Satan (if he exists) in you instead of God.  You, through your actions in this forum, have done massive harm to the Christian faith.  That can only be caused by Satan... even if you are a Christian... you're actions here are much more reflective of Satan that God.

I encourage you to think on that, but I suspect that Satan will blind you to the truth.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't believe that Christians have killed more people then Atheists, but that was not the point of the argument. So, you admit that Atheists have indeed killed millions of people for practicing their religion?

I will accept that you have conceded, and now we can move on!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, IBIG, the point of the argument was that Christians... which should hold themselves to a higher standard routinely and for the last 2000 years have actively sought to remove those that appose them by violence.

Except for one example (Stalin's Russia and that was a POLITICAL CONTROL PLAY) there are no examples of atheists killing any members of religion... only for being religious.  You obviously have not read anything that anyone has posted on why certain groups used death to cement political power.  

So, I will accept your concession that Christians routinely kill those that disagree with them.

For example, YOU are here harassing us with your BS.  We are NOT on a religious forum harassing you.  

All the atheists I know would perfectly happy if Christians obeyed the law of the land and stayed the hell out of politics.  But they don't... so we have to fight them to prevent American from becoming a Christian version of Afghanistan.  Or did you miss the RECENT example of Christians hunting down and killing Muslims.

Further, your religion actively preaches death to those that just want to live their lives.  Your religion teaches fear and death and hate.  I talk about love and reason.

So again, I will accept that you have failed to understand the entire point of the argument.  
I will accept that you have failed to show how Christianity is a force for good in the world.  
I will accept that you have failed to show that you can convince me that you are under the influence of a benevolent and merciful God.  
I will accept that you can't even explain why your Bible doesn't have certain books.
I will accept that you are an epic hypocrite.  
I will accept that you have very little knowledge of your own religion.  
I will accept that you cannot apply the lessons of the Bible to yourself.

Those are the points, which you have failed to understand for the 6+ months that I have been talking to you.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God is sovereign and is justified it bringing judgement on the earth, and peoples of the earth. So, let's move on from your ignorant understanding of God, and continue to the argument about the killing of innocents by Atheists for practicing their religion.

Is your head so dense that you can't comprehend?

If people are killed because they practice their religion, then they are actually being killed solely because of their religion! I believe Stalin essentially wanted to take the place of God in the hearts of his people, so in one sense he wanted to be their god, therefore he couldn't have gods before him. He wanted complete and total allegiance to him.

God knows me, as I am one of His children. You don't even know what the scripture you included a partial quote from is referring to do you? You really are ignorant!
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 09 2011,08:05

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,02:29)
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 08 2011,21:41)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,21:05)
What makes you think that I'm required to answer every comment that is made?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Which of these statements is wrong?

1.  Once there was no life.

2.  Now there is life.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Too hard, huh Poofster?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Once there was no life" is clearly wrong, and if by "now there is life", you are referring to there once being no life, then it would be wrong in that context. But, now we do have life.

God always was, therefore there always was life.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 09 2011,08:09

Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.
Posted by: phhht on Jan. 09 2011,08:27

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:09)
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I'll qualify the statements to read

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

2.  Now there is.

You apparently accept both statements.  Yet you maintain that abiogenesis is "impossible."

Then you must redefine abiogenesis to mean something other than the  
creation of life from non-living matter.  Right?  So what does "abiogenesis" really mean?  Enlighten me, Poofster.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 09 2011,08:42

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,08:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:09)
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I'll qualify the statements to read

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

2.  Now there is.

You apparently accept both statements.  Yet you maintain that abiogenesis is "impossible."

Then you must redefine abiogenesis to mean something other than the  
creation of life from non-living matter.  Right?  So what does "abiogenesis" really mean?  Enlighten me, Poofster.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  

Now let me ask you this just for arguments sake (I don't believe this), but what if life came to earth from somewhere else in the universe? Are you certain that didn't happen?
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 09 2011,09:11

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh...

And who created God?

And anyway, you yourself say that the origin of life is not known but in the same paragraph say that you know what the origin of life was.

Make up your "mind".
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 09 2011,09:13

Wait, so God is alive?  So hat does God eat?  Where does he defecate?  Yes, I'm being silly, IBIG, but you leave yourself open to it.

OK, IBIG let's go with your claim that many Christians are not actually Christians, because, 'by your works you shall know them'.  What does that mean for you?

Let me ask you, which of the hundreds of versions of the Bible is the correct one (and I don't mean the vs. thou), I mean, why don't Protestant religions include dozens of books that appear in other Christian Bibles.

That's your biggest problem.  You keep saying everything is black and white, but you can't handle a simple concept like multiple version of the Bible (again, with entirely different books).

Tell me, did God decide which books to put in or did man?

How do you know you are reading the correct Bible, explain the difference between what you think and what you know to be true based on external evidence.  You can't, because you don't have any.  That pretty much makes anything you say on the subject of religion complete baloney.

You don't get it, but it's true.

BTW: You haven't reflected on those points I've been making to you have you?  No, I'm not surprised, your little fundamentalist mind can't handle self reflection.

It's OK, maybe someday you will gain the courage you need to honestly evaluate yourself and your religion.

Oh, and unlike you, I don't hate people and groups who believe differently.  Tell me something, in your theocratic America, will I still have the right to put up billboards that say "God doesn't exist"?
Posted by: rhmc on Jan. 09 2011,09:42

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,09:42)
Now let me ask you this just for arguments sake (I don't believe this), but what if life came to earth from somewhere else in the universe? Are you certain that didn't happen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


that would prove that your sky fairy didn't create life on earth no matter what the Wholly Babble says about it.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 09 2011,10:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In order to understand if it is the same God you have to compare the nature of the God of each religion to determine if that is true.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, so there are multiple gods. Interesting...
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 09 2011,10:10

If God isn't the author of evil, then who created Satan?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 09 2011,10:11

Also, IBelieve, I notice that you're not answering or explaining why you're stupid enough to think that the first Muslims were not Arabs.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 09 2011,10:16

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,08:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:09)
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I'll qualify the statements to read

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

2.  Now there is.

You apparently accept both statements.  Yet you maintain that abiogenesis is "impossible."

Then you must redefine abiogenesis to mean something other than the  
creation of life from non-living matter.  Right?  So what does "abiogenesis" really mean?  Enlighten me, Poofster.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  

Now let me ask you this just for arguments sake (I don't believe this), but what if life came to earth from somewhere else in the universe? Are you certain that didn't happen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So, how come you refuse to explain why your "FAITH" permits you to know more about science than all the scientists in the world, and how come you refuse to explain how saying God "spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science, and how come you refuse to explain why saying God "spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be different than saying God "magically poofed the world into existence using magic"?

Too stupid, too dishonest and too cowardly to answer?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 09 2011,10:41

Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 09 2011,09:11)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh...

And who created God?

And anyway, you yourself say that the origin of life is not known but in the same paragraph say that you know what the origin of life was.

Make up your "mind".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God always was! He wasn't created.
Posted by: Reciprocating Bill on Jan. 09 2011,10:44

IBIG, were it the case that your belief in God is mistaken, what value would human life have?
Posted by: khan on Jan. 09 2011,10:45

How big is god's penis?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 09 2011,11:03

Hey IBIG, are Arabs Caucasian?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 09 2011,11:07

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,10:41)
Quote (oldmanintheskydidntdoit @ Jan. 09 2011,09:11)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Sigh...

And who created God?

And anyway, you yourself say that the origin of life is not known but in the same paragraph say that you know what the origin of life was.

Make up your "mind".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


God always was! He wasn't created.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how is this supposed to be an explanation of how saying GODDIDIT is supposed to be more scientific than actual science?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 09 2011,11:09

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 09 2011,11:03)
Hey IBIG, are Arabs Caucasian?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Given as how IBelieve (apparently deliberately) conflates Muslims with atheists, and that he thinks that the first Muslims were not Arabs, I think that this new question of yours is far beyond the pathetic ability of IBelieve's pitiful intellect to answer.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 09 2011,11:11

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,10:41)
God always was! He wasn't created.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And you know this how?
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 09 2011,11:17

IBIG, can you define the following words?

1.  Evidence
2.  Empirical

Thanks.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 09 2011,11:31

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 09 2011,11:17)
IBIG, can you define the following words?

1.  Evidence
2.  Empirical

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's a question that IBelieve's massive ego and withered intellect prevent him from answering.

After all, he said so, himself, that he's free to refuse to answer any on or off-topic question we ask him, but we're still obligated to worship his every inane claim because he has FAITH
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 09 2011,11:46

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,10:41)
God always was! He wasn't created.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Bald assertion without evidence.  Also incoherent and abstract, demonstrating nothing beyond an absurdity.

Biggy and evidence are not on speaking terms, it seems.  No matter how often we tell him that assertion, scripture, and word games don't count, that's all he ever gives us.  And then he wonders why the magic words don't work.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 09 2011,12:27

Of course.  We all know that IBIG is afraid to pray because he knows that there will be no result and that means, either his God is not benevolent, his God doesn't actually care, or his God doesn't exist.

Either way, IBIG has wasted, what appears to be a large chunk of his life and much of his intellect on a notion created by some primitive sheepherders.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 09 2011,12:34

I'm starting to feel like the mean kid at school who torments the short-bus kids. This isn't fun anymore.

Biggy, you're welcome to your faith. I hope it makes you happy, and a kinder, more generous human being.

Just keep it out of publicly-funded schools, okay?

Thanks. Bye now.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 09 2011,14:33

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I guessed correctly, based upon your earlier posts, that you believe life comes only from life, and God has always been alive, thus his creation of life on Earth was not abiogensis.

I challenge your statement that "it is not KNOWN".

There is a US Patent that says it IS known. I don't believe you have read it. It is real. It has been issued by the US government, the same government that guarantees your right to say whatever you want.

You are very busy, I guess. I can't get you to address a post. Perhaps I should swear at you, insult you, in ALL CAPS, with lots of exclamation points!

You believe abiogenesis is impossible. PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR HEART IS!

You are a successful businessman. I'm convinced you tithe to your church, probably you double-tithe (don't tell me, I just want to convey the type of believer you are).

Why don't you hire a patent attorney and file a patent for "only life can create life"? If "life from non-life" can get a patent, then surely "only life can create life" can too.

If you really, truly believe it, and if you are the successful businessman you claim, why not do this for God and Church?

Thank you for reading this.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 09 2011,15:09



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



I would go the simpler way of saying that, while abiogenesis is still a widely misunderstood subject, there are many well known processes that give clues to ways of getting life from non-life. It might be a bit stretched, to the dogmaticaly blind, but the fact is it will always be 10000000 times more fascinating and satisfying than "goddidit!", which has NO SINGLE BEGINNING OF A PROOF OR EVIDENCE OR FACEBOOK PHOTO-ALBUM WHATSOEVER!

IBIG faces the choice of using his brains to understand the world he lives in, or blindly believing a book written by goat-hearders a few millenias ago.

I think in the end, his stupidity is more a case of being a lazy-ass crook than actualy being stupid. The guy can turn a phrase, which is more than the usual creotard can ever achieve...




EDIT: "I believe X is correct, therefore I believe Y is wrong" is NOT an argument...
Posted by: phhht on Jan. 09 2011,15:47

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,08:27)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:09)
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I'll qualify the statements to read

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

2.  Now there is.

You apparently accept both statements.  Yet you maintain that abiogenesis is "impossible."

Then you must redefine abiogenesis to mean something other than the  
creation of life from non-living matter.  Right?  So what does "abiogenesis" really mean?  Enlighten me, Poofster.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  

Now let me ask you this just for arguments sake (I don't believe this), but what if life came to earth from somewhere else in the universe? Are you certain that didn't happen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just as I thought, you redefine abiogenesis.   In your version, it's

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

POOF!

2.  Now there is.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 09 2011,16:22

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,15:47)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:42)
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,08:27)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,08:09)
Let me add to my previous post. If one were to state that once there was no biological life on earth, then that statement would be true, but that wasn't the question.

To state that once there was no life, one would have to have complete knowledge, which clearly is impossible, therefore to make such a statement would be a false statement.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK, I'll qualify the statements to read

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

2.  Now there is.

You apparently accept both statements.  Yet you maintain that abiogenesis is "impossible."

Then you must redefine abiogenesis to mean something other than the  
creation of life from non-living matter.  Right?  So what does "abiogenesis" really mean?  Enlighten me, Poofster.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong. You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  

Now let me ask you this just for arguments sake (I don't believe this), but what if life came to earth from somewhere else in the universe? Are you certain that didn't happen?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Just as I thought, you redefine abiogenesis.   In your version, it's

1.  Once there was no biological life on earth.

POOF!

2.  Now there is.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You forgot step 3, where IBelieve then proceeds to gloat and boast how his "explanation" is magically more scientific than actual science, which is actually, magically fraudulent because it offends him and his FAITH.
Posted by: phhht on Jan. 09 2011,17:30

[quote=phhht,Jan. 09 2011,15:47][quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 09 2011,08:42]  
Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,08:27)
You can't get around the fact that it is not KNOWN, how life actually came to be, therefore it would be a type of belief, for one to accept any way that life may have come into existence.  
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



You misunderstand scientific claims, Poofster.  It doesn't have to be KNOWN how life actually came to be.   All we have to show is how it could have happened, without any magical poof.  

It abiogenesis could have happened without any magic, why should we assume that there was any?
Posted by: MichaelJ on Jan. 09 2011,19:16

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 09 2011,11:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 08 2011,20:10)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 08 2011,19:31)
 
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the post that started all of my posts about killing in the name of Atheism Ogre. Yes this was about Atheism Ogre you are wrong. You want to change the subject, because you are wrong. So, you can't handle being a miserable?

Let me ask this question, is the current war between the Palestinians and Israel and religious war? Or is it a battle over land?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's right IBIG, you still can't say that atheists killed people because they were religious.  There were additional factors, unlike all the instances of Religious people killed other religious (or non-religious) people.

The history has been explained to you, you don't want to get it or think that it makes all the deaths by Christians OK.  That's not our problem IBIG.

Christians (and other religions) have killed waaaaay more than any atheists have ever even tried to.  You can't get away from this fact and it makes everything else, pretty much moot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then you can't say that Christians killed because they were Christian, there were other factors. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.

I'm sorry but you have no idea what actual history really is. You and your ilk revise history to you liking.

Stalin killed 21 million Christians, because He didn't want anyone to practice their Christianity, or any religion. You don't know what you are talking about. I believe if you were a dictator of a country, that you would outlaw all religions, and would eliminate those who broke your law by imprisonment or death. I really believe that you have that much hatred against the practice of ones faith.

I don't agree with you that Christians (and other religions) have killed waaaay more than any atheists have ever even tried to. Why do you back that up with actual verifiable numbers, and remember you have to demonstrate that these Christians were true Christians and not (wolves in sheep's clothing) "False Christians" out to devour.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IBIG - Do you have a reference for the 21 million people killed for practicing Christianity? I have no doubt he killed that many people, but I hadn't heard it was because they were practicing Christianity.

That's what  gets me about these guys, they will happily make shit up then accuse Atheists of not having morals
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 09 2011,19:29

Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 09 2011,19:16)
...

That's what  gets me about these guys, they will happily make shit up then accuse Atheists of not having morals
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, many Creationists believe that slandering and lying or committing any other sins is permissible, automatically pardoned, and aggressively encouraged if it's done for Jesus.

It is ironic that Creationists hoop and holler about how following a literal interpretation of the Bible is the primary requirement of salvation while possessing this attitude.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Jan. 09 2011,20:15

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 10 2011,10:29)
Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 09 2011,19:16)
...

That's what  gets me about these guys, they will happily make shit up then accuse Atheists of not having morals
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, many Creationists believe that slandering and lying or committing any other sins is permissible, automatically pardoned, and aggressively encouraged if it's done for Jesus.

It is ironic that Creationists hoop and holler about how following a literal interpretation of the Bible is the primary requirement of salvation while possessing this attitude.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I did some fact checking and although Religion was suppressed but not forbidden. A lot of religious leaders were arrested but this was mainly because they were supporters of the old corrupt regime and acting against the state.

I think that the big losers during Stalin were the peasant farmers, intellectuals, ethnic minorities and non-Christians. Some links:

< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki....t_Union >

So we have that people by and large were not killed in the name of Atheism, most died due to appalling economic policies and being seen as enemies of the state. Not that this would stop ImaBIGliar from continuing to use this.

< http://www.nytimes.com/1989....in.html >
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 09 2011,22:37

Thanks Mike... as usual, IBIG doesn't have a clue and just makes up shit that he thinks is the way it ought to be.

I gave that up about 20 years ago after continually getting my ass handed to me in debates like this.  I decided I didn't want to lose and since then I haven't told a single lie, I haven't made up a single point, and I haven't lost a single argument with dummies like IBIG.

Hey, IBIG, I got a guy on another forum that says Intelligent Design is inherently areligious... you want to go set him straight?
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 10 2011,03:37

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 09 2011,17:30)


It abiogenesis could have happened without any magic, why should we assume that there was any?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Indeed. All our experience tells us that nothing ever on this planet or elsewhere happens by magic. So why resort to magic as the only 'reasonable' explanation when there's no reason whatsoever to believe that magic works?

Why the absurd, cruel and unnecessary Flood when you have unlimited magical powers? Makes sense only as a myth.

ETA missing 'e'
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 10 2011,08:01

ETA: Misfire
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 10 2011,08:04

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 08 2011,19:31][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the post that started all of my posts about killing in the name of Atheism Ogre. Yes this was about Atheism Ogre you are wrong. You want to change the subject, because you are wrong. So, you can't handle being a miserable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet you've still not provided any example of a country that has ever killed in the name of atheism. So no...you lose.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me ask this question, is the current war between the Palestinians and Israel and religious war? Or is it a battle over land?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's pretty much a squabble over land though there are other cultural issues at play.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 10 2011,10:28

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 10 2011,08:04)
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 08 2011,19:31][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
 
Quote (Robin @ Jan. 06 2011,10:01)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 05 2011,20:11)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


   

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Tell me how many people have been slaughtered by Atheistic Countries, or none Christian countries? You seem to think that those who follow God are the problem. I also have a problem with Religion, and there are many Religions, but there is only one true God, only one that we can have a Relationship with.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What an ignorant question that completely misses the point. What country or countries have ever slaughtered people  in the name of atheism? Any? No. Not a one. In fact, I can't think of any single person who's ever been killed in the name of atheism. Yet billions of people have been slaughtered in the name of Christianity alone. Try again, IBIG.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the post that started all of my posts about killing in the name of Atheism Ogre. Yes this was about Atheism Ogre you are wrong. You want to change the subject, because you are wrong. So, you can't handle being a miserable?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Yet you've still not provided any example of a country that has ever killed in the name of atheism. So no...you lose.

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Let me ask this question, is the current war between the Palestinians and Israel and religious war? Or is it a battle over land?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's pretty much a squabble over land though there are other cultural issues at play.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's over land but heavily affected and rationalized by religion.  The Israelis think they have been promised the land by their god, and many think they are on a holy war, and that means no compromising with, say, international law and humanitarian considerations.  Religion is used on both sides to continue the conflict, and interviews with many on both sides constantly bring up that point.  Settlers refuse to move because "YHVH gave us this land" and people refuse to stop fighting because the enemy are "infidels".

If religion and superstition were removed, if nothing else it would take away one reason, and maybe people might be a bit more reasonable.  How much is unknown, but I think it would be fairly significant.
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 10 2011,12:19

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 10 2011,10:28)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
It's pretty much a squabble over land though there are other cultural issues at play.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's over land but heavily affected and rationalized by religion.  The Israelis think they have been promised the land by their god, and many think they are on a holy war, and that means no compromising with, say, international law and humanitarian considerations.  Religion is used on both sides to continue the conflict, and interviews with many on both sides constantly bring up that point.  Settlers refuse to move because "YHVH gave us this land" and people refuse to stop fighting because the enemy are "infidels".

If religion and superstition were removed, if nothing else it would take away one reason, and maybe people might be a bit more reasonable.  How much is unknown, but I think it would be fairly significant.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Nicely put. I'll defer to your assessment Badger.


---

ETA: Fixed HTML syntax
Posted by: MichaelJ on Jan. 10 2011,17:50

If it wasn't about religion nobody would have seriously entertained creating the state of Israel post world war II. Could you imagine a group of people saying I want this country for ourselves because we lived here 2000 years ago?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 10 2011,18:02

I'm sure there are a number of First Nations that would be willing to front that opinion, as would the Aboriginal peoples of Aussie-land...   :D

The comparison is hardly equivalent, though: the better parallel in both cases would be the Palestinians.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 10 2011,18:08

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 10 2011,18:02)
I'm sure there are a number of First Nations that would be willing to front that opinion, as would the Aboriginal peoples of Aussie-land...   :D

The comparison is hardly equivalent, though: the better parallel in both cases would be the Palestinians.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The First Nations folk (and others) have maintained a presence on the land, though, so I agree that the better parallel would be the Palestinians.  You're correct, though, that if it wasn't for the babble, there would have been no State of Israel being created.   If it weren't for religious inspired Rapture Retards, there wouldn't be the fanatical level of support for the country despite the numerous violations of international law and human rights abuses that happen in the region.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 10 2011,18:22

One could point out that if not for their faith inciting the zealots to be such annoying little barbarians in the first place, then the Diaspora might well not have happened...

But noooooooo, they just had to piss off the Romans, who had very little in the way of a sense of humor when it came to things like obeying the law and honoring the Emperor.  Nope.  Just couldn't do like everybody else and salute with one hand while crossing their fingers behind their backs.  Had to be special, didn't they?   :p  Bloody idiot Sadducees and their legalistic wrangling!  Obviously didn't learn from what happened to Carthage.

(Okay, yes, I'm being a bit too flippant with this, but it's hard to see the Judean Revolt as a good idea in the first place.  Feel free to insert Life of Brian jokes as needed.)


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 10 2011,18:40

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 10 2011,18:22)
One could point out that if not for their faith inciting the zealots to be such annoying little barbarians in the first place, then the Diaspora might well not have happened...

But noooooooo, they just had to piss off the Romans, who had very little in the way of a sense of humor when it came to things like obeying the law and honoring the Emperor.  Nope.  Just couldn't do like everybody else and salute with one hand while crossing their fingers behind their backs.  Had to be special, didn't they?   :p  Bloody idiot Sadducees and their legalistic wrangling!  Obviously didn't learn from what happened to Carthage.

(Okay, yes, I'm being a bit too flippant with this, but it's hard to see the Judean Revolt as a good idea in the first place.  Feel free to insert Life of Brian jokes as needed.)


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One of the reasons, at least, was the desecration of the Temple (IIRC - I may be mixing up the numerous revolts - 3 major ones I think), but the refusal to offer worship to the Emperor got both Christians and Jews in trouble.  The broader issue of monotheism's authoritarianism vs polytheism's Lassaiz-faire (sp?) attitude contributed to the problem as well.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 10 2011,18:43

Yeah, more or less.

You'd think they'd have learned something from all that.  :p


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 10 2011,18:48

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 10 2011,18:43)
Yeah, more or less.

You'd think they'd have learned something from all that.  :p


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They are fundamentalist Christians, they haven't learned anything in 2000 years.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 10 2011,19:18

Hey, IBIG, since you're a God Genius perhaps you could answer a few simple God questions?

1.  Is God alive?

2.  Assuming "alive" means reproducing (or respiration), does God reproduce?  With whom?  (Besides Mary, of course, nudge nudge!)

3.  Does God breathe?  If so, what?

4.  Does God get bored?  If so, why?

Thanks.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 10 2011,19:26

Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 10 2011,19:18)
Hey, IBIG, since you're a God Genius perhaps you could answer a few simple God questions?

1.  Is God alive?

2.  Assuming "alive" means reproducing (or respiration), does God reproduce?  With whom?  (Besides Mary, of course, nudge nudge!)

3.  Does God breathe?  If so, what?

4.  Does God get bored?  If so, why?

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How big is God's penis, and is it circumcised.  And if so, who did it?

ETA - the serious question of: a perfect being is one who lacks nothing, who is satisfied - desire arises out of a wish for things to be different, aka - dissatisfaction (just giving a simple argument here, naturally).  

Why would such a being create anything at all?  

Why would such a being create creatures who he sets up to fail, who he deliberately knows the majority of them would fail, and be tortured forever - and by "know" I mean 100%-accurate-no-chance-of-being-wrong certainty.  Why would a perfect being do that?

Religion claims to have explanations, so please explain.
Posted by: Doc Bill on Jan. 10 2011,21:07



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
How big is God's penis, and is it circumcised.  And if so, who did it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



It's >this< big and my doctor did it.  Legend has it he needed his entire staff to wrestle the foreskin to the ground.  I was left with a mere 18".

Stunted, I am.

Although it is recognized by the fair sex who exclaim, repeatedly, Oh God, Oh God!

Unlike Louis' experience with is along the lines of WTF, WTF???
Posted by: Quack on Jan. 11 2011,03:48

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 10 2011,19:26)
 
Quote (Doc Bill @ Jan. 10 2011,19:18)
Hey, IBIG, since you're a God Genius perhaps you could answer a few simple God questions?

1.  Is God alive?

2.  Assuming "alive" means reproducing (or respiration), does God reproduce?  With whom?  (Besides Mary, of course, nudge nudge!)

3.  Does God breathe?  If so, what?

4.  Does God get bored?  If so, why?

Thanks.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


How big is God's penis, and is it circumcised.  And if so, who did it?

ETA - the serious question of: a perfect being is one who lacks nothing, who is satisfied - desire arises out of a wish for things to be different, aka - dissatisfaction (just giving a simple argument here, naturally).  

Why would such a being create anything at all?  

Why would such a being create creatures who he sets up to fail, who he deliberately knows the majority of them would fail, and be tortured forever - and by "know" I mean 100%-accurate-no-chance-of-being-wrong certainty.  Why would a perfect being do that?

Religion claims to have explanations, so please explain.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


John Allegro made some interesting comments on the origins of God and his Sumerian names in "The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross". From memory - I read it sometime back in the early 70's - one of the first was (adlibbing here) "Big-dick-in-the-sky."

While I don't quite subscribe to all of Allegro's conclusions, the book is a very interesting and good read.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 11 2011,08:26

Why am I suddenly reminded of the Monty Python skit where the people are hiding behind bushes, like the only bush in a field and the narrators are doing some recon by fire to find them?

It's almost like a cowardly guy running around a hotel with a black trenchcoat on, but refuses to talk to anyone.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 11 2011,10:07

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 11 2011,14:26)
Why am I suddenly reminded of the Monty Python skit where the people are hiding behind bushes, like the only bush in a field and the narrators are doing some recon by fire to find them?

It's almost like a cowardly guy running around a hotel with a black trenchcoat on, but refuses to talk to anyone.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations on your 666th post. NOW will IBIG make with his speil about the real reasons behind everything?

We all know it's demons, right? Has to be, the guy's a religious kook.

Louis
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 11 2011,17:46

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 11 2011,10:07)
...NOW will IBIG make with his speil about the real reasons behind everything?

We all know it's demons, right? Has to be, the guy's a religious kook.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean how IBelieve always says that science is evil and stupid because GODDIDIT is what really happened, and that every single person in the whole wide world, especially the evil, stupid scientists, who disagrees with doesn't worship his bullshit is an evil, devil-worshiping atheist who hates hates hates hates hates God?

I wish he'd explain how saying that God "spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be better than science, as well as how it's supposed to be different than saying God "magically poofed the world into existence using magic."

But, I might as well wish for the moon if that's the case.
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 11 2011,19:29

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 11 2011,23:46)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 11 2011,10:07)
...NOW will IBIG make with his speil about the real reasons behind everything?

We all know it's demons, right? Has to be, the guy's a religious kook.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean how IBelieve always says that science is evil and stupid because GODDIDIT is what really happened, and that every single person in the whole wide world, especially the evil, stupid scientists, who disagrees with doesn't worship his bullshit is an evil, devil-worshiping atheist who hates hates hates hates hates God?

I wish he'd explain how saying that God "spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be better than science, as well as how it's supposed to be different than saying God "magically poofed the world into existence using magic."

But, I might as well wish for the moon if that's the case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how everything in the world is a conspiracy "inspired" by demonic influences and Satan. Or Intergalactic Space Lizards. Or Jews. It depends on which species of religious whack job IBIG is.

I mean, he could be just your common or garden whack job who believes the line his pastor sold him on Sunday and thinks a few bible study sessions equates to an edumification. He could be a right wing global conspiracy nut who believes that homosexualists have Teh Gay Agenda which means that global warming greenie weirdos will make him walk to the shops and speak Chinese whilst having Socialised Medicine for undeserving poor people. He could be a tinfoil hat wearer who believes that the Space Lizards rule the world and are burying bones to fool humankind and making up Teh DNA Evidenz whilst making his teeth speak to him. He could just be some old racist/anti-semite who believes all of the above just substituting the word "Jews" at the appropriate points. Either way, we're never going to know until we find out his real motivations. My money is on the "Satan inspired conspiracy/Demons" angle. He just seems the type based on what I have read. Perhaps Harry Potter books are the work of Satan, perhaps the world was corrupted by Goths and D+D's Gary Gygax. Who knows?  He could be the whole lot, never forget crank magnetism!

Either way, the only way we're going to get some quality belly laughs is if numb nuts here fesses up. Because I for one am bored ri-hii-hii-HIIII-gid with pig ignorant, arrogant religious whack jobs spouting off a few partially digested (false) quasi-factoids and declaring WICTOWY! every other post. It's just so...so...so....OLD. I mean religious trolls of the world, can you STILL not do any better than this weak broth of pathetic shite? Please! Give a brother a new line in horseshit to combat. Do something that wasn't refuted over 2000 years before your birth by a bloke in a robe/kilt/toga.

Louis
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 11 2011,19:40

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 11 2011,19:29)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 11 2011,23:46)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 11 2011,10:07)
...NOW will IBIG make with his speil about the real reasons behind everything?

We all know it's demons, right? Has to be, the guy's a religious kook.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean how IBelieve always says that science is evil and stupid because GODDIDIT is what really happened, and that every single person in the whole wide world, especially the evil, stupid scientists, who disagrees with doesn't worship his bullshit is an evil, devil-worshiping atheist who hates hates hates hates hates God?

I wish he'd explain how saying that God "spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be better than science, as well as how it's supposed to be different than saying God "magically poofed the world into existence using magic."

But, I might as well wish for the moon if that's the case.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And how everything in the world is a conspiracy "inspired" by demonic influences and Satan. Or Intergalactic Space Lizards. Or Jews. It depends on which species of religious whack job IBIG is.

I mean, he could be just your common or garden whack job who believes the line his pastor sold him on Sunday and thinks a few bible study sessions equates to an edumification. He could be a right wing global conspiracy nut who believes that homosexualists have Teh Gay Agenda which means that global warming greenie weirdos will make him walk to the shops and speak Chinese whilst having Socialised Medicine for undeserving poor people. He could be a tinfoil hat wearer who believes that the Space Lizards rule the world and are burying bones to fool humankind and making up Teh DNA Evidenz whilst making his teeth speak to him. He could just be some old racist/anti-semite who believes all of the above just substituting the word "Jews" at the appropriate points. Either way, we're never going to know until we find out his real motivations. My money is on the "Satan inspired conspiracy/Demons" angle. He just seems the type based on what I have read. Perhaps Harry Potter books are the work of Satan, perhaps the world was corrupted by Goths and D+D's Gary Gygax. Who knows?  He could be the whole lot, never forget crank magnetism!

Either way, the only way we're going to get some quality belly laughs is if numb nuts here fesses up. Because I for one am bored ri-hii-hii-HIIII-gid with pig ignorant, arrogant religious whack jobs spouting off a few partially digested (false) quasi-factoids and declaring WICTOWY! every other post. It's just so...so...so....OLD. I mean religious trolls of the world, can you STILL not do any better than this weak broth of pathetic shite? Please! Give a brother a new line in horseshit to combat. Do something that wasn't refuted over 2000 years before your birth by a bloke in a robe/kilt/toga.

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Are you okay??? I would cut down one the medicine before posting, because it appears that it is influencing your post! Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 11 2011,19:56

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 11 2011,22:05

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Are you okay??? I would cut down one the medicine before posting, because it appears that it is influencing your post! Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's hypocritical of you to request we be civil to you when you find the very idea of an actual civil discussion to be completely anathema.

I mean, why would we consider slave-like deference to you and your inane bullshit to be "civility"?

Why are we to consider your own behavior toward us to be "civility"?

You have never been civil to us, what with your constant setting up inane gotcha games to mock us for not being as stupid as you are, or how you accuse us of putting words in your mouth while you twist everybody else's words to suit your own bigotry or how you constantly accuse us of being hypocrites and evil, devil-worshiping, God-hating atheists simply because we point out your bullshitting.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 11 2011,22:07

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be totally impossible for IBelieve to do, as it does not directly require bullshitting for Jesus or being a pompous moron for Jesus.
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 12 2011,00:58

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 11 2011,22:07)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would be totally impossible for IBelieve to do, as it does not directly require bullshitting for Jesus or being a pompous moron for Jesus.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It would--interestingly--require believing in Jesus.  How 'bout it IBIG?  Do you believe in Jesus?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 12 2011,04:10

Bwaahahahahahahahahahaha!

Oh I like you! Civility eh? Demonstrate some basic intellectual integrity and I might bother. Until then Standard Mockerating Procedure will be applied.

Louis

ETA: P.S. I love how these people clutch their pearls when roundly mocked for being cranks. It's the very hallmark of someone uninterested and incapable of simple intellectual exploration. Hence: Teh Mockerie!

FETA: P.P.S. I have always loved, and I do mean LOVED, the utter arrogance with which the scientifically illiterate and ignorant simply assert that the preponderance of the scientific data is wrong. They always do so with an airy, condescending handwave as if the tiny anomaly they think they have squirreled out is something never seen by anyone or thought of by the relevant people in the relevant field. It's always better when the arrogant ignoramus does this with added Jesus. Makes it all the more mockable.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 12 2011,06:58

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 12 2011,08:07

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,06:58)
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Then explain to us why saying "God made people from dust using magic" is more scientific than saying "people share a common ancestry with apes because of fossil and genetic evidence"

Explain to us why saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be more scientific than actual science.

Explain to us how and why saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be different than saying "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic"
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 12 2011,08:12

I am wondering, as I idly sip a coffee, if IBIG knows of any specific obstacle to abiogenesis. What steps would an abiogenetic series of processes need to go through to convert "non-living" chemicals into "living" systems? What hurdles need to be overcome? Which of said hurdles are physically impossible?

I'm seeing a lot of "I don't know how it happened therefore it couldn't have happened" from IBIG. I'm also seeing a lot of "You scientists don't have every step of the path fossilised in a bottle therefore it didn't happen" and other sundry excuses. I'm seeing a great deal of "I don't know, therefore no one knows" where IBIG takes his ignorance to be some sort of evidence. I'm also seeing a lot of misunderstanding of what science, at its root, IS (i.e. a lot of misunderstanding about the provisional nature of science and what have you). I'm not seeing a lot of, well, for want of a better word, chemistry.

After all, if "non-living" chemicals were to give rise "spontaneously" to "living" systems then isn't this a chemical issue? What specific chemical barriers are there that IBIG is aware of and the entirety of the chemical sciences are not?

Ooooooh I know we'll get a lot of irrelevant waffle about information and intelligence, and I know that we'll get shifting definitions and goaposts that move so fast they red shift. I also know that anything done in a lab will be claimed as some weird victory for this mystical property "intelligence".* As if putting chemicals in a flask imbues them with some magic property that wills them to flout thermodynamics and kinetics and deliver the desired result.**

Now I know your average internet denizen, which IBIG clearly is, can google and wiki and copy and paste, and this gives them an...now how shall I put this civilly... (Hello Messrs Dunning and Kruger)...ah yes....completely undeserved sense of understanding something they have no clue about, so it's a massive waste of my time and effort to even engage a kook. Been there. Done that. Got the T shirt. So I wonder if IBIG is worth taking seriously, and hence, dealing with civilly at all. I wonder if he can demonstrate he is. My money's on not, but then I am a deeply pessimistic git when it comes to the internet. It's not about understaniding for the IBIGs of this world, it's about gainsaying and protecting themselves from rationally considering their beliefs. I'm not willing to help them play that game.

Louis

*FAO Ogre: Just FYI I've been round this Mulberry Bush a few gazillion times. It's why I am so delightfully jaded and sarcastic with these pointless cranks. Trust me, I know my onions. Given a tray of vegetables I can pick out the onion 9 times out of 10. Honest. Ok, perhaps 8. ;-)

**I. Fucking. Wish.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 12 2011,08:14

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2011,08:12)
I am wondering, as I idly sip a coffee, if IBIG knows of any specific obstacle to abiogenesis. What steps would an abiogenetic series of processes need to go through to convert "non-living" chemicals into "living" systems? What hurdles need to be overcome? Which of said hurdles are physically impossible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only obstacles he's "found" were obvious and deliberate quotemines of Wikipedia and other articles, as well as various pleas to the 2 Law of Thermodynamics, and that Abiogenesis is really an evil plot by evil scientists to turn children into evil God-hating zombie atheists.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 12 2011,08:29

IBIG has proven over the past 6 months that he is not capable of learning.  And the Dunning-Krueger comment is so spot on... he could be a case study.

IBIG knows next to nothing about science, theology, history or anything else AFAIK.

So, yes, we are all wasting our time.  However, for me, picking holes in his statements is a learning procdess for me... sometimes.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 12 2011,08:56

I just found this statement, which exlains so much... though I can't find the original:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sociologist of religion Tex Sample asserts that it is a mistake to refer to a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian Fundamentalist. Rather, a fundamentalist's fundamentalism is their primary concern, over and above other denominational or faith considerations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Posted by: Louis on Jan. 12 2011,09:46

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 12 2011,14:14)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2011,08:12)
I am wondering, as I idly sip a coffee, if IBIG knows of any specific obstacle to abiogenesis. What steps would an abiogenetic series of processes need to go through to convert "non-living" chemicals into "living" systems? What hurdles need to be overcome? Which of said hurdles are physically impossible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only obstacles he's "found" were obvious and deliberate quotemines of Wikipedia and other articles, as well as various pleas to the 2 Law of Thermodynamics, and that Abiogenesis is really an evil plot by evil scientists to turn children into evil God-hating zombie atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well we do kick puppies and punch kittens.

I've even eaten a baby. Mmmmmm crispy fried babies with BBQ sauce. Nice!

Louis
Posted by: JohnW on Jan. 12 2011,10:45

Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2011,07:46)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 12 2011,14:14)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2011,08:12)
I am wondering, as I idly sip a coffee, if IBIG knows of any specific obstacle to abiogenesis. What steps would an abiogenetic series of processes need to go through to convert "non-living" chemicals into "living" systems? What hurdles need to be overcome? Which of said hurdles are physically impossible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only obstacles he's "found" were obvious and deliberate quotemines of Wikipedia and other articles, as well as various pleas to the 2 Law of Thermodynamics, and that Abiogenesis is really an evil plot by evil scientists to turn children into evil God-hating zombie atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well we do kick puppies and punch kittens.

I've even eaten a baby. Mmmmmm crispy fried babies with BBQ sauce. Nice!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope you were civil while doing it.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 12 2011,10:51

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 12 2011,08:14)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2011,08:12)
I am wondering, as I idly sip a coffee, if IBIG knows of any specific obstacle to abiogenesis. What steps would an abiogenetic series of processes need to go through to convert "non-living" chemicals into "living" systems? What hurdles need to be overcome? Which of said hurdles are physically impossible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only obstacles he's "found" were obvious and deliberate quotemines of Wikipedia and other articles, as well as various pleas to the 2 Law of Thermodynamics, and that Abiogenesis is really an evil plot by evil scientists to turn children into evil God-hating zombie atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No - "chemistry can't give a creature a soul"-type comment?
Posted by: Louis on Jan. 12 2011,11:15

Quote (JohnW @ Jan. 12 2011,16:45)
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2011,07:46)
Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 12 2011,14:14)
 
Quote (Louis @ Jan. 12 2011,08:12)
I am wondering, as I idly sip a coffee, if IBIG knows of any specific obstacle to abiogenesis. What steps would an abiogenetic series of processes need to go through to convert "non-living" chemicals into "living" systems? What hurdles need to be overcome? Which of said hurdles are physically impossible?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The only obstacles he's "found" were obvious and deliberate quotemines of Wikipedia and other articles, as well as various pleas to the 2 Law of Thermodynamics, and that Abiogenesis is really an evil plot by evil scientists to turn children into evil God-hating zombie atheists.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well we do kick puppies and punch kittens.

I've even eaten a baby. Mmmmmm crispy fried babies with BBQ sauce. Nice!

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I hope you were civil while doing it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I said "please" and "thank you" and wore both a properly tied bow tie and an appropriately positioned napkin.*

Otherwise I was naked. Does that count against me?

Louis

* Never, ever, "serviette". That would not be Correct. Ask a Mitford.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 12 2011,12:39

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 12 2011,08:29)
IBIG has proven over the past 6 months that he is not capable of learning.  And the Dunning-Krueger comment is so spot on... he could be a case study.

IBIG knows next to nothing about science, theology, history or anything else AFAIK.

So, yes, we are all wasting our time.  However, for me, picking holes in his statements is a learning procdess for me... sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention that there is a certain therapeutic value in kicking the hell out of a moron who is prone to pulling on the shoe and loudly proclaiming that it fits.

Is this unkind?  Well, nobody forces him to come here and spew his tripe...and frankly, there's very little that's as rude as telling other people that they're going to suffer for all time if they don't share your delusions (however politely this may be expressed).

I'd rather he grew up, got a clue, and wandered away to do something more productive with his life.  But since he insists on being a poster child for Dunning-Kruger, I'll happily toss a few darts in between watching people who know the material kick him around.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 12 2011,17:10

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 12 2011,08:56)
I just found this statement, which exlains so much... though I can't find the original:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Sociologist of religion Tex Sample asserts that it is a mistake to refer to a Muslim, Jewish, or Christian Fundamentalist. Rather, a fundamentalist's fundamentalism is their primary concern, over and above other denominational or faith considerations.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This thread has now officially become worth the electrons purely because I now know their is a man named Tex Sample in the world.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 12 2011,17:23

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 12 2011,12:39)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 12 2011,08:29)
IBIG has proven over the past 6 months that he is not capable of learning.  And the Dunning-Krueger comment is so spot on... he could be a case study.

IBIG knows next to nothing about science, theology, history or anything else AFAIK.

So, yes, we are all wasting our time.  However, for me, picking holes in his statements is a learning procdess for me... sometimes.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention that there is a certain therapeutic value in kicking the hell out of a moron who is prone to pulling on the shoe and loudly proclaiming that it fits.

Is this unkind?  Well, nobody forces him to come here and spew his tripe...and frankly, there's very little that's as rude as telling other people that they're going to suffer for all time if they don't share your delusions (however politely this may be expressed).

I'd rather he grew up, got a clue, and wandered away to do something more productive with his life.  But since he insists on being a poster child for Dunning-Kruger, I'll happily toss a few darts in between watching people who know the material kick him around.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It's not even Kreuger-Dunning anymore, IBIG hasn't said anything of any substance in months.

I mean, it doesn't even require me to learn anything new to decimate his points.  

He doesn't know anything about science.
He doesn't know anything about ID.
He doesn't know anything about religion.
He doesn't know anything about theology.
He doesn't know anything about history.
He doesn't know anything about sociology.
He doesn't know anything about psychology.
He doesn't know anything about politics.
He doesn't know anything about debate.
He doesn't know anything about courtesy.
He doesn't know anything about witnessing.

He is, pretty much, a waste of carbon and oxygen that could be put to better use in a wombat, they, at least, are cute.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 12 2011,18:22

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,06:58)
       
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
         
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I think you misunderstand.

In the context in which it was used, "creation of primordial life" from non-life, doesn't mean the US government granted a patent for God creating life. (You really need to read the patent.)

In the context of the patent, "creation of" means coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, and "primordial life" means the first appearance of life where before there was no life.

You said: "I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong." (IBIG-Jan 09, 2011, AtBC, IBIG forum, panel 17)

So there is no irony here. The word "creation" above does not mean divine creation. It doesn't even mean that 'scientists' created life. Life simply emerges from non-life by reproducing the natural conditions on the primeval Earth. That all that is necessary. No deities required.

This is what you define as Abiogenesis (see quote above).

So this patent is for the coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, the first appearance of life where before there was no life. (No Creator referenced.)

That's what the patent is about. That is Abiogenesis according to your definition. Your God didn't Create life. Life arose naturally.

So, if you truly believe in "life comes only from life", then why not put your money where your heart is?

Thank you if you have read this far.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 12 2011,18:50

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 12 2011,18:22)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,06:58)
         
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
         
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I think you misunderstand.

In the context in which it was used, "creation of primordial life" from non-life, doesn't mean the US government granted a patent for God creating life. (You really need to read the patent.)

In the context of the patent, "creation of" means coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, and "primordial life" means the first appearance of life where before there was no life.

You said: "I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong." (IBIG-Jan 09, 2011, AtBC, IBIG forum, panel 17)

So there is no irony here. The word "creation" above does not mean divine creation. It doesn't even mean that 'scientists' created life. Life simply emerges from non-life by reproducing the natural conditions on the primeval Earth. That all that is necessary. No deities required.

This is what you define as Abiogenesis (see quote above).

So this patent is for the coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, the first appearance of life where before there was no life. (No Creator referenced.)

That's what the patent is about. That is Abiogenesis according to your definition. Your God didn't Create life. Life arose naturally.

So, if you truly believe in "life comes only from life", then why not put your money where your heart is?

Thank you if you have read this far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link To The Patent >
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 12 2011,19:46

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 12 2011,17:23)
He is, pretty much, a waste of carbon and oxygen that could be put to better use in a wombat, they, at least, are cute.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


They're also much more polite than the average Troo BeLIEver (tm pat pend), but that may be a side effect of being unable to talk.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: blipey on Jan. 12 2011,21:09

Nice link, IBIG.  I think you forgot either/or:

1.  the commentary
2.  the answer

Not necessarily in that order of importance.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 12 2011,21:14

Quote (blipey @ Jan. 12 2011,21:09)
Nice link, IBIG.  I think you forgot either/or:

1.  the commentary
2.  the answer

Not necessarily in that order of importance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For IBelieve to provide an answer, or a commentary that isn't about him screeching about how he's so much more smarter, richer, more powerful, and more virile than those stupid, evil, God-hating, devil-worshiping scientists, well...


That would require more brainpower than he currently possesses.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 12 2011,22:57

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 12 2011,21:14)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 12 2011,21:09)
Nice link, IBIG.  I think you forgot either/or:

1.  the commentary
2.  the answer

Not necessarily in that order of importance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For IBelieve to provide an answer, or a commentary that isn't about him screeching about how he's so much more smarter, richer, more powerful, and more virile than those stupid, evil, God-hating, devil-worshiping scientists, well...


That would require more brainpower than he currently possesses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It would also require more maturity, humility, wisdom, and capacity for introspection than Biggy has demonstrated thus far...

He has yet to clearly explain why we should accept his interpretation of anything as authoritative in a manner that does not rely upon the Pasal's Gamble presuppositions that form his blinders.  It is as if he is so enamored with the magic words that he cannot grasp their failure to move us.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 12 2011,23:08

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 12 2011,21:14)
Quote (blipey @ Jan. 12 2011,21:09)
Nice link, IBIG.  I think you forgot either/or:

1.  the commentary
2.  the answer

Not necessarily in that order of importance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For IBelieve to provide an answer, or a commentary that isn't about him screeching about how he's so much more smarter, richer, more powerful, and more virile than those stupid, evil, God-hating, devil-worshiping scientists, well...


That would require more brainpower than he currently possesses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IBIG is Vox Day?
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 13 2011,09:47



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
That would require more brainpower than he currently possesses.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


As the Immorg leader once said, "brain, brain, what is brain?".

:p
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 13 2011,10:03

Quote (erobotse @ Jan. 13 2011,10:00)
OMENS OF DEATH:

< http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302169 >


< http://www.allvoices.com/contrib....-to-flu >



< http://starseedshaman.info/wordpre....ing.jpg >



the end of atheism - only the blind and deaf can deny it...


an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people....





skepticalcommunity.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=29968&p=567498#p567498
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Mabus.



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



But that's religions job right? All atheists think the same thing already.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 13 2011,10:24

Quote (erobotse @ Jan. 13 2011,10:07)
< http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAgceen153I >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


coward.
Posted by: Henry J on Jan. 13 2011,11:13

What is there to prevent God from using natural processes if they would produce results that meet her requirements?
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 13 2011,12:12

Quote (Henry J @ Jan. 13 2011,11:13)
What is there to prevent God from using natural processes if they would produce results that meet her requirements?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Simple: if the imaginary magic friend uses nothing but natural processes, then there is no need for the imaginary magic friend to explain nature at all.  Occam's Razor would then apply, and the excess entity gets dropped from the equation.

That's a gawd of the gaps argument.  It works slightly better than Pascal's Wager, which doesn't work once one realizes that Pascal was thinking about a flip of the coin, but the proper model is an (American) roulette wheel.

The alternative interpretation would be the imaginary magic friend deliberately constructing the universe to hide all actual evidence of its existence, and then (by doctrine and tradition) getting upset when we mortals use our faculties as designed and come to the conclusion that there is no such entity...and such a deity is almost certainly not worth respect, affection, and worship.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 13 2011,15:21

i believe in goats

bitches
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 13 2011,17:30

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 13 2011,21:21)
i believe in goats

bitches
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yeah! Ras is back!!!
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 13 2011,19:02

Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 13 2011,15:21)
i believe in goats

bitches
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


African or European?

ETA - the goats, that is.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 13 2011,20:01

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,18:50)
     
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 12 2011,18:22)
       
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,06:58)
                 
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
                 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I think you misunderstand.

In the context in which it was used, "creation of primordial life" from non-life, doesn't mean the US government granted a patent for God creating life. (You really need to read the patent.)

In the context of the patent, "creation of" means coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, and "primordial life" means the first appearance of life where before there was no life.

You said: "I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong." (IBIG-Jan 09, 2011, AtBC, IBIG forum, panel 17)

So there is no irony here. The word "creation" above does not mean divine creation. It doesn't even mean that 'scientists' created life. Life simply emerges from non-life by reproducing the natural conditions on the primeval Earth. That all that is necessary. No deities required.

This is what you define as Abiogenesis (see quote above).

So this patent is for the coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, the first appearance of life where before there was no life. (No Creator referenced.)

That's what the patent is about. That is Abiogenesis according to your definition. Your God didn't Create life. Life arose naturally.

So, if you truly believe in "life comes only from life", then why not put your money where your heart is?

Thank you if you have read this far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link To The Patent >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

So, you found the patent. Good for you. But you didn't say anything.

Did you read it? Did you understand it?

It totally squashes your claim that abiogenesis is unscientific.

You may believe abiogenesis is impossible (this is America after all and you can believe anything you like), but you cannot say abiogenesis is unscientific.

Pretty much destroys your argument, no?

IBIG said on PT: "I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn’t exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school."

IBIG said on AtBC, Jan 7, 2011: "Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible! "

Believe what you will, but abiogenesis is scientific. It's patented!

And you are irrational (that means "without Reason").
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 13 2011,21:31

Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 13 2011,20:01)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,18:50)
       
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 12 2011,18:22)
         
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 12 2011,06:58)
                   
Quote (prong_hunter @ Jan. 11 2011,19:56)
                   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 11 2011,19:40)
Why don't you discuss with civility, and then I will response to your post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I know your business demands much of your attention. You probably haven't had time to read my earlier post.

Why don't you use your business success to file a patent for "life only comes from life"? Since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life, would it not be a great victory for God and Church to obtain a patent for "life only comes from life"?

Put your money where your heart is, so to speak. If your are truly convinced, then why not demonstrate it to the whole world? Forget all this forum stuff. If special creation is true, and you believe it, then why not prove it with a US patent?

Thank you for your attention.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I find your post amusing, because you you state, since there is already a patent for "creation of primordial life" from non-life. You stated creation of primordial life, don't you see the irony of your post?

If God created life, when He created man He created man from non-life "from the dust of the earth".  

If God created life, then what would be the purpose of a patent for what He created? According to your logic, maybe someone should get a patent on the creation of humans:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

I think you misunderstand.

In the context in which it was used, "creation of primordial life" from non-life, doesn't mean the US government granted a patent for God creating life. (You really need to read the patent.)

In the context of the patent, "creation of" means coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, and "primordial life" means the first appearance of life where before there was no life.

You said: "I believe that God created life, therefore I believe that Abiogenesis (life arose from non-life by natural causes without the aid of a Creator) is wrong." (IBIG-Jan 09, 2011, AtBC, IBIG forum, panel 17)

So there is no irony here. The word "creation" above does not mean divine creation. It doesn't even mean that 'scientists' created life. Life simply emerges from non-life by reproducing the natural conditions on the primeval Earth. That all that is necessary. No deities required.

This is what you define as Abiogenesis (see quote above).

So this patent is for the coming about by natural processes extant in the primeval Earth, the first appearance of life where before there was no life. (No Creator referenced.)

That's what the patent is about. That is Abiogenesis according to your definition. Your God didn't Create life. Life arose naturally.

So, if you truly believe in "life comes only from life", then why not put your money where your heart is?

Thank you if you have read this far.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


< Link To The Patent >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dear IBIG,

So, you found the patent. Good for you. But you didn't say anything.

Did you read it? Did you understand it?

It totally squashes your claim that abiogenesis is unscientific.

You may believe abiogenesis is impossible (this is America after all and you can believe anything you like), but you cannot say abiogenesis is unscientific.

Pretty much destroys your argument, no?

IBIG said on PT: "I believe the sole purpose of the scientific claim of Abiogenesis is to imply that there is no God. If one were not to believe in God, and wanted to promote such a view, then creating an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis that life came to be by natural causes without a Creator would be the way to go about it. Abiogenesis would be a great tool for evangelizing young minds away from believing in God, and turning them into Atheists. Implying God doesn’t exist with an unprovable, and unfalsifiable hypothesis should be prohibited from being taught in public school."

IBIG said on AtBC, Jan 7, 2011: "Abiogenesis isn't just improbable, I believe it is impossible! "

Believe what you will, but abiogenesis is scientific. It's patented!

And you are irrational (that means "without Reason").
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Among other things, this proves that IBelieve neither wants to or is capable of understanding or even tolerating science.

After all, the reason why IBelieve hates and fears Abiogenesis is because he misinterprets it as (evil) scientists trying to destroy faith in God.  To claim that this is not "hating science," well, that makes IBelieve a liar on top of a science-hating bigot.

The only reason I could come to for anyone to think that a statement like this:

In natural science, abiogenesis (pronounced /?e?ba?.??d??n?s?s/, AY-bye-oh-JEN-?-siss) or biopoesis is the study of how life arises from inorganic matter through natural processes, and the method by which life on Earth arose

Is somehow supposed to be evil scientists' recruiting slogan to turn children into evil, God-hating atheists is if that person's faith in God rests solely in closing their eyelids as tight as can be.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 13 2011,22:31

And that is why (among other reasons) IBIG is such a hypocrite.  He hates science, but uses the tools of science when its convenient.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Jan. 14 2011,00:00

IBIG is back. He must have forgotten to show the reference where Stalin killed 20 million for practicing religion.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 14 2011,02:18

Tuppence a bucket, well stamped down!
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 14 2011,06:07

How's Your Granny Off For Soap?
Posted by: snorkild on Jan. 14 2011,06:11

Quote (arobotsa9 @ Jan. 14 2011,03:31)
2011!
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


2011! = ~7,0191549339325416461017375829088e+5771
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 14 2011,08:01

Quote (MichaelJ @ Jan. 14 2011,00:00)
IBIG is back. He must have forgotten to show the reference where Stalin killed 20 million for practicing religion.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


where?  PT?
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 14 2011,17:34

So the big man in the trenchcoat can kill a tiny widdle birdy... aww...

I think you'll find other things slightly tougher... coward.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 14 2011,17:39

Quote (lrobotsl @ Jan. 14 2011,17:36)
ogre - do you want to see what we do to little lying shits like you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, I don't lie.

Second, not particularly, I don't want anymore insight into what happens in your mind than I already have.  It's a deeply disturbed place.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 14 2011,18:41

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 14 2011,17:39)
Quote (lrobotsl @ Jan. 14 2011,17:36)
ogre - do you want to see what we do to little lying shits like you?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First, I don't lie.

Second, not particularly, I don't want anymore insight into what happens in your mind than I already have.  It's a deeply disturbed place.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So many Christian fundamentalists actively encourage this disgusting sort of psychopathy, and yet, when called out about their deliberate promotion of hate and psychopathy, they're all aghast that someone dared to mention this.

Hypocrites and monsters.
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 14 2011,19:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 14 2011,17:34)
So the big man in the trenchcoat can kill a tiny widdle birdy... aww...

I think you'll find other things slightly tougher... coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly, but I am skeptical.  My first thought is that is a picture of the birds that died off in ... Alabama, was it?  The ones that CNN had Kirk Cameron on to explain how this was a sign of the rapture or something.

(Although, from what I have heard, I have not seen the interview myself - wanted to save the brain cells - even Cameron was confused as to why he was on the show.)
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 14 2011,21:12

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 14 2011,19:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 14 2011,17:34)
So the big man in the trenchcoat can kill a tiny widdle birdy... aww...

I think you'll find other things slightly tougher... coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly, but I am skeptical.  My first thought is that is a picture of the birds that died off in ... Alabama, was it?  The ones that CNN had Kirk Cameron on to explain how this was a sign of the rapture or something.

(Although, from what I have heard, I have not seen the interview myself - wanted to save the brain cells - even Cameron was confused as to why he was on the show.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was my home state of Arkansas.  And it was apparently the caused by the Gays.  < PZ had it covered >
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 14 2011,22:53

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 14 2011,21:12)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 14 2011,19:47)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 14 2011,17:34)
So the big man in the trenchcoat can kill a tiny widdle birdy... aww...

I think you'll find other things slightly tougher... coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly, but I am skeptical.  My first thought is that is a picture of the birds that died off in ... Alabama, was it?  The ones that CNN had Kirk Cameron on to explain how this was a sign of the rapture or something.

(Although, from what I have heard, I have not seen the interview myself - wanted to save the brain cells - even Cameron was confused as to why he was on the show.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was my home state of Arkansas.  And it was apparently the caused by the Gays.  < PZ had it covered >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You ever notice how these fundamentalists always say every catastrophe occurs is because God is punishing Americans for committing the mortal sin of not persecuting and executing gays for existing?

And yet, when it's pointed out that such claims make God seem malicious, supremely petty, and very incompetent, these same fundamentalists make a big, whiny stink like someone farted in their face.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 15 2011,08:02

Quote (Texas Teach @ Jan. 14 2011,21:12)
Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 14 2011,19:47)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 14 2011,17:34)
So the big man in the trenchcoat can kill a tiny widdle birdy... aww...

I think you'll find other things slightly tougher... coward.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Possibly, but I am skeptical.  My first thought is that is a picture of the birds that died off in ... Alabama, was it?  The ones that CNN had Kirk Cameron on to explain how this was a sign of the rapture or something.

(Although, from what I have heard, I have not seen the interview myself - wanted to save the brain cells - even Cameron was confused as to why he was on the show.)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


It was my home state of Arkansas.  And it was apparently the caused by the Gays.  < PZ had it covered >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Mr. Pat said the snow storm was caused by people driving to see Teh Gays...

Oh, IBIG, who do I believe?
Posted by: Inquiring Child on Jan. 15 2011,13:51

[Last 10 Posts [ In reverse order ]
arobotasi Posted on Jan. 15 2011,12:30THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - JAN 1, 2011

OMENS OF DEATH:

< http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302169 >
]

Since you chose the Digital Journal as a reliable source....


Opinion: Mysterious animal deaths may not be so mysterious

Read more: < http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302478#ixzz1B8S0dhIm >
Posted by: Inquiring Child on Jan. 15 2011,13:52

First time posting, apologies for the incorrect formatting of  quote
Posted by: Steverino on Jan. 15 2011,13:55

Quote (arobotasi @ Jan. 15 2011,12:30)
THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION - JAN 1, 2011

OMENS OF DEATH:

< http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/302169 >


< http://www.allvoices.com/contrib....-to-flu >







the end of atheism - only the blind and deaf can deny it...


an example and warning of the fate of those who try to divide people....



< http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads....1.67777 >
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Dennis,

Ever try to post anything coherent? I mean, just once?

Oh...one more thing before I forget,.....You do know that Edward Current is a PARODY....RIGHT????

LOL>...FOOL>!
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 15 2011,14:27

Quote (Steverino @ Jan. 15 2011,13:55)
Dennis,

Ever try to post anything coherent? I mean, just once?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That would require the author to be coherent... even just once.

At least IBIG was coherent.  He was wrong a lot, but at least you could talk to him.  Not like JoeG or cowardly-trenchcoat boy.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 15 2011,16:22

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 15 2011,14:27)
...At least IBIG was coherent.  He was wrong a lot, but at least you could talk to him.  Not like JoeG or cowardly-trenchcoat boy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I beg to differ on that: IBelieve's idea of "civility" is to mindlessly worship him as the Godhead, and anything less is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "evidence" is to either quotemine and twist other people's words in order to deliberately distort everything they say, or to simply assert that he has "FAITH," and to ask him to provide honest support his dishonest word games is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "discussion" is to make up some stupid rhetorical question that speaks volumes about his own willful stupidity, and then ignore all responses in order to boast how smart he is, except for a few responses that he maliciously distorts in order to mock and humiliate those people for not being as stupid as he is.

And then there is the fact that IBelieve conflates "Atheism" with Devil worship, Science, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Islam, hate crimes, Communism, Stalinism and Religious Intolerance.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 15 2011,16:24

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 15 2011,14:22)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 15 2011,14:27)
...At least IBIG was coherent.  He was wrong a lot, but at least you could talk to him.  Not like JoeG or cowardly-trenchcoat boy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I beg to differ on that: IBelieve's idea of "civility" is to mindlessly worship him as the Godhead, and anything less is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "evidence" is to either quotemine and twist other people's words in order to deliberately distort everything they say, or to simply assert that he has "FAITH," and to ask him to provide honest support his dishonest word games is Devil worship Atheism.

IBelieve's idea of "discussion" is to make up some stupid rhetorical question that speaks volumes about his own willful stupidity, and then ignore all responses in order to boast how smart he is, except for a few responses that he maliciously distorts in order to mock and humiliate those people for not being as stupid as he is.

And then there is the fact that IBelieve conflates "Atheism" with Devil worship, Science, Evolution, Abiogenesis, Islam, hate crimes, Communism, Stalinism and Religious Intolerance.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention dividing by zero, and improper resolution of the leading-tone.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 17 2011,10:57

good to know you chaps continue to attract high quality tards here.  i've missed it
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 17 2011,11:09

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Jan. 17 2011,10:57)
good to know you chaps continue to attract high quality tards here.  i've missed it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is like being jealous of your friend contracting the Bubonic Plague.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Jan. 17 2011,12:49

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 17 2011,12:09)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Jan. 17 2011,10:57)
good to know you chaps continue to attract high quality tards here.  i've missed it
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This is like being jealous of your friend contracting the Bubonic Plague.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


only if you find the bubonic plague absolutely hilarious.  AND I DO

i got to thinking about the epic tardery i have witnessed here over the years and thought i'd check in.  its a kwok free zone which is a huge boon, unlike Louis who is a huge boor
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 17 2011,14:45

Aside from random spam from a coward who thinks he's going to cut my head off with a machete, it's pleasant enough.

The real tards are staying away... cowards.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 17 2011,19:03

Dear IBIG,

You don't know what to say. The truth does that to people.

Now that you're beginning to realize the difference between the way science works (nothing wrong with that), and the way faith works (nothing wrong with that), I have something else for you to ponder.

In the physics of sub-atomic particles there is a principle that states, "That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

That means, if an interaction or a particle is not forbidden by quantum mechanics, then it does exist, even if it exists at low probability.

Now, the science of chemistry is something like macro-quantum mechanics, and if "that which is not forbidden is compulsory" is true in micro-quantum mechanics then surely it is also true in macro-quantum mechanics as well.

And what is bio-chemistry but a specialize, but very important, subset of chemistry? So biochemistry is subject to the same principle "that which is not forbidden is compulsory".

And this is why life emerging from non-life, by natural means, without the intervention of any intelligent agent, is guaranteed: "that which is not forbidden is compulsory".

Carbon atoms have a proclivity for self-organization. You couldn't stop it if you tried, and neither is there any rule, law, or principle that forbids it.

Abiogenesis is guaranteed.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 17 2011,19:06

And it's patented!
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 19 2011,08:04

It seems that IBelieve is back, and he's still too cowardly to respond here again.

If he really believed in the bullshit he spouts, you would at least think he would be able to make an attempt to explain how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is somehow better than science beyond him simply having "FAITH" (sic), or at least explain to us how saying "God spoke the laws into existence" is supposed to be different than saying "God magically poofed the world into existence using magic."

Then again, I may as well be wishing for the Moon.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 19 2011,08:49

I gave the coward a comment and that's all he deserves.  Just a reminder that he is too cowardly to come to his own personal thread.  And a reminder that I have offered to teach him everything he thinks doesn't exist and he's cowardly refused everytime.

Ah well...
Posted by: MichaelJ on Jan. 19 2011,12:48

IBIG has run away again
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 19 2011,13:16

Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
Posted by: fnxtr on Jan. 19 2011,18:49

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,11:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Your logic was impeccable, Captain, we are in grave danger.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 19 2011,23:22

Yeah, IBelieve is too cowardly to come back.

He's too busy whining at me about how mean I am to point out that he's a boorish, lying asshole.
Posted by: Dale_Husband on Jan. 19 2011,23:47

Quote (Stanton @ Jan. 19 2011,23:22)
Yeah, IBelieve is too cowardly to come back.

He's too busy whining at me about how mean I am to point out that he's a boorish, lying asshole.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Well, he is certainly going bugshit back at the Panda's Thumb again.

< http://pandasthumb.org/archive....-246067 >

Man, he is so stupid!!!!
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Jan. 20 2011,08:07

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here is the problem with your answer 1, God would not command people to start eating babies, therefore your point is moot. Without God there would be no morality, without God man would commit more evil then we could ever imagine.

Today the world is attempting to build an ethical system based on morality without God. Men have tried many ways to teach this new godless form of morality. "Values clarification" was a very popular phrase of the last decade in our public schools. It was an attempt to let our children to essentially make their own standards of morality and behavior. It was a disaster as it justified almost any kind of awful behavior.

In an earlier discussion I pointed out the atrocities of Atheist countries over that past 100 years. We call them atrocities, but were they really? If what they did was based on their own moral/ETHICAL standards, and there are no absolute moral standards, then were they really atrocities? If you give man the ability to create his own moral and ethical standards apart from God, then anything goes. Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.

In your second point you state "God would never do that, because God is moral." and you went on to state that "In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing"  The problem with your argument is that God gave each of us a conscience< conscience > and it by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us, therefore you are wrong again.

1 Timothy 4:1-2 (New International Version, ©2010)

1 The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron.
Posted by: oldmanintheskydidntdoit on Jan. 20 2011,08:55

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)

 God would not command people to start eating babies
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



No, only to kill them. Either by bashing them against rocks (Hosea 13:16 & Psalms 137:9) or asking people to kill their own children as some kind of perverted "loyalty test".
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Without God there would be no morality, without God man would commit more evil then we could ever imagine.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


But lots of people who believe commit evil acts.

How come?

 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Today the world is attempting to build an ethical system based on morality without God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Not "attempting", it's already been done. And the sky has not fallen.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Or they could decide that anybody who does not believe in a particular God is not a real person and as such can be treated as an outcast.
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us, therefore you are wrong again.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


So you win either way? How nice for you. But why do these "moral compasses" provide such inconsistent results?

How come at one point in history owning slaves was moral, and now it's not? Did God change her mind?

Also, if what you say is true then it's logical that the more religious you are the more you'll stick to those God given morals.

And yet....
< http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece >


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: “Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

“In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
The study concluded that the US was the world’s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from “ uniquely high” adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: “The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.”
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Another recent study also showed that the more religious a society the more immoral behaviour was present. I don't have a link to that right now, but it's not like that's going to matter anyway as you'd just ignore it in any case.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 20 2011,09:50

OK, IBIG.  Apparently, you didn't notice that "God would never say that" is the second option in the list and dealt with already.

You claim that morality is defined by God, yet the "God would never order that" is based on an external morality that God must obey... so your entire point is logically useless.  But thanks for playing.

Let's try one more.

Around 1000 BC, the great Chinese general Hu Lin was commanded by the Chinese War God to destroy a village.  The land had been given to the War God's peoples.

So General Lin attacked the village and was victorious.  The War God demanded that the entire village be slaughtered, man, woman, child, livestock, etc.  General Lin did this because his War God commanded it.

Did he act morally?
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 20 2011,10:49

Score zero for IBIGs reading comprehension for missing point 2 (or intentionally ignoring it - which is more likely?).  

Oldman - in (defense?) of the Psalm, that one was probably written by an Israelite exiled to Babylon who was dreaming of the good old days, so I'm not sure that can be laid at God's feet.  However, it does refer to the (mythical) wars of conquest where the genocide occurred, and it is in the divinely inspired bible, so you can say that God approves of it...so maybe it can.  I wouldn't call it a command in that instance, but I'd definitely go with the "God approves" side of the argument.  

Doesn't change your point one bit, but I just wanted to clarify that bit (assuming my knowledge is correct, that is).
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,10:50

Biggy, Biggy, Biggy...

You fail on the merits, yet again.

Here is your daily meditation, my young padawan novice: contemplate the full meaning of the words tantum religio potuit suadare malorum as they apply to your own feverish collection of delusions.

Do not return until you have grokked the depth of this koan, for only then will you grasp the reason you are soundly mocked.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 20 2011,11:38

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 20 2011,08:07][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Here is the problem with your answer 1, God would not command people to start eating babies, therefore your point is moot.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oh, but his command about selling daughters as slaves and prostitutes (Exodus 21:7-11) or and his command that children who curse their parents should be put to death (Exodus 21:17) is good by you. Ooookaaaay...

LOL!
Posted by: Robin on Jan. 20 2011,11:44

[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 20 2011,08:07][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In an earlier discussion I pointed out the atrocities of Atheist countries over that past 100 years. We call them atrocities, but were they really? If what they did was based on their own moral/ETHICAL standards, and there are no absolute moral standards, then were they really atrocities? If you give man the ability to create his own moral and ethical standards apart from God, then anything goes. Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oddly, you seem to have ignored the fact that more Christians have committed atrocities than so-called "atheist countries". Given that, apparently even Christians can decide that eating babies is perfectly "moral" according to your bible and actually do all sorts of similar things anyway. Makes me wonder why you think this "moral standard" you babble on about actually exists. Clearly there's no evidence of such to found in your bible or from your supposed "god".
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 20 2011,12:11

Biggy is unable to apply Lord Acton's observation to his imaginary friend.  To paraphrase the peer in question:

Power corrupts.  Absolute power corrupts absolutely.
 
Therefore, if his imaginary friend is omnipotent, it would also be utterly, thoroughly corrupt.

This conclusion is only avoidable through the fallacy of special pleading and some pseudointellectual rationalizations that make Stockholm Syndrome look like a healthy adjustment...and yet he wonders why his magic book with the magic words fails to move us.

Too bad the problem of theodicy predates the events of NT mythology by a fair margin.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: phhht on Jan. 20 2011,19:13

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)
...God gave each of us a conscience... and ... by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

As usual, I have trouble following the logic of your claims.  Let me ask you some questions for clarification.

You say that God gave each of us a conscience.  Does God give a conscience to atheists?

I think you must say yes.  Otherwise, God withholds the knowledge of right and wrong from atheists.

It seems to follow that atheists have a "moral compass" just like you do.

I am an atheist, and my conscience tells me that your god is a bloody-thirsty monster whose crimes are almost infinite in number.

What's going on here, Poofster?  Why can't your God get his own story straight?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 20 2011,20:04

Quote (Robin @ Jan. 20 2011,11:44)
[quote=IBelieveInGod,Jan. 20 2011,08:07][/quote]
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
In an earlier discussion I pointed out the atrocities of Atheist countries over that past 100 years. We call them atrocities, but were they really? If what they did was based on their own moral/ETHICAL standards, and there are no absolute moral standards, then were they really atrocities? If you give man the ability to create his own moral and ethical standards apart from God, then anything goes. Countries could decide that killing and eating babies is perfectly moral, and it then would be perfectly moral if morality is apart from God. Don't you see the silliness of your argument.

---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Oddly, you seem to have ignored the fact that more Christians have committed atrocities than so-called "atheist countries". Given that, apparently even Christians can decide that eating babies is perfectly "moral" according to your bible and actually do all sorts of similar things anyway. Makes me wonder why you think this "moral standard" you babble on about actually exists. Clearly there's no evidence of such to found in your bible or from your supposed "god".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The reason why IBelieve ignores the fact that Christians have committed far more atrocities than all "atheist" countries combined is because IBelieve deliberately conflates "atheist" with anything and anyone he dislikes.

To IBelieve, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Abiogenesis, those are all Atheist.  Islam, terrorism, brusselsprouts, devil-worship, those are Atheist, too.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Jan. 21 2011,02:25

Oh IBIG is back. You said that Stalin killed 20 million people for practicing Christianity. Can you show the reference please or were you just making things up?
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 21 2011,17:17

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 20 2011,19:13)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)
...God gave each of us a conscience... and ... by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

As usual, I have trouble following the logic of your claims.  ...

What's going on here, Poofster?  Why can't your God get his own story straight?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Hey Phhht!

Miss your posts on PT.

Too busy?

Hope you return.

Tack så mycket!
Posted by: Badger3k on Jan. 21 2011,19:45

Quote (phhht @ Jan. 20 2011,19:13)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Jan. 20 2011,08:07)
...God gave each of us a conscience... and ... by our conscience that we know right and wrong. So you could state that our conscience is the moral compass that God gave us...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

As usual, I have trouble following the logic of your claims.  Let me ask you some questions for clarification.

You say that God gave each of us a conscience.  Does God give a conscience to atheists?

I think you must say yes.  Otherwise, God withholds the knowledge of right and wrong from atheists.

It seems to follow that atheists have a "moral compass" just like you do.

I am an atheist, and my conscience tells me that your god is a bloody-thirsty monster whose crimes are almost infinite in number.

What's going on here, Poofster?  Why can't your God get his own story straight?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I'd add that my conscience can't let two people who love each other be barred from getting married, even if they are of the same sex (consenting adults only, please).  Is that from God, too?  If so, then, boy...is he confused.  

(Do you think God could be a little bit gay?  The reduction of women to second class, the good-ol-boys club priesthood, the "burning bush", the long list of decorations for the inner sanctum in the Temple...just sayin'....)

eta - using the holy ghost, his "partner", to impregnate Mary instead of gettin' it on like Zeus...I don't know.
:p
Posted by: jeannot on Jan. 22 2011,14:57

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Nice argumentation here. And the 3rd option demonstrates that the equation God<=>morality is just completely meaningless and useless, since whatever comes from God is moral, by definition.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 22 2011,21:58

Quote (Badger3k @ Jan. 21 2011,19:45)
I'd add that my conscience can't let two people who love each other be barred from getting married, even if they are of the same sex (consenting adults only, please).  Is that from God, too?  If so, then, boy...is he confused.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


This, ex-fucking-zactly.  Cranked to eleven.

Oh, wait.  Biggy probably doesn't think gays are human, never mind being worthy of compassion instead of condemnation.  His imaginary friend likes to break its own toys, apparently.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Jan. 24 2011,06:56

Troll derailment material shifted to the Bathroom Wall.
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,03:58

Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Jan. 25 2011,04:17



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is total male bovine feces! You are "assuming" the law of noncontraction (noncontradiction, maybe?) even applies to god. Who the fuck are you to know that? Seriously? Isn't your god all powerful? Why then should he be subjected to any law?

And what the hell do you mean by "and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context"?!? In what context would it ever be moral to kill and eat babies?

And to finish, god would be incapable of doing something? the all-powerful, omnipotent god of the bible?!?

Get your shit together, dheddle. That's pure, unadulterated inconsistancy...

ETA: and basicaly the same as answer n°2, only poorly formulated...
Posted by: dheddle on Jan. 25 2011,05:06

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Jan. 25 2011,04:17)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------
4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



That is total male bovine feces! You are "assuming" the law of noncontraction (noncontradiction, maybe?) even applies to god. Who the fuck are you to know that? Seriously? Isn't your god all powerful? Why then should he be subjected to any law?

And what the hell do you mean by "and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context"?!? In what context would it ever be moral to kill and eat babies?

And to finish, god would be incapable of doing something? the all-powerful, omnipotent god of the bible?!?

Get your shit together, dheddle. That's pure, unadulterated inconsistancy...

ETA: and basicaly the same as answer n°2, only poorly formulated...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Most Christians assume god is subject to the law of noncontradiction. The most common formulation is: God cannot lie. Not: god chooses not to lie, but god cannot lie, for lying would make him A and not-A at the same time and in the same circumstances.

And it is not the same as #2, which carried as a consequence that morality exists independent of god. (Which may be true--all I'm saying is there is [at least] a 4th answer.) The answer I gave does not demand that there is morality independent of god. It is aligned with [P1] god defines morality,  [P2] eating babies is immoral, [P3] god never acts immorally [C] god cannot (not just will not) command the eating of dead babies.

As for a context when baby eating is acceptable--I can't think of one--I just wrote as narrowly as I could.

But that's not the point anyway. The point is I offered a fourth answer which, contrary to your claim, is not at all the same as #2.

Again, it is rather obvious that god is subject to the laws of logic--unless you really think the old "can god make a stone he cannot lift?" is truly a insoluble conundrum for theists. I mean, after all, is he omnipotent or not?
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 25 2011,08:03

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,05:06)
Again, it is rather obvious that god is subject to the laws of logic--unless you really think the old "can god make a stone he cannot lift?" is truly a insoluble conundrum for theists. I mean, after all, is he omnipotent or not?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The primary problems with IBelieveInGod are a) that he is a religious bigot who claims he is moral, yet, invents illogical justifications for his immoral behavior, such as accusing literally everyone who either disagrees with, or points out his misdeeds as being an evil atheist who hates God, b) his penchant for asking inane, stupid, and easily answered rhetorical questions in order to ignore all responses, just so he can boast about how he used his "FAITH" (sic) to stump the evil, stupid scientists, and c) how he constantly conflates "Atheism" with "Devil-Worship," "Hatred of God," "Science," "Communisim," "Islam," "Terrorism," "Dictatorships," "Religious Intolerance," and literally anything, anyone, everything, everyone he dislikes.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 25 2011,08:36

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,03:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've got to agree with S.Dog on this one.  Your fourth statement is exactly the same as the 2nd one.

If God does not decide what is moral, then God is dependent on an external morality.  Which means, he's pretty much... well... not God.

If God does decide what is moral, then it would perfectly acceptable* for God to make eating babies moral.

- or -

We could all accept that there is no such thing as universal morality (as evidenced throughout the history of religious practice) and be done with it.

*Well, I probably wouldn't think so, but he's God.  He can do whatever he wants... unless he can't.  Which is, sort of, the question now isn't it.
Posted by: MadPanda, FCD on Jan. 25 2011,10:54

Or you accept that the question is meaningless because you're quibbling over the impotence of a figment of imagination as described in a poorly edited compilation of myths.

I concur that heddle's attempt at an end run is the second answer dressed up in funny clothing.  He can't help it, though.  He's Calvinist.


The MadPanda, FCD
Posted by: khan on Jan. 25 2011,10:58

Quote (MadPanda, FCD @ Jan. 25 2011,11:54)
Or you accept that the question is meaningless because you're quibbling over the impotence of a figment of imagination as described in a poorly edited compilation of myths.

I concur that heddle's attempt at an end run is the second answer dressed up in funny clothing.  He can't help it, though.  He's Calvinist.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Tooth Fairy Science"
How has the amount of money left by the Tooth Fairy kept up with inflation?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Jan. 25 2011,17:16

Quote (khan @ Jan. 25 2011,10:58)
Quote (MadPanda @ FCD,Jan. 25 2011,11:54)
Or you accept that the question is meaningless because you're quibbling over the impotence of a figment of imagination as described in a poorly edited compilation of myths.

I concur that heddle's attempt at an end run is the second answer dressed up in funny clothing.  He can't help it, though.  He's Calvinist.


The MadPanda, FCD
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Tooth Fairy Science"
How has the amount of money left by the Tooth Fairy kept up with inflation?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The secret is volume.
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 29 2011,07:36

So IBelieve has returned, and he may be a sockpuppet named "Carolyn James"
Posted by: Sol3a1 on Jan. 29 2011,07:57

Why is it that "defense of marriage" is still just to bar smae sex couples but being married 4 or 5 times with kids from 4 or 5 different people (maybe some of them NOT one of those they were married to) acceptable?

Why is Newt Gingrich and Rush Is Reich Limbaugh "model citizens" when both are on 3 or more wives?

In Gingrich's case, he was banging his 3rd wife while his 2nd was in the hospital yet the poor husband of that brain dead lady Terry (name escapes me) was lambasted for not staying around her when it was painfully obvious it was medical technology, not some god, that was keeping her alive?

The hypocrisy of many theists sickens me
Posted by: Stanton on Jan. 29 2011,08:49

Quote (Sol3a1 @ Jan. 29 2011,07:57)
Why is it that "defense of marriage" is still just to bar smae sex couples but being married 4 or 5 times with kids from 4 or 5 different people (maybe some of them NOT one of those they were married to) acceptable?

Why is Newt Gingrich and Rush Is Reich Limbaugh "model citizens" when both are on 3 or more wives?

In Gingrich's case, he was banging his 3rd wife while his 2nd was in the hospital yet the poor husband of that brain dead lady Terry (name escapes me) was lambasted for not staying around her when it was painfully obvious it was medical technology, not some god, that was keeping her alive?

The hypocrisy of many theists sickens me
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Strange, isn't it?

One gets the impression that cheating on your current wife while she's dying of cancer is, at worst, a minor faux pas on par with spilling salt on your dinner companion.

And yet, the idea of two people of the same gender wanting to enter into a monogamous relationship for emotional, social and legal reasons is abhorrent, on par with eating living babies and puppies on the street.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Jan. 29 2011,10:52

See guys, y'all are still thinking rationally.

Remember, if a Christian person does something immoral (for example, a pastor running off with his secretary, both of whom are married to someone else)...

1) It's the devil's fault.
2) The person is at fault, not the religion.
3) Hate the sin, love the sinner.
4) We (not God, 'we') forgive you.

So anything that's, shall we say, morally ambiguous (i.e. anything a Christian guy does to chattel (like women)) is frowned upon and talked about quietly in the church halls.

But if it's a non-Christian... then none of the above apply because that person is the devil, their religion (even if they don't have one) is at fault, it's OK to hate the person too, and God'll have to forgive you 'cause we won't.

To see the truth of this, take a look at any Christian preacher, priest, or congress person who has been proven to take drugs, have affairs, have naked body massages from same sex hookers.  It's all OK.

But if a non-Christian says, "uh, what's wrong with it?"  Then all hell breaks loose.

Christianity is the absolute worst us vs. them group I've ever seen.

Hey IBIG, if you're still around, who's the father of modern Christianity?

I bet you don't know.  Of course, your theology is worse than your science, which isn't quite as bad as your morality.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Feb. 19 2011,20:55

After more than a year IBIG has been silenced by reason and logic and truth.

"That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

Abiogenesis is guaranteed.  And it's patented.

IBIG cannot respond intelligently, only unintelligently.
Posted by: MichaelJ on Feb. 20 2011,01:34

Quote (prong_hunter @ Feb. 20 2011,11:55)
After more than a year IBIG has been silenced by reason and logic and truth.

"That which is not forbidden is compulsory."

Abiogenesis is guaranteed.  And it's patented.

IBIG cannot respond intelligently, only unintelligently.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One thing I found pretty interesting. IBIG appeared in the latest AIG thread at Pandas, but when the discussion got onto discussing the Bible he disappeared (Leaving Heddle and FL to defend the book). Almost like he isn't as happy making shit up about the bible as he is about science.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Feb. 20 2011,07:40

Quote (MichaelJ @ Feb. 20 2011,01:34)
One thing I found pretty interesting. IBIG appeared in the latest AIG thread at Pandas, but when the discussion got onto discussing the Bible he disappeared (Leaving Heddle and FL to defend the book). Almost like he isn't as happy making shit up about the bible as he is about science.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You need to read the 400 panels of the old Bathroom Wall at Panda's Thumb, most of which he is responsible for directly or as responses to his posts.  

IBIG quoted reams of bible verses, even quoted an entire 6,000 word sermon!

Never convinced one Panda of anything.

Fancies himself a bible expert.

Be careful what you wish for.
Posted by: k.e.. on Feb. 20 2011,10:13

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,11:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


hOLY FUCK hEDDLE.

*crikey forgot to turn off dt*

So what about all the killing done in teh name of the grand fatwa himself?

Even GWB invaded because dog told him to.


You do understand that relgions and all their claims are a frikking belief system don't u?

And as such what you or anyone else claims have no basis in fact or in Rome vis a vis Jerusalam.

If I claim it is moral to not believe in your god and I say god agrees with me then who decides?

And 'god decides' isn't an answer for obvious frikking reasons.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 02 2011,16:45



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IBIG:
But is a dead dog an open system in respect to its own brain and muscle cells?

What good is energy without a way to exchange and use it? I have electricity in my home, but if I don’t plug in my television into a working outlet, then it doesn’t matter if the energy is there, my television still won’t work unless I actually plug it in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What the hell does that even mean?
You're even more obtuse than usual, Biggy.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 02 2011,16:54

Is it worth mentioning that heat energy will flow in or out of a dead body if it's at a different temperature than its surroundings?

Nah, probably not.
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 02 2011,17:06

Sorry for badgering people about responding to IBIG on PT, but it astounds me that anybody wouldn't recognize he's just yanking the big chain to see how much noise it makes.

He doesn't like being sent to the ATBC though.  No fun spraying graffiti in a place where the walls are normally decorated with it.
Posted by: Stanton on Mar. 02 2011,17:29

Quote (fnxtr @ Mar. 02 2011,16:45)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
IBIG:
But is a dead dog an open system in respect to its own brain and muscle cells?

What good is energy without a way to exchange and use it? I have electricity in my home, but if I don’t plug in my television into a working outlet, then it doesn’t matter if the energy is there, my television still won’t work unless I actually plug it in.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



What the hell does that even mean?
You're even more obtuse than usual, Biggy.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


He just wants to prove how stupid and evil we are, because we don't worship his interpretation of the Bible, and he wants to prove how much smarter he is than all of the evil, devil-worshiping, God-hating scientists in the world.

As usual.
Posted by: dvunkannon on Mar. 02 2011,18:42

Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oy-vey, sayeth Nakashima.

Bible points that seem to have been overlooked:

1 - God commands Abraham to kill Isaac. Abraham complies (reluctantly).

2 - Abraham defends Sodom and Gommorah with "Shall not the God of the whole earth do justly?"

In which of those two stories is God or Abraham acting morally? (My vote is only for Abe in 2.)

3 - Eating babies is discussed in Jeremiah, in the situation of starvation during the siege of Jerusalem.

4 - What answer does Job get at the end of his book? Fuck off, I'm not like you.

Taken together, and remember, Abraham loses that argument in story 2, it would seem that the Bibble position on morality is that it is whatever God says it is. And if you don't like it, tough.
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 02 2011,19:15

Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 02 2011,18:42)
Taken together, and remember, Abraham loses that argument in story 2, it would seem that the Bibble position on morality is that it is whatever God says it is. And if you don't like it, tough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, old-timey gods never had any ambiguities over questions of the true nature of good -- they just told you to do something, and you did it, or else.  

I noticed heddle was using the Aquinas ploy on the nature of good:  "Well, God tells us what is good, but God is perfectly good and so will only tell us to do what is good."

I'm actually fairly tolerant of religions, but I do get exercised on theological arguments:  "You're dodging the question:  is GOOD just whatever the Big G says it is?  Then the Big G can tell us to do whatever He likes and we just have to deal with it.  If the Big G CAN'T arbitrarily tell us to do whatever He likes, then there's some abstract standard of GOOD that even HE has to acknowledge."

Now ... the question being effectively irrelevant, I don't really care which it is -- but PLEASE, don't try to give me both answers at the same time and think I'm going to buy it.
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 02 2011,20:37

Quote (dmviolator @ Mar. 02 2011,20:28)
Don't make me mad...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Too late!"
Posted by: Stanton on Mar. 02 2011,20:51

Quote (mrg @ Mar. 02 2011,20:37)
Quote (dmviolator @ Mar. 02 2011,20:28)
Don't make me mad...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Too late!"
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


We didn't do anything: he was already mad mentally ill to begin with.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 02 2011,21:02

You know, when you take the vowels out of curse words... they are still curse words.
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 02 2011,21:16

Quote (dmviolator @ Mar. 02 2011,20:55)
you little f*ckers really need to worry about your own sanity...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"Worry"?  I enjoy every minute of being crazy, and absolutely nobody's going to take it away from me.
Posted by: Kristine on Mar. 02 2011,21:28

Flushed, and teh newbie (not) has flounced - let's move on.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 02 2011,22:32

Yawn. IBIG is channeling Gish in his latest on Joe's 2LoT thread at PT. It didn't impress me coming from a Berkeley grad twenty years ago, IBIG... what makes you think that it sounds any better, or any less utterly rebutted, when you say it?
Posted by: Stanton on Mar. 02 2011,22:43

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 02 2011,22:32)
Yawn. IBIG is channeling Gish in his latest on Joe's 2LoT thread at PT. It didn't impress me coming from a Berkeley grad twenty years ago, IBIG... what makes you think that it sounds any better, or any less utterly rebutted, when you say it?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Because he has FAITH (sic) when he says it?
Posted by: Robin on Mar. 03 2011,09:00

Quote (dvunkannon @ Mar. 02 2011,18:42)

---------------------QUOTE-------------------




---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:58)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oy-vey, sayeth Nakashima.

Bible points that seem to have been overlooked:

1 - God commands Abraham to kill Isaac. Abraham complies (reluctantly).

2 - Abraham defends Sodom and Gommorah with "Shall not the God of the whole earth do justly?"

In which of those two stories is God or Abraham acting morally? (My vote is only for Abe in 2.)

3 - Eating babies is discussed in Jeremiah, in the situation of starvation during the siege of Jerusalem.

4 - What answer does Job get at the end of his book? Fuck off, I'm not like you.

Taken together, and remember, Abraham loses that argument in story 2, it would seem that the Bibble position on morality is that it is whatever God says it is. And if you don't like it, tough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then there's the another real kicker - God "feeling" regret for having made man:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5
   Genesis 6:
5 When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil,
6
   he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If God regretted something, doesn't that mean he did something he wished he hadn't? So it's within his nature to do that he knows he will later regret? Good to know that such a god is isn't very smart.
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 03 2011,10:54

Quote (Robin @ Mar. 03 2011,09:00)
[quote=dvunkannon,Mar. 02 2011,18:42][/quote]


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Quote (dheddle @ Jan. 25 2011,04:58)
 
Quote (OgreMkV @ Jan. 19 2011,13:16)
Hey IBIG,

answer this for me:

If God commanded people to start eating babies, what would you do?

There are three possible answers:

1) "No, it would still be immoral." That one's easy, and the best answer, and of course it demolishes the idea that God dictates what is moral.

2) "God would never do that, because God is moral." In order for this statement to have any meaning, morality must exist independent of God -- otherwise we could not decide whether God would do a particular thing based on whether or not that thing was moral, because that would be synonymous to asking ourselves whether God would do a particular thing based on whether God would do a particular thing.

3) "Knives out and start the rotesserie!" This, and only this, preserves the idea that morality comes from God, and only from God.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, there is a fourth:

4. It is a ridiculous question because it requires a violation of the law of noncontraction, a law which, it is assumed, even applies to god. Put simply: if god is moral and the very north pole of moral compasses, and if eating babies is immoral in a certain context, then god would be literally incapable of commanding the eating of babies in that context.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oy-vey, sayeth Nakashima.

Bible points that seem to have been overlooked:

1 - God commands Abraham to kill Isaac. Abraham complies (reluctantly).

2 - Abraham defends Sodom and Gommorah with "Shall not the God of the whole earth do justly?"

In which of those two stories is God or Abraham acting morally? (My vote is only for Abe in 2.)

3 - Eating babies is discussed in Jeremiah, in the situation of starvation during the siege of Jerusalem.

4 - What answer does Job get at the end of his book? Fuck off, I'm not like you.

Taken together, and remember, Abraham loses that argument in story 2, it would seem that the Bibble position on morality is that it is whatever God says it is. And if you don't like it, tough.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



Then there's the another real kicker - God "feeling" regret for having made man:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
5
   Genesis 6:
5 When the LORD saw how great was man's wickedness on earth, and how no desire that his heart conceived was ever anything but evil,
6
   he regretted that he had made man on the earth, and his heart was grieved.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



If God regretted something, doesn't that mean he did something he wished he hadn't? So it's within his nature to do that he knows he will later regret? Good to know that such a god is isn't very smart.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


If the belief is an omniscient god, then he can't do anything that he doesn't already know he will do.  He's in the ultimate deterministic scenario - basically a robot.  And of course that applies to all of us - no free will since we are actually incapable of choosing anything but that which god knows will happen.  All of this was scripted from the beginning...although they never mention by who.

Similar to the Euthryphro (sp?) dilemma.  Maybe we have El Elyon, Yahweh's dad, telling him what to do?
Posted by: phhht on Mar. 03 2011,15:10

At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Mar. 03 2011,17:08

Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.
Posted by: Schroedinger's Dog on Mar. 03 2011,17:40

IBIG, please define "information"...
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 03 2011,17:50

Quote (Schroedinger's Dog @ Mar. 03 2011,17:40)
IBIG, please define "information"...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh, he'll do that all day if you like.  

It's really just a Paley argument:   The genome looks like a computer program and a computer program implies a programmer [organisms look like watches and a watch implies a watchmaker].

In this context, what is meant by "information" is that the genome and the program both have "instructions" that have to be arranged in a purposeful and organized fashion.  Just as the gears in a watch have to be arranged in a purposeful and organized fashion -- and actually, if you get into complicated clockwork automatons, the comparison is extremely close.

Of course, this is strictly reasoning by analogy:  the genome looks like a computer program, the eye looks like a camera, a pig looks like a piggy bank.  Or in other words, since humans imitate nature, nature must be imitating humans.
Posted by: prong_hunter on Mar. 03 2011,18:29

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
   
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster quotes IBIG:

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


"..., which allowed me to type and post this very post."
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


IBIG, glad to see you're back posting on AtBC.

Please help me understand what it is you're asking, exactly.  I don't understand.

Crystals don't 'have' DNA in the sense that biological organisms 'have' DNA.  phhht explained this.

The morphology of crystals is determined by the way elections in the atoms or molecules of the crystal interact with each other, nothing less, nothing more.

But that's not what you're asking, I suspect.

Somehow, I believe, you think you're going to trap Panda's with this clever question.  If I'm wrong, tell me so, and tell me why you asked this question.

Can you do this?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 03 2011,18:34

< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 03 2011,18:56

"INTELLIGENT DESIGN:  Combining all the worst features of creationism and computer science."
Posted by: phhht on Mar. 03 2011,20:05

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
 
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Mar. 04 2011,07:09

Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,20:05)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
 
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read the quote that I responded to and see the similar part inserted in my post:)
Posted by: Stanton on Mar. 04 2011,07:44

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,07:09)
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,20:05)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 03 2011,17:08)
   
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 03 2011,15:10)
At the bathroom wall, Poofster asks:

"Does DNA contain information that determines the morphology of an organism?"

Well, yes and no.  DNA can be said to "contain" information.  By that I mean that given a strand of DNA (and the right equipment),  we can
find out the sequence of codons in the strand.  We can even say that certain sequences of codons "code for" certain morphologies in organisms.  Do those sequences "determine the morphology" of an organism?  Depends on what you mean by "determine".

Since they are mindless, DNA and its various processors have no notion of information content or encoding.  They cannot "contain information"
or "decode" in the way that a mind does. But evolution doesn't require that; DNA works its influence on morphology without those abstract descriptive concepts.   It is only we who use them.

"Do crystals contain a type of DNA that contains information that determines the morphology of crystals?"

Exactly to the extent that DNA contains information that determines the morphology of the DNA.

That is, the morphology of a crystal, like the morphology of DNA itself,
is determined by chemistry.   What that has to do with the relation between DNA and the morphology of an organism escapes me entirely.

I know this is a gotcha setup, Poofster, and I'm eager to see how you
get me.  I love those little pieces of passive-aggressive pseudo-reason of yours.

[I]iB doesn't seem to work for me right now; sorry.[\I]
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You'll probably tell me next that crystals also have something comparable to a gene switch:)

Computer programs are nothing more then a string of bits, we can find sequences of bits that "code for" certain functions. Since they are mindless bits they have no notion of information content or encoding.

DNA does contain information about our morphology, and just about everything about us, just as those bits in a computer program contain information that enable a function/functions of a particular software. The individual bits in the software may seem insignificant but when they are strung together in the proper sequences you end up with wonderful software, which allowed me to type and post this very post.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Read the quote that I responded to and see the similar part inserted in my post:)
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You mean how all this proves that your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science and those evil, stupid, devil-worshiping, God-hating scientists?
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 04 2011,09:16

Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,05:44)
You mean how all this proves that your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science and those evil, stupid, devil-worshiping, God-hating scientists?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Funny how IBIG likes to blither about "information", but refuses to accept the "information" in geomagnetic studies, atomic theory, basic physics, basic chemistry, tree ring data, fossils, the geologic column...

Okay, maybe "funny" isn't quite the right word...

Admit it, IBIG, the only "information" you accept is in that musty old book of Bronze Age campfire tales, and nothing, no other "information" of any kind will ever convince you otherwise.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 04 2011,12:01



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently the answer to that was "no".
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 04 2011,12:14

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 04 2011,12:01)


---------------------QUOTE-------------------
I can't understand your point (and I'm a computer programmer).  Could you clarify?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apparently the answer to that was "no".
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Oh yeah.  Clarifying would make it easy to refute. As long as it's unambiguous, it's easy to say "That's not what I mean." and then divert attention quickly.

IBIG should be proud, he's following the tradition of almost a 100 years of creationist charlatans.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Mar. 04 2011,17:09

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 04 2011,17:18

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,15:09)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


While you're at it, can humans survive all winter with naked limbs?

Can they breathe underwater?

Biggy, it matters not a tittle what polyploidy in humans results in.

Grow up.
Posted by: phhht on Mar. 04 2011,17:24

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)

...could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Your request made no sense to me.   I don't understand what you want an explanation for.

Could you re-state, or elaborate, or something?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Mar. 04 2011,17:28

Quote (phhht @ Mar. 04 2011,17:24)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)

...could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Your request made no sense to me.   I don't understand what you want an explanation for.

Could you re-state, or elaborate, or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Question has to do with the link in Wesley's post, read his link then you will understand the question.
Posted by: phhht on Mar. 04 2011,17:38

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:28)
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 04 2011,17:24)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)

...could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Your request made no sense to me.   I don't understand what you want an explanation for.

Could you re-state, or elaborate, or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Question has to do with the link in Wesley's post, read his link then you will understand the question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read his post.  It's a model of clarity, and I understood it.

You, on the other hand, are a different story. You're unintelligible.
Posted by: Stanton on Mar. 04 2011,17:48

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better yet, IBelieve, why can't you explain how the fact that humans and other animals can not survive polyploidy well, if at all, while plants can is supposed to demonstrate how your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science?
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Mar. 04 2011,17:55

Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,17:48)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better yet, IBelieve, why can't you explain how the fact that humans and other animals can not survive polyploidy well, if at all, while plants can is supposed to demonstrate how your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 04 2011,18:07

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.

If the claim is that evolution cannot increase information anywhere, anytime, anyway, then what I've pointed out shows that is wrong for two formal and one informal definitions of information.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever claimed that all evolutionary information increase proceeded by means of polyploidy, which is about the only kind of claim that could possibly be put at risk by the question you asked. Got any other strawmen you wanna knock down this evening?

For everyone who isn't IBIG, it is well-known that humans and most mammalian species with decent population sizes have a small but non-zero proportion that have alternative karyotypes. Sometimes this confers complete sterility upon the bearers of the alternate karyotype, but certain ones may only have reduced fertility when crossing back to the canonical karyotype. In other mammals, it is well known that line breeding where there's a Robertsonian fusion can establish the new karyotype with full fertility between individuals with that karyotype. The pattern of karyotypes in species of South American peccaries, for example, can provide a trait that yields a tree showing the pattern of common ancestry in that group.

In vertebrates, there is a well-known instance of successful speciation via tetraploidy, which involves Hyla chrysoscelis as the parent species and Hyla versicolor as the daughter species. Lesser-known alterations in karyotype in vertebrates include induced triploid lines of fish via blast overpressure.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 04 2011,18:11

Hey IBIG.  Look up Klinefelter's Syndrome.  Then look up XXYY and explain to us how those are not increases in information.

Be sure to include in your response a statement that you understand that 'function' and 'meaning' have nothing at all to do with the amount of information in the system.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 04 2011,18:11

I checked out a book on polyploidy that had an interesting observation in the front matter. It went to the effect that for any karyotype with more than eleven chromosomes, the odds were very good that the species had had a polyploid event somewhere in its ancestry.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 04 2011,18:12

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:55)
Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,17:48)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better yet, IBelieve, why can't you explain how the fact that humans and other animals can not survive polyploidy well, if at all, while plants can is supposed to demonstrate how your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


No, that's the illogical question.

Do try to keep it straight.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 04 2011,18:22

IBIG, while you're not answering questions.  Here's another on that you won't want to answer.

The human chromosome 2 is the result of the fusion of the chimpanzee chromosomes 2p and 2q.  

What is the informational change in this example?  Did information increase, decrease, or stay the same?  Why?
Posted by: Stanton on Mar. 04 2011,18:51

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:55)
Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,17:48)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better yet, IBelieve, why can't you explain how the fact that humans and other animals can not survive polyploidy well, if at all, while plants can is supposed to demonstrate how your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, there have been thousands of documented examples of both naturally occurring and artificially induced polyploid mutations in plants, IBelieve.

Furthermore, you have deliberately ignored the fact that I and others have already stated that humans and animals fail to develop if tetraploid.

And you continue to evade my question of the logic behind your latest gotcha game.

Why is humans not being able to survive tetraploid mutation supposed to demonstrate your FAITH (sic) magically trumping all of science, while also magically proving that GODDIDIT?

Do not be stupidly arrogant enough to presume that we are too stupid to catch on to your inane games, IBelieve.
Posted by: phhht on Mar. 04 2011,22:26

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2011,18:07)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.

If the claim is that evolution cannot increase information anywhere, anytime, anyway, then what I've pointed out shows that is wrong for two formal and one informal definitions of information.

Nobody, and I mean nobody, ever claimed that all evolutionary information increase proceeded by means of polyploidy, which is about the only kind of claim that could possibly be put at risk by the question you asked. Got any other strawmen you wanna knock down this evening?

For everyone who isn't IBIG, it is well-known that humans and most mammalian species with decent population sizes have a small but non-zero proportion that have alternative karyotypes. Sometimes this confers complete sterility upon the bearers of the alternate karyotype, but certain ones may only have reduced fertility when crossing back to the canonical karyotype. In other mammals, it is well known that line breeding where there's a Robertsonian fusion can establish the new karyotype with full fertility between individuals with that karyotype. The pattern of karyotypes in species of South American peccaries, for example, can provide a trait that yields a tree showing the pattern of common ancestry in that group.

In vertebrates, there is a well-known instance of successful speciation via tetraploidy, which involves Hyla chrysoscelis as the parent species and Hyla versicolor as the daughter species. Lesser-known alterations in karyotype in vertebrates include induced triploid lines of fish via blast overpressure.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


OK Poofster, after reading the other posts, maybe I can understand what you were asking.   Here's how I now understand your question.

If tetraploidy occurred in human beings instead of orchids, would that change the effect on the Shannon-Weaver measure of information, the algorithmic measures, or the layman's measure of information, as discussed in Elsberry's post?

Is that a fair restatement of your question?
Posted by: phhht on Mar. 04 2011,22:33

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:55)
 

---------------------QUOTE-------------------

The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?

---------------------QUOTE-------------------


---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it seems that is what you are asking.  Thanks for the clarification.
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 05 2011,12:58

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2011,18:07)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lethality seems more likely, unless that's what you mean.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 05 2011,13:05

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,12:58)
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2011,18:07)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lethality seems more likely, unless that's what you mean.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.
Posted by: Acipenser on Mar. 05 2011,13:46

Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,18:51)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:55)
Quote (Stanton @ Mar. 04 2011,17:48)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
 
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Better yet, IBelieve, why can't you explain how the fact that humans and other animals can not survive polyploidy well, if at all, while plants can is supposed to demonstrate how your FAITH (sic) magically trumps all of science?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


The post was about increase in information, and the only example of information increase was tetraploidy in orchids. So, the logical question is what would happen if tetraploidy occurred in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Actually, there have been thousands of documented examples of both naturally occurring and artificially induced polyploid mutations in plants, IBelieve.

Furthermore, you have deliberately ignored the fact that I and others have already stated that humans and animals fail to develop if tetraploid.

And you continue to evade my question of the logic behind your latest gotcha game.

Why is humans not being able to survive tetraploid mutation supposed to demonstrate your FAITH (sic) magically trumping all of science, while also magically proving that GODDIDIT?

Do not be stupidly arrogant enough to presume that we are too stupid to catch on to your inane games, IBelieve.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Available data suggests that several lines of fish developed from polyploid ancestors, e.g., carp, salmon, sturgeon.  Given the very large genomes found in Acipenseridae (4N-16N) these data suggest that the sturgeons evolved from a tetraploid ancestor and currently contain chromosome numbers ranging from 99-500.

Production of tetraploid fish is quite common and produce viable animals.  However, if you want to look at how polyploid and tetraploidy affects human development and viability looking at genetic analysis of miscarriages provides the data to answer the question....lethality.


Reviews in Fish Biology and Fisheries 13: 237–246, 2003.

Occurrence of polyploidy in the fishes
Rosalind A. Leggatt & George K. Iwama
Posted by: phhht on Mar. 05 2011,13:50

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2011,13:05)
 
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,12:58)
   
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 04 2011,18:07)
   
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)
       
Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 03 2011,18:34)
< Evolutionary increases in information >

Just, you know, so IBIG can pretend not to have seen it in two places instead of one.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Wesley...if you wouldn't mind could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Probably pre-zygotic reproductive isolation.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Lethality seems more likely, unless that's what you mean.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yep.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Apart from the lethality of tetraploidy in humans, it seems to me that the arguments Elsberry made in his post (< Evolutionary Increases in Information >) for increases in information would still apply.  That is, orchids vs humans is not crucial to the increase in information.

Is that correct?
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 05 2011,14:17

I'm still trying to figure out why an increase of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.  ???
Posted by: jeannot on Mar. 05 2011,14:41

Wesley, reproductive isolation via polyploidy involves populations with different ploidy levels, which requires that polyploidy wasn't lethal in the first place.
/nitpicking  ;)

That's unlikely to happen in humans. But frankly, we know that only empirically because polyploid speciation seems to be rare in mammals. There are various hypotheses on why polyploidy is more frequent in plants, but none is universally accepted, AFAIK.
Posted by: Stanton on Mar. 05 2011,14:55

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increase of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.  ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Creationists try to redefine evolution as being an "increase of information," while deliberately obfuscating the definition of "information."

That way, they want to automatically, arbitrarily dismiss handwave away all examples of evolution as not counting because the examples do not match up with the Creationists' vague, mysterious definition of "information" 110%.

Like, what Michael Behe tried to do with his latest, laughable paper.
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 05 2011,15:00

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increase of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.  ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the purpose of the exercise.  Saying "evolution cannot create new information" is really just saying "I don't believe evolution is possible" -- but saying it in a way that makes it sound, sort of, like a law of physics.  

I have long grown tired of asking creationists how one is supposed to calculate "information".  Occasionally they're clueless enough to try to answer, but usually they just use the question as an occasion to produce more red herrings.
Posted by: phhht on Mar. 05 2011,16:29

Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increas
e of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.
 ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Here's my take on the "increase in information" question.

Intuitively, we all agree that a "No right turn" sign added to an intersection increases the information available to a driver there.  Such intuitions about imperceptible things - love, for example, or disgust - are a common and useful human way of thinking by analogy with things which are perceptible - sand, for example, or heat.  We think that in some respects information is like sand.  Call this the Information is Sand metaphor.

One valid entailment of the Information is Sand metaphor is that folk information, like a volume of sand, can be added to.  We can perceive an increase in sand (by feeling its weight, say), so we easily believe that such perception is equally available for folk information.  But for folk information, unlike a volume of sand, we can't directly perceive such a change.  All we can do is to appeal to our shared intuitions.

Another entailment of the metaphor is that there cannot be an increase in folk information without the addition of some information by an agent.  I think it is this entailment - that of the necessary agent - which underlies the intuitive argument that evolution alone, without the intervention of some agency, cannot increase information. But the metaphorical entailment from sand to folk information is not valid here, in part because we have no corresponding perception of the weight of folk information.  We can't perceive an increase; we can only intuit one.
Posted by: Wesley R. Elsberry on Mar. 05 2011,16:36

Quote (mrg @ Mar. 05 2011,15:00)
Quote (jeannot @ Mar. 05 2011,14:17)
I'm still trying to figure out why an increase of "information" has any relevance to the validity of the evolutionary theory.  ???
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's the purpose of the exercise.  Saying "evolution cannot create new information" is really just saying "I don't believe evolution is possible" -- but saying it in a way that makes it sound, sort of, like a law of physics.  

I have long grown tired of asking creationists how one is supposed to calculate "information".  Occasionally they're clueless enough to try to answer, but usually they just use the question as an occasion to produce more red herrings.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


That's part of why I wrote the response about information increase the way I did. I showed that the assertion failed for the two most-used formal definitions of information and an informal one as well. I don't have to wait around for a probably never-arriving definition from a religious antievolutionist. If they want to continue to claim no information increases are possible, they have to pony up their reason why not, not just assert it.


Posted by: mrg on Mar. 05 2011,16:46

I have gone back and forth with creationist information theory (CIT) stuff -- I even did a writeup on it:

< http://www.vectorsite.net/taifevo.html >

-- but the CIT argument is such obvious bafflegab that I have a hard time keeping a straight face these days.  I'm hoping to find a wittier rejoinder one of these days.

I did come up with one that I really like for the (closely related) creationist SLOT argument:  "Evolution is impossible, because it implies an increase in complexity, and that violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics."

"But that would rule out cars, planes, and personal computers, too.   After all, it's not like we can violate the SLOT, either."

"That's silly."

"You started it."
Posted by: prong_hunter on Mar. 06 2011,10:29

Quote (phhht @ Mar. 04 2011,17:38)
 
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:28)
   
Quote (phhht @ Mar. 04 2011,17:24)
     
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 04 2011,17:09)

...could you explain what is the most likely result with tetraploidy in humans?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Poofster,

Your request made no sense to me.   I don't understand what you want an explanation for.

Could you re-state, or elaborate, or something?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Question has to do with the link in Wesley's post, read his link then you will understand the question.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I've read his post.  It's a model of clarity, and I understood it.

You, on the other hand, are a different story. You're unintelligible.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Congratulations phhht.  You've got IBIG responding to your posts.

Since no one has said it out loud, I'll project IBIG's gotcha:

"Since Man is the image of God, and since tetraploidy as a means of evolution-increasing-information doesn't work in Man, therefore Man is not subject to evolution, and cannot be the product of it."

That's what IBIG wants you to realize.

Has any one been turned to the other side by IBIG's argument?

Didn't think so.
Posted by: rossum on Mar. 06 2011,12:42

Quote (Wesley R. Elsberry @ Mar. 05 2011,16:36)
That's part of why I wrote the response about information increase the way I did. I showed that the assertion failed for the two most-used formal definitions of information and an informal one as well. I don't have to wait around for a probably never-arriving definition from a religious antievolutionist. If they want to continue to claim no information increases are possible, they have to pony up their reason why not, not just assert it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


ISTM that the ID use of 'information' is a reincarnation of the old Creation Science argument about Biblical 'kinds'.  When ID dropped God and replaced Him with the Designer they had to drop all the Bible references as well.  Hence the replacement of "yes, but that is just evolution within a kind" with "yes, that is evolution but there is no increase in information".

The overall technique is still the same.  Pick something ill-defined.  Refuse to define it when asked.  When faced with an awkward question use the word du jour, still undefined, to refute the opposition's argument.  Since the concept remains terminally fuzzy it can be used to respond to a great many questions.

$0.02

rossum
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 06 2011,14:17

I think "creationist information theory" is sort of a "one size fits all" creationist ploy, sufficiently vague to be applied in a wide range of ways:  "It slices!  It dices!  It takes out the garbage!  It walks the dog!  Step right up!"

But ... batteries DEFINITELY not included.
Posted by: fnxtr on Mar. 06 2011,22:18

Quote (mrg @ Mar. 06 2011,12:17)
I think "creationist information theory" is sort of a "one size fits all" creationist ploy, sufficiently vague to be applied in a wide range of ways:  "It slices!  It dices!  It takes out the garbage!  It walks the dog!  Step right up!"

But ... batteries DEFINITELY not included.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


First Tom Waits tune I ever heard, and still my fave.  

And they definitely have the same slick patter, hey?

(Violent Femmes redid it, but not 1/2 as well.)
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 08 2011,16:41

Biggie's back to trolling on Panda's Thumb again.  Sigh, is it something we said?
Posted by: Stanton on Mar. 08 2011,16:50

Quote (mrg @ Mar. 08 2011,16:41)
Biggie's back to trolling on Panda's Thumb again.  Sigh, is it something we said?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Yes, it's the implication that it is actually somehow unfair to teach children to cast unreasonable, unnecessary and downright illogical doubt on Biological Evolution.

Because if you can not force children to believe your Lies for Jesus tm under pain of eternal damnation and social ostracism, the Devil wins.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 08 2011,17:17

The devil's in the (pathetic level of) details...
Posted by: Stanton on Mar. 08 2011,17:33

So now IBelieve is claiming that, because we don't want a pro-Creationism/anti-Science/anti-education bill passed, we are somehow afraid of teaching critical analysis of Evolution(ary Biology), thus, magically disqualifying Evolution(ary Biology) as a science.

Nevermind that IBelieve has repeatedly tied himself in an angry knot every time any of us point out the obvious weaknesses of Creationism.

Like how "God spoke the laws into existence" is not distinct from "God poofed the universe into existence using magic" or "GODDIDIT"

Or that saying "GODDIDIT" does not explain anything at all (nor does saying "God spoke the laws into existence")
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 08 2011,18:03

lol "terminally fuzzy"

i tried for weeks to get the tards at UD to tell me how much information is in a peanut butter sandwich.  The ones that did completely ignore the biological material in the sandwich.  talk about complete analogy fail, and they didn't even get it.  

so, um.... ya know these tards don't really care about what "information" is anyway.  they might as well say herp derp herp
Posted by: mrg on Mar. 08 2011,18:18

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 08 2011,18:03)
The ones that did completely ignore the biological material in the sandwich.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not to mention the agritech needed to raise the peanuts, the industrial processes needed to produce it (and the jars it came in), the distribution and sale of the peanut butter ... ditto for the bread and butter ...

I am glad that thoughts can't kill, because any time a creationist started talking "information" at me, he'd be history.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 08 2011,18:31

it's at root an argument against materialism.  yawn


*ETA i shouldn't yawn so quickly.  that sort of thing is what makes tard so damned entertaining
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 09 2011,08:41

I've been reading a series of books (Star Carrier by Ian Douglas aka Keith Williams Jr (the bastard) if you must know).

In this series nano-technology is a mature tech with the ability to replicate food, building materials, even complete star fighters given time and raw materials.

This actually makes one wonder, what would the information content of a peanut butter sandwich be?  I mean, to build a peanut butter sandwich from raw material (without the intervening steps of growing wheat and peanuts and cows, etc, etc, etc) you need to have a complete molecular description of the entire sandwhich... so how much information would that take?

We're talking the location of every atom, molecule, and ion in a 15cmx15cmx4cm structure.

If we assume that the entire structure is water at 4C.  That's 900ml, which masses about 900grams.  (Yes, much heavier than a PB sandwhich, but the sandwhich is also much more complex than a glass of water.)

900g divided by 18g = 50 mols of water

50 times 6.02X10^23 = 3 x 10^25 molecules of water

If one byte is required for each molecule... and I can easily see it taking more than that.  You need the location of the molecule in 3 axes.  Hmmm... do you need orientation?  hydrogen bonds with which other molecules?

Anyway, 1 byte for each of 3 x 10^25 molecules.  Well, that results in 300,000,000,000,000 terabytes of information in a PB sandwhich (and I maintain that this is on the very low side).

I'll have to think about compression.  Obviously many of the molecules in a PB sandwich are the same... and many of the molecules actual location may not matter, provided that they are homogeneously mixed and in a specific ratio.  So, the formula for peanut butter is just make 1 x, then 2 y, then 1 z, then 1 x... repeat for v volume of peanut butter requested.  Yes, that's much better.

Joe, that's a really good question.  How do you deal with compression in Intelligent Design?

Good grief what am I saying?  Joe doesn't know dog turds about information, compression, or Intelligent Design.  He's still fuming because he can't find an answer to my simple question.  You know that if he actually had an example of design being detected using Demsbki's... ahh... work, they would all be screaming about it every second of the day.  

Oh well... I think I actually have some work today.  back to the salt mines.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 09 2011,10:32

HOW MUCH INFORMATION'S IN A PEANUT BUTTER SANDWHICH?

I'LL TELL YOU HOMOS

ABOUT $1.50

BECAUSE THERE'S NO FREE LUNCH d.t.
Posted by: Erasmus, FCD on Mar. 09 2011,11:00

ogre a full account of the information in those particles would also include the full material history of their interactions with other particles since the beginning of time and/or the particle.

what a pile of shit k.e.. got that shit right
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 09 2011,11:06

Quote (Erasmus, FCD @ Mar. 09 2011,11:00)
ogre a full account of the information in those particles would also include the full material history of their interactions with other particles since the beginning of time and/or the particle.

what a pile of shit k.e.. got that shit right
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not if you are making the particles right then.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 09 2011,16:08

But are the particles real, or virtual?
Posted by: Texas Teach on Mar. 09 2011,17:35

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2011,11:06)
Quote (Erasmus @ FCD,Mar. 09 2011,11:00)
ogre a full account of the information in those particles would also include the full material history of their interactions with other particles since the beginning of time and/or the particle.

what a pile of shit k.e.. got that shit right
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Not if you are making the particles right then.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I don't think even that matters.  It's like figuring out the potential energy in the sandwich. You don't have to know where it's been, only what it's doing/where it is right now.  There's a term for that sort of thing which, I'm embarrassed to say, eludes me for the moment.
Posted by: noncarborundum on Mar. 09 2011,17:37

Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 09 2011,16:08)
But are the particles real, or virtual?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And more important, are they smooth or chunky?
Posted by: Lou FCD on Mar. 09 2011,18:47

Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2011,09:41)
If one byte is required for each molecule...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...it would require a very small mouth, and just about a day longer than forever to eat it.
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 09 2011,21:54

Quote (Lou FCD @ Mar. 10 2011,02:47)
Quote (OgreMkV @ Mar. 09 2011,09:41)
If one byte is required for each molecule...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


...it would require a very small mouth, and just about a day longer than forever to eat it.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Don't forget the gravitational pull from Jupiter.

There's got to be a gazillion bits in that if described in furlongs per fortnight by bushel.
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 09 2011,22:50



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
If one byte is required for each molecule...
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


What if it only takes a nibble? (half a byte)

Henry
Posted by: Henry J on Mar. 10 2011,21:49

Quote (noncarborundum @ Mar. 09 2011,16:37)
Quote (Henry J @ Mar. 09 2011,16:08)
But are the particles real, or virtual?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


And more important, are they smooth or chunky?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Both of course; it's that blasted duality principle of quantum mechanics.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Mar. 21 2011,18:15

Jeremiah 17:7-8 (New International Version, ©2011)

7 “But blessed is the one who trusts in the LORD,
  whose confidence is in him.
8 They will be like a tree planted by the water
  that sends out its roots by the stream.
It does not fear when heat comes;
  its leaves are always green.
It has no worries in a year of drought
  and never fails to bear fruit.
Posted by: OgreMkV on Mar. 21 2011,18:36

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 21 2011,18:15)
Jeremiah 17:7-8 (New International Version, ©2011)

7 “But blessed is the one who trusts in the LORD,
  whose confidence is in him.
8 They will be like a tree planted by the water
  that sends out its roots by the stream.
It does not fear when heat comes;
  its leaves are always green.
It has no worries in a year of drought
  and never fails to bear fruit.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Whatever.

Can you or can you not distinguish between a designed thing and a non-designed thing of the same class and size?

If you can't then ID is useless.  


Why didn't you quote the next bit?  
9 The heart is deceitful above all things
  and beyond cure.
  Who can understand it?

Is your heart deceitful, IBIG?  I think we all know that it is.

Why didn't you quote this bit?

14 Heal me, LORD, and I will be healed;
  save me and I will be saved,
  for you are the one I praise.
15 They keep saying to me,
  “Where is the word of the LORD?
  Let it now be fulfilled!”

Where is the LORD?  Show him to me.  I'll invite him over.  Oh, wait, you can't.

How about that healing thing?  How'd that work out for you?  You had the opportunity to heal thousands of innocent souls from a short lifetime of pain, you ran away.

Answer my questions or go away, coward.
Posted by: IBelieveInGod on Mar. 21 2011,19:17

Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Version, ©2011)

11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
Posted by: Glen Davidson on Mar. 21 2011,20:29

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 21 2011,19:17)
Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Version, ©2011)

11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Captain Kirk, Star Trek:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another dream that failed. There's nothing sadder.
-- Kirk in 'This Side Of Paradise'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More fun by quoting fiction...

Glen Davidson
Posted by: Badger3k on Mar. 21 2011,23:51

Quote (Glen Davidson @ Mar. 21 2011,20:29)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 21 2011,19:17)
Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Version, ©2011)

11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Captain Kirk, Star Trek:



---------------------QUOTE-------------------
Another dream that failed. There's nothing sadder.
-- Kirk in 'This Side Of Paradise'
---------------------QUOTE-------------------



More fun by quoting fiction...

Glen Davidson
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


You know it's bad when they quote their fiction, as if that actually mattered to anyone else.  Really, who cares what some bronze- to iron-age writer thought?  Argumentum ad Bible-verse?
Posted by: Louis on Mar. 22 2011,07:21

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 22 2011,01:17)
Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Version, ©2011)

11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awwwwwwww! Bless! It thinks its little book of old times Harry Potter spells is real. Should we give it a biscuit and set it free in a secluded glen?

Louis
Posted by: k.e.. on Mar. 22 2011,08:15

Quote (Louis @ Mar. 22 2011,15:21)
Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 22 2011,01:17)
Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Version, ©2011)

11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Awwwwwwww! Bless! It thinks its little book of old times Harry Potter spells is real. Should we give it a biscuit and set it free in a secluded glen?

Louis
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


Patently it's the only hope they have.
Posted by: JohnW on Mar. 22 2011,11:07

Quote (IBelieveInGod @ Mar. 21 2011,17:17)
Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Version, ©2011)

11 For I know the plans I have for you,” declares the LORD, “plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


For those of us who have been wondering why everyone prospers and no-one is ever harmed... at last we know the answer.  Thanks, IBIG!
Posted by: prong_hunter on Mar. 23 2011,20:26

Ibiggy sure got a spankin' over on the BW at PT.

Looks like he got his feelings hurt.

Said "BYE!"

Maybe he'd like to come play here.
Posted by: phhht on Mar. 30 2011,11:39

In light of Poofster's delusions about demonic possession and divine healing (his mother, the miracle of the pancreatic gangrene, etc), I found this interesting.

< Treating Possession with Antipsychotics >
Posted by: Lou FCD on April 02 2011,08:40

There's been a cleanup on aisle 5. Find it on the BW.



< Religious Vomit >, by me on Flickr.
Posted by: prong_hunter on July 11 2011,12:19

After many thousands of posts on Panda's BW is there any doubt that IBIG is a preacher?

An itinerant, part-time preacher perhaps, but a preacher nonetheless.  With a cleaning business.  With a wife and two daughters (he said it on BW).

And he calls his anti-logic 'logic'.

BTW, IBIG you live in WV.

No offense intended, but did you meet your wife at a family reunion?
Posted by: OgreMkV on July 11 2011,12:28

Quote (prong_hunter @ July 11 2011,12:19)
After many thousands of posts on Panda's BW is there any doubt that IBIG is a preacher?

An itinerant, part-time preacher perhaps, but a preacher nonetheless.  With a cleaning business.  With a wife and two daughters (he said it on BW).

And he calls his anti-logic 'logic'.

BTW, IBIG you live in WV.

No offense intended, but did you meet your wife at a family reunion?
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


One way you can tell is that he wants an audience.  He won't participate here, with limited viewers.  He thinks the BW at PT is a bigger audience.
Posted by: prong_hunter on July 12 2011,06:55

IBIG replied to Dave Luckett yesterday:

"I know according to you I’m a raving idiot, but I am not stupid enough to claim that I don’t know if I don’t know something:):):) You really stuck your foot in your mouth with that idiotic claim!!! "

IBIG said he is not STUPID enough to claim "I don't know" if he doesn't know something.

This may be my favourite IBIG quote of all time.

He thinks just like an Inquisitor in the Spanish Inquisition.  Scary.
Posted by: pompano on July 16 2011,01:13

I do NOT believe in god. :P and hello :D
Posted by: k.e.. on July 16 2011,09:36

Quote (pompano @ July 16 2011,09:13)
I do NOT believe in god. :P and hello :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


teh speaker in teh ceiling sez
*cRackLE %$#POP FIiiiiizzzzzzzzz***... Atheists please take a number and wait on the blue chairs, the earliest available customer service person will attend to you. That concludes this serice anouncement
Posted by: Louis on July 17 2011,04:59

Quote (pompano @ July 16 2011,07:13)
I do NOT believe in god. :P and hello :D
---------------------QUOTE-------------------


I have debated how to approach this post. Here is the result of my deliberations:

Great! Have a cookie. Hello to you too.

Louis
Posted by: prong_hunter on Jan. 02 2012,17:24

Hey IBIG!

Long time no hear.

Did you see what AiG posted on Jan. 1st?

In an article on Mathematics AiG admitted that God is IMPOSSIBLE!

Can you believe it?

Here's what AiG said concerning Goedel's Incompleteness Theorem:

"There will always be a statement in any system that can’t be shown to be true or false. From a Christian perspective, Gödel proved that complete knowledge is unattainable."

Since God = complete knowledge, and since Goedel proved 'complete knowledge is unattainable', this proves that God does not exist - CANNOT EXIST!

Pretty amazing, isn't it?  From those astute theologians at AiG.
end


Powered by Ikonboard 3.0.2a
Ikonboard © 2001 Jarvis Entertainment Group, Inc.