Seventh-Day Adventists split over evolution?

If the SDAs want “scientifically rigorous affirmation” of Young Earth Creationism, maybe they should contract with the Dishonesty Institute's "Biologic Institute" - they must be making such breakthroughs every day by now.

I grew up as an Adventist, being educated in the Adventist system, and there was definitely a bit of schizophrenia on this point. Science education was VERY important. The Adventists were rightly proud of their history and current work in the field of medicine. We were constantly regaled with stories of Adventist role models, and almost all of them were doctors or researchers. (Ranged from physicians like Ben Carson and the teams of doctors at Loma Linda University Medical Center who have made breakthroughs in organ transplants, to the missionary doctors who slog their way through war zones to give medical care to refugees.) The Adventist elementary and high schools really pushed the sciences - physics, biology, math, with the assumption that Jesus would be very pleased if we could all go to medical school and cure cancer.

The Adventist theory on evolution was acknowledged, just as the church's official position on female clergy (painfully atavistic.) We were made aware of these positions, were told why they existed, and given the biblical or prophetic evidence to support it. Aaaaaand, then not much else was said about it. Our biology classes made no apologies about discussing small scale evolution, such as the development of antibiotic resistant strains of bacteria. We were encouraged to keep up with science news. TV shows like Cosmos, though technically 'wrong' because Carl Sagan spoke of time scales that the church didn't agree with, were considered to be perfectly acceptable because it was important to understand the science of astronomy, and also to appreciate the grandeur of creation.

As in many social situations, the louder somebody is, the more likely observers are to assume that they represent the opinions of their group. There are some very loud, very stupid Adventists out there. Pick up a copy of The Signs of the Times someday just for laughs - they are officially part of the church, but I've met very few Adventists who take them seriously.

As for the Young Earth Creation thing, I think a lot of Adventists sort of nod and smile and ignore the theory. I know most of my teachers did, up through the Adventist college I attended for a while. Intellectually dishonest? Probably, but that's another discussion entirely.

You'll never know for sure.

I thought that here in Finland Laestadianism (a conservative Lutheran revival movement) debunks evolution etc. and I put it on my webpages.
But then one leastadion emailed and told there was evolution-positive article in theirs papers by some teacher. And later there came news that some of them are secularized. In nothern Norway there was serious bitter split and argument among themselves about age of earth.

So I can see that already quite old findings of science still shatter religious movements and split them.

Do the Adventists have a "scientifically rigorous affirmation" of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? I've checked Wikipedia, but they don't have a published number.

Do LSU and PUC receive any federal funding? This seems to me to be the critical issue. Many private institutions actually prohibit such funding specifically so that they can be free to peddle their favorite brand of propaganda.

If they do receive any federal funds, even research grants with overhead, then it would seem that any action taken against the teaching of science on religious grounds would be illegal and unconstitutional.

If they do not receive any federal or state funding, something that would seem unlikely), then of course they are free to peddle whatever clap-trap they choose. Where they are going to get trained professors and where their graduates are going to get jobs is another issue entirely and one they will have to deal with, without the aid of federal or state funding.

Matt G said: Do the Adventists have a "scientifically rigorous affirmation" of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? I've checked Wikipedia, but they don't have a published number.

I attended a Seventh Day Adventist high school and was a member of the church for a few years and my experience was very similar to April's. While the biology teacher stated that he didn't personally believe in "unguided" evolution we were still given a good basic understanding of evolutionary principles. I'm still not sure if my teacher believed in a literal 6 day creation because he never discussed his peresonal beliefs more than that once. We used a standard hs bio text, not a religious one and he taught from that.

In physics we never even discussed creationism. It was big band all the way, and none of the students in my class ever brought up literal creation as a counter-argument.

When I became an atheist and skeptic I was surprised to learn about the involvement of SDAs in the creationist movement because it just never seemed to be something that was all that imortant to the SDAs I knew. Some of us were literal creationists, some not and I never knew anyone who cared either way. But I didn't grow up in the church and was only a member for a few years so my perspective may be skewed.

It's always maddening when creationists talk about making a "scientific" case for their beliefs. Especially maddening is the "we just interpret the same evidence differently" canard. They don't interpret the evidence at all - they just shoehorn it into their dogma. It was flabbergasting to see "anonymouse" (from the last thread) talk about how it was inappropriate to look at the evidence alone! In his/her mind, I guess we must rely on the guidance of the Bible to correctly interpret the evidence and arrive at the correct conclusions. Insane! A nice example of begging the question.

People within the SDA have been trying to purge or EXPELL the La Sierra biology faculty for a while.

Wait and see whether they succeed. They might.

The SDA is famous for schisms. Among their progeny is Armstrong's Worldwide Church of God, a vicious cult that itself shattered into 300 or so pieces and the Branch Davidians who had a little problem in Waco, TX.

It is about time for them to have another schism and there are deep divisions within the membership.

Especially maddening is the “we just interpret the same evidence differently” canard.

Its sad that apparently good professors are going to be hounded out of their jobs and students at La Sierra are going to be denied a decent science education by ignorant fools.

DS said: Do LSU and PUC receive any federal funding? This seems to me to be the critical issue. Many private institutions actually prohibit such funding specifically so that they can be free to peddle their favorite brand of propaganda. If they do receive any federal funds, even research grants with overhead, then it would seem that any action taken against the teaching of science on religious grounds would be illegal and unconstitutional.

Valuable information.

As another poster notes, it's their own business - as long as they are denied all taxpayer funding.

Private schools like La Sierra don't get public funding from the government, so I don't see the big problem.

Obviously there IS a problem as far as their science goes, but according to the law they can teach whatever crackpot sideshow-science they want as long as they aren't funded by taxpayer money.

However, this brings up another huge issue: shouldn't the parents of these kids be considered unfit for custody of their children just by sending them to these loony bin schools? I'm sure I'm not the only one who considers this kind of education as cruel and unusual. None of these kids are going to be fit for any job in the sciences all because their parents decided to send them to a parochial school...

peaches said: In physics we never even discussed creationism. It was big band all the way, and none of the students in my class ever brought up literal creation as a counter-argument.

Joshua wrote:

As long as the government funding isn’t going to any of the religious claims there’s no problem. Religious universities get research grants all the time from the government just like secular universities."

This is not my understanding. Others can correct me if I am wrong. However, it seems to me that using public funds and teaching creationism is science class would definately violate the First Amendment of the Constitution. It would not matter if the funds were allocated for other purposes, it would still be a state sponsored institution and subject to the rules governing such.

In any event, as RDK points out, if they do not indeed receive any public money, there is no proiblem legally. Morally there are still many issues.

harold said: As another poster notes, it's their own business - as long as they are denied all taxpayer funding.

fnxtr said: Heh. That typo reminds me of Zappa's explanation that the universe began with The Big Note. It's still vibrating today.

I think what Josh Zelinsky was saying is that competitively awarded research grants can go to researchers at religious schools. Like any other researcher, these folk must win the grants in open, merit-based competition.

If you’re concerned about possible funding misuse, well, that does happen (and not just for religious motives).

The system attempts to keep such misuse under control by using past performance as an award criteria. To wit: we’re going to ask you what you produced with your first $100k before giving you any more.

If you have no scientific results because you used it to give church lectures instead of looking for a cure for cancer like your proposal said you would, no one’s going to renew it or grant you another.

You guys may be right. However, a sizeable portion of most grants goes to "overhead" which can be used to defray operating costs for the institution. It would seem to me that this could represent state sponsorship. It would be unethical at least for such a state sponsored institution to use government funds in order to promote their own religious agenda.

Perhaps there is a gray area here, but it seems to me that there could be big problems if people are not very careful. Does anyone know of any case law rgardiing these points? It could be an important issue in the culture wars, even though grant funding might not be a big issue for many of these religious institutions.

harold said: However, there is a limit, I think. Liberty University is well past that limit. They create an atmosphere that is clearly hostile to mainstream science, to the extent that it grant money given to any member of their faculty would likely be wasted. If the funded researcher truly pursued valid research, he or she would sooner of later be fired or driven off.

If they used the money for "research" that was just a front to get weasel-worded coded religion into some kind of publication, the grant money would not only be wasted, but arguably used in a way that violates the constitution.

DS said: You guys may be right. However, a sizeable portion of most grants goes to "overhead" which can be used to defray operating costs for the institution.

Generally 7th Day Adventists have not been counted with the fundamentalists. They differ on some very major theological beliefs, and many fundamentalists would even claim that they are not Christian. More moderately and accurately they are called heterodox, or believing different, and somewhat outside the boundaries of classical Christian beliefs. The importance of this is that 7th Day Adventists have surprisingly liberal views (or at least not conservative) on any number of social issues.

Last fall I gave several guest lectures on evolution, geology, and magnetic stratigraphy to the LSU campus, and found that the biology faculty were all legitimate biologists who practiced normal science and rejected all vestiges of YEC in their teaching and research. Several were quite successful in getting NSF grants for their research, and had a good track record in legitimate peer-reviewed publications on herpetology, molecular biology, etc. They would teach classes which were completely in line with conventional evolutionary biology, always forced to introduce their material with nods to Church teaching but demanding that their students understand legitimate evolutionary biology and be able to show their understanding on exams and papers, even if they didn't agree with it. It's scary to see these legitimate scientists now threatened by the Neanderthals in the LSU board who want to drag it back into the Middle Ages--something that none of them thought would happen when I met with them last fall...

something that none of them thought would happen when I met with them last fall…

Thanks Donald. That's good to know.

It seems as though the university will have to give up all of that grant money if they decide to purge themselves of all real biologists. Either the biologists will leave voluntarily if they are not allowed academic freedom and the right to do real research, or they will be forced out by those with a religious agenda. If they are tenured, there will be law suits over this. Either way, the University cannot possibly hope to win if they choose censorship. Their reputation will be tarnished and they will probably never recover. Don't they realize that it's already too late to go down this road?

The real question is whether they will voluntarily give up all federal and state funding, or if they will try to hang unto it dishonestly while persuing their religious agenda. Grants are given to institutions, not just individuals, so this could get really interesting. It might even set some legal precendents, if such do not already exist.

Oh well, at least they would serve as a warning to other institutions who might face the same type of decision.

This is a incompetent presentation of YEC in Evangelical protestant circles historically. it is not the result of this sect or a few thinkers. It was SO the common opinion that the bible is the word of God and all accrate. This would of been, in America, the opinion of millions and a great percentage. They all believed Noah, like Jesus, was exactly a living being as presented. All that happened is small numbers got active in presenting the YEC case from serious study of origin issues to evangelicals and the rest. This particular sect was very interested in high knowledge issues like medicine etc and logically was first to address origin issues.
Dr Morris was a great man, the Luther of creationism, but he only articulated vast common presumptions and put into it serious study of the issues.
As in evolution claims there must be better scholarship here.
are you really saying American dissenters/Evangelicals/fundamentalists/protestants were all card carrying evolutionists in the late 1800's and early 1900's??
Wasn't that way here in Canada.!

Wow, all this creationist drama happening an almost literal stones-throw away from me and I had no idea.

I can add this however. I have been a frequent visitor to the LSU library and while they do have a fair amount of creationist material in their stacks they also have a decent selection of mainstream science references as well. So factor that in for what it might be worth.

The real story is the persecution of scientists by Fundie Xian Death cultists, who have fired, harassed, beaten up, and killed evolutionary biologists and their supporters whenever they can. This is, of course, exactly the behavior of zealots who long ago forgot what the Christ in Christian stood for. These days, fundie is synonymous with liar, ignorant, stupid, and sometimes killer. http://www.sunclipse.org/?p=626 [link goes to Blake Stacey's blog which has a must read essay with documentation of the cases below.] As usual the truth is the exact opposite. The creos have been firing, beating up, attempting to fire, and killing scientists and science supporters for a while now. They are way ahead on body counts. Posting the list of who is really being beaten up, threatened, fired, attempted to be fired, and killed. Not surprisingly, it is scientists and science supporters by Death Cultists. I've discovered that this list really bothers fundies. Truth to them is like a cross to a vampire. There is a serious reign of terror by Xian fundie terrorists directed against the reality based academic community, specifically acceptors of evolution. I'm keeping a running informal tally, listed below. They include death threats, firings, attempted firings, assaults, and general persecution directed against at least 12 people. The Expelled Liars have totally ignored the ugly truth of just who is persecuting who. If anyone has more info add it. Also feel free to borrow or steal the list. I thought I'd post all the firings of professors and state officials for teaching or accepting evolution. 2 professors fired, Bitterman (SW CC Iowa) and Bolyanatz (Wheaton) 1 persecuted unmercifully Richard Colling (Olivet) 1 persecuted unmercifully for 4 years Van Till (Calvin) 1 attempted firing Murphy (Fuller Theological by Phillip Johnson IDist) 1 successful death threats, assaults harrasment Gwen Pearson (UT Permian) 1 state official fired Chris Comer (Texas) 1 assault, fired from dept. Chair Paul Mirecki (U. of Kansas) 1 killed, Rudi Boa, Biomedical Student (Scotland) Death Threats Eric Pianka UT Austin and the Texas Academy of Science engineered by a hostile, bizarre IDist named Bill Dembski Death Threats Michael Korn, fugitive from justice, towards the UC Boulder biology department and miscellaneous evolutionary biologists. Death Threats Judge Jones Dover trial. He was under federal marshall protection for a while Up to 12 with little effort. Probably there are more. I turned up a new one with a simple internet search. Haven't even gotten to the secondary science school teachers. And the Liars of Expelled have the nerve to scream persecution. On body counts the creos are way ahead.

raven said: Below is a canned post from the Expelled days.

Robert wrote:

"This is a incompetent presentation of YEC in Evangelical protestant circles historically."

all the more reason to deny them public funding.

now Robert, do you really think that the biologists at LSU should be allowed to keep their jobs? do you think that they should be allowed to keep their grant money? do you think that they should be forced to teach this incompetent form of YEC? should they be fired for not following the party line, even if they already have tenure? if you want "better scholarship", do you really think that that is the way to go about it?

Robert wrote:

"This is a incompetent presentation of YEC in Evangelical protestant circles historically."

all the more reason to deny them public funding.

now Robert, do you really think that the biologists at LSU should be allowed to keep their jobs? do you think that they should be allowed to keep their grant money? do you think that they should be forced to teach this incompetent form of YEC? should they be fired for not following the party line, even if they already have tenure? if you want "better scholarship", do you really think that that is the way to go about it?

April: I think it’s just as inappropriate to imply that Adventists might murder or assault a biology teacher as it..

raven: The entire La Sierra biology department is on the chopping block now. Who would Jesus expell or fire?

In my opinion, those cures seem both unnecessary and unconstitutional themselves. IMO its better to treat them just as you would proposals from secular universities - no more leniently, but no harsher either.

Besides SDAs are vegetarians

wikipedia: Health and diet Since the 1860s when the church began, wholeness and health have been an emphasis of the Adventist church.[17] Adventists are known for presenting a "health message" that recommends vegetarianism and expects adherence to the kosher laws in Leviticus 11. Obedience to these laws means abstinence from pork, shellfish, and other foods proscribed as "unclean". The church discourages its members from the use of alcohol, tobacco or illegal drugs (compare Christianity and alcohol). In addition, some Adventists avoid coffee and other beverages containing caffeine.

harold said: I'm saying that when the stated policies of the home institution are blatantly at odds with the successful completion of the research, that should be taken into account as a factor.

Surely, if the entire institution is hostile to mainstream science, that should at least be considered when grants for mainstream science are awarded.

But even when an administration is sincere about a policy, administration policy is a poor proxy for more solid indicators of research success/failure like co-funding, number of graduate students supported, and facilities access. What should matter to granting agencies is (e.g.) whether the researcher has access to the needed facilities - not whether they are on or off campus.

If Liberty enforces a strict prohibition against biology research, but a lecturer there has a lab at Virginia Commonwealth University (in Richmond), why should we punish them for their Uni’s policies?

How about we agree that the current “not considered” policy is the best policy until someone collects data that shows that a Universities’ stance on science is correlated to or indicative of future research failure?

eric said: But even when an administration is sincere about a policy, administration policy is a poor proxy for more solid indicators of research success/failure like co-funding, number of graduate students supported, and facilities access. What should matter to granting agencies is (e.g.) whether the researcher has access to the needed facilities - not whether they are on or off campus. If Liberty enforces a strict prohibition against biology research, but a lecturer there has a lab at Virginia Commonwealth University (in Richmond), why should we punish them for their Uni's policies?

Mike Elzinga -

"I am not aware of any really basic research going on at such institutions in which the research goes directly toward concepts that are a threat to sectarians. Most of that kind of research takes place at institutions that get the best talent and resources and have no active administrative policies derived from sectarian beliefs."

I agree with that, and I think it is weak support for my points above.

Note that we are not talking about institutions like Georgetown, which have plenty of sectarians, but sectarians whose sect is not threatened by most types of basic research.

Bringing it back to the specific issue of SDA -

Although Loma Linda University is mainly known for the applied health sciences, the fact is that SDA is one of those sects that has created a university with a track record of contribution to science.

If they start getting nasty about making sure that a purist YEC stance is advocated and promoted at all of their institutions, they run a real risk of creating an atmosphere that is hostile to scientific inquiry, and doing harm to that legacy.

harold said: Perhaps a solution would be to fund a very good grant proposal, but recommend that the researcher take his or her grant and get a new job at an institution that doesn't deny the very basic science which he or she seeks to expand.

trying to do research and train graduate students in an environment that is officially and overtly hostile to the very research itself, is surely a problematic undertaking.

I also have some weak data support for my position - overtly and inflexibly creationist universities are NOT, to the best of my knowledge, getting a lot of research grants.

the existence of a vigorous research faculty at an officially science-denying university would substantially strengthen your assertion that administrative position NEVER matters.

In the absence of such evidence, I'll stick to what I consider the more intuitive position - extreme administrative positions can matter.

eric -

We are, as you note, arguing mainly over hypotheticals.

Perhaps we can split the difference after all.

Maybe you are right that, if there existed an imaginary individual who had a strong track record of valid research and training of graduate students, who was for some reason based in an overtly hostile-to-science institution and succeeding anyway, it might be inappropriate to consider his or her institutional base as a factor in giving grants. In such a highly imaginary and hypothetical situation.

Maybe I am right that, if administrators choose to take a position which is hostile to science, they are likely to damage the pursuit of science at that institution. Not necessarily because federal grants will be refused to faculty, but because administrators will make it an unpleasant atmosphere for faculty.

Here's something we can agree on - a point Raven already made above. The far more likely type of discrimination is not a scientist at an officially creationist university being denied federal grants, but rather, a scientist at an officially creationist university being fired, harassed, threatened, undermined, marginalized, and otherwise unfairly treated.

To put it another way, it's unlikely that you'll ever have to worry about my doubts that Liberty University is an appropriate base for a productive scientist, because LU itself will purge out all the productive scientists, in the unlikely event that a potentially productive scientist is wanted there and insane enough to go there in the first place.

It will be somewhat tragic if Loma Linda University, which has historically been a strong contributor to the health sciences, takes a less tolerant, more dogmatic, creationist attitude, than in the past. They might be taking the first step down the road to scientific irrelevancy, and my opinions on factors that can be weighted in evaluating NIH grant proposals might not have much to do with that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loma_Linda_University#School_of_Public_Health

eric -

Incidentally, it is quite common for individuals who receive a grant to be recruited away, grant and all, from their original institution.

harold said: Here's something we can agree on - a point Raven already made above. The far more likely type of discrimination is not a scientist at an officially creationist university being denied federal grants, but rather, a scientist at an officially creationist university being fired, harassed, threatened, undermined, marginalized, and otherwise unfairly treated. To put it another way, it's unlikely that you'll ever have to worry about my doubts that Liberty University is an appropriate base for a productive scientist, because LU itself will purge out all the productive scientists, in the unlikely event that a potentially productive scientist is wanted there and insane enough to go there in the first place.

Incidentally, it is quite common for individuals who receive a grant to be recruited away, grant and all, from their original institution.

The "Days" of Creation in Genesis 1: Literal "Days" Or Figurative "Periods/Epochs" of Time? "The author of Genesis 1 could not have produced more comprehensive and all-inclusive ways to express the idea of a literal "day" than the ones that were chosen. "There is a complete lack of indicators from prepositions, qualifying expressions, construct phrases, semantic-syntactical connections, and so on, on the basis of which the designation "day" in the creation week could be taken to be anything different than a regular 24-hour day. "The combinations of the factors of articular usage, singular gender, semantic-syntactical constructions, time boundaries, and so on, corroborated by the divine promulgations in such Pentateuchal passages as Exodus 20:8-11 and Exodus 31:12-17, suggest uniquely and consistently that the creation "day" is meant to be literal, sequential, and chronological in nature." http://www.grisda.org/origins/21005.htm *** The Biblical View of the Extent of the Flood "The Biblical flood narrative represents the story of the greatest incision in world history. The events described in Genesis 6:5-9:17 are reported in the same matter-of-fact language as the remainder of the book of Genesis and thus claim to be understood in its plain and literal sense. "The Genesis flood story is neither legend nor myth and neither parable, allegory nor symbol. It is written in the straightforward genre of historical narrative in prose style." http://www.grisda.org/origins/02077.htm

FL,

Got any evidence for that world-wide flood FL? Or are you just peddling interpretations of the Bible that may or may not be compatible with something that obviously never happened in the first place?

An excellent Bible scholar. Check out (and print off) his articles.

Guess we can all go home now.

Got any evidence for that world-wide flood FL?

FL said: No escape hatches on that one.

DS said: Robert wrote: "This is a incompetent presentation of YEC in Evangelical protestant circles historically." all the more reason to deny them public funding. now Robert, do you really think that the biologists at LSU should be allowed to keep their jobs? do you think that they should be allowed to keep their grant money? do you think that they should be forced to teach this incompetent form of YEC? should they be fired for not following the party line, even if they already have tenure? if you want "better scholarship", do you really think that that is the way to go about it?

What never ceases to amaze me is the absolute obliviousness of creationists to basic concepts in logic. In my teaching of science (especially evolution, of course) I have come to realize that people can be perfectly logical and rational... until religion becomes part of the discussion. That's when reason flies out the door. Give them your run of the mill logic test, they'll do just fine. Try to apply the same concepts to areas where science and religious dogmas conflict? Good luck!

Robert,

You completely ignored every one of my questions - AGAIN. Answer the questions! If you want to have a grown up conversation you must do more than just talk to yourself.

DS said: Robert, You completely ignored every one of my questions - AGAIN. Answer the questions! If you want to have a grown up conversation you must do more than just talk to yourself.

What an up to date blog I find here. Immediately after watching the NatGeo program tonight on the Hubble telescope it made me want to compare numbers of galaxies/stars today compared to what was known and lectured by an Adventist (whose name I can't remember) in the now gone,Ambassador Hotel in Los Angeles. I was born and raised an Adventist and remained the same until I finished two years in the Army in 52-54, as an CO and a medic. In 51 I took Astronomy at USC in LA. then one year at the above mentioned LSC it was then, now LSU. I have battled in my head ever since how they could hold to the literal 6000 year theory of creation.

So I just did a quick net research on the relative differences in the number of galaxies/stars in 1950 vs. 2010. Using rough data that I got by starting with Cal Tech, but having to take a guess at the numbers:
1950 When I took Astronomy at USC:

“some billions of stars that make up our galaxy-which in turn is only one of many millions of such galaxies.

I.E. Take 3,000,000 Galaxies x 5,000,000 Stars/Galaxy = 15,000,000,000,000 or 15x10 - 12th power total Stars

2010 Today’s thinking from Cal Tech:
Take 3,000,000,000 Galaxies x 200,000,000,000 Stars/Galaxy = 200,000,000,000,000,000,000 or 5x10-20th power total Stars

Only a minor difference of another 8th power.

I still know several Adventists and they tell me that they see some discussion of the creation problems, but I wondered just how deep it was until I stumbled on this blog while chasing the above growth in the number of galaxies/stars in the last 60 years. They do turn out some of the finest scientists in Health, Nutrition, Medicine, Nuring etc. etc. and it's a shame that they can't see their way clear to open their eyes honestly to other fields.

But then they wind up like I do wondering what is it all about, and what difference does it make whether I was alive or not - Unless I just do my best to serve - which I do as an active Rotarian. It would be comforting to believe that there was a heaven and a chance to go there - but then the world is coming apart somewhat like spelled out in Daniel & Revelation

FL said: By the way, if there are any Adventists or non-Darwinists out there who are wondering where to find some excellent Adventist resources relating to Genesis, let me offer you an SDA scholar whose articles you definitely want to look at:

eric said: ... does his observation that early christians were non-literalists mean that every christian before the reformation was damned to hell? Or does it mean that belief in a literal Genesis is unnecessary for salvation?

FL -

Do you eat shrimp or pork? Do you go to church on Saturday?

How do you feel about the SDA belief that the Bible "literally" commands observation of Jewish law in these circumstances?

If there is more than one "literal" translation, doesn't that present a problem?

"...Odd fact, the average Californian-SDA lives 4-10 years longer than the general population."

Since you think Hasel is an ‘excellent bible scholar,’

....does it mean that belief in a literal Genesis is unnecessary for salvation?

Do you eat shrimp or pork?

(However, I was able to fully demonstrate where the Pope reaffirmed and reinforced the first two of the Big Five Incompatibilities between evolution and Christianity.) Point is, a person can still be a Christian and not believe in a literal Genesis (as I pointed out at ATBC. However, unless they can show how their particular version of Christianity eliminates the solidly-established evolutionist-verified Big Five, the fact remains that those Christians are rationally and Scripturally contradicting their own Christian beliefs by subscribing to evolution.

FL said: Yet, despite being a non-literalist and an allegorist, Augie still believed in a literal instantly-created earth...

Point is, a person can still be a Christian and not believe in a literal Genesis (as I pointed out at ATBC...

FL said:

Got any evidence for that world-wide flood FL?

Well, Dr. Hasel's quoted article was not trying to provide geological evidence for the Flood. Geology wasn't his field of study, the Old Testament was. Instead, he demonstrated that there is only ONE rationally possible interpretation of the biblical Flood text: a worldwide Noahic flood that was purely literal and historical--- not myth, not metaphor, not allegory, and not "local." If (because of a commitment to interpreting the available physical evidence in accordance with uniformitarianism or evolution), you choose to reject the Bible's claim of a literal historical global Noahic Flood, then that's indeed your choice. You said, "Obviously never happened in the first place." Okay, that is your position. After all, Hasel's article says "The rise of uniformitarian evolutionism has been a primary catalyst in challenging the traditional position." Your comment simply reinforces what he wrote. BUT....what Hasel has done, is to make clear that your rational choice genuinely IS to either accept or reject the literalness and historicity of the "Global Flood" Bible claim as written. IOW, Hasel has proved that there AREN'T any theistic-evolution escape-hatches such as "The Flood was limited and localized to the Black Sea or Mesopotamia or Chicago." He's demonstrated that the Bible is NOT offering more than one sustainable interpretation (viz., totally literal, global, and historical) on the Flood issue. No escape hatches on that one. FL

Raging Bee said:

FL said: Yet, despite being a non-literalist and an allegorist, Augie still believed in a literal instantly-created earth...

And once again, FL proves himself to be a lying little shit, desperate to distort the words of his intellectual and spiritual betters now matter how obvious their message is. Yes, St. Augustine believed in a young Earth in his lifetime, because, in his lifetime, there was no science to prove otherwise. Drag him to the present day, and show him what we know now, and he would easily accept the science and remember -- as he explicitly reminded his readers -- that the Bible was about the faith, not about geology or cosmology, and trying to use it for any other purpose was, at best, a waste of time. Augustine's message on this was clear and unequivocal: we're supposed to use the Bible to learn how to relate to God; and believing every vague allegory as literal truth is simply not necessary, and probably a dangerous distraction from the central message.

Point is, a person can still be a Christian and not believe in a literal Genesis (as I pointed out at ATBC...

So now you admit you were lying when you repeatedly asserted that evolution and Christianity were incompatible?

FL wrote:

"If (because of a commitment to interpreting the available physical evidence in accordance with uniformitarianism or evolution), you choose to reject the Bible’s claim of a literal historical global Noahic Flood, then that’s indeed your choice."

So your answer is no, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for a worldwide flood. In fact, the only reason to believe in such a flood appears to be a deep seated psychological need to believe that the Bible is literally true, which it obviously is not.

How kind of you to allow me the choice of not believing in something for which there is no evidence and which cannot even logically be true. My belief has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution. It has nothing to do with uniformatarianism. If you cannot provide any evidence, then I am free to reject your hypothesis and so is everyone else. You don't like it, that's too bad.

So, if you stick to your claim that there is only one rational interpretation of the flood myth in the Bible, then you have indeed falsified a claim made by the Bible. Good job.

peaches said: In physics we never even discussed creationism. It was big band all the way, and none of the students in my class ever brought up literal creation as a counter-argument.

(Constant Mews) It was proven (and you agreed) that your five “incompatibilities” were not scripturally based.

(FL) Point is, a person can still be a Christian and not believe in a literal Genesis (as I pointed out at ATBC…)

(Raging Bee) So now you admit you were lying when you repeatedly asserted that evolution and Christianity were incompatible?

"....(You) cannot reconcile evolution with Christianity simply by declaring that many people see no conflict. The issue is whether they have a sound basis for their opinions." ---eSkeptic article, "Two Views, One Reality", 10-10-2007

Paul Burnett said: If the SDAs want “scientifically rigorous affirmation” of Young Earth Creationism, maybe they should contract with the Dishonesty Institute's "Biologic Institute" - they must be making such breakthroughs every day by now.

Fl wrote:

"Simply saying, “So-and-So is a Christian and So-and-So also believes in evolution, therefore evolution is compatible with Christianity”, does NOT establish compatibility at all, as Rosenhouse correctly pointed out.

Instead, the key issue is “Does So-and-So have a sound basis for his or her opinions regarding compatibility?”

Simply claiming that someone does not have a sound basis for their beliefs does not invalidate their beliefs. That is where you always fall way way short.

In order to demonstrate that Christianity and evolution are incompatible all you have to do is prove conclusively that the accounts in Genesis, (both of them), were dictated directly by God and were meant to be taken absolutely literally. Then all you have to do is show how everyone must accept those two premises in order to be a real Christian. Of course, none of those things is true, so you are going to have a really hard time convincing anyone that they are.

And, as has been pointed out to you repeately, even if those things are true and Christianbity is completely incompatible with evolution, the only thng that you have accomplished is to drive people away from Christianity. You have not shown that evolution is false, or demonstrated one reason why one should not trust the findings of science. Therefore, if your arbitrary religious beliefs and contrary to reality, it is your beliefs that must change, reality doesn't care what you believe. Those of other faiths have already realized this. Those Christian who accept evoluton have already realized this. You seem to be incapable of understanding this. Who cares?

Would it be enough to show the compatibility of Christianity with evolution to note that nobody bothered to say anything about the fixity of species for the first 1500 or so years of Christianity?

And yet, FL, you still appear to be distracting from the fact that, over a hundred pages later in that thread, you failed to convince anyone of the importance of your 5 incompatibilities, especially since you could not lie your way out of the fact that the last two Popes specifically stated that evolution is compatible with Christianity.

Of course, then there's the problem of how you holler about how the concept of evolution is incompatible with Christianity, nevermind the facts that you still use products of evolutionary biology everyday (i.e., food, medicine, pets, houseplants, etc), and that Jesus never explicitly stated that He would specifically deny salvation to those who accepted "descent with modification" as true due to facts, as opposed to those who would deny His salvation to other people...

No, there's the rub. FL can't demonstrate that Christianity is incompatible with acceptance of the Theory of Evolution unless he can demonstrate that Christians are required to believe that the Genesis stories are literal fact. He cannot do this, for such a belief is not, and never was, required of Christians.

In all fairness, Floyd is indeed correct when he argues that just because some people believe that evolution is compatible with Christianity doesn't prove that the two actually are compatible. It does prove however that they can be compatible, at least for some people. In order to claim that they can never be compatible, you must demonstrate that all of these people are either dishonsest or delusional.

The thing that Floyd doesn't seem understand is that his religious beliefs are no better than anyone else's. That's why it is so important to find out what reality really is. That is the only way to objectively test any claim. Unfortunately, Floyd doesn't seem, either willing or able to examine reality. He also doesn't seem to understand that that is why no one cares to argue with his about his religious beliefs, unless it is on the bathroom wall.

I'll make this real easy for you Flyod, Please quote directly the passage in the Bible where it demands belief in the literal truth of the accounts in Genesis as a prerequisite for salvation. If you cannot, then please don't try to push your personal rubbish ehere again. Unless of course you want to claim that one can be saved and go to heaven without being a "real Christian".

DS said: I'll make this real easy for you Flyod, Please quote directly the passage in the Bible where it demands belief in the literal truth of the accounts in Genesis as a prerequisite for salvation. If you cannot, then please don't try to push your personal rubbish ehere again. Unless of course you want to claim that one can be saved and go to heaven without being a "real Christian".

FL,

I's a waitin.

You should have no trouble with this. You claim that you need to believe in a literal interpretation of the Bible in order to be a real Christian. If so, where exactly does the Bible say this? You didn't just make it up did you?

If you refuse to answer, I'll answer for you. You won't like it.

Floyd you fool the only thing that "fell short" at ATBC was your explanation for why you said God was not part of the required explanation for why water flows downhill when you said God was part of the required explanation for the existence of water. You ain't got nothing, little man.

It’s always maddening when creationists talk about making a “scientific” case for their beliefs. Especially maddening is the “we just interpret the same evidence differently” canard. They don’t interpret the evidence at all - they just shoehorn it into their dogma. It was flabbergasting to see “anonymouse” (from the last thread) talk about how it was inappropriate to look at the evidence alone! In his/her mind, I guess we must rely on the guidance of the Bible to correctly interpret the evidence and arrive at the correct conclusions. Insane! A nice example of begging the question.

Flyod,

You had your chance. Do you remember this quote from the Bible:

Believe in the Lord Jesus Christ with all thine heart, (and believe in a six day literal creation less that 10,000 years ago and don't believe in evolution), and thou shalt be saved and thine house.

Oh wait, that part in parentheses isn't in there! Huh, who would have guessed? Oh well, at least, if I take the Bible literally, I know that not only can I be saved but my house as well. That's good to know, cause I paid a lot of money for that house. And they say you can't take it with you. They should literally read their Bible.

Now Floyd, you have two choices here. Either go away and don't come back, or admit that you were completely wrong. If you do that, maybe someone will read something you write in the future.

Steve wrote:

"I have yet to see one single paper that actually models the darwinian unguided, purposeless, step-wise construction of a cellular mechanism, system, or organelle."

That's really funny. I have yet to see one single paper that seriously proposes any alternative model whatsoever, let alone a step-wise construction.

Why don't you tell us exactly what you think evolution is incapable of, or what mdel you feel is indaequate, or what details are not sufficient and maybe we can discuss the evidence. Notice that you will be held to the standard you demanded, therefore some nebulous statement from personal incredulity will not be taken as evidence against evolution.

Why don't we start with the origin of mitochondria. The mechanism proposed is endosymbiosis. There are many lines of ervidence that independently confirm the predictions of this hypothesis. There is nothing that would prevent this from happening and every reason to believe that it actually did happen. Is that good enough for you, or do you require more details? Do you want references form the scientific literature? Would you read them if I provided them? Would you provide references for any alternative hypothesis, or would you simply say that no evidence would be good enough for you?

Steve P. said: I have yet to see one single paper that actually models the darwinian unguided, purposeless, step-wise construction of a cellular mechanism, system, or organelle.

DS said: Do you want references form the scientific literature? Would you read them if I provided them? Would you provide references for any alternative hypothesis, or would you simply say that no evidence would be good enough for you?

(This important point was repeatedly offered to Constant Mews and other posters, btw, and remains unrefuted to this day.)

It's refuted every time it is observed that large numbers of Christians -- Christians more intelligent and honest than FL, and who follow the teachings of Christ more reliably than FL -- have indeed reconciled evolution with their belief. And no, their belief does not have to meet any arbitrary condition set out by a liar like FL in order to be valid.

Steve P. said: I have yet to see one single paper that actually models the darwinian unguided, purposeless, step-wise construction of a cellular mechanism, system, or organelle.

Steve P. said: I have yet to see one single paper that actually models the darwinian unguided, purposeless, step-wise construction of a cellular mechanism, system, or organelle.

TomS said:

Steve P. said: I have yet to see one single paper that actually models the darwinian unguided, purposeless, step-wise construction of a cellular mechanism, system, or organelle.

I have yet to see a creationist describe what a non-darwinian process is supposed to be like. What sort of thing is the result of a creation/design process and what sort of thing is not. What it would look like if we were to observe a creation/design event taking place.

poof!

Steve P.:

I have given up checking the other threads to see if you finally answered my question on whether you have ever challenged other "kinds" of evolution-denier. If you have answered it, would you kindly provide a link? If not, would you mind answering it here?

Speaking of "poof," from what you have said, you must have at least as much objection to that as you have with "RM + NS." Certainly the versions of "poof" that claim that it all happened in a few days ~6000 years ago. If it's hard for you to believe that genes for secretory systems rearranged over millions of years to become genes for primitive flagella, it must be downright impossible to believe that millions of multicellular eukaryotes assembled out of dust in one busy week.

I have yet to see a creationist describe what a non-darwinian process is supposed to be like. What sort of thing is the result of a creation/design process and what sort of thing is not. What it would look like if we were to observe a creation/design event taking place.

— TomS

Steve P. said: Matt G, What is truly begging the question is proponents of Darwin's take on evolution appealing to emergence to frogleap over the need to model the innumerable biological development thresholds life came up against. I have yet to see one single paper that actually models the darwinian unguided, purposeless, step-wise construction of a cellular mechanism, system, or organelle. NS acting on RM+GV explains only the most basic of adaptive changes in species. Beyond that, it has nothing to say empirically.

Nor has he clearly defined what, exactly, these "development thresholds" are.

Sounds like more "entropy barrier" bullshit to me.

A vague uneasiness with modern evolutionary theory is not a working model, Steve P.

Steve,

Still waitin.

Do you admit that the theory of endosymbiosis is well supported by the evidence? Do you admit that unguided processes can indeed produce complex structures such as the mitochondria? Do you admit that you have no alternative explanation with any predictive or explanatory power? Do you admit that your personal incredulity and ignorance are not evidence?

I'll ask the same questions every time you show up. Unitl you answer, everyone will see that your beliefs are irrelevant.

Some google hits yielded some interesting info.

There is a hardcore fundie faction that really is out for blood. They want the biologists burnt at the stake fired. They may well end up fired and Expelled.

There are 15 SDA universities in the USA. They are going to go after them all.

WITCH HUNT!!! We all know what is going on. This is a multi-millenia old religious past time. The witch hunt.

Unless things die down, an unlikely propect, the SDA's are in for a period of purges, firings, witch hunts, trials for heresy, excommunications, schisms, and people leaving the sect. Standard xianity, although these days the battles usually involve rhetoric rather than blood and iron.

Who would jesus purge, fire, hunt down, burn at the stake, or kick out?

Why don’t you tell us exactly what you think evolution is incapable of, or what mdel you feel is indaequate, or what details are not sufficient and maybe we can discuss the evidence. Notice that you will be held to the standard you demanded, therefore some nebulous statement from personal incredulity will not be taken as evidence against evolution.

Why don’t we start with the origin of mitochondria. The mechanism proposed is endosymbiosis. There are many lines of evidence that independently confirm the predictions of this hypothesis. There is nothing that would prevent this from happening and every reason to believe that it actually did happen. Is that good enough for you, or do you require more details? Do you want references form the scientific literature? Would you read them if I provided them? Would you provide references for any alternative hypothesis, or would you simply say that no evidence would be good enough for you?

Steve P. said: Adaptive mechanisms are incapable of helping organisms break their adaptive landscape. E.coli, under pressure, was able to metabolize citrate. How many others was it able to metabolize? And when it succeeded to metabolize a new substrate, how did that new ability affect its ability to metabolize substrates it was previously exposed to? As well, how many substrates did e. coli fail to metabolize? If so, why not? ID predicts that environmental pressure put on an organism will not induce it to produce 'solutions' beyond a certain point. That is the conclusion of The Edge of Evolution. If this is correct, then it would show that adaptive mechanisms cannot be responsible for historical biological development.

I take it, then you refuse to look at Lenski’s generation by generation documentation of the literal step by step mutations a colony of Escherichia coli underwent to develop the ability to metabolize citrate...

I have yet to see a creationist describe what a non-darwinian process is supposed to be like. What sort of thing is the result of a creation/design process and what sort of thing is not. What it would look like if we were to observe a creation/design event taking place.

Steve P writes... Adaptive mechanisms are incapable of helping organisms break their adaptive landscape.

E.coli, under pressure, was able to metabolize citrate. How many others was it able to metabolize? And when it succeeded to metabolize a new substrate, how did that new ability affect its ability to metabolize substrates it was previously exposed to?

As well, how many substrates did e. coli fail to metabolize? If so, why not?

ID predicts that environmental pressure put on an organism will not induce it to produce ‘solutions’ beyond a certain point. That is the conclusion of The Edge of Evolution. If this is correct, then it would show that adaptive mechanisms cannot be responsible for historical biological development.

I have given up checking the other threads to see if you finally answered my question on whether you have ever challenged other “kinds” of evolution-denier. If you have answered it, would you kindly provide a link? If not, would you mind answering it here?

Steve P. said: Shit, are you going to tell me that the simple cell, lacking an adequate powerplant, was able to convert the bacteria into mitochondria, in order to increase is energy output, which would allow it to grow faster and stronger, all by chance processes?

Charles Darwin said: When we look at the plants and bushes clothing an entangled bank, we are tempted to attribute their proportional numbers and kinds to what we call chance. But how false a view is this!

All any specific organism has to do is survive to the next generation, typically a task that has a forthright solution.

Steve P. said: ID predicts that environmental pressure put on an organism will not induce it to produce 'solutions' beyond a certain point.

Steve P. said: Seriously, how does any organism know to survive to the next generation?

Steve P. said: What drives e.coli to even attempt to metabolize a new substrate? Does it know? Do its molecules know? Does it's DNA know? If not, then just what is it that drives it to 'try' to survive? It doesnt even have a brain.

Steve P. said: How does an organism recognize a solution is at hand. It doesn't, does it?

Steve wrote:

"But this begs the question how? If mitochondria is the result of a simple cell absorbing cynobacteria in order to create a powerplant in short order, then how was that accomplished without design?"

It begs nothing. I told you there was a vast literature about this. Just because you haven't read it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. And begging the question by assuming that it could not happen is mush worse when the evidence indicates that it in fact did occur.

Steve P. said: And that [if] for each success in metabolizing a new substrate, it loses previous capabilities? Rather we can conclude that e.coli is not evolving in the darwinian sense, where it is increasing fitness, but simply is able from the flexibility it already possesses, to be able to maintain its fitness by being able metabolize new substrates, but at a cost.

So e.coli is not establishing empirical support for historical biological development of organisms but simply the limits of current organisms adaptive landscapes.

Steve wrote:

"Easy enough. Take DS’s example of mitochondria. If in fact mitochondria was the result of an ancient cell being able to ‘commandeer’ a bacterial cell and make it work for the host cell, how is that not an example of embedded intelligence?"

Easy enough, how is it an example of any kind of intelligence? If you claim it is, the burden of proof is on you.

I told yuu we could observe endosymbiosis happening in the lab every day. You should certainly be able to demonstrate the intellligence involved, right?

Steve P. said: Adaptive mechanisms are incapable of helping organisms break their adaptive landscape.

Steve P. said: ID predicts that environmental pressure put on an organism will not induce it to produce 'solutions' beyond a certain point. That is the conclusion of The Edge of Evolution.

Steve P. said: If this is correct, then it would show that adaptive mechanisms cannot be responsible for historical biological development.

Why don’t you tell us exactly what you think evolution is incapable of, or what mdel you feel is indaequate, or what details are not sufficient and maybe we can discuss the evidence. Notice that you will be held to the standard you demanded, therefore some nebulous statement from personal incredulity will not be taken as evidence against evolution.

Steve wrote:

"Seriously, how does any organism know to survive to the next generation?"

Seriously, why would you think that it had to? Do water molecules have to learn the definition of diffusion in order to know to move down a concentration gradient? Do animals not die unless they know they are supposed to? You are hopelessly stuck in animistic thinking. Grow up already.

I'll make this real simple for you Steve. Just answer one question. Why do you think that the DNA in your mitochondria is genetically more similar to purple bacteria than it is to the DNA in the nucleus of your cells? No animastic BS, no personal incredulity, just answer the question. I'll be waiting.

Steve P. said: Seriously, how does any organism know to survive to the next generation? Its as if the abstract notion of the group, is already known by individual organisms, so each one slaves to this idea. How can that be? Why is any organism interested in survival?

How does any organism recognize the survival imperative? It has to be embedded.

How does an organism recognize a solution is at hand. It doesn't, does it?

Steve wrote:

"How did that ancient simple cell recognize the need to increase its energy output in the first place? If no intelligence was involved, then the bacteria and the host cell would never meet or interact, since at that early stage of biological development, there could not have been any offensive or defense mechanisms present in these lifeforms. It was way too early for them."

You want details, I'll give you details. Just remember, you demanded them. You had better read every oine of the papers I am going to cite. If you cannot refute their findings you will have to admit that you are wrong and that your understanding of evoution is so rudimentary as to preclude your participation in any serious discussion.

Here is a paper that describes the selection pressures that drove the endosymbiosis. (There are many more where this came from).

Journal of Theoretical Biology (2007) 248:26-36

It shows the conditions under which mutualism was favored and the selection pressures maintaing the mutualism today, as evidenced by genetic diseases in humans.

Still waiting for your response to the genetic similarity data. I will provide references for that as well if you refuse to respond. Then I have about a dozen other questions and references for you. Are you sure you want to play this game? Why don't you just admit that haven't read any of the literature and excuse yourself. That would save a lot of embaressment for you later.

Steve P. said: Sorry Frank J, I lost track. I try to follow up all posts. But my work doesn't always allow me to post each and every day. And if I don't then the timing slips and people move on to new threads. Maybe my living in Taiwan can be a timing issue as well, I dunno. Anyway, if you would be so kind as to refresh my memory of your original question. I won't dodge it, really. Swear ta Go........Er sorry, Scots honour.

I have given up checking the other threads to see if you finally answered my question on whether you have ever challenged other “kinds” of evolution-denier. If you have answered it, would you kindly provide a link? If not, would you mind answering it here?

What drives e.coli to even attempt to metabolize a new substrate? Does it know? Do its molecules know? Does it’s DNA know?

If not, then just what is it that drives it to ‘try’ to survive?

phantomreader42 said: Wow, that's amazing! So many words pretending to be willing to answer a question, which you've quoted, but not a single word of an ANSWER! You even pretend not to know what the question is, when it's quoted right in your post!

Concerning the question of how an organism knows what to do, I suggest an analogy in the Principle of Least Action.

There is an interesting coincidence here. A version of that is known as Maupertuis' Principle, named for the very Maupertuis who is credited with an early version of Natural Selection.

For those interested, start with the Wikipedia articles on Maupertuis' Principle and on Maupertuis.

Steve,

Still no response eh? Well, remember when I told you that you would be held to the same standard that you demanded of everyone else?

Why did God fail to give bacteria organelles in the first place? Why did she give them organelles over a billion years later? Why didn't she give all of them organelles? If she needed to give some of them organelles, why are the ones without organelles still doing just fine? Why did she make the DNA inside the organelles similar to cyanobacteria and purple bacteria? Why did she make them dependent on nuclear genes? Why did she give them asexual instead of sexual reproduction? Why didn't she give them histones?

Now all you have to do is provide answers to all of these questions, complete with references from the scientific literature and we can continue the discussion.

See Steve, you can cry about intelligence and planning all you want, but nature shows absolutely no evidence of that. In fact, it shows exactly what one would expect in the absence of that. Simply assuming that intelligence is required for what we see, now that is begging the question, grasshopper.

phantomreader42 said: Your nebulous statement from personal incredulity is rejected. Come back when you have evidence. Knowing IDiots, that'll be about the time the sun goes nova.

Dan said:

phantomreader42 said: Your nebulous statement from personal incredulity is rejected. Come back when you have evidence. Knowing IDiots, that'll be about the time the sun goes nova.

Current thinking about stellar evolution is that the sun is not massive enough to become a nova or a supernova. Instead, in about 6 billion years, the sun will expand into a red giant and engulf the earth. And come to think about it, since the sun will never go nova, you're right that IDers will present evidence about when the sun goes nova.

phantomreader42 said:

Dan said:

phantomreader42 said: Your nebulous statement from personal incredulity is rejected. Come back when you have evidence. Knowing IDiots, that'll be about the time the sun goes nova.

Current thinking about stellar evolution is that the sun is not massive enough to become a nova or a supernova. Instead, in about 6 billion years, the sun will expand into a red giant and engulf the earth. And come to think about it, since the sun will never go nova, you're right that IDers will present evidence about when the sun goes nova.

I was in fact aware of that, and had that meaning in mind. :)

DS said: You want details, I'll give you details. Just remember, you demanded them. You had better read every oine of the papers I am going to cite. If you cannot refute their findings you will have to admit that you are wrong and that your understanding of evoution is so rudimentary as to preclude your participation in any serious discussion. Here is a paper that describes the selection pressures that drove the endosymbiosis. (There are many more where this came from). Journal of Theoretical Biology (2007) 248:26-36 It shows the conditions under which mutualism was favored and the selection pressures maintaing the mutualism today, as evidenced by genetic diseases in humans. Still waiting for your response to the genetic similarity data. I will provide references for that as well if you refuse to respond. Then I have about a dozen other questions and references for you. Are you sure you want to play this game? Why don't you just admit that haven't read any of the literature and excuse yourself. That would save a lot of embaressment for you later.

Dan said:

phantomreader42 said: Your nebulous statement from personal incredulity is rejected. Come back when you have evidence. Knowing IDiots, that'll be about the time the sun goes nova.

Current thinking about stellar evolution is that the sun is not massive enough to become a nova or a supernova. Instead, in about 6 billion years, the sun will expand into a red giant and engulf the earth. And come to think about it, since the sun will never go nova, you're right that IDers will present evidence about when the sun goes nova.

It begs nothing. I told you there was a vast literature about this. Just because you haven’t read it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. And begging the question by assuming that it could not happen is mush worse when the evidence indicates that it in fact did occur.

This is not a “prediction” until someone from the ID community says where that “point” is.

Do you have the slightest speck of evidence to support this assertion? No, you don’t. If you did, you would have offered it by now. If you actually had evidence to back up your claims, you wouldn’t be whining and babbling so much, wasting your time spewing idiocy. If you actually had evidence, you wouldn’t be a total waste of air.

Fitness is a measure of how well an organism competes in a local, specific environment. There is no larger sense. Your intuition that the ability to digest two things is better than the ability to digest one is wrong. If sugar is no longer available, then maintaining the molecular machinery needed to digest it is just a useless waste of food. Its a drag on the organism’s resources. Evolution predicts that over many generations, this drag will be lost, because a bacteria who spend less resources building and maintaining it will generally outcompete the bacteria which spend more on it. Thus TOE would predict that this ability would be lost, because the organism without it will be more fit. The key is remembering that “fit” and “unfit” refer only to the local environment, nothing more.

And I notice that you didn’t bother actually answering the question. You failed to specify exactly what you think evolution is incapable of, just babbled about an “edge” that you can’t even be bothered to locate or describe.

I’ll make this real simple for you Steve. Just answer one question. Why do you think that the DNA in your mitochondria is genetically more similar to purple bacteria than it is to the DNA in the nucleus of your cells? No animastic BS, no personal incredulity, just answer the question. I’ll be waiting.

You want details, I’ll give you details. Just remember, you demanded them. You had better read every oine of the papers I am going to cite. If you cannot refute their findings you will have to admit that you are wrong and that your understanding of evoution is so rudimentary as to preclude your participation in any serious discussion.

You’re observing the surivors of a billion-year competition and wondering why they seem to have just those traits one would need to to win a competition.

Look, this isn’t rocket science. Why are NBA basketball players tall? Why do today’s organisms have a drive to survive and procreate? Same reason in both cases - because the ones who don’t have this trait generally get outcompeted by the ones who do.

Steve P. said: Behe shows clearly that the malaria parasite is not able to overcome sickle cell. And it can barely stand Chloroquine.

Anyway, if you would be so kind as to refresh my memory of your original question. I won’t dodge it, really. Swear ta Go.….…Er sorry, Scots honour.

— Steve P.

Steve,

Go right ahead. The article answers the question you posed. If you should happen to find some words in the article like "probably" or "perhaps" or "tentative" that will not prove that you are right about anything. All it will prove is that that is the way tha science works. If you do actually read the paper, as opposed to quote mining and misrepresentation, you will be the first creationist to actually do so. Thanks at least for trying.

The point is that there was, and continues to be, significant selection pressure for mutualism. We can observe this in operation in the laboratory. There is no intelligence needed. There is no will, foresight or planning on the part of the orgnanisms involved. Selection is sufficient to produce a mutually beneficial relationship.

Apparently you are intellectually incapable of understanding the the concept of hypothesis testing. If mitochondria are the result of endosymbiosis, then there will be genetic evidence. The fact that animal mitochondrial DNA is prokaryotic in nature and that it is genetically similar to prokaryotic DNA is strong evidence in support of the theory of endosymbiosis. If you have no alternative explanation for this data, then how can you possibly conclude that endosymbiosis did not occur? There are at least a dozen other lines of independent evidence for this theory. Are you going to handwave them all away?

You seem to have a baisc misconception about selection and competition. The environment includes other organisms. Selection can incude competition with other organisms. Competition will occur between organisms that have aerobic respiration and those that do not. Why do you think that bacteria cannot compete with each other? If you don't understand even the basics of selection and competition, how can you possibly hope to pass judgement on the endosymbiosis theory? Who will care if you do?

Now, what about the fifteen other questions I asked? What about the alternative explanation I requested? What about the scientific references I requested? You got anything? Anything at all? Thought not.

Steve P. said: Dude, you didn't read The Edge. Behe shows clearly that the malaria parasite is not able to overcome sickle cell. And it can barely stand Chloroquine.

Steve,

I'll make this easy for you. Here is a link to a good web site that outlines the evidence for the endosymbiosis theory of the origin of mitochondria:

http://science.jrank.org/pages/48413/Endosymbiont-Theory.html

It is complete with references. Here are a few relating to the phylogenetic analysis that has identified the bacteria from which the mitochondria were derived:

Science 283:1476-1481 (1999)

Nature 387:493-497 (1997)

Annual Review of Genetics 33:351-397 (1999)

Notice that I have chosen only the shortest and most accessible references.

Now Steve, "I don't know" is not a sufficient response to the question that these papers address. Of course, if you had a scientifically valid rebuttal, I guess you would have published it already now wouldn't you?

Wew can keep going here as long as you want Steve. Unless you can refute all of the evidence gathered in the last twenty years, then you will have to admit that random unguided processes can indeed create complex systems such as the mitochondria. Still waiting for your alternative explanation by the way.

Steve,

As long as you are reading that selection paper, you might as well check out the references in it. Here is another one about the phylogenetic analysis:

Biochem Biophys ACTA 1635(3):345-551 (1998)

Also, here is a more recent general article:

Nature 440(7084):623-630 (2006)

Isn't this fun? We are learning so much. When we are done with the genetic analysis and the selection stuff, we can move on to antibiotic resistance. I eagerly await your responses.

Steve,

While you are reading those papers, here are som,e more questions for you.

Why are there no intergenic spacers in animal mitochondrial DNA? Why are there no introns in animal mitochondrial DNA? Why is animal mitochondrial DNA transcribed as a single polycistronic transpcript? Why is there no G capping or poly A tailing in animal mitochondrial DNA? Why is animal mitochondrial DNA copied by a different DNA polymerase than the nuclear DNA? Why is animal mitochondrial DNA inherited asexually and not sexually? Why are all of these prokaryotic features found in animal mitochondrial DNA in animal cells?

Now Steve, we both know where this is headed. No matter how much detail I provide, you will still claim that it isn't good enough. You will refuse to believe that endosymbiosis occurred even though you have no explanations for the evidence or any alternative hypothesis to offer. You will demand reference after reference and provide none whatsoever yourself. Why don't you just admit that you were wrong and end it here?

Bleh.

I was going to point to a whole bunch of hox explanations but it's pointless. Steve will just say crustaceans and insects are just "microevolution" of the arthropod plan, and "it couldn't have happened without intelligence", offering no proof except that he just knows, that's all.

Another Robert Byers.

Steve P. blithered thusly: Seriously, how does any organism know to survive to the next generation? Its as if the abstract notion of the group, is already known by individual organisms, so each one slaves to this idea. How can that be? Why is any organism interested in survival? What does it care for the population? How does any organism recognize the survival imperative? It has to be embedded. Otherwise, how do you explain it in empirical terms? A forthright solution you say? What does that even mean? Sounds like design terminology to me. How does an organism recognize a solution is at hand. It doesn't, does it? It can't from a darwinian perspective. So how is it intelligible? What drives e.coli to even attempt to metabolize a new substrate? Does it know? Do its molecules know? Does it's DNA know? If not, then just what is it that drives it to 'try' to survive? It doesnt even have a brain. So how does it process information? Does it even know its processing information? Why does it do that?

Steve P. said: BS. Competition is an illusion. Organisms if anything compete against the environment, not against themselves. Organisms need each other to survive. Competition is counter-productive.

Raging Bee said: Having made such a spectacular "argument" from such complete and obvious ignorance, Steve P. is now in a position where he cannot pretend to bring any insight or competency to an argument about evolution. He really has no clue what anyone is talking about here, so there's realy no use in trying to explain anything to him.

Stevie P. blithered:

BS. Competition is an illusion. Organisms if anything compete against the environment, not against themselves.

Wow. Just wow. How much PCP did Stevie P have to smoke to get this stupid?

eric is right: this wanker isn't worth our trouble.

Steve P. said: Eric, how is the bacteria competing? It was pressured to metabolize citrate. It was not competing against anything except the environment.

Second, if e.coli encounters citrate and modifies itself but loses the capability to say metabolize sugar, the what happens when it is reexposed to sugar after successfully climbing the citrate hill?

Fitness must be measured against the environment, not other organisms.

Steve P. said:

This is not a “prediction” until someone from the ID community says where that “point” is.

Dan, Pointing to the edge is not the prediction but confirmation of the prediction. ID says organisms have an edge. How to confirm the prediction? Point to the edge. How to point to the edge? Do in depth studies of how many substrates a bacteria can handle, map the changes to its genome, analyse the results. Do this repeatedly with as many bacteria you can handle, plot the results for each bacteria, produce a matrix, then you will have a solid picture of bacterial adaptive landscapes. It may show that bacteria are flexible in the extreme where there is alot of overlap in metabolic capabilities, or it may show distinct differences in what each species or group of species can do? From there we can do many subsequent studies to further elucidate the reason for these differences. My take is the more we study the more it will point to clear limits for each species. We will then be able to draw adaptive districts, like an election map.

At 5:07 am, Steve P. said: Oh yeah. Let's go for it. I saw that article before. All speculation.

At 5:03 am, Steve P. said: What pressure was it under? It most certainly was not competitive pressure. How could it be in that early environment?

Steve P. said: BS. Competition is an illusion. Organisms if anything compete against the environment, not against themselves. Organisms need each other to survive. Competition is counter-productive.

Steve P whines... Fitness must be measured against the environment, not other organisms.

2.2. Two player game theoretic analysis As a second approach, we considered a game-theoretic analysis of metabolic benefits for each of the populations. This approach does not require a continuous variable approximation, or that the populations are in a fixed steadystate relationship. The analysis is specifically designed to separate the individual benefits to each of the partners (PMP and host-cell) in the relationship. In the game-theoretic analysis the degrees to which the PMP and host-cell share nutrients (CM and CH) can be interpreted as their willingness to cooperate with the other cell (Turner and Chao, 1999). Rationality within the cells is not implied. Mutation will move the cells through the phenotypic space of cooperation levels, and selection will cause populations to ‘‘choose’’ a particular level of cooperation if it is advantageous. However, the cooperativities that the cells can adopt reflect strategies in a non-zero-sum game, and allow a game theoretic interpretation (Axelrod, 1984; Maynard-Smith, 1982; Von Neumann and Morgenstern, 1944). If all other parameters are fixed at the same values given above, then associated with every set of cooperativities will be specific net reproductive rates for the host and the PMP (a payoff for each cell type), derivable from Eq. (1) and 2. The payoff matrix per glucose cycle is shown in Table 2a

Further,

The author use teleological language to explain possible cooperative activity. Cooperation takes intelligence. That would seem impossible with simple life forms. At the same time, he needs to stress that this language does not imply rationality.

So just what does he mean? That the organisms appear to cooperate but don't actually know they are cooperating? How does that work? How does an organism respond to environmental change via cooperation, let along directly?

Dan said:

Steve P. said: BS. Competition is an illusion. Organisms if anything compete against the environment, not against themselves. Organisms need each other to survive. Competition is counter-productive.

This is masterful. First competition doesn't exist, it's just an illusion. One sentence later it exists but it concerns "the environment" only. Two sentences later it exists but is "counter-productive", whether it concerns "other organisms" or "the environment". The "BS" at the beginning must be a header describing what's coming up.

Steve P. babbled: Further, The author use teleological language to explain possible cooperative activity. Cooperation takes intelligence. That would seem impossible with simple life forms. At the same time, he needs to stress that this language does not imply rationality. So just what does he mean? That the organisms appear to cooperate but don't actually know they are cooperating? How does that work? How does an organism respond to environmental change via cooperation, let along directly?

That’s a great question. Why don’t you do the experiment and report the results? Oh, I forgot, IDers don’t actually do science, they just complain about how the results don’t absolutely, philosophically disprove design.

Anyway, you’re getting distracted from the main point, which is that evolution produced a new genetic sequence allowing E. Coli to digest citrate. Which on Monday you said was impossible. “Adaptive mechanisms are incapable of helping organisms break their adaptive landscape.” Remember?

Stanton said:

Steve P. babbled: Further, The author use teleological language to explain possible cooperative activity. Cooperation takes intelligence. That would seem impossible with simple life forms. At the same time, he needs to stress that this language does not imply rationality. So just what does he mean? That the organisms appear to cooperate but don't actually know they are cooperating? How does that work? How does an organism respond to environmental change via cooperation, let along directly?

So, Steve, explain to us how to experimentally test for the intelligence required for symbiosis. Explain to us how to give microorganisms IQ tests.

Steve P. whined: Dan, Read carefully. I said 'if anything', they compete against the environment. In other words, at best they compete against the environment. That's an olive branch to you. Guess being Mr. Nice guy doesn't count here. So I'll say it clearly for you. Life doesn't compete. That is your illusion.

Hey, but if you wanna keep up all this abusive, dismissive, sarcastic, ridiculing style, be my guest. However, I really don't know what you think this rhetorical tactic is supposed to accomplish.

Steve P. said: Stanton, Curiously, why didn't you speak directly to the questions I raised? How did these early organisms cooperate? What does it mean without using teleological language? Secondly, why not speak to the other questions I raised about a lack of need for competition in the early environment? And the question of replication memory?

Stanton said:

Steve P. babbled: Further, The author use teleological language to explain possible cooperative activity. Cooperation takes intelligence. That would seem impossible with simple life forms. At the same time, he needs to stress that this language does not imply rationality. So just what does he mean? That the organisms appear to cooperate but don't actually know they are cooperating? How does that work? How does an organism respond to environmental change via cooperation, let along directly?

So, Steve, explain to us how to experimentally test for the intelligence required for symbiosis. Explain to us how to give microorganisms IQ tests.

Election maps are plotted with units of miles. What unit do you propose to plot this map in? Until you answer this question, your proposal is nothing but verbiage.

Steve P. said: ID is without question testable and falsifiable. Hopefully, I will get the chance to prove it.

The different perspective is that you think e.coli did something extraordinary and 'new'. ID says e.coli already possesses a range of capability.

Metabolizing citrate is evidence of e.coli expressing its capability. However, this does not say that since e.coli was capable of doin' citrate, that it is capable of any feat.

So e.coli metabolizing citrate is not supporting evidence that e.coli did not have this capability already present in its genome and that it somehow without any intelligence was able to acquire a new ability.

Steve P. said: Curiously, why didn't you speak directly to the questions I raised? How did these early organisms cooperate? What does it mean without using teleological language?

Maybe an closet ID biologist will read this post and act on it. That would be sumptin.

Steve P. said: Measurement would be in the quantity of substrates they can metabolize in a lab. If we do a matrix, we can plot these capabilities and then do graphs to show what bacteria metabolize what substrates. Then districts would be drawn up based on common abilities and quantities. Some districts large and some tiny. Some with many sided 'fences' and some with just a few sides. It may not come out as I envision but that is the excitement of doing science. Having an intuition, doing the legwork, then making the analysis, then watching the result. It may come out way different than I expected and may actually go against ID. But I would not be afraid of it. Why should I? I would go back and review the work and see if my methodology needed tweaking, or math needs work, or simply concede that the hypothesis fails because no districts could be drawn up in an intelligable way.

Too bad I am not a biologist with a lab and a grant on hand or I'd be cruising. Maybe an closet ID biologist will read this post and act on it. That would be sumptin.

There is no competition within a species, and no competition between species, says Steve. Only against the environment. Uh-huh.

So, predictions from this hypothesis?

We would see no invasive species, for a start. Remember, species do not compete. And we would see no competition between individuals for mates, so no mating displays, no aggression, no differential insemination strategies. We would see no territoriality in animals. We would see no competition for sunlight among green plants.

Yes... bit of a problem there, wouldn't you say?

ID says that the ability to digest citrate was already within the species. Only it wasn't, because the organism didn't actually, you know, digest citrate. A mutation was necessary, one that didn't exist before. But that mutation has been precisely defined and explained, and the explanation goes all the way back to organic chemistry. I suppose you might say that the basic ability of organisms to mutate, which ultimately depends on the fundamental properties of matter, is evidence of design, but that's a little tenuous, don't you think?

And it's a little random, too, because as creationists and ID proponents repeat ad nauseam, mutations are mostly completely neutral or harmful. So they are, but some aren't, and this one just happens to be beneficial, but only in a citrate-rich environment.

If the mutation were inherently designed into the organism, to pop up whenever the organism were exposed to a citrate-rich environment, you'd expect it to appear suddenly throughout the population. It didn't. The mutation spread through the population at a rate precisely predicted by genetics and differential reproductive success. Again, the observation contradicts the hypothesis of ID. It also falsifies (once more) the notion that there is little or no competition between the members of a species.

But on the other hand, it does tend to substantiate the hypothesis that Steve hasn't a clue what he's talking about.

Why should anyone bother answering your questions when you’ve made it painfully clear you’re too stupid to understand the answers and too dishonest to care?

Steve P. whined: Phantomreader42, That was uncalled for. I have in no way been dishonest. If you take a step back from your faux rage, you will see that I am engaging in the science, even if not in the way you prefer. Second, differences of opinion is not stupidity. I think you have run up against a person that is not some yahoo creationist living in the boonies. Please do try to avoid caricatures. Reading between lines causes blurred vision.

Why should anyone bother answering your questions when you’ve made it painfully clear you’re too stupid to understand the answers and too dishonest to care?

Steve P. said: Phantomreader42, That was uncalled for. I have in no way been dishonest. If you take a step back from your faux rage, you will see that I am engaging in the science, even if not in the way you prefer. Second, differences of opinion is not stupidity. I think you have run up against a person that is not some yahoo creationist living in the boonies. Please do try to avoid caricatures. Reading between lines causes blurred vision.

Why should anyone bother answering your questions when you’ve made it painfully clear you’re too stupid to understand the answers and too dishonest to care?

Steve P. said: Phantomreader42, That was uncalled for. I have in no way been dishonest. If you take a step back from your faux rage, you will see that I am engaging in the science, even if not in the way you prefer. Second, differences of opinion is not stupidity. I think you have run up against a person that is not some yahoo creationist living in the boonies. Please do try to avoid caricatures. Reading between lines causes blurred vision.

Why should anyone bother answering your questions when you’ve made it painfully clear you’re too stupid to understand the answers and too dishonest to care?

phantomreader42,

Your latest comment about Steve P. is one I endorse too, even going as far to say that, judging by his breathtaking inanity here, Steve P. is indeed a "lying sack of shit".

John Kwok said: phantomreader42, Your latest comment about Steve P. is one I endorse too, even going as far to say that, judging by his breathtaking inanity here, Steve P. is indeed a "lying sack of shit".

Steve wrote:

"IMO, there is an assumption made that there would be selection present in the early environment. When did the proposed event occur? If it was in the early stages of life (say around the first billion year mark), we can confidently say there was no pressure to survive from a competitive standpoint, only freedom to populate."

Your lack of understanding of the basic mechanisms of selection and competition do not invalidate the argument. Let me be perfectly clear about this. Making unsubstantiated claims or not understanding the issues is insufficient. You must not only demonstrate a certain level of competence, but you must prove that the findings of the paer are somehow in error. I can assure you that you lack the conceptual background to address these issues.

Competition will become important whenever there are different lineages and limiting resources. There is every reason to suppose that this was the situation early in the history of life on earth. You have failed to demonstrate why this is not the case. Presuming that there was no competition is an unfounded assumption.

Please try again when youi can demonstrate a real understanding of the issues involved. But hey, thanks for at least trying to read the paper.

"Second, in the early environment, eukaryotes used anaerobic metabolism, correct? The only reason I can see that they would have any pressure is if atmospheric changes were taking place. In that case they were responding to environmental pressure, not competitive pressure. So why use a game theoretic approach."

The composition of the early earth atmosphere was indeed drastically changed by the accumulation of oxygen produced by early photosynthetic bacteria. That was indeed a very strong selection pressure that favored aerobic respiration and continues to do so to this day. You have failed to demonstrate why this type of selection would not act. The paper demonstrates exactly why it would be expected to.

"Second, replication takes energy. If the eukaryote assimilated the bacteria into its genome in order to increase its energy output, that would be offset by the energy needed to replicate itself in its new configuration. Imagine the eurkaryote being able to replicate itself, then after incorporating the bacteria, having to ‘figure out’ how to replicate with the bacteria? How would that have been coordinated? Would they replicate separately but in tandum? Doesn’t seem possible since the timing would have to be perfect. The second each divide, they would have to have ‘knowledge’ to seek their respective host cells."

The symbiotic relationship was initially beneficial and evolved over millions of years to be even more efficient. Transfer of symbiont genes to the nucleus helped to coordinate replication and gene exxpression until the systems we observe today arose. There is no "knowledge:' required and you have failed to demonstrate that such is necessary. Assuming that there is elevates begging the question to a new high in lows, so to speak.

"No matter what, all this activity entales memory. If the eurkaryote had ‘evolved’ (in the darwinian sense) its replication memory, how would it do so with an assimilated bacteria that has its own genome? The complications are astronomical. I know that the darwinian take on this would be to say ‘deep time’ does all things. But to me that is just passing the buck."

Whether you can imagine how it occurred or not is not the issue. You have completely failed to address any of the evidence that it did indeed occur. This is insufficient to overturn the concensus of all of the available evidence.

Steve, as I pointed out before, your incredulity is not evidence and it is not a valid argument. Since you obviously cannot provide any answers to any of my questions, I suggest that we agree to disagree. Obviously no amount of evidence that I can present will presuade you. FIne by me. Just remember that people of all faiths have examined this issue and this is the conclusion that they have come to. You might want to consider that someone more knowledgable than you could be correct and you could be in error.

Thanks al least for remaining civil.

DS -

The earliest confirmed fossilized eukaryotes are from approximately 1 billion to 800 million years ago, though there are tantalizing biochemical traces that date back perhaps as far back as 1.5 billion years ago. Contrary to Steve P.'s assertion, the earliest eukaryotes could not exist in an oxygen-deprived environment, and in fact, they don't appear in Earth's fossil record until Earth's atmosphere acquired a substantial percentage of oxygen.

@ DS -

Sorry about that, I meant geochemical (in lieu of biochemical).

Failure of fusion The landscape inside a bacteria cell is pretty sparse, consisting mostly of free-floating genetic material. By contrast, the inside of a eukaryote cell is a bustling metropolis, crowded with a variety of protein factories, control rooms, transportation routes and a central bundle called the nucleus that contains the cell’s genetic information. Eukaryote cells also have a unique set of genes and proteins. If the first eukaryotes were a fusion of ancient bacteria and archaea, as some scientists suspect, there should be clues in the eukaryote genome and proteome that point back toward these putative ancestors. Penny and colleagues say those clues simply aren’t there. Instead, the say the fusion theory is “surprisingly uninformative” when it comes explaining the special genetic and cellular features of eukaryotes. Most of the proteins that eukaryotes and bacteria share, for instance, are only distantly related and probably came from the common ancestor of both bacteria and eukaryotes.

Steve P. said: DS/Kwok, I may be in moderation again but if this gets through, have a look at this from an article at MSNBC back in 2006 discussing an artilce written in Science magazine. The whole article is here: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/12853798/

Failure of fusion The landscape inside a bacteria cell is pretty sparse, consisting mostly of free-floating genetic material. By contrast, the inside of a eukaryote cell is a bustling metropolis, crowded with a variety of protein factories, control rooms, transportation routes and a central bundle called the nucleus that contains the cell’s genetic information. Eukaryote cells also have a unique set of genes and proteins. If the first eukaryotes were a fusion of ancient bacteria and archaea, as some scientists suspect, there should be clues in the eukaryote genome and proteome that point back toward these putative ancestors. Penny and colleagues say those clues simply aren’t there. Instead, the say the fusion theory is “surprisingly uninformative” when it comes explaining the special genetic and cellular features of eukaryotes. Most of the proteins that eukaryotes and bacteria share, for instance, are only distantly related and probably came from the common ancestor of both bacteria and eukaryotes.

Steve,

That's interesting but not surprising. Those observations essentially do nothing to call into question the endosymbiotic theory. Indeed, they are exactly what one would expect if endosymbiotic events occurred billions of years ago.

Do you have an article from a scientific journal that claims that endosymbiosis did not occur? Do you hava any alternative explanation for the origin of mitochndria and chloloroplasts? Can you answer even one of my questions about the evidence that mitochondria were derived from prokaryotic ancestors?

Look dude, all that you have proven here is that you do not understand the concepts of selection and competition. You have not addressed even the most basic points in the one paper you did try to read. You certainly have done nothing to call their results into question. Remember, your opinion is worthless here. What you need are cold hard facts. You don't have any. Believe whatever you want, but you are not going to convince anyone who knows the facts.

Now, about antibiotic resistance. If you look at the web page I provided, they list several antibiotics to which human mitochondria and prokaryotes are susceptible. What is your explanation for these observations? Notice that any kind of design essentially means that god wanted humans to die due to antibiotic treatment. I hope you have a better answer than the one you gave for the genetic evidence. Have you read those papers by the way? There ar lots more where those came from.

Steve P. -

Over a year and a half ago I attended a two-day symposium on evolution at Rockefeller University and there didn't seem to be any doubt regarding the endosymbiotic theory proposed by Lynn Margulis decades ago. There was definitely widespread agreement.

I concur completely with DS's challenge to you, and will add, with regards to antibiotic resistance, wouldn't this be confirmation of Natural Selection at work, yielding antiboitic resistant-bacteria? How would either Design or a Supreme Deity such as a Klingon GOD be a better explanation for antibiotic resistance; one that can be confirmed scientifically via rigorous scientific experimentation?

Steve,

Here is another good web site that describes the evidence for the endosymbiotic theory, including a description of various antibiotics and their effects:

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/E/Endosymbiosis.html

If you come up with an explanation for the genetic evidence and the antibiotic evidence, then maybe we can go on to discuss the double membrane of the mitochondria and the different characteristics of the two membranes. Then there is the evidence regarding mitochondrial genes in the nucleus. You're falling behind lad. Best get a move on.

Steve, on November 23, 2009, at 11:07 am, in this very thread, you made a breathtakingly dishonest post (one of many) quoting Frank J on a question he asked you days ago, and saying you wouldn’t dodge it, but pretending not to understand the question, even while quoting it. You never answered the question, even after it was explained to you in detail.

— phantomreader42

Hey, this guy actually looked up a paper and read at least one paragraph. In my book, that makes him Creationist of the Year. Remember that nut job who claimed he read all the papers I cited, even the ones I made up! Now that guy had problems.

Of course he still hasn't answered any of my questions. And he still hasn't presented any evidence. And he still hasn't provided any references of his own. And he still hasn't offered any alternative hypothesis, at least not a testable one.

Still, he actually looked up a paper. He didn't seem to understand anything in it, but nobody is perfect. I'm still really impressed. I guess I just have lowered expectations.

DS said: I guess I just have lowered expectations.

DS said: Hey, this guy actually looked up a paper and read at least one paragraph. In my book, that makes him Creationist of the Year. Remember that nut job who claimed he read all the papers I cited, even the ones I made up! Now that guy had problems. Of course he still hasn't answered any of my questions. And he still hasn't presented any evidence. And he still hasn't provided any references of his own. And he still hasn't offered any alternative hypothesis, at least not a testable one. Still, he actually looked up a paper. He didn't seem to understand anything in it, but nobody is perfect. I'm still really impressed. I guess I just have lowered expectations.

Those observations essentially do nothing to call into question the endosymbiotic theory. Indeed, they are exactly what one would expect if endosymbiotic events occurred billions of years ago.

Many researchers think eukaryotes are the descendants of either bacteria or archaea, or some combination of the two. But genetic and protein evidence do not support this view, researchers report in Friday’s issue of the journal Science, published by AAAS, the nonprofit science society. Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryote, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

Look dude, all that you have proven here is that you do not understand the concepts of selection and competition.

Regarding selection, it works at the species level to keep the phylum intact.

— Steve P.

Steve P. -

If David Penny did say what you allegedly claim, he didn't emphasize it when I heard him speak over a year and a half ago at the two-day evolution symposium at Rockefeller University. And none of the talks I heard featured observations from anyone - Penny included - who claimed that eukaryotes were as old as prokaryotes. There is simply too much well-established geochemical and molecular biological data that points to eukaryotes appearing relatively "late" in the history of life on Earth (See my earlier comments on this thread for the approximate dates).

My graduate school mentior, the eminent ecologist Michael L. Rosenzweig, conceived of evolution as a "zero sum game" but not for the reasons you state. Independently of his colleague Leigh Van Valen, he came up with the concept known as the Red Queen (It was Van Valen's paper, however, that caught substantially more attention and interest, perhaps due to the fact that Van Valen coined the term "Red Queen" in his paper.).

If Natural Selection isn't the agent of change responsible for the appearance of new species like the new mosquito species found by British biologists earlier this decade in the London Underground subway system, then how did this speciation event occur? Did Dumbledore wave his magic wand (Or was it Harry Potter?). Did the good Doctor travel backward in time aboard his TARDIS and deposited them in the London Underground? Or maybe instead, the Dishonesty Institute has concocted some time machine and either Stephen Meyer or Johnny Wells did the deed?

Meanwhile, I trust you will continue enjoying your membership as yet another intellectually-challenged Dishonesty Institute IDiot Borg drone.

Peace and Long Life (as a DI IDiot Borg drone),

John Kwok

@ DS -

I stand corrected. Steve P. may have read the paper, but it's quite clear from his latest comments that he didn't understand even a word of it. IMHO he's just as delusional as Behe, Dembski, Meyer or Wells.

Steve wrote:

"DS, I am curious why you would make the comment below…"

The origin of eudaryotes is not the issue. The origin of mitochondria and chloroplasts is the issue. Some form of basal eukaryote had to have arisen prior to the origin of mitochondria. That does nothing to call the endosymbiosis theory into question. Indeed, some form of protoeukaryote must have existed before it could engulf a proteobacteria or a cyanobacteria. That is absolutely a prediction of the endosymbiosis theory. You really do need to think more about hypothesis testing and falsification criteria.

"I think it is a misaprehension of what is happening to describe organisms as competitive? IMV, competition is a zero-sum game, winner take all. In my business, I do all I can to defeat my competitition, not just disable them. If I could have the whole market to myself, I would do just that. And many have, only to be thwarted by anti-trust laws. But IMO, nature does not work like that."

Sometimes competition can eliminate all competitors, sometimes not. Sometimes it can result in resource partitioning or competitive exclusion, etc. There are many examples of this. Anerobic bacteria are still alive and well. They may be restricted to relatively small environments, but there is no need for competition to eliminate them. And of course prokaryotes are still around, even though eukaryotes have been here for billions of years. You really do need to learn more about competition and selection.

Now if the competitors were intelligent, then they might realize that the selfish thing to do was to eliminate all possible competition. But then again, you have already been told that that is not true and that that is not necessary for competition or selection to act. You really do have to get over your animistic thinking.

"From my layman’s eyes, this is what I am thinking; What animal competes with rabbits (they eat grass), and pandas (bamboo), and koalas and giraffes (leaves)? What competes with a shark and vulture (they eat disabled and/or decomposing flesh)? What competes with a Chimpanzee (they eat monkeys but who else is trying to eat those monkeys)?"

Are you serious? millions of different animals eat grass and leaves. Millions of animals compete for carrion. Haven't you ever watched animal planet or the discovery channel? If the lions eat all the meat then there is nothing left for the hyenas. If the hyeans eat all of the meant there is nothing left for the vultures. If the vultures eat all of the meat there is nothing left for the carrion eating insects. And of course lots of things eat monkeys, including humans. You really do need to learn more about ecology. You have already been told that other organisms are part of the environment, which of those words didn't you understand?

"What competes with a Sequoia (they are at the top but there is plenty of sunlight left for other plants)? What competes with lichen and moss (they like their shady rests and don’t seem particularly interested in doing more than laying carpet)?

See above. Others can provide specific examples.

"What competes with an elephant? What competes with a lion? What competes with a mosquito or a cockroach or a housefly?"

Seriously? What competes with a lion? Try cheethas, lepoards, hyenas, etc. And of course every prey item they could potentially eat is evolving to avoid predation. You do know that competition involves more that winning a fight right?

"Rather, organisms share a part of themselves with the whole in order to keep a place in the biosphere. Observations of what looks like competition are the exception not the rule IMO."

Really? Exactly why do they do this? Exactly how do they do this? Very curious that 95% of all species that have ever lived have gone extinct when they cooperate so well don't you think? Now Steve, you do have some evidence to support this claim don't you? You do have a reference from the scientific literature don't you? Seriously dude, you are just humiliating yourself here. Please quit now before someone gets really offensive.

"Of all the millions of species of organisms, there is only one that has the capacity to dominate the planet in true competitive fashion and that animal is the one that can conceive of the idea of competition."

Exactly. So why do you claim that everything else cooperates? Why do you think that everything else somehow magically avoids competition? Are you livin in a freakin fairy land? Even fundamentalists believe in the fall. Didn't you get the memo?

"Regarding selection, it works at the species level to keep the phylum intact. Many particular varieties of birds are necessary to keep birds in general a part of the biosphere. Otherwise, a loss of birds would upset the delicate balance in the biosphere."

And just how could something that works at the species level keep the phylum intact? Why would it do so? How would it do so? You do know that the phyla are related by common descent don't you? You really should learn some genetics.

Do you think that the "delicate balance of the biosphere" has never been "upset"? You do know that there have been many mass extinction in the history of life on earth don't you? You do know that some of them wiped out over 80% of all species that were alive at the time don't you? Are you livin in a freakin fairy land? Do try to learn something about palentology.

Look dude, all that you have proven here is that you do not understand the concepts of selection and competition. I grow weary of addressing all of your myriad misconceptions. Unless you answer my questions about the mitochondria, I will no longer respond to any of your nonsense. If you persist in displaying your ignorance, others will start calling you a Poe or worse.

Now, one last time just to be fair:

How do you exolain the genetic similarity between animal mitochondrial DNA and proteobacteria?

How do you explain the pattern of antibiotic resistance seen between eukaryotes and mitochondria?

How do you explain all of the prokaryotic features of the molecular biology of animal mitochondria?

How do you explain the double membrane structure of animal mitochondria?

If you cannot explain each of these observations better that the endosymbiosis theory, you lose. Period. Please do so quickly.

Look dude, all that you have proven here is that you do not understand the concepts of selection and competition.

Of all the millions of species of organisms, there is only one that has the capacity to dominate the planet in true competitive fashion and that animal is the one that can conceive of the idea of competition.

I think it is a misaprehension of what is happening to describe organisms as competitive? IMV, competition is a zero-sum game, winner take all. In my business, I do all I can to defeat my competition, not just disable them. If I could have the whole market to myself, I would do just that. And many have, only to be thwarted by anti-trust laws. But IMO, nature does not work like that.

From my layman's eyes, this is what I am thinking; What animal competes with rabbits (they eat grass)...

Regarding selection, it works at the species level to keep the phylum intact.

Dave wrote:

"Incidentally, as you mentioned lichens, are you aware they are made up a two organisms, e.g. a fungus and an algae, co-operating to allow them to compete successfully in an environment where neither could survive alone. Before you begin to redefine the meaning of “co-operation”, bear in mind in this context it does not require an algae to wake up one morning and decide it is going to spend the rest of its life with the cute little fungus it met last night."

Excellent. I actually missed that. In trying to deny endosymbiosis, Steve cites another example of symbiosis. Indeed, by some definitions another form of endosymbiosis, just not quite as dramatic as the mitochondria - yet.

If Steve thinks that organsims magically cooperate with each other, then endysymbiosis would definately be possible. Now all he has to do is get around the idea that they don't need to plan or desire to cooperate and he will see the light. Unless of course he wants to claim that the fungus and algae are intelligent enough to plan to get together and help each other out. I'm sure most ten year olds would see it that way. But then again, most ten year olds probably believe in flying reindeer.

Steve P. said: DS, I am curious why you would make the comment below...

Those observations essentially do nothing to call into question the endosymbiotic theory. Indeed, they are exactly what one would expect if endosymbiotic events occurred billions of years ago.

..when the article states the following in the 3rd and 4th paragraphs:

Many researchers think eukaryotes are the descendants of either bacteria or archaea, or some combination of the two. But genetic and protein evidence do not support this view, researchers report in Friday’s issue of the journal Science, published by AAAS, the nonprofit science society. Instead, the data suggest that eukaryote cells with all their bells and whistles are probably as ancient as bacteria and archaea, and may have even appeared first, with bacteria and archaea appearing later as stripped-down versions of eukaryote, according to David Penny, a molecular biologist at Massey University in New Zealand.

It is an attractively simple idea that a primitive eukaryote took up the endosymbiont/ mitochondrion by phagocytosis (3, 4, 43). A unicellular raptor with a larger, more complex cell structure than that of present-day prokaryotes is envisioned as the host of the ancestral endosymbiont. This scenario, which is not contradicted by new data derived from comparative genomics and proteomics, is a suitable starting point for future work. Acquisition of genome sequences from free-living eukaryotes among basal lineages is a high priority.

Thanks SWT.

I have not been able to get the paper yet. However, it is not too surprising that MSNBC might misrepresent the paper, or that Steve might not understand the point being made. that is exactly why I asked for references from the primary literature.

Still, even if someone as accomplished as Penny did question the endosymbiotic theory, he (and Steve) would still have to account for all of the available evidence.

What nonscientists often do not undertand is that there are real controversies about the details of many evolutionary processes. However, there is usually broad agreement as to the major points. No real scientist disputes that eukaryotes evolved from prokaryotes, all whining about "complexity" aside. Now if only creationists could get the hang of this type of reasoning, everyone would be lot happier.

Oh well, what can you expect from a guy who thinks that lions have no competition?

Although I'm not a biologist, I think it's also worth noting that (as far as I can tell) the Kurland et al, paper came straight from the mainstream scientific community. It wasn't some bold maverick outsider challenging the sacred status quo "orthodoxy", it was a team of mainstream investigators looking at the actual data, proposing a new hypothesis, suggesting what sort of data are needed to test the new hypothesis, and submitting their work for peer review. Based on the citation history of the paper, it appears to have been well-received.

If I were seriously trying to research a "design inference" or "the edge of evolution," this is one place I might have been looking. The data were already available, what was needed was a critical review; why weren't Behe or Meyer or Dembski or Kenyon or Wells looking here? They could have published a peer-reviewed challenge to the then-current understanding of endosymbiosis.

Perhaps Steve P. can enlighten us ...

Still waiting Steve.

Steve,

Still waiting.

Will you at least admit that you were completely wrong about competition? If you will do this, then I think you will understand that you are not really qualified to judge the endosymbiosis theory. I will take your silence as an admission of the above. If you will not admit this, then I guess you should at least read and comment on all of the other references that I provided.

I am still waiting for you to present any alternative or any evidence. I am still waiting for you to cite a single article from the scientific literature. Of course all you have to do is admit that there is good evidence for the endosymbiosis theory and we will be done. All you have to do is admit that complex systems such as organelles could arise through selection without any intelligence or planning and I will be satisfied. I have answered your questions, the least you could do would be to answer mine.

Hmmm. Maybe Steve P. has achieved his required 10 postings for extra credit, along with Kris Jones et al.

La Sierra’s board of trustees last week unanimously voted to endorse Adventist beliefs that the world was created in six 24-hour days...

Hey DS, i read your comments but people gotta work ya know. Just had Marks & Spencer audit our facilities all day yesterday. Got Adidas developers arriving tomorrow so lots of work.

However, I will go through as best I can the references you provided and comment on them.

ITM, don't get your hopes up that I will concede that easily. Contrary to your assertions, competition is not the norm, cooperation is. Secondly, you just assume that competition was taking place billions of years ago.

Yet in the first paper provided, there seems to be no support for this assumption. What type of organisms do you (or the authors)imagine were present at the first coupla hundred million year mark? And at what point do you think it got crowded enough for organisms to 'somehow' evolve a mechanism to recognize that substrate supply was dwindling and thus further evolution would be triggered that would lead to accelerated metabolism of substrates thus triggering an increase in probabilistic mechanical resources ultimately leading to new function.

And why are explanations couched in anthropomorphic terms rather than explaining through physics and chemistry; i.e. explaining endosymbiosis not by referring to cooperation as a 'smart' strategy for survival etc, but saying something like what, maybe the PH 4.0 level(acidic perhaps) of the prokaryote combining with the 9.0 alkaline PH level of the eukaryote emerged a relatively neutral PH level that 'spontaneously' allowed the modified organism's new PH signature to more quickly metabolize existing substrates thus accelerating its growth.

It seems they are thinking like economists rather that hard scientists. Why is that?

Steve P. (and others) -- for clarity, it would be helpful if you would use the citation for the specific paper you're discussing rather than referring to "the first paper" etc. I'm having trouble correlating your comments immediately above to what I thought was the "first" paper. Thanks!

Steve,

Thanks for replying. Sorry if I got impatient.

Now, as for your questions. You ask:

"And why are explanations couched in anthropomorphic terms..."

Right after you state:

"And at what point do you think it got crowded enough for organisms to ‘somehow’ evolve a mechanism to recognize that substrate supply was dwindling..."

Look, you are the only one who is couching things in anthropomorphic terms. You are apparently incapable of even recoginzing this bias in your thinking. Why in the world would any organism have to recognize that anything was dwindling when they would die if they could not get enough of it? Why do you insist that they are smart enough to know what is happening to them and try to cooperate to survive? You have been told repeatedly that this is not the case. You have been given many examples to demonstrate that this is not the case. You must get over your narrow way of thinking if you want to have a discussion about the science.

As for the paper about selcetion (Lovegren de Bivort et. al. J. Theor. Bio. 248(26-36 2007), it specifically answers exacltly the question you asked. From the abstract:

"Nevertheless we show that coersion and iterated multilevel selection on both species encourage endosymbiosis."

They have specifically identified the selection pressures under which endosymvubiosis is favored, which is exactly what you demanded. If you disagree woith their scenario, the burden of proof in on you to show that their assumptions are unrealistic or that their conslusions are somehow in error. Until you do, you cannot merely claim that you don't believe it and expect that to convince anyone.

Now what about all of my other questions. Why have you not answered them? If you refuse to address these issues the questions will just keep coming. For example, how do you explaiin the fact that mitochondria reproduce essentially by binary fission? Why do they divide in half to replicate, just as prokaryotes do? Why do no other organelles in animals use this mechanism?

You now have over twenty different questions to answer. I understand if you have to work, but you are the one who started this. Do try to keep up. Soon this thread will be closed. Nick is a nice guy. He has probabably only induldged this conversation out of a sense of fairness. However, his patience has limits.

DS said: For example, how do you explaiin the fact that mitochondria reproduce essentially by binary fission? Why do they divide in half to replicate, just as prokaryotes do? Why do no other organelles in animals use this mechanism?

Stanton said:

DS said: For example, how do you explaiin the fact that mitochondria reproduce essentially by binary fission? Why do they divide in half to replicate, just as prokaryotes do? Why do no other organelles in animals use this mechanism?

Aside from chloroplasts, that is...

phantomreader42 said:

Stanton said:

DS said: For example, how do you explaiin the fact that mitochondria reproduce essentially by binary fission? Why do they divide in half to replicate, just as prokaryotes do? Why do no other organelles in animals use this mechanism?

Aside from chloroplasts, that is...

I was not aware of any animals that have chloroplasts. It must be a lot easier to care for a cat that can photosynthesize. :)

Richard wrote:

"There are some seaslugs that take over the chloroplasts from their food."

Great. Yet another example of symbiosis for Steve to explain.

Steve,

Remember when I told you that we could observe endosymbiosis in the laboratory? Well here is one example that has been known for over thirty years:

New Phytologist 76:111-120 (1976)

It describes a protozoan that lacks mitochondria but contains endosymbiotic aerobic bacteria. Now Steve, can you tell me exactly which of these two organisms possesses the intelligence to plan this relationship? Can you describe the selection pressures in other than anthropomorphic terms? Can you deny that this is strong evidence for the endosymbiosis theory?

Do you have any alternative explanation for this evidence? Do you have any references from the scientific literatire to support your interpretation? Do you have anything at all other than your misconceptions and incredulity?

I will be waiting patiently for your answers to these and the twenty other questions that you have avoided. If you refuse to answer, then I will have no choice but to present more genetic evidence concerning pseudogenes. I'm sure you will have a good answer for that evidence.

Richard Simons said: It would only work with a cat if it were bald :-)

Steve,

There are lots of other examples of endosymbiosis observed in the laboratory. Here are a couple more references for you:

Journal of Cell Science 86:273-286 (1986)

Journal of Experimental Biology and Ecology 318)(1):99-110 (2005)

Now Steve, none of these studies have concluded that there was any intelligence or planning involved in the endosymbiosis events. They do however document the selection pressures that are operating in establishing and maintaining the symbiosis and the environments in which these pressures operate. They have even traced some of the initial steps involved in establishing a lasting symbiosis.

Actually, chloroplasts replicate by binary fission also. So that may be an example of an exception that proves the rule, since they are postulaated to have arisen by endosymbiosis as well. Just one more thing for Steve to explain.

stevaroni said:

Richard Simons said: It would only work with a cat if it were bald :-)

Considering that at times my entire house seems to be coated with a thin layer of cat, an amount of hair and fluff that seems entirely out of proportion to the two little critters that ostensibly produce it, a bald cat doesn't seem like such a bad thing. Nor, considering how much time the two spend sleeping in a window, does a photosynthetic cat. Which would also, one imagines, significantly improve litterbox duty, a task which somehow always seems to fall to me.

jackstraw wrote:

"What does a bald, photosynthetic cat hack up, then?"

Green eggs and ham? Just a guess. Anyway, it's a better answer that I am likely to get out of Steve for any of my questions.

jackstraw said: What does a bald, photosynthetic cat hack up, then?

There's a joke in there somewhere, I just don't see it yet.

DS said: Actually, chloroplasts replicate by binary fission also. So that may be an example of an exception that proves the rule, since they are postulaated to have arisen by endosymbiosis as well. Just one more thing for Steve to explain.

Kevin B said: More seriously, isn't there a sloth (or similar) that is commonly found with algae (or moss, or lichen...) - something green, in any case - growing on its fur? Might this be a possible example of emerging endosymbiosis? :)

jackstraw said: What does a bald, photosynthetic cat hack up, then?

Steve,

One of the predictions of the endosymbiosis theory is that mitochondrial genes were transferred to the nucleus over a long period of time, eventually resulting in the complex system we see today. There is ample evidence for extensive and continuing gene transfer as documented in the following references:

PNAS 94:14900-14905 (1997)

Evolution 16(6):314-321 (2001)

Genomics 80(1):71-77 (2002)

Genome Research 12:885-893 (2002)

Heredity 93:468-475 (2004)

Notice that much is known about the mechanism of transfer, the timing of transfers, and the mechanisms of gene regulation and coordination. Nuclear pseudogenes have even been used as molecular relicts in order to reconstruct phylogenetic relationships for isolated taxa. All of this evidence is completely consistent with the theory of endosymbiosis. Would you care to suggest an alternative hypothesis to account for this evidence?

Look dude, I have provided you with over twenty different references. I have asked you more than twenty different questions. You have not read any of the papers. You have not answered any of the questions. You have presented no alternative hypothesis. You have shown time and again you that have major misconceptions about the basics of competition and selection and you refuse to learn from your mistakes. Unless you remedy this situation soon, I am done with you.

You promised to read the papers, remember? You begged for the details, remember? You have had over a week and so far all that you have demonstrated is that you have tried to read one paragraph of one paper and you apparently did not understand that. You still haven't even admitted that you were completely wrong about lions. This thread will disappear soon. If you have any point ot make, any point at all, you had better do it soon. And remember, "I don't believe it" is not an argument. If that is your only answer, then guess what - I don't believe it!

Still waiting Steve.

All right Steve, time for a review. Here are the facts that I have presented so far:

1) There was significant selection pressure favoring endosymbiosis

2) Phylogenetic analysis reveals that animal mitochondrial DNA is genetically most similar to purple bacteria

3) Animal mitochondrial DNA is distinctly prokaryotic in nature in many different ways, including details of genome and gene structure, replication, transcription and translation

4) Animal mitochondria have a double membrane structure and the two membranes are distinctly different

5) Animal mitochondria reproduce by binary fission using a process very similar to prokaryotes

6) Animal mitochondria are susceptible to the same antibiotics that prokaryotes are

7) The pattern of pseudogenes in nuclear DNA is exactly what is expectred from repeated and continuing transfer of mitochondria genes to the nucleus

8) Endosymbiosis is commonly observed in nature and in the laboratory with no outside intelligence or driving force required except selection

Now Steve, please notice that all of these observations are completely consistent with the modern theory of endosymbiosis. Can you can come up with an alternative explanation that makes predictions and better explains all of the available evidence? If not, will you admit that natural selection can produce complex systems such as mitochondria?

I will not wait much longer for your reply.

DS said: All right Steve, time for a review. Here are the facts that I have presented so far: 1) There was significant selection pressure favoring endosymbiosis 2) Phylogenetic analysis reveals that animal mitochondrial DNA is genetically most similar to purple bacteria 3) Animal mitochondrial DNA is distinctly prokaryotic in nature in many different ways, including details of genome and gene structure, replication, transcription and translation 4) Animal mitochondria have a double membrane structure and the two membranes are distinctly different 5) Animal mitochondria reproduce by binary fission using a process very similar to prokaryotes 6) Animal mitochondria are susceptible to the same antibiotics that prokaryotes are 7) The pattern of pseudogenes in nuclear DNA is exactly what is expectred from repeated and continuing transfer of mitochondria genes to the nucleus 8) Endosymbiosis is commonly observed in nature and in the laboratory with no outside intelligence or driving force required except selection Now Steve, please notice that all of these observations are completely consistent with the modern theory of endosymbiosis. Can you can come up with an alternative explanation that makes predictions and better explains all of the available evidence? If not, will you admit that natural selection can produce complex systems such as mitochondria? I will not wait much longer for your reply.

jackstraw,

The original endosymbiosis event that lead to the establishment of mitochondria took place about 1.8 billion years ago. That was the same time at which atmospheric concentrations of oxygen were increasing dramatically due to photosynthesis from cyanobacteria.

There are at least two different ways in which endosymbiosis would be beneficial under these conditions. First, it would help to decrease intercellular oxygen levels and thus reduce oxidative damage to the host cell. Second, it would provde a more efficienct means of generating ATP from the breakdown of carbohydrates by cellular respiration using oxygen as a final electron acceptor. More details can be found in the J. Theor. Bio. article I cited above.

The archea still inhabit the marginal habitats that are difficult for other organisms to exploit and some organisms still metabolize sulfur compounds near deep ocean thermal vents. However, in most other habitats, aerobic bacteria have come to dominate, especially in the oxygen rich environments.

Tube worms and other organisms near thermal vents have symbiotic relationships with sulfur metabolizing prokaryotes. IIRC one of the references I cited above provides more details about this phenomena, which has been investigated in nature and in the lavoratory. They have concluded that the system may be in the early stages of evolving a more complex endosymbiotic relationship such as that seen in between mitochondria and their host cells.

So, contrary to the claims made by some, there continues to be competition and selection pressure that shapes bacterial communities to this day. I hope that that addresses your question.

Still waitiing Steve.

If you are really pressed for time, a simple YES/NO answer to the following question will suffice:

I have an alternative explanation for the evidence that indicates that mitochondria were produced by endosymbiosis and that no intelligence was required to guide the process.

If you answer no, then we are done.

If you answer yes, then you will kindly provide us with your alternative explanation, preferably complete with references.

Notice once again that "I don't know" or I don't beleive it" are not considered to be sufficient responses.

DS said: jackstraw, The original endosymbiosis event that lead to the establishment of mitochondria took place about 1.8 billion years ago. That was the same time at which atmospheric concentrations of oxygen were increasing dramatically due to photosynthesis from cyanobacteria. There are at least two different ways in which endosymbiosis would be beneficial under these conditions. First, it would help to decrease intercellular oxygen levels and thus reduce oxidative damage to the host cell. Second, it would provde a more efficienct means of generating ATP from the breakdown of carbohydrates by cellular respiration using oxygen as a final electron acceptor. More details can be found in the J. Theor. Bio. article I cited above. The archea still inhabit the marginal habitats that are difficult for other organisms to exploit and some organisms still metabolize sulfur compounds near deep ocean thermal vents. However, in most other habitats, aerobic bacteria have come to dominate, especially in the oxygen rich environments. Tube worms and other organisms near thermal vents have symbiotic relationships with sulfur metabolizing prokaryotes. IIRC one of the references I cited above provides more details about this phenomena, which has been investigated in nature and in the lavoratory. They have concluded that the system may be in the early stages of evolving a more complex endosymbiotic relationship such as that seen in between mitochondria and their host cells. So, contrary to the claims made by some, there continues to be competition and selection pressure that shapes bacterial communities to this day. I hope that that addresses your question.

Steve,

Time is up. You have had almost two weeks to read the papers that you promised you would read. You have failed to demonstrate that you have done so. You have also failed to provide any alternative hypothesis or references of your own.

I will take your silence as an admission that you have no alternative hypothesis. Therefore, endosymbioisis is not only the best hypothesis, it is the only hypothesis. You have done absolutely nothng to call that hypothesis into question.

So now you must admit that you were wrong. You must admit that natural processes, operating without any planning, foresight or intelligence can indeed produce complex systems.

I hope you have learned something here. Have a good life.

Christ Accelerated Natural Law to create the world in 6 literal days.

Creation, Evolution, Fossils and Other Worlds
http://omega77.tripod.com/visionoct212009.htm

DS said: Steve, Time is up. You have had almost two weeks to read the papers that you promised you would read. You have failed to demonstrate that you have done so. You have also failed to provide any alternative hypothesis or references of your own. I will take your silence as an admission that you have no alternative hypothesis. Therefore, endosymbioisis is not only the best hypothesis, it is the only hypothesis. You have done absolutely nothng to call that hypothesis into question. So now you must admit that you were wrong. You must admit that natural processes, operating without any planning, foresight or intelligence can indeed produce complex systems. I hope you have learned something here. Have a good life.

Brian said: Christ Accelerated Natural Law to create the world in 6 literal days. *spam snipped*

Brian said: *spam snipped*

Stanton said:

Brian said: Christ Accelerated Natural Law to create the world in 6 literal days. *spam snipped*

Why Christ, and not God? Where in the Bible did it say that Jesus the Son created the world? Where in the Bible did it say that He accelerated "natural law" and how can you scientifically verify that?

Stanton said:

Brian said: *spam snipped*

How does your Young Earth Creationism spam site support Intelligent Design?

Brian said: Lucifer Challenged Christ's supremacy so iin accelerating natural law he proved that he is the power behind true evolution. Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. Jhn 1:2 The same was in the beginning with God. Jhn 1:3 *All things were made by him;* and without him was not any thing made that was made. All things were made by Christ who is the Word of God.

Stanton said:

Brian said: Christ Accelerated Natural Law to create the world in 6 literal days. *spam snipped*

Why Christ, and not God? Where in the Bible did it say that Jesus the Son created the world? Where in the Bible did it say that He accelerated "natural law" and how can you scientifically verify that?

Brian said: Christ shares the Same Eternal Spirit with the Father which makes them God. No creations have this Spirit which is God, only than the Father and Son. John 4:24God [is] a Spirit

Brian,

Were you trying to respond to something I wrote? Funny, I didn't see anything on that web site concerning endosymbiosis. Strange that the Bible seems to be silent on that topic, isn't it. Perhaps you have an alternative explanation for all of the evidence that I presented? Think you can do better than Steve? It shouldn't be too hard.

Here is a question for you Brian. If Christ is in a conflict with Lucifer, how can one tell which side a person is on? Would you think that people who lie constantly and distort the truth are on the side of Christ or Lucifer? So, which side do you think that creationists are on?

Brian said: Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Isn't that the logos that Dr. Dr. D goes off about, which is really kind of like a magic word? The sort of Platonic Ideal Word, maybe, which is actually "Truth", "Law", "Order" and so on.

In other words, a bunch of mind-wanking.

And yes, that proves that Mariska Hargitay was divinely created.

But the fact remains that the God who created the Heavens and the Earth in the first chapters of Genesis, and Jesus Christ, are written in the Bible as though they were two separate entities. Brian has presented his own personal, almost nonsensical bloviation in place of an explanation why he claims that Jesus and not God, created the Universe in 6 days, and Brian has still not provided even a parody of evidence to explain how Christ was able to accelerate natural laws, other than a rather silly, and unsubstantiated claim that He apparently did it as part of a pissing contest with Lucifer.

stevaroni said:

Brian said: Christ shares the Same Eternal Spirit with the Father which makes them God. No creations have this Spirit which is God, only than the Father and Son. John 4:24God [is] a Spirit

Um, yeah. Brian, do you actually have any evidence of, well, anything that does not involve quoting a bible? Ya know, some little scrap of empirically verifiable... well, anything?

Meh, Brian's stuff is basically gap-OEC with extra helpings of Lucifer.

As to his acceleration bit, there are numerous physical and chemical processes which don't "scale" kinetically. I.e. if you speed them up you get a different result, not the same result faster.

Which means either Brian's theory is wrong, or Jesus finagled things to intentionally decieve us into thinking his acceleration period didn't happen. Not a happy result for Brian either way.

Want is it with creationists? None of them seems to have been taught anything about paragraphs and organizing their thoughts.

Their stream-of-consciousness writing apparently reflects the confusing mish-mash of thoughts going on in their heads.

DS said: Brian, Were you trying to respond to something I wrote? Funny, I didn't see anything on that web site concerning endosymbiosis. Strange that the Bible seems to be silent on that topic, isn't it. Perhaps you have an alternative explanation for all of the evidence that I presented? Think you can do better than Steve? It shouldn't be too hard. Here is a question for you Brian. If Christ is in a conflict with Lucifer, how can one tell which side a person is on? Would you think that people who lie constantly and distort the truth are on the side of Christ or Lucifer? So, which side do you think that creationists are on?

Stanton said:

stevaroni said:

Brian said: Christ shares the Same Eternal Spirit with the Father which makes them God. No creations have this Spirit which is God, only than the Father and Son. John 4:24God [is] a Spirit

Um, yeah. Brian, do you actually have any evidence of, well, anything that does not involve quoting a bible? Ya know, some little scrap of empirically verifiable... well, anything?

No, he doesn't, nor will he ever. Brian adjured all logic and reason from his blessed little noggin years and years ago.

Richard Simons said:

Brian said: Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Not wanting to derail the thread, but I've never had the slightest idea of what this means. Could you give me a link to a clear explanation? It was hearing verbiage like this that first gave me doubts about Christianity.

Uh, Brian, here's a challenge for you...

Can you write a whole post without one Bible reference that provides one solitary, single fact from nature that supports the separate creation of the species, or denies the common descent of all life? Not a general assertion of how creationists seek truth, or where God can be found or how He works. Just one verifiable fact from nature. One will do, if it's a fact.

It's refreshing to see you say that the Bible contains much symbolism, which is the same thing as saying that it can't reliably be taken literally. The question is whether you can apply this principle in general, and agree that science must study verifiable and objective fact, and not what you think, or what anybody thinks, the Bible means.

Dave Luckett said: Uh, Brian, here's a challenge for you... Can you write a whole post without one Bible reference that provides one solitary, single fact from nature that supports the separate creation of the species, or denies the common descent of all life? Not a general assertion of how creationists seek truth, or where God can be found or how He works. Just one verifiable fact from nature. One will do, if it's a fact. It's refreshing to see you say that the Bible contains much symbolism, which is the same thing as saying that it can't reliably be taken literally. The question is whether you can apply this principle in general, and agree that science must study verifiable and objective fact, and not what you think, or what anybody thinks, the Bible means.

Richard Simons said:

Brian said: Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Not wanting to derail the thread, but I've never had the slightest idea of what this means. Could you give me a link to a clear explanation?

fnxtr said: Isn't that the logos that Dr. Dr. D goes off about, which is really kind of like a magic word? The sort of Platonic Ideal Word, maybe, which is actually "Truth", "Law", "Order" and so on.

Brian said: God works through laws of nature. Christ is God. I do not have to exclude God when studying nature.

Brian said: It depends if the creationists have the full truth about creation. Not just for the sake of arguing but rather a sincere desire to know what is TRUTH!

Brian said: God works through laws of nature. Christ is God. I do not have to exclude God when studying nature.

Brian wrote:

"It depends if the creationists have the full truth about creation. Not just for the sake of arguing but rather a sincere desire to know what is TRUTH!"

Well Brian, If you know the TRUTH, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to actually discuss the FACTS now should it? So, once again, just to be fair, do you have an alternative explanation for the evidence that I presented or not? Notice that all of the independent lines of evidence are completely consistent with the endosymbiosis theory. In order to disprove the theory, you must provide some evidence that is inconsistent with the theory. You should also be able to provde some evidence consistent with your alternative.

Please note that I will disregard any response that contains any biblical reference, quote or argument. The Bible has notihing whatsoever to say about the origin of mitochondria. The words mitochondria and endosymbiosis do not appear anywhere in the text, in any translation. HOwever, the following words do appear, written by Paul:

I have become all things to all men, so that I may be all means save some.

Disregarding the disingenuousness of this quote, can you act like a scientist for a few minutes Brian? If not, then you are not following the teachings of the Bible now are you? You don't want FL to come around and accuse you of not being a real Christian now do you?

If by some chance you cannot come up with an alternative hypothesis, perhaps you might be willing to consider the possibility that your god might be big enough to actually use natural processes to accomplish her inscrutable ends.

Dan said: Creationists believe that they have "the full truth about creation". This is why creationism is not science, not fun, not growing, and (more mundanely) this is why creationists don't have jobs.

SWT said: The discussion of Logos in Wikipedia is pretty good. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logos

DS said: Well Brian, If you know the TRUTH, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to actually discuss the FACTS now should it?

Brian,

Still waiting.

Come on man, here is your perfect chance to win another convert. All you have to do is come up with an alternative hypothesis that explains all of the evidence better than the theory of endosymbiosis, along with some concrete scientific evidence for that alternative and a reason why that evidence is predicted by it.

I would be more than happy to convert to your particular form of religion if you can only provide me with these simple things. For a guy who quotes the Bible so much, yiu seem not to have read many parts of it.

SWT said:

Brian said: God works through laws of nature. Christ is God. I do not have to exclude God when studying nature.

The correctness of the bolded text depends on what you mean by "studying nature." I can take a hike through the mountains, marvel at the natural world, and contemplate nature and God's relationship to us. That could be considered "studying nature" and I might well learn something in the process, but it is not doing science. If you believe, as I do, that scripture and the natural world are both expressions of God's will, then it is imperative that our scientific investigations be as objective as possible -- that when I conduct an experiment, the experiment must not be in some way rigged to confirm my biases. This is one of the strengths of methodological naturalism -- by eliminating supernatural explanations, we produce results that can be duplicated, repeatably, by anyone. Indeed, proper experimental design is focused on challenging the researcher's hypothesis, not on verifying it. If you contort scientific results to match your preconceptions, you're not only doing bad science, you're doing bad theology since you are replacing an objectively tested understanding of the natural world (an expression of God's will) and replacing it with your own. I also feel compelled to point out that much of your discussion regarding the "controversy between Christ and Lucifer" is extra-Biblical. There's no reason even a Biblical literalist should accept it.

DS said: Brian wrote: "It depends if the creationists have the full truth about creation. Not just for the sake of arguing but rather a sincere desire to know what is TRUTH!" Well Brian, If you know the TRUTH, then it shouldn't be too hard for you to actually discuss the FACTS now should it? So, once again, just to be fair, do you have an alternative explanation for the evidence that I presented or not? Notice that all of the independent lines of evidence are completely consistent with the endosymbiosis theory. In order to disprove the theory, you must provide some evidence that is inconsistent with the theory. You should also be able to provde some evidence consistent with your alternative. Please note that I will disregard any response that contains any biblical reference, quote or argument. The Bible has notihing whatsoever to say about the origin of mitochondria. The words mitochondria and endosymbiosis do not appear anywhere in the text, in any translation. HOwever, the following words do appear, written by Paul: I have become all things to all men, so that I may be all means save some. Disregarding the disingenuousness of this quote, can you act like a scientist for a few minutes Brian? If not, then you are not following the teachings of the Bible now are you? You don't want FL to come around and accuse you of not being a real Christian now do you? If by some chance you cannot come up with an alternative hypothesis, perhaps you might be willing to consider the possibility that your god might be big enough to actually use natural processes to accomplish her inscrutable ends.

DS said: Brian, Still waiting. Come on man, here is your perfect chance to win another convert. All you have to do is come up with an alternative hypothesis that explains all of the evidence better than the theory of endosymbiosis, along with some concrete scientific evidence for that alternative and a reason why that evidence is predicted by it. I would be more than happy to convert to your particular form of religion if you can only provide me with these simple things. For a guy who quotes the Bible so much, yiu seem not to have read many parts of it.

Brian said: Is it not also holding a preconception to not have any peossibility to include God in science. I prefer the science created by God rather than finite, erring humans.

Stanton said:

Dan said: Creationists believe that they have "the full truth about creation". This is why creationism is not science, not fun, not growing, and (more mundanely) this is why creationists don't have jobs.

Unless of course, they go to work for organizations that routinely profit from Lying For Jesus tm, like Answers In Genesis or the Discovery Institute, or various conservative Christian schools like Liberty University, where they drum into the skulls of the students that Jesus was a hyperconservative who hate, hate, hated all things unChristian, like equal rights for non-Christians, and non-Christian groups like gays, pagans, devil-worshipers, atheists, Darwinists, Democrats, or, worst of all, liberals.

Stanton said:

Brian said: Is it not also holding a preconception to not have any peossibility to include God in science. I prefer the science created by God rather than finite, erring humans.

How does do "science created by God"? How does claiming that Jesus created the world in 6 literal days by "accelerating natural laws" as a part of a pissing contest with Satan, without ever bothering to provide any sort of testable evidence to support this claim, supposed to be science? Brian, if all you are capable of is babbling Christian apologetics-flavored word salad, please go away. All you are going to get here is ridicule that you so rightly deserve.

Brian said: I do not desire to "win you" that is not my job. My job is to point you away from deifying the human rather than the divine. Worshipping nature rather than worshipping nature's God.

Brian said: What I mean is the very power that allows "the evidence to be tested" is Christ. I am looking at it from that peospective. He is the power governing nature and he may accelerate it as he wills. Has a theory been made that attempts to answer the question of what governs the laws of nature? Supply enlightenment to my ignorance. I do not know it all.

Brian said: Jesus loved the people and spoke in the most tender and compassionate accents to them, but he hated sin[Transgression of the law, whether the law of God or Natures laws which really shasow the law of God]. He hated what the people did most of the time but he never hated the person. Jesus pitied people and healed them even though they might have been suffering from things brought on from consequenses of what they did.

Brian wrote:

"I do not desire to “win you” that is not my job. My job is to point you away from deifying the human rather than the divine. Worshipping nature rather than worshipping nature’s God."

Well then Brian, you are not following the teachings of the bible. You are not a true christian. FIne by me. And how exaclty did you conclude that I "deify the human"? You know absolutely nothing about me or my beliefs. Now If you want me to "worship nature's God", then I guess you were lying about not trying to win me over now weren't you?

So if, as you claim, you really don't have any alterior motives, what is your alternative explanation for the evidence? Last chance. If you want me to "worship nature's God" you had better explain why I should. Show me how nature is in harmony with the bible when it comes to mitochondria.

Still waiting, Brian. I don't want to know everything. Give me just one fact, Brian. Only one fact from nature, not the Bible, that I can check and verify, and that supports separate creation of the species, thus repudiating evolution. One fact is all I need. It has to be a fact, it has to be verifiable, and it has to have that necessary interpretation.

Come on, Brian. Just one fact. Don't tell me how the Scriptures are inerrant and not in conflict with nature. If they're not, one fact from nature that backs up the Genesis account of special creation should be easy to find. Just one, Brian. That's all it'll take.

Brian said: Is it not also holding a preconception to not have any peossibility to include God in science. I prefer the science created by God rather than finite, erring humans.

Brian,

I contend that lightning is a natural phenomena and that our scientific understanding of lightning can be used to prevent lightning from striking buildings. You apparently contend that ligntning is sent by god to punish the wicked. Now Brian, exactly which one of us is "deifying" something?

If you really prefer the science created by God, rather than finite errring humans, then perhaps you can use your god-made computer to post here, not the one made by humans. Unless of course you are a hypocrite.

SWT said: Brian, you don't get to decide what science is.

DS said: Brian, I contend that lightning is a natural phenomena and that our scientific understanding of lightning can be used to prevent lightning from striking buildings.

DS said: Brian, I contend that lightning is a natural phenomena and that our scientific understanding of lightning can be used to prevent lightning from striking buildings. You apparently contend that ligntning is sent by god to punish the wicked. Now Brian, exactly which one of us is "deifying" something? If you really prefer the science created by God, rather than finite errring humans, then perhaps you can use your god-made computer to post here, not the one made by humans. Unless of course you are a hypocrite.

Stanton said: You are the one who made the claim that Jesus, not God, accelerated the laws of nature in order to create the world in 6 days in order to spite Satan in a pissing contest, and you are the one obligated to provide support to your claim. I have to inform you that demanding that I supply evidence of a master being that can control the laws of nature is not support for your own idiotic claim.

Brian said: What I mean is the very power that allows "the evidence to be tested" is Christ. I am looking at it from that peospective. He is the power governing nature and he may accelerate it as he wills. Has a theory been made that attempts to answer the question of what governs the laws of nature? Supply enlightenment to my ignorance. I do not know it all.

SWT said:

Brian said: Is it not also holding a preconception to not have any peossibility to include God in science. I prefer the science created by God rather than finite, erring humans.

Brian, you don't get to decide what science is. I'm sure that's frustrating to you, but that's the situation. As soon as you include in your explanations any mechanism that is not testable in some way, you cease doing science and start doing something else. We refer to the scientific paradigm as methodological naturalism because we are not necessarily making the claim that there is no God (or gods, for that matter) ... rather, we agree to limit our explanations to things that are objectively observable and testable by everyone regardless of their faith position. Perhaps rather than rejecting objectively accurate evidence or insisting that a successful paradigm is deeply flawed, you need to be rethinking the theological implications of scientific results. Even John Calvin recognized that the narratives in the Bible were accommodated to the understanding of the original readers/hearers, and in this was consistent with Augustine. Or is your understanding of scripture inerrant?

Brian said: Well the way I see it probability should control the laws of nature according to evolutionists or am I assuming here?

DS said: Brian, I contend that lightning is a natural phenomena and that our scientific understanding of lightning can be used to prevent lightning from striking buildings. You apparently contend that ligntning is sent by god to punish the wicked. Now Brian, exactly which one of us is "deifying" something? If you really prefer the science created by God, rather than finite errring humans, then perhaps you can use your god-made computer to post here, not the one made by humans. Unless of course you are a hypocrite.

Brian said: My understanding of scripture would be inerrant if I properly followed the following formula: “1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible.” E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 1, p. 482, col. 2.

Dan said:

Brian said: Well the way I see it probability should control the laws of nature according to evolutionists or am I assuming here?

You're assuming incorrectly here. What did Darwin say about this matter in 1859, writing in the first edition of Origin of Species? He said that "mere chance ... alone would never account for so habitual and large an amount of difference as that between varieties of the same species and species of the same genus" (page 111). Richard Dawkins makes the same point in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, where he concludes a long and delightful explanation (chapter 3, page 49) by pointing out that "This belief, that Darwinian evolution is 'random', is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth. Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially non-random." In contrast, the Bible is quite explicit that "The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:10-12.) Why do so many people share the misconception that evolution is a random process, even after distinguished and literate scientists from Darwin to Dawkins have labored for a century and a half to dispel it? Why do people think that Christianity provides a universe of stable direction, when the Bible says the exact opposite? Please, Brian, let us know!

Dan said:

Brian said: My understanding of scripture would be inerrant if I properly followed the following formula: “1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible.” E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 1, p. 482, col. 2.

Let's apply this formula to one of the most famous passages of the Bible: "Yeh, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil." If this is passage is taken literally, it leads to a number of interesting questions: How deep is the valley of the shadow of death? What is the flow rate of the river running through it? Has it been nominated as a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site? http://whc.unesco.org/en/list The message is clear. If you read scripture literally, you may be completely missing the point!

Brian said: Sigh, Then how would the selector know the best choice to select? probability? It could not see the future.

Dan said:

Brian said: Well the way I see it probability should control the laws of nature according to evolutionists or am I assuming here?

You're assuming incorrectly here. What did Darwin say about this matter in 1859, writing in the first edition of Origin of Species? He said that "mere chance ... alone would never account for so habitual and large an amount of difference as that between varieties of the same species and species of the same genus" (page 111). Richard Dawkins makes the same point in his 1986 book The Blind Watchmaker, where he concludes a long and delightful explanation (chapter 3, page 49) by pointing out that "This belief, that Darwinian evolution is 'random', is not merely false. It is the exact opposite of the truth. Chance is a minor ingredient in the Darwinian recipe, but the most important ingredient is cumulative selection which is quintessentially non-random." In contrast, the Bible is quite explicit that "The race is not to the swift nor the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all." (Ecclesiastes 9:10-12.) Why do so many people share the misconception that evolution is a random process, even after distinguished and literate scientists from Darwin to Dawkins have labored for a century and a half to dispel it? Why do people think that Christianity provides a universe of stable direction, when the Bible says the exact opposite? Please, Brian, let us know!

Still waiting, Brian. One fact from nature that can be verified and tested, and which definitely supports separate creation of the species. Just one. If the Bible is inerrant, then what it says must be reflected in nature. If the species were separately created, not commonly descended with modification, there must be some evidence of it somewhere in nature. So give me just one solid piece of evidence, Brian. One will do, so long as it's real, factual, verifiable and bears that necessary interpretation. Come on, man. One. Just one. Is that so impossible?

Brian said: The formula cannot be applied to understanding one scripture but a subject or doctrine. Since the main subject you specified is the "shadow of death". Then the fomula may applied to that subject.

Dan said:

Brian said: My understanding of scripture would be inerrant if I properly followed the following formula: “1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible.” E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 1, p. 482, col. 2.

Let's apply this formula to one of the most famous passages of the Bible: "Yeh, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil." If this is passage is taken literally, it leads to a number of interesting questions: How deep is the valley of the shadow of death? What is the flow rate of the river running through it? Has it been nominated as a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site? http://whc.unesco.org/en/list The message is clear. If you read scripture literally, you may be completely missing the point!

Brian said: Sigh, Then how would the selector know the best choice to select? probability? It could not see the future.

Dan said: Where does (Brian's) formula make the claim that it "cannot be applied to understanding one scripture but a subject or doctrine"?

Brian said: The formula cannot be applied to understanding one scripture but a subject or doctrine. Since the main subject you specified is the "shadow of death". Then the fomula may applied to that subject.

Dan said:

Brian said: My understanding of scripture would be inerrant if I properly followed the following formula: “1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible.” E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 1, p. 482, col. 2.

Let's apply this formula to one of the most famous passages of the Bible: "Yeh, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil." If this is passage is taken literally, it leads to a number of interesting questions: How deep is the valley of the shadow of death? What is the flow rate of the river running through it? Has it been nominated as a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site? http://whc.unesco.org/en/list The message is clear. If you read scripture literally, you may be completely missing the point!

Brian wrote:

" I contend that when God removes His protection because He cannot protect those who transgress laws of nature or His Law destruction is ready to cave in from any direction even if it is a lightning bolt.. etc. If I transgress the Law of Gravity by jumping off a high building with no parashute or anything to break my fall, death or paralyzing injury is the result."

So then Brian, you are saying that what happens to you when you transgress the laws of nature is really god punishing you. Have I got that right? Well then Brian, as I stated previously, you are the one who is deifying nature, not me.

Now, if they are laws of nature, why do you require god to do the punishing? And how are we supposed to know what the laws of nature are if we do not study nature? Why do you claim that we are deifying nature when we study it? Do you think that all of the laws of nature are accurately described in the bible?

So your answer is no, you have no alternative explanation for all of the evidence that I have presented regarding endosymbiosis. Perhaps you have not studied nature enough. Perhaps god will punish you for transgressing against one of the laws of nature that you have not bothered to learn about. Perhaps an overdose of antibiotics will result because you did not learn about this law of nature.

"To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR"

This is classic Calvinism - "scriptura solus", plus the unwarrantable assumption that Scripture cannot mislead, because God wouldn't allow me to be misled. That is arrogantly to dictate to God what He must do. It's theology so lousy as to be actually blasphemous.

And it's blatantly false to fact. The result of thinking that anyone with enough faith can interpret scripture without error has been the schism of the Christian church into thousands of competing sects, all contradicting each other on one point or another, and all claiming to be right. Far from forming theories without contradiction, the result has been desperate conflict, disputation, bitter division and violent hostility, up to and including war and genocide; and the only reason that it no longer happens is because religious bigots no longer have the power to bring it about.

But they would if they could.

Brian wrote:

"Sigh, Then how would the selector know the best choice to select? probability? It could not see the future."

Sigh, it's one of those laws of nature that you are so fond of Brian.

Imagine a cheetah chasing gazelles. Do you think that the gazelle that it chases down and catches will be a random individual? Do you think that it is more likely that it will be a young, or old, or sick, or weak, or slow gazelle? Do you think that the cheetah must see the future in order to select the individual? Do you think that the cheetah will make the best choice in order to increase the speed of gazelles in subsequent generations? What do you think that the outcome of this selection will be for both the gazelles and the cheetahs? Do you think that either one of them must understand how selection works in order for it to operate?

Now Brian, how do you think that god will punish you if you do not obey this law of nature?

DS said: Brian wrote: "Sigh, Then how would the selector know the best choice to select? probability? It could not see the future." Sigh, it's one of those laws of nature that you are so fond of Brian. Imagine a cheetah chasing gazelles. Do you think that the gazelle that it chases down and catches will be a random individual? Do you think that it is more likely that it will be a young, or old, or sick, or weak, or slow gazelle? Do you think that the cheetah must see the future in order to select the individual? Do you think that the cheetah will make the best choice in order to increase the speed of gazelles in subsequent generations? What do you think that the outcome of this selection will be for both the gazelles and the cheetahs? Do you think that either one of them must understand how selection works in order for it to operate? Now Brian, how do you think that god will punish you if you do not obey this law of nature?

Dan said:

Brian said: The formula cannot be applied to understanding one scripture but a subject or doctrine. Since the main subject you specified is the "shadow of death". Then the fomula may applied to that subject.

Dan said:

Brian said: My understanding of scripture would be inerrant if I properly followed the following formula: “1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible.” E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 1, p. 482, col. 2.

Let's apply this formula to one of the most famous passages of the Bible: "Yeh, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil." If this is passage is taken literally, it leads to a number of interesting questions: How deep is the valley of the shadow of death? What is the flow rate of the river running through it? Has it been nominated as a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site? http://whc.unesco.org/en/list The message is clear. If you read scripture literally, you may be completely missing the point!

Okay, my theory is that the valley of the shadow of death is Hells Canyon on the Idaho - Oregon line. http://www.fs.fed.us/hellscanyon/ There is nothing in the Bible to contradict this theory. According to Brian's formula "if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR." Therefore I cannot be in error.

Dan said:

Brian said: The formula cannot be applied to understanding one scripture but a subject or doctrine. Since the main subject you specified is the "shadow of death". Then the fomula may applied to that subject.

Dan said:

Brian said: My understanding of scripture would be inerrant if I properly followed the following formula: “1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible.” E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 1, p. 482, col. 2.

Let's apply this formula to one of the most famous passages of the Bible: "Yeh, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I shall fear no evil." If this is passage is taken literally, it leads to a number of interesting questions: How deep is the valley of the shadow of death? What is the flow rate of the river running through it? Has it been nominated as a UNESCO World Cultural Heritage Site? http://whc.unesco.org/en/list The message is clear. If you read scripture literally, you may be completely missing the point!

Okay, my theory is that the valley of the shadow of death is Hells Canyon on the Idaho - Oregon line. http://www.fs.fed.us/hellscanyon/ There is nothing in the Bible to contradict this theory. According to Brian's formula "if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR." Therefore I cannot be in error.

Dave Luckett said: "To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, YOU CANNOT BE IN ERROR" This is classic Calvinism - "scriptura solus", plus the unwarrantable assumption that Scripture cannot mislead, because God wouldn't allow me to be misled. That is arrogantly to dictate to God what He must do. It's theology so lousy as to be actually blasphemous. And it's blatantly false to fact. The result of thinking that anyone with enough faith can interpret scripture without error has been the schism of the Christian church into thousands of competing sects, all contradicting each other on one point or another, and all claiming to be right. Far from forming theories without contradiction, the result has been desperate conflict, disputation, bitter division and violent hostility, up to and including war and genocide; and the only reason that it no longer happens is because religious bigots no longer have the power to bring it about. But they would if they could.

Brian, if you're just to preach at us, please go away.

Brian said: If the chuches follwed the fomula there would be no need for competing sects. GOd's church is not in the various sects anyway. It is the people who love God and keep His commandments/ Natural Law and Moral Law.

DS said: Brian wrote: " I contend that when God removes His protection because He cannot protect those who transgress laws of nature or His Law destruction is ready to cave in from any direction even if it is a lightning bolt.. etc. If I transgress the Law of Gravity by jumping off a high building with no parashute or anything to break my fall, death or paralyzing injury is the result." So then Brian, you are saying that what happens to you when you transgress the laws of nature is really god punishing you. Have I got that right? Well then Brian, as I stated previously, you are the one who is deifying nature, not me. Now, if they are laws of nature, why do you require god to do the punishing? And how are we supposed to know what the laws of nature are if we do not study nature? Why do you claim that we are deifying nature when we study it? Do you think that all of the laws of nature are accurately described in the bible? So your answer is no, you have no alternative explanation for all of the evidence that I have presented regarding endosymbiosis. Perhaps you have not studied nature enough. Perhaps god will punish you for transgressing against one of the laws of nature that you have not bothered to learn about. Perhaps an overdose of antibiotics will result because you did not learn about this law of nature.

Brian said: You have not brought all scripture that is written about the shadow of death.

Dave Luckett said:

Brian said: If the chuches follwed the fomula there would be no need for competing sects. GOd's church is not in the various sects anyway. It is the people who love God and keep His commandments/ Natural Law and Moral Law.

I hate to break this to you, Brian, but the churches are the sects and the sects are the churches. Each and every one of them has its own special version of exactly what God commands. Each of them says that it alone is right, and every single one of them says that it is God's church. Your opinion of what constitutes God's church is just that: an opinion, one out of thousands. And I'm still waiting for one fact from nature, Brian, that establishes separate creation of the species. Just one.

Dan said:

Brian said: You have not brought all scripture that is written about the shadow of death.

But I'm not interested in "the shadow of death". I'm interested in "the valley of the shadow of death". I want to hike through it, or perhaps kayak. This is the only reference in the Bible to "the valley of the shadow of death". Since you couldn't find any error in my application of your formula, then I "CANNOT BE IN ERROR"!

Oh yeah and we would also have to define or see how it is used in a sentence of what "shadow" is by scripture because it is not as we would commonly define it.

Brian said: My understanding of scripture would be inerrant if I properly followed the following formula:

I also believe that scientists would be inerrant if they used the following formula to understand the book of nature.

SWT said: OK, Brian, a question and a comment:

Brian said: My understanding of scripture would be inerrant if I properly followed the following formula:

So, do you believe your understanding of scripture to be inerrant?

I also believe that scientists would be inerrant if they used the following formula to understand the book of nature.

And here you demonstrate that you don't understand scientific thinking. I don't know any scientist -- or of any scientist -- who believes that a scientist would be inerrant under any circumstances. You really need to understand science before you try to argue with scientists. Seriously.

Brian said: I do not desire to "win you" that is not my job. My job is to point you away from deifying the human rather than the divine. Worshipping nature rather than worshipping nature's God. Men today declare that Christ's teachings concerning God cannot be substantiated by the things of the natural world, that nature is not in harmony with the Old and New Testament Scriptures. This supposed lack of harmony between nature and science does not exist. The Word of the God of heaven is not in harmony with human science, but it is in perfect accord with His own created science. {UL 278.4}

DS said: Brian, Still waiting. Come on man, here is your perfect chance to win another convert. All you have to do is come up with an alternative hypothesis that explains all of the evidence better than the theory of endosymbiosis, along with some concrete scientific evidence for that alternative and a reason why that evidence is predicted by it. I would be more than happy to convert to your particular form of religion if you can only provide me with these simple things. For a guy who quotes the Bible so much, yiu seem not to have read many parts of it.

Brian says I hate it to break it to you, but If they would only read and study the bible they would understand that God and his Law doesn’t change.

Dave Luckett said:

Brian says I hate it to break it to you, but If they would only read and study the bible they would understand that God and his Law doesn’t change.

Are you seriously saying that the various Christian churches don't read and study the Bible? Better yet, are you saying that where they differ from you, yours is the only correct interpretation of God's law? But I'm glad to hear you say that there's no evidence from nature for separate creation of the species. There's hope yet. You say, rightly, that life has not been "manufactured" from non-living elements. But that only means that the method is unknown. It doesn't mean that the method must be "divine creation from nothing". Science, you are happy to tell me, doesn't know everything. Every scientist agrees with you on this. So why are you demanding that science know everything about manufacturing life?

Rilke's granddaughter said: Then you can die happy, 'cause we don't deify the human, nor do we worship nature. We're scientists, man.

Rilke's granddaughter said: Brian claims that any church which does not agree with his interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Plain and simple.

Dave Luckett said:

Brian says I hate it to break it to you, but If they would only read and study the bible they would understand that God and his Law doesn’t change.

Are you seriously saying that the various Christian churches don't read and study the Bible? Better yet, are you saying that where they differ from you, yours is the only correct interpretation of God's law? But I'm glad to hear you say that there's no evidence from nature for separate creation of the species. There's hope yet. You say, rightly, that life has not been "manufactured" from non-living elements. But that only means that the method is unknown. It doesn't mean that the method must be "divine creation from nothing". Science, you are happy to tell me, doesn't know everything. Every scientist agrees with you on this. So why are you demanding that science know everything about manufacturing life?

Stanton said: Brian's display of galling hubris is an example of what's referred to in the Bible as "complaining of motes in another's eye whilst ignoring the beam stuck in one's own eye"

Rilke's granddaughter said: Brian claims that any church which does not agree with his interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Plain and simple.

Dave Luckett said:

Brian says I hate it to break it to you, but If they would only read and study the bible they would understand that God and his Law doesn’t change.

Are you seriously saying that the various Christian churches don't read and study the Bible? Better yet, are you saying that where they differ from you, yours is the only correct interpretation of God's law? But I'm glad to hear you say that there's no evidence from nature for separate creation of the species. There's hope yet. You say, rightly, that life has not been "manufactured" from non-living elements. But that only means that the method is unknown. It doesn't mean that the method must be "divine creation from nothing". Science, you are happy to tell me, doesn't know everything. Every scientist agrees with you on this. So why are you demanding that science know everything about manufacturing life?

Dave Luckett said: You say, rightly, that life has not been "manufactured" from non-living elements. But that only means that the method is unknown. It doesn't mean that the method must be "divine creation from nothing". Science, you are happy to tell me, doesn't know everything. Every scientist agrees with you on this. So why are you demanding that science know everything about manufacturing life?

Brian said: I am still mastering how to use to formula and there are a whole myraid of subjects that I have not studies so no. Though for the subjects that one has used this formula for I believe that he "cannot be in error"

Point is, it is impossible for scientists to apply the formula to the book of nature that they study because they are always discovering something new and haven't gathered all the facts so they are forced to use preponderence of facts rather than the whole weight of gatherable facts.

Brian said: My understanding of scripture would be inerrant if I properly followed the following formula: .... I also believe that scientists would be inerrant if they used the following formula to understand the book of nature. ....

Brian said: We would have to study what "the valley" is and the "shadow of death" is as defined in scripture. Scripture must be its own expositor. and again it has to be it's own dictionary. So the shadow of death as you have defined it as an ACTUAL valley in Utah is not necessary the definition as defined in scripture.

Dan said:

Brian said: You have not brought all scripture that is written about the shadow of death.

But I'm not interested in "the shadow of death". I'm interested in "the valley of the shadow of death". I want to hike through it, or perhaps kayak. This is the only reference in the Bible to "the valley of the shadow of death". Since you couldn't find any error in my application of your formula, then I "CANNOT BE IN ERROR"!

Brian wrote:

"I am deifying God because I’m saying He is the controller of nature and nature is suboordinate and subject to Him. From your view point nature dows its own thing, making up it’s own laws and is supreme. That is deifying nature."

No it isn't. You are the one who is saying that nature is created, controlled and enforced by god. You are the one who is claiming that nothing can even fall to earth without god being necessary. You are the one who is claiming that lightning is a punishment from god. I am making no claims whatsoever about any god. You are deifying nature, period. Now, once again, if you think the laws of nature are so frickin important, why don't you think that people should study them? Why does science threaten your faith so much?

If you define studying and understanding nature and taking responsibliity for your own actions as somehow "deifying" nature, then I guess that is what science does. If you don't like it, stop using the products produced by science. Are you Amish by any chance? Are you still using your human-made computer? Are you really the biggest hypocrite in the history of the world, or do you just want everyone to think so?

"Point is, it is impossible for scientists to apply the formula to the book of nature that they study because they are always discovering something new and haven’t gathered all the facts so they are forced to use preponderence of facts rather than the whole weight of gatherable facts."

So exactly what does your "formula" say about endosymbiosis? Exactly how can we learn the correct dosage of antibiotics by following your "formula"? Exactly what good is your "formula" for the study of any natural law? If it is impossible to apply the formula, then what good is it for studying nature? If it is worthless for studying nature, should we then just give up and not study nature at all? Exactly why do you deny the "perponderance of facts"? Exactly what "gatherable facts" do you have that are not consistent with the theory of endosymbiosis? Why did god try to give you a brain and why do you refuse to use it? You are deifying ignorance.

Rilke's granddaughter said: I don't know that it's hubris so much as a complete lack of reasoning ability and a noticeable lack of imagination. Oh, and ignorance of science and history helps.

Stanton said: Brian's display of galling hubris is an example of what's referred to in the Bible as "complaining of motes in another's eye whilst ignoring the beam stuck in one's own eye"

Rilke's granddaughter said: Brian claims that any church which does not agree with his interpretation of the Bible is wrong. Plain and simple.

Dave Luckett said:

Brian says I hate it to break it to you, but If they would only read and study the bible they would understand that God and his Law doesn’t change.

Are you seriously saying that the various Christian churches don't read and study the Bible? Better yet, are you saying that where they differ from you, yours is the only correct interpretation of God's law? But I'm glad to hear you say that there's no evidence from nature for separate creation of the species. There's hope yet. You say, rightly, that life has not been "manufactured" from non-living elements. But that only means that the method is unknown. It doesn't mean that the method must be "divine creation from nothing". Science, you are happy to tell me, doesn't know everything. Every scientist agrees with you on this. So why are you demanding that science know everything about manufacturing life?

Dave Luckett said:

Brian says I hate it to break it to you, but If they would only read and study the bible they would understand that God and his Law doesn’t change.

Are you seriously saying that the various Christian churches don't read and study the Bible? Better yet, are you saying that where they differ from you, yours is the only correct interpretation of God's law? But I'm glad to hear you say that there's no evidence from nature for separate creation of the species. There's hope yet. You say, rightly, that life has not been "manufactured" from non-living elements. But that only means that the method is unknown. It doesn't mean that the method must be "divine creation from nothing". Science, you are happy to tell me, doesn't know everything. Every scientist agrees with you on this. So why are you demanding that science know everything about manufacturing life?

DS said: Brian wrote: "I am deifying God because I’m saying He is the controller of nature and nature is suboordinate and subject to Him. From your view point nature dows its own thing, making up it’s own laws and is supreme. That is deifying nature." No it isn't. You are the one who is saying that nature is created, controlled and enforced by god. You are the one who is claiming that nothing can even fall to earth without god being necessary. You are the one who is claiming that lightning is a punishment from god. I am making no claims whatsoever about any god. You are deifying nature, period. Now, once again, if you think the laws of nature are so frickin important, why don't you think that people should study them? Why does science threaten your faith so much? If you define studying and understanding nature and taking responsibliity for your own actions as somehow "deifying" nature, then I guess that is what science does. If you don't like it, stop using the products produced by science. Are you Amish by any chance? Are you still using your human-made computer? Are you really the biggest hypocrite in the history of the world, or do you just want everyone to think so? "Point is, it is impossible for scientists to apply the formula to the book of nature that they study because they are always discovering something new and haven’t gathered all the facts so they are forced to use preponderence of facts rather than the whole weight of gatherable facts." So exactly what does your "formula" say about endosymbiosis? Exactly how can we learn the correct dosage of antibiotics by following your "formula"? Exactly what good is your "formula" for the study of any natural law? If it is impossible to apply the formula, then what good is it for studying nature? If it is worthless for studying nature, should we then just give up and not study nature at all? Exactly why do you deny the "perponderance of facts"? Exactly what "gatherable facts" do you have that are not consistent with the theory of endosymbiosis? Why did god try to give you a brain and why do you refuse to use it? You are deifying ignorance.

So, Brian, ministers and pastors and so on, the Christian church, all that, they don't know, mostly. You're the one who knows what God wants, by applying your formula, and of course it just isn't possible that anyone who differs from your interpretation of Scripture could be right. Good to know. But tell me, why do you think that living exactly how someone else - even God - wants you to live, would be Heaven?

There's a joke about the socialist agitator, giving the fist-thumping speech: "Come the revolution, comrades, you'll be driving around in a cadillac convertible with a beautiful blonde on your arm!"

Objector at the back: "But I don't want to go driving around in a cadillac convertible with a beautiful blonde on my arm."

Speaker: "Come the revolution, comrade, you'll do as you're bloody well told!"

Oh, by the way, Brian, you've just demonstrated that you're a loon. I'm not interested in talking to loons.

DS said: So exactly what does your "formula" say about endosymbiosis? Exactly how can we learn the correct dosage of antibiotics by following your "formula"? Exactly what good is your "formula" for the study of any natural law? If it is impossible to apply the formula, then what good is it for studying nature? If it is worthless for studying nature, should we then just give up and not study nature at all? Exactly why do you deny the "perponderance of facts"? Exactly what "gatherable facts" do you have that are not consistent with the theory of endosymbiosis? Why did god try to give you a brain and why do you refuse to use it? You are deifying ignorance.

Dave Luckett said: So, Brian, ministers and pastors and so on, the Christian church, all that, they don't know, mostly. You're the one who knows what God wants, by applying your formula, and of course it just isn't possible that anyone who differs from your interpretation of Scripture could be right. Good to know. But tell me, why do you think that living exactly how someone else - even God - wants you to live, would be Heaven? There's a joke about the socialist agitator, giving the fist-thumping speech: "Come the revolution, comrades, you'll be driving around in a cadillac convertible with a beautiful blonde on your arm!" Objector at the back: "But I don't want to go driving around in a cadillac convertible with a beautiful blonde on my arm." Speaker: "Come the revolution, comrade, you'll do as you're bloody well told!" Oh, by the way, Brian, you've just demonstrated that you're a loon. I'm not interested in talking to loons.

Dave Luckett said: There's a joke about the socialist agitator, giving the fist-thumping speech: "Come the revolution, comrades, you'll be driving around in a cadillac convertible with a beautiful blonde on your arm!" Objector at the back: "But I don't want to go driving around in a cadillac convertible with a beautiful blonde on my arm." Speaker: "Come the revolution, comrade, you'll do as you're bloody well told!" Oh, by the way, Brian, you've just demonstrated that you're a loon. I'm not interested in talking to loons.

{NOTE}I do not suppport socialism

If you weren't a fool, Brian, you'd realize that humans use 100% of the neurons in their brains, just not all at once.

And since you're here only to preach nonsense at us, please go away.

Brian wrote:

"Once again I DID NOT say “lightnimg is a punishment from God”. I believe it is a self-inflicted punishment that God allows to happen because the one receiving the punishment refused to take precautions. God takes the responsibility but He loves the one punished and would not allow anything that is not for their own good unless they separated themselves from him or pushed him away.

So then your god is completely irrelevant. It must punish anyone who, knowingly or unknowingly, violates natural law. How is this a reason for not sudying and understanding nature?

"Point is because of humans only using 10% of their brains they are unable to identify all the gatherable facts so they may spend a lifetime gathering facts but yet fall short of painting the true picture. Nature should be studied as a revelation of God of his character to find out the just laws that he works through."

Right, the old "you don't know everything so I don't have to listen to anything you say" routine. So then, if you think that nature should be studied, why do you accuse those who do so of deifying nature? And if studying nature leads to the conclusion that god worked through endosymbiosis, what then? Why do you still reject the findings of science?

"Nature I believe is God’s toy that humans think is cool and are studying, but His technology is way ahead of ours and an a million years of study would yeild only finite results when it was crafted by an eternal one. Why not ask Him? There will always be something new even if studied for etenity."

Go right ahead, ask away, no one can stop you. You won't get an answer, not in your little book of mythology, not in response to your prayers. See Brian, we tried that approach for thousands of years, all it ever got us was lots of people killed by lightning. Oh yea, and lots of people killing each other. You can go back to those days if you want to. You will have to give up that computer though.

"Go ahead and assail my character and motives but at the end of the day we cannot use much more than 10% of our brains(and you can go ahead and say im not using mine all you want but in order to even type these words I must use it) and we all die. I may die smiling with hope in a first resurrection, you may die despondingly and dreadfully thinking that you will be recycles into matter or etc. and that’s all."

Yea, that's right. Everyone who doesn't agree with you will die despoadant and dreadful. Your can smile all you want on your way to the grave Brian, but in the end if you are wrong, you will have wasted the only time you have. You will have accomplished nothing and you will remain willfully ignorant. Just go on making those sacrifices to the god of ignorance till the bitter end. Even if you are right about your "eternal reward", what harm would it do to learn something while you can?

"I am just one person and I really believe I am dust really and nothingness so you may perhaps put your intelligence(which I believe is God given) to something more useful than making dust look stupid."

I don't have to make you look stupid Brian. All I have to do is point out the futility of your position. What you do about that is up to you. You can go right on worshiping ignorance, or you can learn something. The choice is yours. Good luck.

Brian wrote:

"{NOTE}I do not suppport socialism"

Big surprise. How's your health care program?

DS said: Brian wrote: "{NOTE}I do not suppport socialism" Big surprise. How's your health care program?

Point is because of humans only using 10% of their brains . . .

Brian,

Here are a few questions for you:

1) If you get a bacterial infection and die, is that really god punishing you for your ignorance of germ theory, or do you have to do something else really bad in order for god to kill you?

2) If god punishes you by giving you a bacterial infection and kills you for doing something she didn't like, how are you ever going to learn not to do it again, especially if god never tells you why you are being killed?

3) If you get a bacterial iinfection, will god change her mind about killing you if you take antibiotics? Will she just go ahead and kill you if you are too ignorant to know about antibiotics?

4) If you are ignorant of the theory of endosymbiosis and don't know that antibiotics can kill you, will god punish you for being ignorant and kill you for taking too many antibiotics, or do you have to do something else really bad in order to be punished by god for taking too many antibiotics?

5) If you are right and there is life after death, when you get to the pearly gates, what are you going to say if god asks you why you remained so ignorant and refused to use the brain that she gave you to study the natural world she created just for you?

Richard,

Come now Richard, you know the answer to that. If you choose to use only 10% of your brains as most creationists do, then you pretty much have to claim that no one else is doing any better.

Of course the line from the Wizard of Oz is most appropriate:

"I have so got a brain."

"Well then, why don't you use it?"

DS said: Brian, Here are a few questions for you: 1) If you get a bacterial infection and die, is that really god punishing you for your ignorance of germ theory, or do you have to do something else really bad in order for god to kill you? 2) If god punishes you by giving you a bacterial infection and kills you for doing something she didn't like, how are you ever going to learn not to do it again, especially if god never tells you why you are being killed? 3) If you get a bacterial iinfection, will god change her mind about killing you if you take antibiotics? Will she just go ahead and kill you if you are too ignorant to know about antibiotics? 4) If you are ignorant of the theory of endosymbiosis and don't know that antibiotics can kill you, will god punish you for being ignorant and kill you for taking too many antibiotics, or do you have to do something else really bad in order to be punished by god for taking too many antibiotics? 5) If you are right and there is life after death, when you get to the pearly gates, what are you going to say if god asks you why you remained so ignorant and refused to use the brain that she gave you to study the natural world she created just for you?

Richard Simons said:

Point is because of humans only using 10% of their brains . . .

Why are creationists so enamored of this piece of rubbish?

DS said: Right, the old "you don't know everything so I don't have to listen to anything you say" routine. So then, if you think that nature should be studied, why do you accuse those who do so of deifying nature? And if studying nature leads to the conclusion that god worked through endosymbiosis, what then? Why do you still reject the findings of science? "Nature I believe is God’s toy that humans think is cool and are studying, but His technology is way ahead of ours and an a million years of study would yeild only finite results when it was crafted by an eternal one. Why not ask Him? There will always be something new even if studied for etenity." Go right ahead, ask away, no one can stop you. You won't get an answer, not in your little book of mythology, not in response to your prayers. See Brian, we tried that approach for thousands of years, all it ever got us was lots of people killed by lightning. Oh yea, and lots of people killing each other. You can go back to those days if you want to. You will have to give up that computer though. "Go ahead and assail my character and motives but at the end of the day we cannot use much more than 10% of our brains(and you can go ahead and say im not using mine all you want but in order to even type these words I must use it) and we all die. I may die smiling with hope in a first resurrection, you may die despondingly and dreadfully thinking that you will be recycles into matter or etc. and that’s all." Yea, that's right. Everyone who doesn't agree with you will die despoadant and dreadful. Your can smile all you want on your way to the grave Brian, but in the end if you are wrong, you will have wasted the only time you have. You will have accomplished nothing and you will remain willfully ignorant. Just go on making those sacrifices to the god of ignorance till the bitter end. Even if you are right about your "eternal reward", what harm would it do to learn something while you can? "I am just one person and I really believe I am dust really and nothingness so you may perhaps put your intelligence(which I believe is God given) to something more useful than making dust look stupid." I don't have to make you look stupid Brian. All I have to do is point out the futility of your position. What you do about that is up to you. You can go right on worshiping ignorance, or you can learn something. The choice is yours. Good luck.

Brian said: I do not reject the findings of science except about the age of the world. I do believe the findings of science are incomplete in that aspect because the matter that was used to form the world may have existed millions of years before our world was formed and they focus on dating the matter when the world could be much younger. I believe our world was created or evolved in an accelerated manner. 6 literal days. On the 7th He rested.

Brian wrote:

"I believe there was a time when we could use 100% of our neurons all at ONE TIME and always. Not different periods."

That's funny, I believe that also. In fact I think there is a term for that. What was it again? Oh that's right, it's called grand mal seizure. Got a reference for your claim?

"I do not reject the findings of science except about the age of the world. I do believe the findings of science are incomplete in that aspect because the matter that was used to form the world may have existed millions of years before our world was formed and they focus on dating the matter when the world could be much younger."

Sigh. So then, you acknowldege that the theory of endosymbiosis is consistent with all of the available evidence. Great, now we are getting somewhere. I guess you only disagree with the findings of science that conflict with your preconceptions. Now Brian, what do you think that the odds are that scientists are right about everything else, but wrong about the one thing that you don't want to believe? And why exactly do you think that we should not study science if you are willing to accept and use almost all of the findings of science?

"God does not break his law so whatever happens he is clear of any blame. He cannot break His own law."

So then, I guess you better understand all natural laws because god is never going to spare you, even if you break those laws in ignorance. That sounds like a pretty good reason to study nature to me Brian. Exactly why do you think that that equals "defiying" nature again?

Brian,

One more question for you. Why do you copy and paste all of my questions if you have no intention of answering any of them? Please, for the love of your own god, don't copy and paste this question if you are not going to answer it.

Brian wrote:

"I do not reject the findings of science except about the age of the world. I do believe the findings of science are incomplete in that aspect because the matter that was used to form the world may have existed millions of years before our world was formed and they focus on dating the matter when the world could be much younger."

Yea right. No scientist ever thought of that before. Man, I guess all them fancy, smancy dating techniques they use are all completely worthless. Although, for some reason, they all give the same answer. Imagine that. There goes that perponderance of the evidence thing again. Of course Brian never gave any reason why he isn't satisfied with the perponderance of the evidence. Not even after he claimed that he did not reject the findings of science! Funny, it's almost like he dosesn't know how science works at all. Now why am I not surprised?

DS said: That's funny, I believe that also. In fact I think there is a term for that. What was it again? Oh that's right, it's called grand mal seizure. Got a reference for your claim? Sigh. So then, you acknowldege that the theory of endosymbiosis is consistent with all of the available evidence. Great, now we are getting somewhere. I guess you only disagree with the findings of science that conflict with your preconceptions. Now Brian, what do you think that the odds are that scientists are right about everything else, but wrong about the one thing that you don't want to believe? And why exactly do you think that we should not study science if you are willing to accept and use almost all of the findings of science? "God does not break his law so whatever happens he is clear of any blame. He cannot break His own law." So then, I guess you better understand all natural laws because god is never going to spare you, even if you break those laws in ignorance. That sounds like a pretty good reason to study nature to me Brian. Exactly why do you think that that equals "defiying" nature again?

Brian wrote:

Lots of made up crap with a fake "reference:

Eden.–Letter 65, 1898, p. 3.

Sigh, sigh, sigh. Hate to break this to you genius, but this is not a scientific reference in a peer reviewed journal. There is not one speck of evidence for any of the claims made in this abomination, including the magical flood. Try again.

"You seem to hint that biblical knowlege is “preconception” I would tell you that incomplete scientific knowlege is preconceptious against revelation of knowlege."

Exactly. Assuming that everything in the bible is correct and trying to restrict any investigations of the natural world to conform to this preconception is exactly the wrong way to study nature. Once again, that was tried for thousands of years and it got us nowhere. Incomplete knowledge is not preconception. If it were, then no study would ever be attempted. I know that is secretly what you want, but you don't have to be so blatantly contradictory about it.

"Many dont question because it is so widely accepted so they do not want to question the inconsistencies for fear of being labeled a loon."

Bullshit you lying hypocrite. Name one scientific theory that was not questioned. Name one major tenent of evolutionary theory that has not been tested thousands of time. See you fool, that is exactly the difference between your religious bigotry and real science. Unless you can at least admit this fundamental difference, there is no use discussing anything with you.

Why don't you question your flood mythology? Why don't you admit the lack of evidence and logical inconsistencies that make it a virtual impossibility, even with "divine intervention"? Why do you have to be such a transparently two-faced lying hypocrite?

"In consequence of the popular errors of the immortality of the soul and endless misery,"

Yea right. You have already admitted that if you violate natural law that god has no choice but to punish you, even if you were ignorant of the law you broke. So you tell me genius, exactly how will refusing to study nature get you less misery? Exactly how will praying to god to save you from floods, earthquakes, famines and plagues help you one little bit? Once again, been there done that, don't ever want to go back. You, on the other hand, continue to shamelessly use the products of the very science that you denigrate. I'm sure god will reward you appropriately for that.

"I believe science I just do not put my who trust in erring humans who of corse have a few things right not all though. I am not against studying nature with a different motive than most of the scientist have though.

Really? Then why did you label studying nature as "deifying" it? Why don't you study nature? Why do you care what motive anyone else has for studying nature? Why do you use the benefits of science regardleess of the motives of those who study it? Oh well, at least you finally admitted that the theory of endosymbiosis is correct. That's better than Steve ever managed.

DS said: Brian wrote: Lots of made up crap with a fake "reference: Eden.–Letter 65, 1898, p. 3. Sigh, sigh, sigh. Hate to break this to you genius, but this is not a scientific reference in a peer reviewed journal. There is not one speck of evidence for any of the claims made in this abomination, including the magical flood. Try again. Exactly. Assuming that everything in the bible is correct and trying to restrict any investigations of the natural world to conform to this preconception is exactly the wrong way to study nature. Once again, that was tried for thousands of years and it got us nowhere. Incomplete knowledge is not preconception. If it were, then no study would ever be attempted. I know that is secretly what you want, but you don't have to be so blatantly contradictory about it. Bullshit you lying hypocrite. Name one scientific theory that was not questioned. Name one major tenent of evolutionary theory that has not been tested thousands of time. See you fool, that is exactly the difference between your religious bigotry and real science. Unless you can at least admit this fundamental difference, there is no use discussing anything with you. Why don't you question your flood mythology? Why don't you admit the lack of evidence and logical inconsistencies that make it a virtual impossibility, even with "divine intervention"? Why do you have to be such a transparently two-faced lying hypocrite? "In consequence of the popular errors of the immortality of the soul and endless misery," Yea right. You have already admitted that if you violate natural law that god has no choice but to punish you, even if you were ignorant of the law you broke. So you tell me genius, exactly how will refusing to study nature get you less misery? Exactly how will praying to god to save you from floods, earthquakes, famines and plagues help you one little bit? Once again, been there done that, don't ever want to go back. You, on the other hand, continue to shamelessly use the products of the very science that you denigrate. I'm sure god will reward you appropriately for that. Really? Then why did you label studying nature as "deifying" it? Why don't you study nature? Why do you care what motive anyone else has for studying nature? Why do you use the benefits of science regardleess of the motives of those who study it? Oh well, at least you finally admitted that the theory of endosymbiosis is correct. That's better than Steve ever managed.

So God saved the world by murdering everything He created?

brian Making Stuff Up: No one can test the origin of life because life cannot be created from a nonliving object.

DS said: Really? Then why did you label studying nature as "deifying" it? Why don't you study nature? Why do you care what motive anyone else has for studying nature? Why do you use the benefits of science regardleess of the motives of those who study it? Oh well, at least you finally admitted that the theory of endosymbiosis is correct. That's better than Steve ever managed.

Stanton said: So God saved the world by murdering everything He created?

raven said:

brian Making Stuff Up: No one can test the origin of life because life cannot be created from a nonliving object.

That isn't correct. Scientists at Scripps recently created a primordial RNA replicator. It replicates. It also evolves. There is a whole new branch of biology, synthetic biology that will do exactly that, create life. Already, they have synthesized 3 life forms, two of which were extinct. Enthusiasm for creationism is inversely proportional to knowledge and education. Brian is an ignorant godbotting fool making stuff up.

Brian said: God does not murder. Everything He created destroyed itself because they became more hardened against God's effort to save until he gave them what they wanted- a world without God and His protection from destruction. 8 people accepted his efforts though and were saved.

Stanton said: So God saved the world by murdering everything He created?

Stanton said: Even all of the plants and animals? Even the plants and the animals hardened their hearts against God?

Brian said: God does not murder. Everything He created destroyed itself because they became more hardened against God's effort to save until he gave them what they wanted- a world without God and His protection from destruction. 8 people accepted his efforts though and were saved.

Stanton said: So God saved the world by murdering everything He created?

"The prehistoric fossils of animals and man bear out the results of Satan’s control of the forces of natural creation. But God has long since removed the possibility of inter-mixing the species to any appreciable extent and herein lies the paradox. The evolutionist today would dearly love to find one single evidence that crossing of the species is possible, while the creationist Christian abhors the thought."

"Evidential proof of amalgamation after the flood is the fact that only Noah, his wife and three sons and their wives got off the ark. So from eight individuals we have all the diversity of races today."

Brian, have you met Robert Byers? You two should get along like a house on fire. Maybe visit Timecube together.

Brian wrote:

"How would the scriptures in any way restrict investigations into science? I don’t see it. No one can test the origin of life because life cannot be created from a nonliving object."

You are the one who claimed that studying nature was "deifying" it. Why did you say that? Were your just lying again? If you thnk that god will punish you for not understanding nature and you think that it is OK to stydy nature, why don't you? Why are you so abyssmally ignorant of science? Why do you worship ignorance?

"Sigh. Search for Walter Vieth videos and if you really are intersted in honestly gathering facts to make a correct conclusion. What Do the Rocks Reveal Clip - Professor Walter J. Veith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeC7k6z2m14 Creation - Origin of variety by Walter J. Veith http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbPb[…]ture=related Walter J. Veith - The fossil record speaks - Part 1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c0pY[…]ture=related"

Sigh, sigh, sigh,sigh, See I can sigh more than you. You still haven't provided any scientific references. Why is that? This asshat just made shit up and you bought it. THERE WAS NO MAGIC FLOOD, DEAL WITH IT.

"There is evidence of a worldwide flood."

There is NO evidence of a worldwide flood, period You have provided no evidence whatsoever. Your bullshit lying creationist web sites are pathetic. Grow up and get a life. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that you accept science and still believe in the magic flood. You said that your only problem with science was with the age of the earth. Were you lying about that as well?

DS said: There is NO evidence of a worldwide flood, period You have provided no evidence whatsoever. Your bullshit lying creationist web sites are pathetic. Grow up and get a life. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that you accept science and still believe in the magic flood. You said that your only problem with science was with the age of the earth. Were you lying about that as well?

Brian wrote:

“Evidential proof of amalgamation after the flood is the fact that only Noah, his wife and three sons and their wives got off the ark. So from eight individuals we have all the diversity of races today.”

Sorry, all of the independent lines of genetic evidence absolutely disagree with this. So now Brian, do you still love science? Do you still respect the results of science? Do you still claim to have no problem with anything in science except the age of the earth?

I can proivide dozens of references form scientific peer reviewed journals that prove consclusively that you are dead wrong here. Just as soon as you provide one scientific reference for this ridiculous claim I will provide all of mine.

By the way,"the fact" that you provided absolutely no evidence for is not "proof" of anything, other than your complete lack or reasoning skills. You told everyone that preconceptions were a bad thing, remember? You should take your own advice and deal with your preconceptions, rather than just hoping that no one would notice.

Brian said: Point is because of humans only using 10% of their brains ...

Brian said: I do not reject the findings of science except about the age of the world.

DS said: Sorry, all of the independent lines of genetic evidence absolutely disagree with this. So now Brian, do you still love science? Do you still respect the results of science? Do you still claim to have no problem with anything in science except the age of the earth? I can proivide dozens of references form scientific peer reviewed journals that prove consclusively that you are dead wrong here. Just as soon as you provide one scientific reference for this ridiculous claim I will provide all of mine. By the way,"the fact" that you provided absolutely no evidence for is not "proof" of anything, other than your complete lack or reasoning skills. You told everyone that preconceptions were a bad thing, remember? You should take your own advice and deal with your preconceptions, rather than just hoping that no one would notice.

I believe that we will find whatever we look for and human sceptism is inclined to look for progression rather than degeneration.

Brian said: Science must agree with revelation or it is not science at all but human scepticism. Most of POPULAR so-called science that has to do with origin of species I do not accept. The fact that it is widely accepted DOES NOT mean that it is true and the same can apply for POPULAR doctrines in so-called creationist believing christians.

Forget about the 10% of brain thing, there is other evidence to indicate degeneration of the race. I am looking for evidence that the race has degenerated not progressed and examine the evidence that the race has progressed that is most readily available and try to make a correct conclusion. Most scientist LOOK for evidence of progression ignoring evidence of degeneration.

DS said: Sigh, sigh, sigh,sigh, See I can sigh more than you. You still haven't provided any scientific references. Why is that? This asshat just made shit up and you bought it. THERE WAS NO MAGIC FLOOD, DEAL WITH IT. "There is evidence of a worldwide flood." There is NO evidence of a worldwide flood, period You have provided no evidence whatsoever. Your bullshit lying creationist web sites are pathetic. Grow up and get a life. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that you accept science and still believe in the magic flood. You said that your only problem with science was with the age of the earth. Were you lying about that as well?

Stanton said:

Brian said: Science must agree with revelation or it is not science at all but human scepticism. Most of POPULAR so-called science that has to do with origin of species I do not accept. The fact that it is widely accepted DOES NOT mean that it is true and the same can apply for POPULAR doctrines in so-called creationist believing christians.

So tell us why modern medicine and nuclear physics are not sciences. Oh, wait, you can't because you're just bullshitting in a pathetic attempt to win brownie points for God.

Forget about the 10% of brain thing, there is other evidence to indicate degeneration of the race. I am looking for evidence that the race has degenerated not progressed and examine the evidence that the race has progressed that is most readily available and try to make a correct conclusion. Most scientist LOOK for evidence of progression ignoring evidence of degeneration.

"Degeneration of races"? So, you're saying that you're like the creationist George McCready Price, who thought and wrote that Negroes and Mongoloids are degenerate humans?

Brian wrote:

"Science must agree with revelation or it is not science at all but human scepticism. Most of POPULAR so-called science that has to do with origin of species I do not accept. The fact that it is widely accepted DOES NOT mean that it is true and the same can apply for POPULAR doctrines in so-called creationist believing christians."

But you claimed that you accepted all of science except the age of the earth. You were obviously lying.

"Forget about the 10% of brain thing, there is other evidence to indicate degeneration of the race. I am looking for evidence that the race has degenerated not progressed and examine the evidence that the race has progressed that is most readily available and try to make a correct conclusion. Most scientist LOOK for evidence of progression ignoring evidence of degeneration."

See Brian, you are letting your preconceptions get in the way again. Why do you assume the conclusion before you gather any evidence? Real scientists don't do this, you just assume they do. You know nothing about science, how in the world would you know?

"Most truth has NEVER, NEVER, NEVER been popular. So since Professor Vieth’s evidence is “made up” because it is positive evidence for the flood which is widely rejected though he used quotes from credible scientific journals and himself is a professor, is not suprising."

His so called evidence is not accepted because it is not published in a scientific journal. It is not published in a scientific journal because it is all just a bunch of made-up crap. Why would you take this his word for anything? How would you even know if he made all this crap up? You said that you accepted the conclusions of science. The conclusion of science is that there was no worlds wide flood and the human race is not descended from Noah and his family. If you do not accept this, then you do not accept science, period. Deal with it.

"I will REJECT EVERYTHING infact that is not founded on truth, and I do not get how this should disqualify me from using technology. I do believe there is absolute truth, relativity of truth is a pleasing sentiment."

Thanks for admitting that there is no way that your opinion will ever be changed by evidence. If you do not accept the findings of science, then you should indeed relinquish any right to benefit from the findings of science. At least you have admitted to being a lying hypocrite. I have no further reason to discuss anything with you. May your god have mercy on your miserable soul.

Brian, you are an idiot.

Child mortality rates have nothing to do with "degeneration," they have to do with quality of living. I mean, only an idiot like you would quote a 100 year old source as proof of your bullshitting, while ignoring the fact that the US and other industrial countries have an enormously low child mortality rate, especially when you compare rates from 100 years ago.

So, please take your bullshitting for Christ and leave.

If by "going to get a life" you mean having desire be the highest law, liberty be licence, and being accountable only to myself. FINE, but God is clear of any blame, It was not because of God{The TRUE GOD] that the dark ages happened, It is not because of God that a loved one might die, or any other thing that is bad in history, present or future, it is partly because of this VERY mindset. Lucifer/Satan is god of this world.

"In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them."
Inspired Apostle Paul

No, liar, we mean "get a life" as in stop bothering us with your shameless lying for Jesus and Biblical bullshitting, as you will never convince with your shameless hypocrisy and pathetic non-arguments.

DS said: Brian wrote: His so called evidence is not accepted because it is not published in a scientific journal. It is not published in a scientific journal because it is all just a bunch of made-up crap. Why would you take this his word for anything? How would you even know if he made all this crap up? You said that you accepted the conclusions of science. The conclusion of science is that there was no worlds wide flood and the human race is not descended from Noah and his family. If you do not accept this, then you do not accept science, period. Deal with it. "I will REJECT EVERYTHING infact that is not founded on truth, and I do not get how this should disqualify me from using technology. I do believe there is absolute truth, relativity of truth is a pleasing sentiment." Thanks for admitting that there is no way that your opinion will ever be changed by evidence. If you do not accept the findings of science, then you should indeed relinquish any right to benefit from the findings of science. At least you have admitted to being a lying hypocrite. I have no further reason to discuss anything with you. May your god have mercy on your miserable soul.

None of those out of date and irrelevant reports you mention support any of your lies and bullshitting, Brian.

Get lost.

Just in case anyone is unaware of the evidence, there is absolutely no evidence for a world wide flood. There is however evidence from mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosomes and VNTR loci that demonstrates conclusively that modern humans migrated out of Africa in waves beginning about 120,000 years ago. All of the genetic data sets are in complete agreement with each other and they also agree with all of the archaeological and linguistic data. To deny this evidence is to display a contempt for science so profound as to be almost unimaginable for someone living in a modern society. By the way, this is the exactly same evidence that allows us to conclude that there is no genetic basis for racism.

Brian can sigh and scream in caps all he wants, but he cannot challenge this evidence. He can quote dishonest creationists and quote mine all he wants, but that isn't going to fool anyone. He will spend the rest of his life in ignorance condemning that which he does not understand. I for one have completely ceased to care.

DS said: Just in case anyone is unaware of the evidence, there is absolutely no evidence for a world wide flood. There is however evidence from mitochondrial DNA, Y chromosomes and VNTR loci that demonstrates conclusively that modern humans migrated out of Africa in waves beginning about 120,000 years ago. All of the genetic data sets are in complete agreement with each other and they also agree with all of the archaeological and linguistic data. To deny this evidence is to display a contempt for science so profound as to be almost unimaginable for someone living in a modern society. By the way, this is the exactly same evidence that allows us to conclude that there is no genetic basis for racism. Brian can sigh and scream in caps all he wants, but he cannot challenge this evidence. He can quote dishonest creationists and quote mine all he wants, but that isn't going to fool anyone. He will spend the rest of his life in ignorance condemning that which he does not understand. I for one have completely ceased to care.

So much for accepting the findings of science.

Perhaps it would be much better to show contempt for those who show contempt for science and for those who lie about it.

There is evidence that forms the basis of human science.

There is no evidence for salvation.

Why lie to yourself?

Brian said: If by "going to get a life" you mean having desire be the highest law, liberty be licence, and being accountable only to myself. FINE, but God is clear of any blame, It was not because of God{The TRUE GOD] that the dark ages happened, It is not because of God that a loved one might die, or any other thing that is bad in history, present or future, it is partly because of this VERY mindset. Lucifer/Satan is god of this world. "In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them." Inspired Apostle Paul

Brian said: Better to show contempt for human science than the science of salvation.

Brian said: God does not murder. Everything He created destroyed itself because they became more hardened against God's effort to save until he gave them what they wanted- a world without God and His protection from destruction. 8 people accepted his efforts though and were saved.

Brian said: Most scientist LOOK for evidence of progression ignoring evidence of degeneration.

Brian babbled: Better to show contempt for human science

than the science of salvation.

Brian said: It is a scientific publication. So the 1976 C. R. Twindale's On the survival of Paleoforms published in American Journal Of Science Veith quoted from is not a Journal or credible!?, How about T.H. Van Allen's 1981 publication in "Nature" "consider the incompleteness of the Geological record", or Norman D Norwell 1984, "Mass Extinction: unique or recurrect courses" "THe New Uniformitarianism" published by "Princeton university press" New Jersey

Stanton said:

than the science of salvation.

And you still haven't demonstrated or even tried to explain how why salvation is supposed to be a science.

SWT said:

Stanton said:

than the science of salvation.

And you still haven't demonstrated or even tried to explain how why salvation is supposed to be a science.

I think I can help you understand our Adventist friend's meaning, since he's using the term "science" to mean different things in different sentences.

Stanton said:

SWT said:

Stanton said:

than the science of salvation.

And you still haven't demonstrated or even tried to explain how why salvation is supposed to be a science.

I think I can help you understand our Adventist friend's meaning, since he's using the term "science" to mean different things in different sentences.

That still doesn't help: Brian's evangelistic prattle demonstrates that a bottle of Elmer's White Glue has deeper understanding of anything (up to and including salvation) than he does.

Brian is a 7th Day Adventist?

I was under the impression that he was simply yet another moronic, yet hypocritical and dishonest creationist who's trying to convert us, evil, devil-worshiping pagan scientists with his particular brand of Jesusology.

Stanton said: Brian is a 7th Day Adventist?

I was under the impression that he was simply yet another moronic, yet hypocritical and dishonest creationist who's trying to convert us, evil, devil-worshiping pagan scientists with his particular brand of Jesusology.

Stanton said:

Brian babbled: Better to show contempt for human science

And you type this on a computer, while enjoying the wonders of electricity, polyester fabrics, plastic and commercially grown and manufactured food. Of course, you wouldn't dare contemplate giving up such contemptible products of human science, because you only said this to score brownie points with Jesus. It's the only thing you're here to do, even though we've tried to make it crystal clear that you and your hypocritical babbling are not appreciated.

than the science of salvation.

And you still haven't demonstrated or even tried to explain how why salvation is supposed to be a science. And I repeat, get lost, Brian.

There is a true science, the science of eternal life. When Jesus came to our world, He might have opened to the minds of men a vast storehouse of scientific knowledge. But He did not do this. He devoted His life to the teaching of those truths that pertain to the salvation of the soul. … {UL 105.5}

Why didn't Jesus who is from the all-knowing God enlighten us as to the vast storehouse of scientific knowlege if it was all important? He knew that this scientific knowlege would lead humans to forget God to our own self-destruction just like it did before. sigh.

Manuscript Releases Volume Four, page 149, paragraph 2
(Genesis 6:5-18, quoted.) "There perished in the Flood greater inventions of art and human skill than the world knows of today.
The arts destroyed were more than the boasted arts of today. The Lord was forgotten. This long-lived race were constantly devising how they might institute a war with the universe of heaven and gain possession of Eden. When men talk of the improvements that are made in higher education, they are aping the inhabitants of the Noetic world. They are yielding to the temptation of Satan to eat of the tree of knowledge, of which God has said, "Ye shall not eat of it, lest ye." God gave men a trial, and the result was the destruction of the world by a flood. In this age of the world's history there are teachers and students who suppose that their advancement in knowledge supersedes the knowledge of God, and their cry is "Higher education." They consider that they have greater knowledge than the greatest Teacher the world has ever known.
How did man gain his knowledge of how to devise?--From the Lord, by studying the formation and habits of different animals. If men could only know how many arts have been lost to our world, they would not talk so fluently of the dark ages. Could they have seen how God once worked through His human subjects, they would speak with less confidence of the arts of the antediluvian world. MORE WAS LOST IN THE FLOOD, IN MANY WAYS, THAN MEN TODAY KNOW.[we can tell by what is dug up from the rocks]

Looking upon the world, God saw that the intellect He had given man was perverted, that the imagination of his heart was evil and that continually. God had given these men knowledge. He had given them valuable ideas, that they might carry out His plan. But the Lord saw that those whom He designed should possess wisdom, tact, and judgment, were using every quality of the mind to glorify self. By the waters of the Flood, He blotted this long-lived race from the earth, and with them perished the knowledge they had used only for evil. WHEN THE EARTH WAS REPEOPLED, THE LORD TRUSTED HIS WISDOM MORE SPARINGLY TO MEN, giving them only the ability they would need in carrying out His great plan (Letter 175, 1896).

True knowledge has decreased with every successive generation.. . .There are many inventions and improvements, and labor-saving machines now that the ancients did not have. They did not need them. . . . IN STRENGTH OF INTELLECT, MEN WHO NOW LIVE CAN BEAR NO COMPARISON TO THE ANCIENTS. There have been more ancient arts lost than the present generation now possess. For skill and art those living in this degenerate age will not compare with the KNOWLEDGE POSSESSED BY STRONG MEN WHO LIVED NEAR ONE THOUSAND YEARS. Men before the Flood lived many hundreds of years, and when one hundred years old they were considered but youths. Those long-lived men had sound minds in sound bodies. Their mental and physical strength was so great that the present feeble generation can bear no comparison to them. Those ancients had nearly one thousand years in which to acquire knowledge. They came upon the stage of action from the ages of sixty to one hundred years, about the time those who now live the longest have acted their part in their little short life time, and have passed off the stage. Those who are deceived, and flattered on in the delusion that the present is an age of real progress, and that the human race has been in ages past progressing in true knowledge, are under the influence of the father of lies, whose work has ever been to turn the truth of God into a lie (4SG 154-156). BC 1089

"God created man in His own image. Here is no mystery. There is no ground for the supposition that man was evolved by slow degrees of development from the lower forms of animal or vegetable life. Such teaching lowers the great work of the Creator to the level of man's narrow, earthly conceptions. Men are so intent upon excluding God from the sovereignty of the universe that they degrade man and defraud him of the dignity of his origin. He who set the starry worlds on high and tinted with delicate skill the flowers of the field, who filled the earth and the heavens with the wonders of His power, when He came to crown His glorious work, to place one in the midst to stand as ruler of the fair earth, did not fail to create a being worthy of the hand that gave him life. The genealogy of our race, as given by inspiration, traces back its origin, not to a line of developing germs, mollusks, and quadrupeds, but to the great Creator. Though formed from the dust, Adam was "the son of God." PP45

Brian wrote:

"Once again human inventions and creations are different from science because science itself is a creation/invention of man.The science of salvation is invented/created by God."

So why don't you stick to salvation science. Stop using real science and technology and stop preaching on science web sites.

I have no contempt for your salvation Brian, I only have contempt for you. You are making your religion look really bad.

Nick,

Time to put an end to Brian and his fantasy life. Please close this thread before he get going about fire and brimstone.

Brian bullshitted: Once again human inventions and creations are different from science because science itself is a creation/invention of man.The science of salvation is invented/created by God.

In the study of the sciences also we are to obtain a knowledge of the Creator. All true science is but an interpretation of the handwriting of God in the material world. Science brings from her research only fresh evidences of the wisdom and power of God. Rightly understood, both the book of nature and the Written Word make us acquainted with God by teaching us something of the wise and beneficent laws through which He works. . . . {RC 115.4}

The gospel message is far from being opposed to true knowledge and intellectual attainments. It is itself true science, true intellectual knowledge. True wisdom is infinitely above the comprehension of the worldly wise. The hidden wisdom, which is Christ formed within, the hope of glory, is a wisdom high as heaven. The deep principles of godliness are sublime {OHC 364.4}

Those who are deceived, and flattered on in the delusion that the present is an age of real progress, and that the human race has been in ages past progressing in true knowledge, are under the influence of the father of lies, whose work has ever been to turn the truth of God into a lie (4SG 154-156). BC 1089

DS said: Nick, Time to put an end to Brian and his fantasy life. Please close this thread before he get going about fire and brimstone.

Brian said: In the study of the sciences also we are to obtain a knowledge of the Creator.

Brian said: In the study of the sciences also we are to obtain a knowledge of the Creator. All true science is but an interpretation of the handwriting of God in the material world.

Brian said: Sigh. So be it. You utterly reject God. You DESTROY yourself! You make fire and brimstone fall on yourself. It's a Law. The fact that you are still alive means that God still sees potential to work with you, otherwise He would stop sustianing you at once.

Bullshit you lying son of a bitch. I never said one word about rejecting god. You are the only one going on and on about salvation. You are the one who has rejected science. Besides, you claimed you were not trying to win me over, remember. We can now add that to your list of lies. You are the only one inviting fire and brimstone for all your lies. Everyone can see all of your lies and deceit, including your god. You are really trying to win converts for satan aren't you? You better hope that you don't ever run up against any of those natural laws that you are so willfully ignorant of. You will be the only one destroying yourself then.

Brian said: Sigh. So be it. You utterly reject God. You DESTROY yourself! You make fire and brimstone fall on yourself. It's a Law. The fact that you are still alive means that God still sees potential to work with you, otherwise He would stop sustianing you at once.

DS said: Nick, Time to put an end to Brian and his fantasy life. Please close this thread before he get going about fire and brimstone.

"Holy crap! That weasel sure loves that ball!"

You Know, I desire to be like God in Chracter like He revealed in Jesus who came to the Jews and was rejected by them because they were like the world which knew Him not, He loves people but He hates their sinful devisings.

You may try to catch at my words, I will take no offence.

"God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God." Christ

Stanton said: Furthermore, who gave you the power to determine who God is going to send to Hell? Are you aware what the Bible says about people who meddle in other people's relationships with God without their permission?

Brian said: Sigh. So be it. You utterly reject God. You DESTROY yourself! You make fire and brimstone fall on yourself. It's a Law. The fact that you are still alive means that God still sees potential to work with you, otherwise He would stop sustianing you at once.

DS said: Nick, Time to put an end to Brian and his fantasy life. Please close this thread before he get going about fire and brimstone.

Brian said: Sigh. So be it. You utterly reject God. You DESTROY yourself! You make fire and brimstone fall on yourself. It's a Law. The fact that you are still alive means that God still sees potential to work with you, otherwise He would stop sustianing you at once.

Brian said: I believe that question comes from being taught to believe that desire is the highest law, that license is liberty, and that man is accountable only to himself. The bible is clear as to why people in the end would rather be destroyed/obliterated/consumed than go to heaven. They loved something else more than God, usually it's themselves who they loved more than God.

Stanton said: Furthermore, who gave you the power to determine who God is going to send to Hell? Are you aware what the Bible says about people who meddle in other people's relationships with God without their permission?

Brian said: Sigh. So be it. You utterly reject God. You DESTROY yourself! You make fire and brimstone fall on yourself. It's a Law. The fact that you are still alive means that God still sees potential to work with you, otherwise He would stop sustianing you at once.

DS said: Nick, Time to put an end to Brian and his fantasy life. Please close this thread before he get going about fire and brimstone.

The quotes Brian has been using without proper referencing seem to be from Ellen G White, a 'prophet' who wrote about 100-150 years ago (most can be found in the link to 'amalgamation statements'). I don't know why he finds her views so persuasive.

Richard Simons said: The quotes Brian has been using without proper referencing seem to be from Ellen G White, a 'prophet' who wrote about 100-150 years ago (most can be found in the link to 'amalgamation statements'). I don't know why he finds her views so persuasive.

Brian said: I believe that question comes from being taught to believe that desire is the highest law, that license is liberty, and that man is accountable only to himself. The bible is clear as to why people in the end would rather be destroyed/obliterated/consumed than go to heaven. They loved something else more than God, usually it's themselves who they loved more than God.

Stanton said: Furthermore, who gave you the power to determine who God is going to send to Hell? Are you aware what the Bible says about people who meddle in other people's relationships with God without their permission?

Brian said: Sigh. So be it. You utterly reject God. You DESTROY yourself! You make fire and brimstone fall on yourself. It's a Law. The fact that you are still alive means that God still sees potential to work with you, otherwise He would stop sustianing you at once.

DS said: Nick, Time to put an end to Brian and his fantasy life. Please close this thread before he get going about fire and brimstone.

Dan said:

Brian said: Sigh. So be it. You utterly reject God. You DESTROY yourself! You make fire and brimstone fall on yourself. It's a Law. The fact that you are still alive means that God still sees potential to work with you, otherwise He would stop sustianing you at once.

Appeal to the emotion of fear is the last trick of those who have no rational argument.

What you should fear is your self.

Unlike you, who only fears knowledge.

"Holy crap, this weasel loves this ball!"

Brian said: What you should fear is your self.

Brian said: Admit that Jesus is Lord ...

Christ felt much as sinners will feel when the vials of God's wrath shall be poured out upon them. Black despair, like the pall of death, will gather about their guilty souls, and then they will realize to the fullest extent the sinfulness of sin. Salvation has been purchased for them by the suffering and death of the Son of God. It might be theirs, if they would accept of it willingly, gladly; but none are compelled to yield obedience to the law of God. If they refuse the heavenly benefit and choose the pleasures and deceitfulness of sin, they have their choice, and at the end receive their wages, which is the wrath of God and eternal death. They will be forever separated from the presence of Jesus, whose sacrifice they had despised. They will have lost a life of happiness and sacrificed eternal glory for the pleasures of sin for a season. 2T 2110

He [The Sinner] will realize that because of transgression, his soul is cut off from God, and that God's wrath abides on him. This is a fire unquenchable, and by it every unrepentant sinner will be destroyed. ST 4-14-98
The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. DA 763,764

I hope none of you are rejecters of the mercy of God.

The God whose true character is explored in this book in PDF format:
http://www.srac.de/download.php?dir=/books/en/&file=Behold%20your%20God.pdf&page=books&l=en
Or comprehensively in this site:
http://truthinjesus.org/articles/justice.php

Brian, you are a lying moron, and a fire and brimstone hypocrite.

We will not be impressed by your fire and brimstone lies, so please bugger off.

That, and I never recalled Jesus demanding that His followers take every single word of the Book of Genesis as literally true, or He would deny them salvation and torture them for all eternity.

Brian you are seriously mentally ill. We hope you get help someday. We hope you don't live within 1,000 miles of us.

Brian said: Christ felt much as sinners will feel when the vials of God's wrath shall be poured out upon them. Black despair, like the pall of death, will gather about their guilty souls, and then they will realize to the fullest extent the sinfulness of sin. Salvation has been purchased for them by the suffering and death of the Son of God. It might be theirs, if they would accept of it willingly, gladly; but none are compelled to yield obedience to the law of God. If they refuse the heavenly benefit and choose the pleasures and deceitfulness of sin, they have their choice, and at the end receive their wages, which is the wrath of God and eternal death. They will be forever separated from the presence of Jesus, whose sacrifice they had despised. They will have lost a life of happiness and sacrificed eternal glory for the pleasures of sin for a season. 2T 2110 He [The Sinner] will realize that because of transgression, his soul is cut off from God, and that God's wrath abides on him. This is a fire unquenchable, and by it every unrepentant sinner will be destroyed. ST 4-14-98 The rejecters of His mercy reap that which they have sown. God is the fountain of life; and when one chooses the service of sin, he separates from God, and thus cuts himself off from life. He is "alienated from the life of God." Christ says, "All they that hate Me love death." Eph. 4:18; Prov. 8:36. God gives them existence for a time that they may develop their character and reveal their principles. This accomplished, they receive the results of their own choice. By a life of rebellion, Satan and all who unite with him place themselves so out of harmony with God that His very presence is to them a consuming fire. The glory of Him who is love will destroy them. DA 763,764 I hope none of you are rejecters of the mercy of God. The God whose true character is explored in this book in PDF format: http://www.srac.de/download.php?dir=/books/en/&file=Behold%20your%20God.pdf&page=books&l=en Or comprehensively in this site: http://truthinjesus.org/articles/justice.php

Rilke's Granddaughter said: That was really hilarious. Got any other good jokes? You really expect us to believe this nonsense you're peddling? Got any evidence to back up your case? Any rational arguments? Any logic? Didn't think so. EPIC FAIL

Brian said: They will have lost a life of happiness and sacrificed eternal glory for the pleasures of sin for a season. 2T 2110

Brian,

This is a blog focused on biological science and countering the anti-scientific assertions and agendas promoted by various creationists (YEC, OEC, ID, etc.). Many of us are theists, and many of the theists here self-identify as Christian.

I am Christian. I am a scientist. I have no problem with accepting both the authority of Christ in my life and the objective results of scientific investigation. Since I believe the physical world to be an expression of the will of the Almighty, I believe that my understanding of scripture must be consistent with reality. Scientific investigation, using the tool of methodological naturalism, provides me with a way of minimizing my bias as I try to understand how the world works; in turn, this helps me come to a deeper understanding of scripture. Understanding Genesis 1 in its proper context (as theology, not science, composed as a message to a people who had been under the dominion of the Babylonians) provides a richness and timelessness that is (IMO) lost when we try to make Genesis about science.

While I appreciate your good intent, I suggest you take a look at what the results of your presentation are -- you are not bringing people to Christ, but rather are, by rejecting objectively available information in favor of your own understanding of scripture, making part of Christ's church look silly and driving people away from Christ.

Please stop.

Brian,

This is not a science blog devoted to religion, but instead, as SWT has just noted, one that is focused on biology and in rejecting the inane claims made by intellectually-challenged, often delusional, religiouz zealots like yourself who contend that evolution isn't scientifically valid.

If you want to pray for our souls, do it elsewhere. As for me, I'll admit that I accept Lucifer as my personal saviour.

Brian said: If they refuse the heavenly benefit and choose the pleasures and deceitfulness of sin, they have their choice, and at the end receive their wages, which is the wrath of God and eternal death.

SWT said: Brian, This is a blog focused on biological science and countering the anti-scientific assertions and agendas promoted by various creationists (YEC, OEC, ID, etc.). Many of us are theists, and many of the theists here self-identify as Christian. I am Christian. I am a scientist. I have no problem with accepting both the authority of Christ in my life and the objective results of scientific investigation. Since I believe the physical world to be an expression of the will of the Almighty, I believe that my understanding of scripture must be consistent with reality. Scientific investigation, using the tool of methodological naturalism, provides me with a way of minimizing my bias as I try to understand how the world works; in turn, this helps me come to a deeper understanding of scripture. Understanding Genesis 1 in its proper context (as theology, not science, composed as a message to a people who had been under the dominion of the Babylonians) provides a richness and timelessness that is (IMO) lost when we try to make Genesis about science. While I appreciate your good intent, I suggest you take a look at what the results of your presentation are -- you are not bringing people to Christ, but rather are, by rejecting objectively available information in favor of your own understanding of scripture, making part of Christ's church look silly and driving people away from Christ. Please stop.

John Kwok said: If you want to pray for our souls, do it elsewhere. As for me, I'll admit that I accept Lucifer as my personal saviour.

Brian,

OK then, I choose to believe that life can sustain itself. Now will you go away?

Brian,

You are of course free to follow any strategy you wish for theological interpretation. If you can make arguments from the Bible alone that (a) the only correct understanding of the Genesis creation narrative is a literal interpretation that is inconsistent with objective scientific observations and (b) this literal interpretation is necessary for salvation, I'd be interested in seeing them. Please keep in mind that I'm likely the most sympathetic correspondent you have in this thread, and I'm pretty sure that if you can't make a compelling theological argument for both of these points you're not going to get any traction with anyone here.

White's writings carry no particular weight with me, so don't even bother with that cut and paste again.

Brian said: SWT, The formula that is used to come to an understanding in part of the professed christian church is incomplete. They use rather preponderence of evidence or creeds of men or try to make their opinions and traditions fit with the Bible rather than the weight of evidence. An incorrect conclusion should be expected most times when using an incomplete formula. Using the weight of evidence to come to conclusions in any area of study, the desired result should always be consistent; ABSOLUTE CONSTANCE OF TRUTH! many think it a virtue, a mark of intelligence in them, to be unbelieving and to question and quibble. Those who desire to doubt will have plenty of room. God does not propose to remove all occasion for unbelief. He gives evidence, which must be carefully investigated with a humble mind and a teachable spirit, and all should decide from the weight of evidence." Testimonies, vol. 3, 255. "God gives sufficient evidence for the candid mind to believe; but he who turns from the weight of evidence because there are a few things which he cannot make plain to his finite understanding will be left in the cold, chilling atmosphere of unbelief and questioning doubts, and will make shipwreck of faith." Testimonies, vol. 4, 232, 233. "Do not carry your creed to the Bible and read the Word in the light of your former opinions. Do not try to make everything agree with you creed. Search the Word carefully and prayerfully with a mind free from prejudice. If as you read conviction comes, and you see that your most cherished opinions are not in harmony with the Word, do not try to make the Word fit these opinions. Make your opinions fit the Word. Do not allow what you have believed or practiced in the past to control your understanding. Open the eyes of your mind to behold wondrous things out of the law. Find out what is written, and then plant your feet on the eternal Rock." E. G. White Manuscript Releases Volume Three, 432. "1. Every word must have its proper bearing on the subject presented in the Bible [the same principle would apply to the Spirit of Prophecy]; 2. All Scripture is necessary, and may be understood by diligent application and study; 3. Nothing revealed in Scripture can or will be hid from those who ask in faith, not wavering; 4. To understand doctrine, bring all the scriptures together on the subject you wish to know, then let every word have its proper influence; and if you can form your THEORY without a contradiction, you cannot be in error; 5. Scripture must be its own expositor, since it is a rule of itself. If I depend on a teacher to expound to me, and he should guess at its meaning, or desire to have it so on account of his sectarian creed, or to be thought wise, then his guessing, desire, creed, or wisdom is my rule, and not the Bible." E.G. White, Second Advent Review and Sabbath Herald, vol. 1, p. 482, col. 2. WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE FORMULA: http://omega77.tripod.com/wtofevidFN.htm

SWT said: Brian, This is a blog focused on biological science and countering the anti-scientific assertions and agendas promoted by various creationists (YEC, OEC, ID, etc.). Many of us are theists, and many of the theists here self-identify as Christian. I am Christian. I am a scientist. I have no problem with accepting both the authority of Christ in my life and the objective results of scientific investigation. Since I believe the physical world to be an expression of the will of the Almighty, I believe that my understanding of scripture must be consistent with reality. Scientific investigation, using the tool of methodological naturalism, provides me with a way of minimizing my bias as I try to understand how the world works; in turn, this helps me come to a deeper understanding of scripture. Understanding Genesis 1 in its proper context (as theology, not science, composed as a message to a people who had been under the dominion of the Babylonians) provides a richness and timelessness that is (IMO) lost when we try to make Genesis about science. While I appreciate your good intent, I suggest you take a look at what the results of your presentation are -- you are not bringing people to Christ, but rather are, by rejecting objectively available information in favor of your own understanding of scripture, making part of Christ's church look silly and driving people away from Christ. Please stop.

Brian said: Hey John, at least you are not halting "between two opinions" you have made your choice and God respects that. You are not trying to serve God and Lucifer at the same time. This is the whole point of why I posted here. CHOOSE! You either endlessely find a way to prove that life can sustain itself or believe that God sustains all life by His power moment by moment and the withdrawl of that power is fatal to life.

John Kwok said: If you want to pray for our souls, do it elsewhere. As for me, I'll admit that I accept Lucifer as my personal saviour.

SWT said: Brian, You are of course free to follow any strategy you wish for theological interpretation. If you can make arguments from the Bible alone that (a) the only correct understanding of the Genesis creation narrative is a literal interpretation that is inconsistent with objective scientific observations and (b) this literal interpretation is necessary for salvation, I'd be interested in seeing them. Please keep in mind that I'm likely the most sympathetic correspondent you have in this thread, and I'm pretty sure that if you can't make a compelling theological argument for both of these points you're not going to get any traction with anyone here. White's writings carry no particular weight with me, so don't even bother with that cut and paste again.

Brian said: What objective scientific observations or facts disagree with the 6 day creation week? They don't have to. If the age of the earth is in question, the matter used in the formation of the earth could have existed for bilions of years; so the scientific measurements for the age of matter such as the bones of animals and man are not necessarily inaccurate.

SWT said: Brian, You are of course free to follow any strategy you wish for theological interpretation. If you can make arguments from the Bible alone that (a) the only correct understanding of the Genesis creation narrative is a literal interpretation that is inconsistent with objective scientific observations and (b) this literal interpretation is necessary for salvation, I'd be interested in seeing them. Please keep in mind that I'm likely the most sympathetic correspondent you have in this thread, and I'm pretty sure that if you can't make a compelling theological argument for both of these points you're not going to get any traction with anyone here. White's writings carry no particular weight with me, so don't even bother with that cut and paste again.

Brian, Jesus didn't have the 'net, back in first-century Palestine, but he wasn't in favour of parading your religion before others, or praying on street corners. So don't. Nobody here, not even the resident trolls, will be impressed by your evangelism. Trolls are generally impressed only with themselves, which puts them in a minority of one, pretty much, and the rest of us don't buy it.

Personally, I made my decision long ago, and I'm sticking with it. I can't, don't and won't believe in, far less worship, a God who'd damn me, or in fact, anyone. That's flat, and that's the end of it.

So go peddle your fire and brimstone someplace else, Brian.

Brian wrote:

"...so the scientific measurements for the age of matter such as the bones of animals and man are not necessarily inaccurate."

Glad to see you admit it. Now Brian, pay close attention. You do know that the dating of fossil material gives the date of death, not the date of the formation of the matter in the bones, right? You do know that dates of millions of years mean that the animal died millions of years ago, right?

You do know that all of this data is completely inconsistent with any type of six day creation scenario, regardless of the age of the earth, right? You do know that this data shows that trilobites were all dead millions of years before the first dinosaur walked the earth, right? You do know that this data shows that all dinosaurs were dead millions of years before the first human walked the earth right?

I will take your lack of response as an admission that you are completely wrong about all of the objective scientific observations.

DS said: ...You do know that this data shows that trilobites were all dead millions of years before the first dinosaur walked the earth, right? You do know that this data shows that all dinosaurs were dead millions of years before the first human walked the earth right? I will take your lack of response as an admission that you are completely wrong about all of the objective scientific observations.

The literal interpretation for the 6 day creation week is necessary for salvation because it commemorates God or Christ as creator and sanctifier. By sanctifying the 7th day- Friday sunset/evening to Saturday sunset/evening, keeping this day holy is necessary as the FRUIT of salvation for those who are enlightened about it. One has to believe that christ/GOd's son is "upholding all things by the word of his power"Heb1:3 One also has to have a love for the truth to be saved. "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."2Th2:10

If this day is not kept then we cannot really believe in God as creator of the world in 6 literal days. So then most of Christendom might as well believe evolution since this day is not kept holy in faith in God as creator. This day was not just for the Jews, but for all man since Adam the first man kept it. Part of the 3 angels message that Adventists[not necessarily headed by the General Conference] are to give ephasize God as creator and of necessity must also empasize the Sabbath- the commemoration of creation.

Dave Luckett said: Personally, I made my decision long ago, and I'm sticking with it. I can't, don't and won't believe in, far less worship, a God who'd damn me, or in fact, anyone. That's flat, and that's the end of it. So go peddle your fire and brimstone someplace else, Brian.

Brian wrote:

"The literal interpretation for the 6 day creation week is necessary for salvation because it commemorates God or Christ as creator and sanctifier."

So then, if we can't commemorate something that didn't happen, we can't go someplace that doesn't exist. Well then, I guess we all better worship satan after all. Good job Brian. I wonder what crap you would be spouting if you were trying to convert people as the bible commands you to do?

DS said: What sort of person would call upon God to damn someone to eternal suffering in Hell forever and ever and ever,

Brian said: The literal interpretation for the 6 day creation week is necessary for salvation because it commemorates God or Christ as creator and sanctifier. By sanctifying the 7th day- Friday sunset/evening to Saturday sunset/evening, keeping this day holy is necessary as the FRUIT of salvation for those who are enlightened about it. One has to believe that christ/GOd's son is "upholding all things by the word of his power"Heb1:3 One also has to have a love for the truth to be saved. "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."2Th2:10 If this day is not kept then we cannot really believe in God as creator of the world in 6 literal days. So then most of Christendom might as well believe evolution since this day is not kept holy in faith in God as creator. This day was not just for the Jews, but for all man since Adam the first man kept it. Part of the 3 angels message that Adventists[not necessarily headed by the General Conference] are to give ephasize God as creator and of necessity must also empasize the Sabbath- the commemoration of creation.

Brian said: There is NO SUCH THING as eternal hell, haven't I made this point before? This is truth. Belief in eternal/for ever and ever hell contradicts the plainest statements of scipture and just because it is popularily believed does not add any weight to it. Souls will burn "according to their works" finally ending in the second death-obliteration. The greek word translated to "for ever and ever" in the bible "aion" or "aionos" can signify an indefinite, but finite period of time.

DS said: What sort of person would call upon God to damn someone to eternal suffering in Hell forever and ever and ever,

DS said: Brian wrote: "...so the scientific measurements for the age of matter such as the bones of animals and man are not necessarily inaccurate." Glad to see you admit it. Now Brian, pay close attention. You do know that the dating of fossil material gives the date of death, not the date of the formation of the matter in the bones, right? You do know that dates of millions of years mean that the animal died millions of years ago, right? You do know that all of this data is completely inconsistent with any type of six day creation scenario, regardless of the age of the earth, right? You do know that this data shows that trilobites were all dead millions of years before the first dinosaur walked the earth, right? You do know that this data shows that all dinosaurs were dead millions of years before the first human walked the earth right? I will take your lack of response as an admission that you are completely wrong about all of the objective scientific observations.

Constant Mews said: Your opinion on this point lacks authority. To accept such a translation of olam and aion would imply that heaven is also not eternal. You really need to think about what you're writing. Dispense with the lies you've been taught and learn some reason.

We have to make it so that there is NO contradiction whatsoever when interpreting the Bible using weight of evidence not preponderance of evidence.

Brian, you are as ignorant of the Bible as you are of science.

Consider Matthew 25:46.

Brian said: There is NO SUCH THING as eternal hell, haven't I made this point before? This is truth. Belief in eternal/for ever and ever hell contradicts the plainest statements of scipture and just because it is popularily believed does not add any weight to it. Souls will burn "according to their works" finally ending in the second death-obliteration. The greek word translated to "for ever and ever" in the bible "aion" or "aionos" can signify an indefinite, but finite period of time.

DS said: What sort of person would call upon God to damn someone to eternal suffering in Hell forever and ever and ever,

So, Brian, how do you account for the formation of limestone, for example? Or marble? Or chalk? They're all roughly the same stuff, Brian, calcium carbonate with some impurities, subjected for long periods of time to high temperature and pressure. Where did the CaCO3 come from? Check out a limestone or marble formation closely enough - thin section microscopy works a treat - and you'll see. It's mostly composed of shells - the hard body parts of living things, Brian. (Oddly enough, our hard body parts, our bones, are formed of the same substance, though we get it from our food. Only that isn't odd, really, because we have inherited that ability from our very distant ancestors.)

Now, how long do you think that process takes, Brian? Remember, it has to start with living things. Their shells have to accumulate on the sea bed, in layers. The layers have to be slowly compressed by further layers on top of them, and subjected to heat and stress by tectonic forces. A limestone stratum takes tens of millions of years to form, that way. Can't be less, unless you want God to put evidence of shells into limestone, just to fool us.

And then, in many places, the limestone strata are not a couple of metres thick, but scores, even hundreds. And they're not on seabeds any more, but in great cliffs and ranges, so they must have been lifted up. We can observe uplift going on around the earth today, but it's slow, so that must have taken much time, too. And often the limestones are overlaid with other strata. Some of the overlay is volcanic rock in places where there are no volcanoes now, only their long-extinct traces, worn down to nubs. How long did that take? And remember, all the overlays and all the weathering had to have occurred after the limestone beds had already been formed from the shells of living things.

So what are we to believe? Did God do it this way in a few days, by supernatural means? Why? Why, in creating the earth, would he make the rocks in layers at all? In making those layers, why would he leave clear evidence that many of them were composed of the hard body parts of living things, when they weren't.

Or are we to believe the evidence? The layers of rock seen in the Earth were formed over tens of millions of years, deformed and altered over tens of millions of years more, overlaid with other strata over tens of millions of years, eroded over tens of millions of years, and that these processes were repeated over and over again.

I've made my choice, Brian. I believe the evidence. I don't believe in a God who'd deliberately lie to me. The man you call God said plainly where lies come from. Are you sure you're talking to the right Person, here?

Brian said: We have to make it so that there is NO contradiction whatsoever when interpreting the Bible using weight of evidence not preponderance of evidence.

Brian said: Dave, you can only damn yourself. Satan, the fallen cherubim has clothed God with his attributes. God only stops sustaining you if you separate yourself from Him, the forces of nature are thrown into confusion and results in unquenchable fire where he withdraws his Spirit, which is really what I believe damnation is. Satan will also be destroyed/obliterated because God is sustaining his life too. God could have destroyed Satan and all his sympathizers as easily as one can pick up a pebble and cast it to the earth. But by so doing he would have given a precedent for the exercise of force. All the compelling power is found only under Satan's government. The Lord's principles are not of this order. He would not work on this line. RH 9-7-97 "Because thou hast set thine heart as the heart of God; . . . I will destroy thee, O covering cherub[Satan], from the midst of the stones of fire. . . . Thou shalt be a terror, and never shalt thou be any more." Then "the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be;" "they shall be as though they had not been." Ezek. 28:6-19; Ps. 37:10; Obadiah 16.

Dave Luckett said: Personally, I made my decision long ago, and I'm sticking with it. I can't, don't and won't believe in, far less worship, a God who'd damn me, or in fact, anyone. That's flat, and that's the end of it. So go peddle your fire and brimstone someplace else, Brian.

Sheesh, they’re all the same; so many words, so little thinking.

Brian said: The literal interpretation for the 6 day creation week is necessary for salvation because it commemorates God or Christ as creator and sanctifier.

Brian wrote:

"I will take that scientific observation and try and fit it with the Bible not the other way around."

First, that's exactly backwards. Second, it doesn't fit. Either you accept the scientific evidence and admit that your interpretation of the bible is wrong, or you deny the evidence and go with the proclamations of the bible instead. The evidence just doesn't fit a six day creation. Trying to make it fit is just mental masturbation.

If you need to pretend that there was a six day creation in order to be saved, then you can't accept the findings of science and be saved. SInce there is ample evidence that science is useful and no evidence at all that being saved does you any good, the choice seems pretty obvious. Or, you can just admit that god could be bigger than the little box that you have tried to shove him into and you can accept science, live in the real world and still believe that you can go to heaven.

Also, please note that the quote about eternal damnation has been wrongly attributed to me. I wrote lots of stuff, but that wasn't mine.

Dan wrote:

"Brian has show himself to be the instrument of Lucifer."

Great. So, if we all pledge allegiance to satan, will Brian go away?

Stanton wrote:

"What part of the Bible did Jesus state that He would reject the salvation of those of His followers who would not use the Bible as a scientific textbook?"

I've got a better one for you. Where in the bible does Jesus specifically stat the criteria for being saved? Why does he mention nothing about science in general or evolution in particular? Why does Brian directly contradict the teachings of Jesus? Does he know even less about his bible that he does about science?

Brian said: The literal interpretation for the 6 day creation week is necessary for salvation because it commemorates God or Christ as creator and sanctifier. By sanctifying the 7th day- Friday sunset/evening to Saturday sunset/evening, keeping this day holy is necessary as the FRUIT of salvation for those who are enlightened about it. One has to believe that christ/GOd's son is "upholding all things by the word of his power"Heb1:3 One also has to have a love for the truth to be saved. "they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved."2 Th 2:10 If this day is not kept then we cannot really believe in God as creator of the world in 6 literal days. So then most of Christendom might as well believe evolution since this day is not kept holy in faith in God as creator. This day was not just for the Jews, but for all man since Adam the first man kept it. Part of the 3 angels message that Adventists[not necessarily headed by the General Conference] are to give ephasize God as creator and of necessity must also empasize the Sabbath- the commemoration of creation.

Constant Mews said: Brian, you are as ignorant of the Bible as you are of science. Consider Matthew 25:46.

I meant 25:46

DS said: Stanton wrote: "What part of the Bible did Jesus state that He would reject the salvation of those of His followers who would not use the Bible as a scientific textbook?" I've got a better one for you. Where in the bible does Jesus specifically stat the criteria for being saved? Why does he mention nothing about science in general or evolution in particular? Why does Brian directly contradict the teachings of Jesus? Does he know even less about his bible that he does about science?

Brian wrote:

"I will not serve a contradictory God."

Dude, that ship has sailed, voyaged around the world and rusted to pieces. Your little god contradicts himself and reality. Get a clue already.

Have you forgotten, everyone here already worships satan because of you. At least he is consistent.

Brian,

So your answer is that you can not give the reference. Great. You lose again.

"Jesus specialized in the science of salvation showing that God deems this science as most important above all other sciences."

Great, then you don't really have to reject science do you. You just do it because you are too lazy to try to understand it. Got it.

P.S. I don't hate the bible, only those who use it to condemn others instead of loving them as the bible commands.

Dave Luckett said: So what are we to believe? Did God do it this way in a few days, by supernatural means? Why? Why, in creating the earth, would he make the rocks in layers at all? In making those layers, why would he leave clear evidence that many of them were composed of the hard body parts of living things, when they weren't. Or are we to believe the evidence? The layers of rock seen in the Earth were formed over tens of millions of years, deformed and altered over tens of millions of years more, overlaid with other strata over tens of millions of years, eroded over tens of millions of years, and that these processes were repeated over and over again. I've made my choice, Brian. I believe the evidence. I don't believe in a God who'd deliberately lie to me. The man you call God said plainly where lies come from. Are you sure you're talking to the right Person, here?

Brian said: DS, I could hardly refrain from smiling because you seem to defend the very errenous doctrine that makes you hate the bible and see it as a lie. Jesus specialized in the science of salvation showing that God deems this science as most important above all other sciences.

DS said: Stanton wrote: "What part of the Bible did Jesus state that He would reject the salvation of those of His followers who would not use the Bible as a scientific textbook?" I've got a better one for you. Where in the bible does Jesus specifically stat the criteria for being saved? Why does he mention nothing about science in general or evolution in particular? Why does Brian directly contradict the teachings of Jesus? Does he know even less about his bible that he does about science?

DS said: P.S. I don't hate the bible, only those who use it to condemn others instead of loving them as the bible commands.

Brian said: I am telling you, you have the power for your own condemnation. I say, you separate yourself from God by disregarding His commands, eternal death not eternal burning is the result, not necessarily immediately but inevitably even though he sent his son to die to help you keep his commands. How is that condemning?

DS said: P.S. I don't hate the bible, only those who use it to condemn others instead of loving them as the bible commands.

Brian wrote:

"I am telling you, you have the power for your own condemnation."

And I am telling you that I am condemning you for spouting this nonsense all over a science blog. If you want anyone to consider believing in your god you should really behave more decently. All you are accomplishing here is forcing people to worship satan.

Brian said: I am telling you, you have the power for your own condemnation.

Brian said: There must be NO CONTRADICTION. I will not serve a contradictory God.

Stanton wrote:

"As far as I’m concerned, you’re nothing but a false prophet trying to control us, screaming at us to join you in praying on the street."

The bible has something to say about false prophets as well. I guess Brian didn't read that part either.

Brian said: You believe the preponderance of evidence I choose to believe the weight of evidence. Is there no contradictory evidence in this theory?... (snip)

Brian wrote:

"Is there no contradictory evidence in this theory?"

I agree with Dave. No, there isn't.

Now before twenty people jump on my case for oversimplifying, a few caveats. We definitely do not have all the answers. That is not the same as contradictory evidence. There are many observations that are currently unexplained, that is why there is so much research going on in evolutionary biology but that is not contradictory evidence. There is no observation that is inconsistent with the modern theory of evolution. In other words, the theory has not been falsified. Since research is always being conducted it still could be falsified, but so far it has not been.

Compare that to Brian and his belief in a literal bible. It flatly contradicts reality and it often contradicts itself. And then this hypocrite has the nerve to claim that he won't serve a contradictory god. Amazing.

And then this hypocrite has the nerve to claim that he won’t serve a contradictory god.

"There is no observation that is inconsistent with the modern theory of evolution"

If finite, erring human minds were able to observe all then this statement might have some weight. Man is not accountable only to himself but to God also.

We will see who was right in the Judgement, before the throne of God. Do not be surprised if you are ashamed, if you continue in your rejection of God. I respect your choice. If we could accurately trace from cause to effect we would see what principles these really are. There will always be a reason to doubt and we can get nowhere like this. My motives and character may be assailed, but we are in the same humanity.

Dan said:

Brian said: There must be NO CONTRADICTION. I will not serve a contradictory God.

Yet Brian, it seems, finds this contradiction a central flaw in Christianity, rather than an inconsequential, peripheral issue. Brain, I'm sorry to hear that you're throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Brian said: "There is no observation that is inconsistent with the modern theory of evolution" If finite, erring human minds were able to observe all then this statement might have some weight. Man is not accountable only to himself but to God also. We will see who was right in the Judgement, before the throne of God. Do not be surprised if you are ashamed, if you continue in your rejection of God. I respect your choice. If we could accurately trace from cause to effect we would see what principles these really are. There will always be a reason to doubt and we can get nowhere like this. My motives and character may be assailed, but we are in the same humanity.

Some have to include God in the equation to solve the discrepancy of the second law of themodynamics which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Seems like there would have to be an infinite source of matter which distributes itself to have no contradiction as to the origin of the universe.

Brian wrote:

"There does not NEED to be a contradiction, my intellect and understanding are used to clear any apparent contradictions that are marked by a superficial reading without a humble teachable spirit, with a bias to excude God as benevolent, humble, ruler of the universe with an indissoluble balance of justice and mercy."

Translation: given enough time, I can rationalize anything, even 70 - 70 = 2

Please leave and don't come back.

Brian said: Some have to include God in the equation to solve the discrepancy of the second law of themodynamics which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Seems like there would have to be an infinite source of matter which distributes itself to have no contradiction as to the origin of the universe.

DS said: I have told you many times, I DO NOT REJECT GOD.

you cannot accept evolution without removing God and therefore, rejecting him

Flint said: The theory of evolution is silent about the gods. They may not exist, they may be intimately involved in real time, they may look in and diddle from time to time. Since there is absolutely no way to test any of this, science simply factors it out. Doesn't reject, doesn't accept. Doesn't even comment.

The fact that Jews exist means God exists it is one evidence to prove the validity of the history recorded in the bible.

Brian, you are a false prophet, screaming about your false piety on a street corner.

You are also an idiot, too. Evolution isn't about God, it concerns itself with the accumulation of changes in populations with each generation. Cheesecake doesn't concern God, either, but I see you hypocritically aren't complaining about the godlessness of cheesecake.

You aren't going to convert anyone with your lies, you aren't going to convert anyone with your apologetic babbling, you aren't going to convert anyone with your sham piety, and you aren't going to convert anyone with your empty and inane threats of damnation.

So please go away.

Flint said:

The fact that Jews exist means God exists it is one evidence to prove the validity of the history recorded in the bible.

This doesn't make sense to me. I have no doubt at all that a great deal of the history recorded in the bible is quite accurate. I also have no doubt that nearly all the facts in most novels are very accurate. Authors of fiction do exhaustive studies of their chosen setting. But novels are still fictional. Look, what if I told you that 2+2=4 AND the sky is orange polka dots. Do you accept the second claim simply because you accept the first and the same person wrote them both? Or are you capable of separating fact from fiction?

But he does illustrate very well the target thought-process of the ideal creationist disciple. Someone who makes up with glazed-eyed drooling fanaticism what they lack in coherency or knowledge. When you start with the Absolute Truth, you can work to get there rigorously (as many theologians attempt to do), but since you can't miss no matter what, there's no NEED for any rigor. In fact, you're probably safer just blathering garbled versions of other people's fallacies than you are trying to think. Thinking can lead to curiosity...

Brian wrote:

"As far as I know because you cannot accept evolution without removing God and therefore, rejecting him. You trust in man instead of God."

All right then Brian, how about if I just reject you? There done.

Please go away and don't come back.

Brian said: Some have to include God in the equation to solve the discrepancy of the second law of themodynamics which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Seems like there would have to be an infinite source of matter which distributes itself to have no contradiction as to the origin of the universe.

Flint said: But he does illustrate very well the target thought-process of the ideal creationist disciple. Someone who makes up with glazed-eyed drooling fanaticism what they lack in coherency or knowledge. When you start with the Absolute Truth, you can work to get there rigorously (as many theologians attempt to do), but since you can't miss no matter what, there's no NEED for any rigor. In fact, you're probably safer just blathering garbled versions of other people's fallacies than you are trying to think. Thinking can lead to curiosity...

SWT said: I don’t remember who it was who said that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts.

Brian said: As far as I know because you cannot accept evolution without removing God and therefore, rejecting him. You trust in man instead of God.

Brian said: Some have to include God in the equation to solve the discrepancy of the second law of themodynamics which states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

DS said: Translation: given enough time, I can rationalize anything, even 70 - 70 = 2

Flint said:

you cannot accept evolution without removing God and therefore, rejecting him

Why? I accept that rain falls without removing any gods, or that 2+2=4 without removing any gods, why can't I accept evolution without removing any gods? The theory of evolution is silent about the gods. They may not exist, they may be intimately involved in real time, they may look in and diddle from time to time. Since there is absolutely no way to test any of this, science simply factors it out. Doesn't reject, doesn't accept. Doesn't even comment.

22 Have you entered the storehouses of the snow or seen the storehouses of the hail, 23 which I reserve for times of trouble, for days of war and battle? 24 What is the way to the place where the lightning is dispersed, or the place where the east winds are scattered over the earth? 25 Who cuts a channel for the torrents of rain, and a path for the thunderstorm, 26 to water a land where no man lives, a desert with no one in it, 27 to satisfy a desolate wasteland and make it sprout with grass? 28 Does the rain have a father? Who fathers the drops of dew? 29 From whose womb comes the ice? Who gives birth to the frost from the heavens 30 when the waters become hard as stone, when the surface of the deep is frozen?

Brian,

I'm disappointed that you haven't chosen to respond to my earlier comment. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

When I was ordained, I publicly affirmed that I accepted the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to me. I have not renounced that ordination, and still male this affirmation.

In that context, I really want to understand why you believe that the Bible mandates a literal interpretation of Genesis that is inconsistent with the available objective evidence, and why that literal interpretation is necessary for salvation.

SWT said: In that context, I really want to understand why you [Brian] believe that the Bible mandates a literal interpretation of Genesis that is inconsistent with the available objective evidence, and why that literal interpretation is necessary for salvation.

Dan said:

SWT said: In that context, I really want to understand why you [Brian] believe that the Bible mandates a literal interpretation of Genesis that is inconsistent with the available objective evidence, and why that literal interpretation is necessary for salvation.

And, adding to SWT's very reasonable request, I want to know why Brian finds the Bible so mailable that the claim in Judges that 70 - 70 = 2 can be made consistent with what we know about numbers, yet at the same time so brittle that the two creation stories in Genesis cannot be made consistent with what we know about evolution.

Stupidity is non-denominational. The difference is, the stupid people I've lived with who never even think about God don't advertise their stupidity in the form of a religious argument, like Brian does.

Okay, Brian, we get it, you're an evangelist. You're also completely ignorant of the facts of physics, evolution, biology, and most of the world's theology.

You're an ignoramus who's been washed in the blood of the lamb. How nice for you.

No-one cares. Go away.

fnxtr said: The difference is, the stupid people I've lived with who never even think about God don't advertise their stupidity in the form of a religious argument, like Brian does.

SWT said: In that context, I really want to understand why you believe that the Bible mandates a literal interpretation of Genesis that is inconsistent with the available objective evidence, and why that literal interpretation is necessary for salvation.

Now THERE is a responsive reply.

Flint said: Now THERE is a responsive reply.

Brian said: I thought I already explained that the sabbath has everything to do with 6 day literal creation. Keeping the 7 th day sabbath commemoration to creation is essential to salvation. The eternal law that applies to everyone because it will be kept is in Exodus 20 and the sabbath is included.

SWT said: In that context, I really want to understand why you believe that the Bible mandates a literal interpretation of Genesis that is inconsistent with the available objective evidence, and why that literal interpretation is necessary for salvation.

Ah, there you are again, Brian. So, once again: tell me how you square the testimony of the stones with a six-day recent creation.

How is it that there are metres-thick strata consisting of the remains of extinct sea creatures, lying underneath volcanic rock from volcanoes now so long extinct that nothing remains of them, and their deposits have been eroded flat?

How can that be, unless the Earth, and life, is very ancient?

How can that be, unless the Earth, and life, is very ancient?

Flint said:

How can that be, unless the Earth, and life, is very ancient?

Simple. God created it that way. The bible SAYS so. Any more questions?

*Intentional ignorance of God in the lives of ante-diluvian, pre-flood people who were in every way superior to people today. Intelect, knowlege, skill, arts, devising, life expectancy... You name it!

Brian, hydroplate is nonsensical, unproven magic babble.

Your hellfire evangelism is not appreciated, so please go away and do not come back.

Brian said: *Intentional ignorance of God in the lives of ante-diluvian, pre-flood people who were in every way superior to people today. Intelect, knowlege, skill, arts, devising, life expectancy... You name it!

Brian, let me ask you a question:

If your children misbehave, do you think it would be a just punishment for you to murder your entire family right down to the houseplants, like the way God annihilated all life on Earth that couldn't fit into Noah's Ark?

You always prattle on and on how just and wonderful God's genocide of the wayward, yet, allegedly superior antediluvian humans, which leads one to wonder whether or not you think that imitating such an act in real life would also fill your heart with joy, too.

THEY WERE NOT MURDERED BY GOD!!! PERIOD! Sigh. God was constantly sustaining them and they put themselves out of His reach so He could sustain them no longer, so they were destroyed by the forces that were ready to carry out their destroction. God tried to preserve them and He did all that He could. Who thrives on willful ignorance of God?

Willful lack of true knowlege of God is eternal death. In other words it is their "willful ignorance of God" which murdered them but not God Himself.

Stanton said: Brian, let me ask you a question: If your children misbehave, do you think it would be a just punishment for you to murder your entire family right down to the houseplants, like the way God annihilated all life on Earth that couldn't fit into Noah's Ark? You always prattle on and on how just and wonderful God's genocide of the wayward, yet, allegedly superior antediluvian humans, which leads one to wonder whether or not you think that imitating such an act in real life would also fill your heart with joy, too.

If you are sincere I adjure you to read the book "Behold Your God" By F.T. Wright It shows that all who died and it seems like God murdered them by fire, flood, etc. actually destroyed themselves. It is Satan/Lucifer who would like you to think that God murders. Nevertheless, God keeps His own law "Thou Shalt NOT Murder" Exodus 20 A link to the book is below in pdf format:

http://www.srac.de/download.php?dir=/books/en/&file=Behold%20your%20God.pdf&page=books&l=en

BRian said: My children are not depending on me for their every breath like they are on God so having me as an example falls short. If they did depend on me for their every breath but they broke the channel where they could depend on me to live, it would be because of their ignorance that they depended on me for life that they died. It would be self-murder because of "willful ignorance" because I loved them and tried to show them their true relation with me, which was their very life. This is all if they depended on me for sustaining their life.

God is not a human he does not think or act in any way that is expected that any human would. God's behaviour is different than human behavior. He does not give brownie points as humans would. He is sustaining my life equally as He is yours, the sun still shines for you as it does for me etc.

BRian,

1) Is your God all powerful?
2) Is your God unconditionally loving and ethical?

It seems to me this is the only God worth worshiping.

Fortunately my Christian God is both and the Bible is not literal.

My Christian God does not play a balance of terror game with people, Satan or nature.

Rob

Rob said: BRian, 1) Is your God all powerful? 2) Is your God unconditionally loving and ethical? It seems to me this is the only God worth worshiping. Fortunately my Christian God is both and the Bible is not literal. My Christian God does not play a balance of terror game with people, Satan or nature. Rob

Brian's an old-school, fire-and-brimstone authoritarian asshole, using the words of the Bible to try to control people, because, I'm sure, nothing else in his life has been able to.

Ignore him.

fnxtr said: Brian's an old-school, fire-and-brimstone authoritarian asshole, using the words of the Bible to try to control people, because, I'm sure, nothing else in his life has been able to. Ignore him.

Brian said: I'm ok with people choosing to control themselves to the sure result of death and nothingness at last... but the other option has to be given a fair proclamation too- being controlled by the principles of God to the result of life eternal at last.

fnxtr said: Brian's an old-school, fire-and-brimstone authoritarian asshole, using the words of the Bible to try to control people, because, I'm sure, nothing else in his life has been able to. Ignore him.

Or control themslves according to their own way rather than controling themselves how God says to control themselves.

Brian said: Or control themslves according to their own way rather than controling themselves how God says to control themselves.

Stanton said:

Brian said: Or control themslves according to their own way rather than controling themselves how God says to control themselves.

You mean like how you're trying to bully other people into doing whatever you say under the pretext that God will kill them and punish them with "eternal death" if they don't do whatever you say?

I might be here for the same reason you are. I just acknowlege that my finite intellect does not need to explore where the infinite has not sanctioned exploration.

Stanton said: You're only here to score brownie points for God: why else would you come here, week after week, extolling on how wonderful it was of God to have annihilated the antediluvian humans and everything else that couldn't fit into Noah's Ark, and how you insist that the only way to avoid the same fate is to become gibbering morons like yourself. Those of us who do revere God here prefer to do so in a manner that does not require our critical thinking skills to be made into a burnt offering. And go tend to the log sticking out of your own eye, Brian.

Brian said: I'm ok with people choosing to control themselves to the sure result of death and nothingness at last... but the other option has to be given a fair proclamation too- being controlled by the principles of God to the result of life eternal at last.

fnxtr said: Brian's an old-school, fire-and-brimstone authoritarian asshole, using the words of the Bible to try to control people, because, I'm sure, nothing else in his life has been able to. Ignore him.

Brian said: Evething dies, it's part of natural law, are you admitting that God does work through natural law? it's not "whatever I say" but "whatever God says" that will cause death when transgressed.

Brian said: I might be here for the same reason you are. I just acknowlege that my finite intellect does not need to explore where the infinite has not sanctioned exploration.

"But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death."

Words by a Wise God.

Anyone who hates Him the source of life loves death- the absence of life. He cannot forcefully sustain anyone who hates the sustainer and wants to drive Him out of their life. By driving Him out they leave no more possibility for life.

Brian said: Please if you are not convinced of anything else please be convinced that the true God does not kill, or annhialate, or give brownie points. That is the only God I can believe in. A God that is not made up by humans, a God who was revealed by Jesus Christ on earth in Jerusalem. A God who is Jesus Christ the Son of God. A God who humbled himself in the exact same sinful flesh/nature as you and I just to prove/demonstrate that you and I can be like God in Character/perfect and maintain it even in these bodies of ours here on earth. Satan wants to be like him in power but not character that is anti-christian.

I will only heed Him if He tells me so to my face,

Brian said: "But he that sinneth against me wrongeth his own soul: all they that hate me love death." Words by a Wise God. Anyone who hates Him the source of life loves death- the absence of life. He cannot forcefully sustain anyone who hates the sustainer and wants to drive Him out of their life. By driving Him out they leave no more possibility for life.

Stanton said: and become pious idiots or suffer eternal death.

Brian said: What if you do not understand Him, because His infinite communication level is not the same as our finite one? Heck, you can hardly understand what he has written with his own hand already on stone - The Ten Commandments, neither do you believe in the accuracy of the words He has inspired through Moses in Genesis.

I will only heed Him if He tells me so to my face,

Reason must acknowledge an authority superior
to itself. Heart and intellect must bow to the great I AM.” The Min-
istry of Healing, 438.

Brian said: More like "know the true God before it's too late and you realize that you are separated from life, therefore, receiving the absence of life- death."

Stanton said: and become pious idiots or suffer eternal death.

Stanton said: The Ten Commandments say nothing of needing to reject "human sciences" because they are not Jesusy enough.

Brian said: Reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself. Heart and intellect must bow to the great I AM.” The Min- istry of Healing, 438.

Brian said: The Ten Commandments have the 4th commandment which points back to creation in 6 literal days resting on the 7th. Exd 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them [is], and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.

Stanton said: The Ten Commandments say nothing of needing to reject "human sciences" because they are not Jesusy enough.

Stanton said: And didn't the Bible say that God will punish such meddlers severely, too?

Why is it so hard to keep these evangelizing trolls from trolling?

Brian said: The True God does not punish in the way humans would punish. Infact He simply lets "meddlers" punish themselvs, fall into the pit which they themselves dug. "His own iniquities shall take the wicked himself, and he shall be holden with the cords of his sins." Solomon "He made a pit, and digged it, and is fallen into the ditch [which] he made." David

Stanton said: And didn't the Bible say that God will punish such meddlers severely, too?

Funny how you virtually deny the One who provided everything that was required for the formation of this computer. The materials, creativity of the men who did etc. And you expect me to be convinced that you believe in Him?

Brian said: Funny how you virtually deny the One who provided everything that was required for the formation of this computer. The materials, creativity of the men who did etc. And you expect me to be convinced that you believe in Him?

Calm down and read the book “Behold Your God” By F.T. Wright: http://www.srac.de/download.php?dir=/books/en/&file=Behold%20your%20God.pdf&page=books&l=en

but I cannot make you, you must sincerely want to grow in true knowlege of God which is eternal life yourself. Sigh.

Brian said: And you expect me to be convinced that you believe in Him?

Brian said: Calm down and read the book “Behold Your God” By F.T. Wright: http://www.srac.de/download.php?dir=/books/en/&file=Behold%20your%20God.pdf&page=books&l=en but I cannot make you, you must sincerely want to grow in true knowlege of God which is eternal life yourself. Sigh.

You would only think I'm controlling you if you knew you were doing something wrong that appealed to your fear, the fear we will have when we stand before the throne of God for the record of our life to be Judged whether our past life of wrong-doing was covered with Christ's atoning perfect life or not. It is not my intent to control but it is not surprising to receive opposition from the carnal/natural heart.

Brian said: It is not my intent to control but it is not surprising to receive opposition from the carnal/natural heart.

There is NO possibility that God WILL kill you, none, zilch, zero. Though there is possibility to loose salvation there is no possibility that he can deny a free gift with conditions. A free gift has to be refused by refusing to comply to the conditions.

Brian said: There is NO possibility that God WILL kill you, none, zilch, zero. Though there is possibility to loose salvation there is no possibility that he can deny a free gift with conditions. A free gift has to be refused by refusing to comply to the conditions.

Brian, you prideful, arrogant prick, why should we believe what you tell us about God?

Most of us have read the Bible, and have learned far more, from far more spiritually enlightened and intelligent individuals than you.

You're not here to save souls, or to glorify your God, you selfish turd, you're here to glorify yourself.

We all see it, you're not fooling anyone.

Least of all your God.

Talk about motes and beams.

Please go away.

Stanton said: Furthermore, if a gift comes with conditions, then, by its very definition, it is not a "free gift."

Brian said: If the conditions were for enabling us to receive the free gift it would. “Sickness, suffering, and death are work of an antagonistic power. Satan is the destroyer; God is the restorer.” The Ministry of Healing, 113. As the Restorer, “God is working, day by day, hour by hour, moment by moment, to keep us alive, to build up and restore us.” The Ministry of Healing, 112.

Stanton said: Furthermore, if a gift comes with conditions, then, by its very definition, it is not a "free gift."

Hey you can check God our for yourself, He is Good and only Good, he did not create evil. I can't keep it all inside I have to share. Read "Behold your God": http://www.srac.de/download.php?dir=/books/en/&file=Behold%20your%20God.pdf&page=books&l=en

Brian said: Hey you can check God our for yourself, He is Good and only Good, he did not create evil. I can't keep it all inside I have to share. Read "Behold your God": http://www.srac.de/download.php?dir=/books/en/&file=Behold%20your%20God.pdf&page=books&l=en

I never said human science was idolatry...must be your own conscience...God is speaking to you...

If you think it's God speaking, you must think it is true. So you do think that human science is idolatry. Good to know, Brian.

I guess therefore it's useless to discuss anything about the observed facts of nature at all, Brian. You've deliberately shut your brain down. Superstition and dogma trumps everything, including the mind you say God gave you. I pity you, and I tremble for you. If He gave you that brain, He expects you to use it. May you come to better understanding.

And I have nothing further to say to you.

Brian bullshitted: I never said human science was idolatry...must be your own conscience...God is speaking to you...

It must be nice to be as self-satisfied as Brian.It would drive away potential friends but someone that wrapped up in themselves is not going to notice anyway.

Richard Simons said: It must be nice to be as self-satisfied as Brian.It would drive away potential friends but someone that wrapped up in themselves is not going to notice anyway.

Dave Luckett said: Superstition and dogma trumps everything, including the mind you say God gave you.

Brian said: More like "Reason must acknowledge an authority superior to itself. Heart and intellect must bow to the great I AM.” The Ministry of Healing, 438. Rreason,heart and intellect, which human science stems from, must bow to the True God who wrote the Ten Commandments. Otherwise it becomes idolatry. Therefore, any facts which contradict the inspired written word, more expecially the words written by God himself on stone- 4th commandment, are not facts at all.

Dave Luckett said: Superstition and dogma trumps everything, including the mind you say God gave you.

Brian said: I thought I already explained that the sabbath has everything to do with 6 day literal creation. Keeping the 7 th day sabbath commemoration to creation is essential to salvation. The eternal law that applies to everyone because it will be kept is in Exodus 20 and the sabbath is included.

SWT said: In that context, I really want to understand why you believe that the Bible mandates a literal interpretation of Genesis that is inconsistent with the available objective evidence, and why that literal interpretation is necessary for salvation.

Again, why should we believe anything with an Orwellian name like Ministry of Healing?

Last I heard, the only book a True Christian(tm) needs is the Bible.

Men wrote the books, God wrote the rocks. You are denying His work and spurning His gift of reason.

But you don't have to take my word for it.

Brian said: ...Therefore, any facts which contradict the inspired written word, more expecially the words written by God himself on stone- 4th commandment, are not facts at all.

"Hi, I think your website is interesting very colorful. Good job! I feel helping job seekers finding their ream home jobs are a fulfilling quest. Good luck in your quest too.

www.onlineuniversalwork.com

Happy New Year!

“Knowing this first: that scoffers will come in the last days, walking according to their own lusts, and saying, ‘Where is the promise of His coming? For since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.’ For this they willfully forget: that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of water and in the water, by which the world that then existed perished, being flooded with water. But the heavens and the earth which now exist are kept in store by the same word, reserved for fire until the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.” 2 Peter 3:3-7.

In these words, Peter divides history into two periods—antediluvian and post-diluvian. In doing so he uses the expression, “the world that then was,” to indicate the world as it was before the flood and which was destroyed by the flood. When referring to the world after that catastrophe, he speaks of “the heavens and the earth, which are now.”

He does not speak only of the earth which is now, as being different from what it was before. He also includes the heavens in the change.

There is a continual bombardment of this earth by cosmic rays from outer space. These, interacting with the nitrogen in the atmosphere cause all living organisms to absorb radiocarbon 14. This continues until the death of the living thing, be it plant, animal, or human. Thereafter the radiocarbon 14 breaks down at an accurately known rate. To determine how long since death took place, the residual radiocarbon in the specimen is measured. If half the original activity remains then it is known that the age of the subject is very close to 5,568 years.

As mentioned above, when the procedure was tested using samples with ages already established through other means, it always checked out accurately. It was natural to assume then, that it would be equally reliable in testing materials for which there was no definite way of determining age. Coal was an excellent example of this kind of matter.

When samples were tested, there was found to be a complete absence of any radiocarbon 14. It was natural to conclude that it had been there in the usual strength in the original living trees, but these had been dead for so long that complete disintegration of the radioactive material had taken place. Knowing that this could happen only over an exceedingly long period of time, they dated the coal as being many hundreds of thousands of years old.
In doing so they did the very thing God, through Peter, foretold they would do. They denied that there had ever been a great change in the heavens and the earth and worked on the assumption that “... all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation.” 2 Peter 3:4.

Had they understood that the earth was mantled by that protective water vapor, they would have known that before the flood, cosmic rays could never have penetrated into our atmosphere as they do today. Plants and animals did not absorb any radiocarbon 14 before the flood because the band of moisture filtered the rays out before they ever reached the nitrogen in the earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, scientists found no radiocarbon in the coal—not because it had all disintegrated, but because it was never there originally. Thus the radiocarbon clock, far from denying the truth of the Bible, actually serves to confirm it.

Had the heavens and the earth been the same before the flood as they are now, with no better protection from cosmic ray penetration, then the trees would have absorbed it as they do today. When buried by the flood, the breakdown would have proceeded and the measuring instruments today would have shown the coal to be a little less than five thousand years old. We know how old the coal is without the help of a radiocarbon clock. We have the Word of God and from its utterly reliable source we know that the flood occurred about four thousand, four hundred years ago.

Behold Your God.

Doesen't it sound funny at all for evolutionists to instruct on what a true Christian is?

God is going give us what we want- a Godless world. Withdrawing himself so that we can see whether we can really contol the forces of nature like we believe we can. For now He controls them but when he lets go of control- they will break out of control we have examples of this in volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, cyclones and unrestrained human passion ex- The French Revolution.

Brian said: Doesen't it sound funny at all for evolutionists to instruct on what a true Christian is? God is going give us what we want- a Godless world. Withdrawing himself so that we can see whether we can really contol the forces of nature like we believe we can. For now He controls them but when he lets go of control- they will break out of control we have examples of this in volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, cyclones and unrestrained human passion ex- The French Revolution.

volcanoes, floods, hurricanes, tsunamis, earthquakes, tornadoes, cyclones and unrestrained human passion ex- The French Revolution.

The point is to be more like Chirst, hence the name CHRIST ian. Follower of Christ. NOT to be more like insignificant ol me.

You can dispense with the false humility, Brian. Everything you've written screams "LOOK AT ME, I'M IMPORTANT!"

No-one's buying your bullshit, in case you hadn't noticed.

You have demonstrated you know zip about how real science works.

You have presented no convincing argument why we should believe your specific interpretation of a 2000-year-old campfire story, as opposed to, say, the Pope's.

All you are demonstrating is your pride and ignorance.

You do know everyone's just yanking your chain and laughing at you, right?

No, Brian. Your post comes under the heading of Making Stuff Up.

There never was a water-vapour sphere, a firmament overhead. Some of the ancients thought there was - after all, from their limited knowledge it seemed reasonable that something that was blue like the sea, and out of which water fell, should be composed of water. Only it ain't so.

There is no stable orbit for such a cloud. But even if we set Newton and Einstein aside, it still doesn't work. See, such a firmament, thick enough to block even high-energy cosmic rays, would block lower energy rays, too, only more so. Like visible sunlight, for example. In other words, the Earth would be in permanent darkness. Nothing could grow. And it would be deadly cold, too - close to absolute zero, until the "firmament", (which couldn't have been there in the first place) was destroyed. Life couldn't exist on Earth with a firmament.

Sorry, Brian, it doesn't work. Cosmic rays have always reached the surface of the Earth. There is no C14 in coal, not because it wasn't there in the trees - it was, when the trees fell - but because the coal has taken, not hundreds of thousands, but tens to hundreds of millions of years to form and all the C14 has decayed to stable isotopes.

You're retailing obvious falsehoods that the simplest of checking would have shown to be false. If you're that reckless with the truth, Brian, you have no right to say you're a follower of Christ.

Lies and ignorance are pretty rotten fruit, Brian. Who was it said that you will know them by their fruit? And didn't he also inform us of who was the Father of Lies? And tell us that the truth would set us free?

You are enslaved, Brian. I hope that it is only to invincible ignorance, but I have just enough of the Welsh chapel still in me to shudder at the thought of who your master might really be.

Brian,

You do know that radio carbon dating has been confirmed to be accurate right? You do know that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has been calibrated going back nearly 50,000 years right? You do know that the results of radio carbon dating have been confirmed by independent data sets right? You do know that radio carbon dating is only one of about a dozen commonly used radio dating techniques right?

As for evolutionary biologists instructing "true" christians, I think that that says as much about the supposed christians as it does about the evolutionary biologists. If the christians can't be bothered to read their own bible, then I guess they do need someone to tell them what it says. When the christians don't display the type of love that is commended in the bible, then they should be told that they are not behaving like true christians. When they insist on specific falsified scientific beliefs as a prerequisite for salvation that are directly contrary to the teachings of the bible, they should be told that they are wrong. Your mindless quoting and incessant incoherent babbling provides that opportunity. If you don't like it, just go away.

DS said: Brian, You do know that radio carbon dating has been confirmed to be accurate right? You do know that the amount of carbon 14 in the atmosphere has been calibrated going back nearly 50,000 years right? You do know that the results of radio carbon dating have been confirmed by independent data sets right? You do know that radio carbon dating is only one of about a dozen commonly used radio dating techniques right?

Brian said: The point is to be more like Chirst, hence the name CHRIST ian. Follower of Christ. NOT to be more like insignificant ol me.

At least Brian has given up on his moronic schtick of how God will murder us when we least expect it in revenge for not becoming brain-dead, allegedly pious lying idiots like Brian.

For now.

"Before the flood, the sun was seven times brighter and the moon
was as bright as the sun. The sun ruled the day and the moon the
night. There was a wonderful mantle of protective vapor around
the earth and the climate from pole to pole was of pleasant, even
temperatures. It never rained, but a gentle mist rose each morning to water the earth

Some may question the effectiveness of the moisture mantle in
screening out the cosmic radiation, but the fact is that even the lim-
ited presence of moisture and atmosphere around our earth today,
is a protection from this problem. When supersonic jets traverse
the oceans at altitudes which practically take them out of this
earth’s atmosphere, it is necessary to keep a continual watch on so-
lar flares. Should these break out while they are in flight, they
must immediately return to a lower altitude to place atmosphere
between themselves and open space so as to obtain protection from
this radiation.
This clearly shows how completely the protective mantle before
the flood would screen out these radiations from outer space.
Therefore, any fossils of things living before the flood will always
give a zero readout so far as radioactive carbon content is con-
cerned. This is proof, not that they are so old that there has been a
complete decay of this material, but that it was never there in the
first place in order to break down. Its absence confirms the vast-
ly different conditions existing in the heavens and the earth pri-
or to the deluge.

...Biblical evidences .... confirm the scientific
nature of the flood. The perfect arrangement of balanced heat
supply and protective mantle producing a mild and equalized cli-
mate over the earth, was critically dependent on the uniform pro-
duction of heat from the sun and the moon. When that failed, the
flood was inevitable.
The question now remaining is why the sun came to be
dimmed and the moon extinguished. "

Behold your God

Go ahead as scoff... It's been done before, you will reap what you sow, there will ALWAYS be a reason to doubt God.

But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2:14.

All that leading scientific minds may conjecture aside from Christ, the Light of the world, is as chaff compared to the wheat. Christ is grieved that so few understand the science of oneness with Himself. Minds that are not under the divine guidance cannot understand the science of redemption. The mystery of godliness is found only in the believing soul who is divested of self. He is greatest in the kingdom of heaven who will become teachable as a little child. {TDG 231.1}

"'Human talent and human conjecture have tried by searching to find out God. Many have trodden this pathway. The highest intellect may tax itself until it is wearied out, in conjectures regarding God, but the effort will be fruitless, and the fact will remain that man by searching can not find out God. This problem has not been given us to solve. All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son, the great Teacher. As we learn more and more of what man is, of what we ourselves are, in God's sight, we shall fear and tremble before Him. {PH095 40.1}

Sigh...

...God will never force His presence where it is not
desired, and .... every power in nature is directly and
continually dependent on God’s creative power to keep it on station
fulfilling its appointed task. Therefore, in the era leading up to the
deluge, the sun and the moon, which were critical factors in the
coming of the flood, were dependent on the presence of God’s pow-
er to keep them burning at exactly the correct heat level and sta-
tioned at the proper distance from the earth. Let the Lord’s hand
be removed from the control and direction of those two orbs of fire[sun and moon],
and the flood had to follow

blah blah blah.

Go away, Brian, you're boring now.

Brian said: God will never force His presence where it is not desired...

Brian said: Before the flood, the sun was seven times brighter and the moon was as bright as the sun. The sun ruled the day and the moon the night. There was a wonderful mantle of protective vapor around the earth

So, Brian, your reaction to being advised that there could not have been such a hydrosphere, because the idea contradicts itself, is to invoke another uncovenanted miracle. It figures.

But one more unconvenanted miracle doesn't cut it. You also have to explain how your seven-times-brighter sun didn't boil the atmosphere off the Earth, and your precious hydrosphere with it. You have to explain why the moon didn't actually melt - it doesn't have any atmosphere at all to protect it, remember, and a seven-times-brighter sun would certainly generate surface temperatures in the thousands of degrees C. You have to explain how Venus retained its atmosphere, too, toxic as it is, despite being closer to the sun. You have to explain how the sun managed to be seven times brighter at all, given that its brightness is directly related to the rate of hydrogen fusion in it, which is in turn directly related to its volume and mass.

And the miracles don't stop there. They just go on and on. To get to where you are, it's not enough to annihilate every observation from geology and biology and paleontology. You also have to violate every law of physics and chemistry, as well.

And that's not all. You also have to cast God as a child, a whimsical and arbitrary meddler who can't make his mind up about how to run the Universe, and keeps breaking his own laws. Someone who gave humans free will, but then slaughtered practically all of us for displeasing him - and all other living things into the bargain, for no reason at all. That is, you have to cast God as a fool and a monster.

Brian, give it up. There's nothing - absolutely nothing - that would persuade me to give anything, let alone worship, to your vengeful bloody-handed demon-god, but your prideful ignorance is the very thing to persuade me that your religion is worthless or worse. Your evangelism is not only useless, it is directly counterproductive. All you are doing is confirming my decision, made long ago, that I was no believer.

Dave Luckett said: Brian, give it up. There's nothing - absolutely nothing - that would persuade me to give anything, let alone worship, to your vengeful bloody-handed demon-god, but your prideful ignorance is the very thing to persuade me that your religion is worthless or worse. Your evangelism is not only useless, it is directly counterproductive. All you are doing is confirming my decision, made long ago, that I was no believer.

Brian said: "Before the flood, the sun was seven times brighter and the moon was as bright as the sun. The sun ruled the day and the moon the night. There was a wonderful mantle of protective vapor around the earth and the climate from pole to pole was of pleasant, even temperatures. It never rained, but a gentle mist rose each morning to water the earth Some may question the effectiveness of the moisture mantle in screening out the cosmic radiation, but the fact is that even the lim- ited presence of moisture and atmosphere around our earth today, is a protection from this problem. When supersonic jets traverse the oceans at altitudes which practically take them out of this earth’s atmosphere, it is necessary to keep a continual watch on so- lar flares. Should these break out while they are in flight, they must immediately return to a lower altitude to place atmosphere between themselves and open space so as to obtain protection from this radiation. This clearly shows how completely the protective mantle before the flood would screen out these radiations from outer space. Therefore, any fossils of things living before the flood will always give a zero readout so far as radioactive carbon content is con- cerned. This is proof, not that they are so old that there has been a complete decay of this material, but that it was never there in the first place in order to break down. Its absence confirms the vast- ly different conditions existing in the heavens and the earth pri- or to the deluge. ...Biblical evidences .... confirm the scientific nature of the flood. The perfect arrangement of balanced heat supply and protective mantle producing a mild and equalized cli- mate over the earth, was critically dependent on the uniform pro- duction of heat from the sun and the moon. When that failed, the flood was inevitable. The question now remaining is why the sun came to be dimmed and the moon extinguished. " Behold your God Go ahead as scoff... It's been done before, you will reap what you sow, there will ALWAYS be a reason to doubt God. But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. 1 Cor. 2:14. All that leading scientific minds may conjecture aside from Christ, the Light of the world, is as chaff compared to the wheat. Christ is grieved that so few understand the science of oneness with Himself. Minds that are not under the divine guidance cannot understand the science of redemption. The mystery of godliness is found only in the believing soul who is divested of self. He is greatest in the kingdom of heaven who will become teachable as a little child. {TDG 231.1} "'Human talent and human conjecture have tried by searching to find out God. Many have trodden this pathway. The highest intellect may tax itself until it is wearied out, in conjectures regarding God, but the effort will be fruitless, and the fact will remain that man by searching can not find out God. This problem has not been given us to solve. All that man needs to know and can know of God has been revealed in the life and character of His Son, the great Teacher. As we learn more and more of what man is, of what we ourselves are, in God's sight, we shall fear and tremble before Him. {PH095 40.1} Sigh...

Brianless will of course read this as rejection and fear of (his particular understanding of his particular) God. He will never clue in that we're just rejecting Brian.

fnxtr said: Brianless will of course read this as rejection and fear of (his particular understanding of his particular) God. He will never clue in that we're just rejecting Brian.

stevaroni said:

Brian said: God will never force His presence where it is not desired...

Tell that to the citizens of Sodom and Gomorrah.

Most of the moisture that forms the oceans now was either underground or formed the moisture canopy.

The burning of the cities of the plain is not an event singular to them. There is a modern counterpart to this in the destruction of St. Pierre, on May 8, 1902.

The French-held island of Martinique shuddered like a stricken giant at the violent eruption. From the yawning mouth of the

380
BEHOLD YOUR GOD


volcano, a huge black cloud of superheated air and gas emerged that rolled down the sloping side of the mountain like a monstrous tumbleweed. In its path, at the of the mountain, lay the harbor town of St. Pierre. Within seconds the cloud swept over the city. Street by street, buildings leaped into instant flame and people were turned into human torches. The hideous black ball—its core later estimated to have been at least 1,500 degrees Fahrenheit—quickly reduced St. Pierre to smoldering ashes. Only two people survived the fiery devastation, and the rest of the populace—more than 30,000—died.

“It was on May 8, 1902, that the town of St. Pierre, on the lush West Indies island of Martinique, abruptly died. At exactly 7:50 A.M. on that disastrous morning, 4,583-foot Mont Pelee—a long-dormant volcano—blew its top in one of the world’s most cataclysmic explosions.

“This was St. Pierre in 1902—a city that had every reason to believe in its future but a city that had no future at all.” Nature at War, 132-133.

Life in St. Pierre and Sodom followed a similar pattern. Sodom and Gomorrah were places where study was given to the development of every means whereby the desires of the flesh could be gratified and, from the description given here, so was St. Pierre. Thus the very things which caused the departure of the restraining and protecting Spirit of God in the ancient situation were also present in this fair city. In both cases, the balmy climate and abundant wealth tended to stimulate this pursuit for the licentious, until a fever pitch was reached.

It is not to be supposed that Sodom was irreligious, for in those days worship of the sun god was the devoted spiritual exercise of those peoples. Wherever this religious influence has been present, it has encouraged licentiousness and immorality of all kinds. The Roman Catholic religion which dominated the spiritual life of St. Pierre, is the modern counterpart of the ancient sun-worship3 and has demonstrated that it, likewise, is the spawning ground for every type of sin and wickedness. The same religious influences therefore, which brought Sodom and Gomorrah to the pitch of wickdness equated with total and unrestrained rejection of God, also brought the inhabitants of St. Pierre to that point.
St. Pierre, then, provides us with a splendid illustration of the death of Sodom and Gomorrah. God did the same thing in both the ancient and the modern situation for the same reason. He left the rejecters of His mercy to themselves to reap that which they had sown and He did that because that was what the people in each case demanded of Him. Because the cities concerned were sitting over a time-bomb just waiting to go off in the form of a volcanic eruption, that was the fate which overtook them. In other words, they died, not because God decreed that this was the way it should be, but because that was the potential destructive threat under which they lived.


3 See The Two Babylons, by Alexander Hislop, published by S.W. Partridge and Co., 4, 5, & 6, Soho Square, London, W.I.

fnxtr said: Brianless will of course read this as rejection and fear of (his particular understanding of his particular) God. He will never clue in that we're just rejecting Brian.

If I am a godbot are you a selfbot? It's not easy trying to be like Christ.... God absolutely respects freedom of Choice so there is no such thing as a godbot.

" all the manifestations of retributive justice will be perfectly consistent with the character of God as a merciful, long-suffering, benevolent being.

GOD DOES NOT FORCE THE WILL OR JUDGEMENT OF ANY. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of his hands shall love him because he is worthy of love. He would have them obey him because they have an intelligent appreciation of his wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love him because they are drawn toward him in admiration of his attributes.

The principles of kindness, mercy, and love, taught and exemplified by our Saviour, are a transcript of the will and character of God. Christ declared that he taught nothing except that which he had received from his Father. The principles of the divine government are in perfect harmony with the Saviour's precept, "Love your enemies.""

Great Controversy
"The nature and location of these catastrophes are clear proof that they are not the work of God. They occur because of the presence, in scattered areas of the earth, of pockets of potential destruction seeded at the time of the flood. Those who live in such areas need the protecting care of God more than do others who live where there is a lesser threat. But, by their impenitent living they grieve away the shield of omnipotence thereby exposing themselves to the terrible storms or earthquakes, fires, floods, volcanic eruptions, or whatever else is poised to obliterate them. Therefore, they suffer the awful consequences of the withdrawal of God’s presence, as others in more favorable places do not.

This does not infer that there are entirely safe places on earth, for this is not true. As the withdrawal of God’s presence becomes more extensive, the uncaged powers of nature are reaching out to waste areas previously untouched. As we draw nearer to the end, this will become universal." Behold your God

Brenda, Brian, and Christian Todd all at once! I guess some pastor was railing about the evils of PT, and church just let out. Either that or its free internet time at the asylum.

"We've lost him." -- Michael Palin in Brazil.

Brian said: GOD DOES NOT FORCE THE WILL OR JUDGEMENT OF ANY. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience.

Brian said: Most of the moisture that forms the oceans now was either underground or formed the moisture canopy.

stevaroni said: Sounds like the Big Guy is pretty deep into a truly ego-stroking level of "slavish obedience" to me.

stevaroni said:

Brian said: GOD DOES NOT FORCE THE WILL OR JUDGEMENT OF ANY. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience.

And yet he threw Adam and Eve out of the garden in a fit of pique for disobeying him and eating the apple (even though one would imagine, as an omniscient being he could see it coming). He killed Onan for (ahem) spilling his seed against orders to go get his wife pregnant. He killed tens of thousands of King David's subjects because David conducted his census in a slightly different manner than instructed. He flooded the entire earth, killing everyone, specifically for not obeying his orders on how to live a holy life, then toasted Sodom and Gomorrah as an encore, just to drive home the point again to a new audience. Sounds like the Big Guy is pretty deep into a truly ego-stroking level of "slavish obedience" to me.

Brian said: GOD DOES NOT FORCE THE WILL OR JUDGEMENT OF ANY. He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of his hands shall love him because he is worthy of love. He would have them obey him because they have an intelligent appreciation of his wisdom, justice, and benevolence. And all who have a just conception of these qualities will love him because they are drawn toward him in admiration of his attributes.

Brian said: God does not kill, it just seems so to human finite minds like He does, this is what I am trying to prove, so that those heeding may at least make an intelligent choice when rejecting God, not a choice clouded by misrepresentation of His character and works.

ALL who die are sitting over a ticking time bomb that God can no longer prevent once they reject His mercy. The fact that the so-called innocent suffer sometimes worse than the wrong-doers proves God does not cause destruction.

"by their impenitent living they grieve away the shield of omnipotence[The Holy Spirit] thereby exposing themselves to the terrible storms or earthquakes, fires, floods, volcanic eruptions, or whatever else is poised to obliterate them. Therefore, they suffer the awful consequences of the withdrawal of God’s presence"

Behold Your God

That's Hell.

Brian said: ALL who die are sitting over a ticking time bomb that God can no longer prevent once they reject His mercy. The fact that the so-called innocent suffer sometimes worse than the wrong-doers proves God does not cause destruction.

And when I say "evil, and incompetent," I mean that the gist of Brian's message is "Submit to the will of God, or not even God can save you from His wrath."

Stanton said: Then what happened to all those people who weren't allowed into Noah's Ark? Or the first born sons of Egypt during the time of Moses?

Stanton said: And when I say "evil, and incompetent," I mean that the gist of Brian's message is "Submit to the will of God, or not even God can save you from His wrath."

God does not need me either... He LOVES me but does not NEED me.

He respects choice above all that is why "He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of his hands shall love him because he is worthy of love."

Heck if you truly know his kindness, mercy, and love, taught and exemplified by our Saviour, yet do not think he is worthy of love, then hate Him... but by that you are loving death by brute, unintelligent, unrelenting forces in nature which strike unexpectedly.

Brian said: Well the thing is, God does not need you, you need Him...like we are depending on every breath from him to live. He's not going to refuse to leave for your own safety, if you think all you need is yourself and you want him out.

Stanton said: And when I say "evil, and incompetent," I mean that the gist of Brian's message is "Submit to the will of God, or not even God can save you from His wrath."

Brian -

Bow down to my Saviour, the bringer of Light: Lucifer.

All hail the almighty, the all wise Lucifer!

Brian said: He respects choice above all that is why "He takes no pleasure in a slavish obedience. He desires that the creatures of his hands shall love him because he is worthy of love." Heck if you truly know his kindness, mercy, and love, taught and exemplified by our Saviour, yet do not think he is worthy of love, then hate Him... but by that you are loving death by brute, unintelligent, unrelenting forces in nature which strike unexpectedly.

Brian said: God does not need me either... He LOVES me but does not NEED me.

I loved the Christian charity, too:

"The Roman Catholic religion which dominated the spiritual life of St. Pierre, is the modern counterpart of the ancient sun-worship and has demonstrated that it, likewise, is the spawning ground for every type of sin and wickedness." So God, having a volcano handy, blew the place up. Yay, God.

Uh-huh. He used a hurricane on New Orleans. Same reason, no doubt. How about Darwin, the city, I mean, in 1974? That wasn't what you'd call a sink of depravity. Government town, mostly; nothing in comparison with, say, Sydney. But on the other hand, Sydney isn't in the track of rotary tropical storms. Maybe God couldn't find a proper smiter for it, so He hit Darwin instead. Out of frustration, like. And because of its name. Yeah, that'd be right.

Marysville, well, that's a little harder to work out. Pretty little country town, no more sin there than any other. How come God decided to burn it to the ground, and leave the Babylonian quarter of Melbourne untouched? Could it be because the red-light district wasn't in the middle of a tinder-dry forest?

This is the God who turned the sun up in defiance of His own laws, so that the water vapour canopy, which also existed in defiance of them, wouldn't freeze the planet, only that wouldn't have worked either, so he had to suspend any and all physical laws in the way. He seems to have diminished somewhat of late. These days, suspending physical laws seems to be a bit beyond Him, and He has to do his smiting by natural means. Budgetary constraints, I suppose.

It's almost enough for me to wish that there were a god, and Jesus were his Son, just so Brian and his evil little sect could find themselves having to expiate their bigotry and arrogance. Their affronted astonishment would be delightful to watch.

What's the bet that they'd go running to the other side? After all, Jesus did remark that the devil was the father of pharisees. C S Lewis has a scene in which the demon Screwtape proposes a toast in Pharisee wine, a beverage consisting of the souls of opposed religious bigots blended together, to their mutual horror and detestation.

Alas, I don't think it's going to happen. If there's a God, he's got better things to do.

Brian said: ALL who die are sitting over a ticking time bomb that God can no longer prevent once they reject His mercy.

Dan said:

Brian said: ALL who die are sitting over a ticking time bomb that God can no longer prevent once they reject His mercy.

Brian never tires of making this claim. He's made it several dozen times in this thread alone! But he has never supported this claim with evidence, or observation, or reasoning.

Brian said: they grieve away the shield of omnipotence[The Holy Spirit] thereby exposing themselves to the terrible storms or earthquakes, fires, floods, volcanic eruptions, or whatever else is poised to obliterate them[in the case of Egypt's first-born sons it may have been a disease that caused instant death]. Therefore, they suffer the awful consequences of the withdrawal of God’s presence” Behold Your God

Brian said: He respects choice above all

fnxtr said: Holy cow. I write almost the same thing as satire, and just a few posts later Brian goes and writes it with a straight face. You just can't make stuff like this up:

Dan said:

Brian said: ALL who die are sitting over a ticking time bomb that God can no longer prevent once they reject His mercy.

Brian never tires of making this claim. He's made it several dozen times in this thread alone! But he has never supported this claim with evidence, or observation, or reasoning.

When looking up the reference to "Screwtape Proposes a Toast", I came across this: http://donknoup.com/2009/03/09/screwtape-letters-and-screwtape-proposes-a-toast/

Have a look, first.

This is the quality of the evangelicals. This guy is one of their you-should-pardon-the-expression clergy. Spare me flamin' days, as we say in my country.

He doesn't read, he says. "The Screwtape Letters" took him months, and was not easy. You know it was originally published in parts in a mass-market daily newspaper?

What on Earth would he make of Spinoza? Or Kant? Or even Paul the Apostle, for Pete's sake?

I kept wondering why the theology of these guys was as piss-poor as it is. It's often as bad as their science, and that is saying a mouthful. But with "ministers" of this caliber, I don't wonder any more.

Dave Luckett said: It's also a dire heresy and a blasphemy. Brian, in his overwheening pride, has purported both to give rules to God and to limit His power.

Stanton said:

Brian said: God does not need me either... He LOVES me but does not NEED me.

Tell us again how this is supposed to be a loophole to fashion yourself as a prophet of God who can put words in God's mouth without God expressing His permission for you do so.

Dave Luckett said: so He hit Darwin instead.

Stanton said:

Dave Luckett said: It's also a dire heresy and a blasphemy. Brian, in his overwheening pride, has purported both to give rules to God and to limit His power.

Brian repeatedly stated that he does not care that the Bible states that his behavior is disapproved of by God (i.e., his preaching at us with lies, his limiting of God, threatening that he will convince God to deny us salvation in retaliation for not obeying him and his decrees), nor does he care about the consequences of his behavior (i.e., driving us away from Christ due to being a very bad example of a Christian).

Brian said: I did not put it into God's mouth. IT IS WRITTEN: Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; HE NEEDS NOTHING! NO ONE! THEY ALL NEED HIM.

Stanton said:

Brian said: God does not need me either... He LOVES me but does not NEED me.

Tell us again how this is supposed to be a loophole to fashion yourself as a prophet of God who can put words in God's mouth without God expressing His permission for you do so.

Brian said: It does not make sense to men living on satans enchanted ground, but God has to follow the same rules of righteousness He gives out to his creatures. His law and the way he acts are the same thing. Only men make laws that they do not keep.

Dan said:

Brian said: ALL who die are sitting over a ticking time bomb that God can no longer prevent once they reject His mercy.

Brian never tires of making this claim. He's made it several dozen times in this thread alone! But he has never supported this claim with evidence, or observation, or reasoning.

Stanton said: Then how come you continue to preach at us with lies, and why do you insist on meddling with our own private relationships with God (of those of us who have them)? And why do you also insist on dropping hints on how God will kill us in retaliation for not accepting your interpretation of Him?

Brian said: I did not put it into God's mouth. IT IS WRITTEN: Act 17:25 Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things; HE NEEDS NOTHING! NO ONE! THEY ALL NEED HIM.

Stanton said:

Brian said: God does not need me either... He LOVES me but does not NEED me.

Tell us again how this is supposed to be a loophole to fashion yourself as a prophet of God who can put words in God's mouth without God expressing His permission for you do so.

Stanton said: Why is a science blog "Satan's enchanted ground"? If you have this much contempt for science, why do you insist on living in this modern world and using modern conveniences like the Internet?

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD [is] perfect, Brian said: He is truly like- merciful, just, respectful of freedom of choice, doesn't make arbitrary rules/laws but only for the protection and welfare of His creatures, so there will not arise another rebellion against Him again in the future of eternity.

Stanton said: living in this modern world and using modern conveniences like the Internet?

Honest, you couldn't write this stuff in a novel. People wouldn't suspend disbelief. The critics would complain that nobody this crazy is still walking around, that insanity isn't funny, and besides, it's not nice to depict a crazy person as this stupid and malicious. Anyway, it's boring.

They're right, at least on the last. I'm bored now.

Q.E.D.

NO, Brian, you haven't given evidence of anything. All you've done is post word salad.

If I posted excerpts from The Iliad, would that prove that Jupiter and Juno are real? Would cutting-and-pasting from Le Mort D'Arthur convince anyone that the sword in the stone actually existed? Maybe the kind of credulous fools you hang out with would be convinced, Brian, but not here.

You haven't even explained why we should consider you an authority on anything. Saying the same things over and over doesn't make them true. Really, it doesn't.

Maybe in the circles you travel in, just spouting off makes people believe you, but that's not how it works in the real world, a world with which you are clearly unfamiliar.

So, why are you here, exactly? Do you really think you're going to change anyone's mind, or convince them that they should believe your particular interpretation of camp fire tales?

You've done your brave foray into the lion's den, I'm sure you got your brownie points from your handlers. Time to run along, now.

fnxtr said: You haven't even explained why we should consider you an authority on anything. Saying the same things over and over doesn't make them true. Really, it doesn't.

Lets join the end of conversation that may have acually happened between a professor and his christian student.

"I would have thought that the absence of God's moral code in this world is probably one of the most observable phenomena going," the Christian replies.

"Newspapers make billions of dollars reporting it every week! Tell me, professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?"

"If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, young man, yes, of course I do."

"Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?"

The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare.

"Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

"I'll overlook your impudence in the light of our philosophical discussion. Now, have you quite finished?" the professor hisses.
"So you don't accept God's moral code to do what is righteous?"

"I believe in what is - that's science!"
"Ahh! SCIENCE!" the student's face splits into a grin. "Sir, you rightly state that science is the study of observed phenomena. Science too is a premise which is flawed..."

"SCIENCE IS FLAWED..?" the professor splutters.

The class is in uproar.

The Christian remains standing until the commotion has subsided. "To continue the point you were making earlier to the other student, may I give you an example of what I mean?" The professor wisely keeps silent.

The Christian looks around the room. "Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the professor's intelligence?" The class breaks out in laughter. The Christian points towards his elderly, crumbling tutor. "Is there anyone here who has ever heard the professor's intelligence... felt the professor's intelligence, touched or smelt the professor's intelligence?" No one appears to have done so. The Christian shakes his head sadly. "It appears no-one here has had any sensory perception of the professor's intelligence whatsoever. Well, according to the rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science, I DECLARE that the professor has no intelligence."

http://www.harrypottermagic.org/08SpiritualismP&P/philosophy_101.htm

(i.e., driving us away from Christ due to being a very bad example of a Christian).

Brian fantasizes: Lets join the end of conversation that may have acually happened between a professor and his christian student. (snip) http://www.harrypottermagic.org/08S[…]ophy_101.htm

Brian said: Maybe I'm just bringing the realization that you were not as close to God as you thought before. I'm just saying... I'm not getting brownie points, I'm just trying to to speed the inevitable- Choice of rejecting or accepting God and His rules.

(i.e., driving us away from Christ due to being a very bad example of a Christian).

Brian,

Have you read the first part of your Bible? I mean the part before Genesis where the translators, compilers, and editors of the Bible describe the assembly and evolution of the current version of the Bible?

The Bible you hold in your hands clearly states there is not one literal English Bible.

I think you need to relax about these foolish rules and look for the all powerful and unconditionally loving and ethical God of Jesus. I do not recognize the God you seem to think you follow as the God of Jesus at all.

Rob

Brian said: God- The embodiment of SELF-SACRIFICING LOVE. UTTERLY devoid of ANY self-protectionism, self-interest, self-love, selfishness of ANY kind. If this his so then He does not need to do anything to justify or protect the rules he has set, if they are perfect like He says they will justify and protect themselves at last. Psa 18:30 [As for] God, his way [is] perfect

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD [is] perfect, Brian said: He is truly like- merciful, just, respectful of freedom of choice, doesn't make arbitrary rules/laws but only for the protection and welfare of His creatures, so there will not arise another rebellion against Him again in the future of eternity.

Brian said: "Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?" The professor makes a sucking sound with his teeth and gives his student a silent, stony stare. "Professor. Since no-one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you now not a scientist, but a priest?"

Rob said: Brian, Have you read the first part of your Bible? I mean the part before Genesis where the translators, compilers, and editors of the Bible describe the assembly and evolution of the current version of the Bible? The Bible you hold in your hands clearly states there is not one literal English Bible. I think you need to relax about these foolish rules and look for the all powerful and unconditionally loving and ethical God of Jesus. I do not recognize the God you seem to think you follow as the God of Jesus at all. Rob

Brian said: I believe Christ over anyone.

Argument by false analogy, and childishly simple to refute. ("Professor of philosophy" my hairy foot.)

Any act, including the same act, may be good, bad or indifferent (or any combination) under different circumstances. Sometimes it's difficult to know which it is. Jesus knew that, which is more than the "Christian" in that silly fable does. That's why Jesus didn't say to judge the act itself, but its results. "By their fruits you shall know them," he said.

Evil and good are therefore descriptors. They are not intrinsic to the act, but a quality attached to it. They must therefore have a separate existence to the act itself. Nor are they mutually exclusive, for both can be present, or neither. Either can be present in greater or lesser quantities. Therefore, the one is not simply the absence of the other.

Evil therefore is a separate quality that exists.

But God created all things that exist.

But God is only good.

Reconcile these, and you have solved a problem that has been bugging Christian philosophers and theologians for millennia. The best anyone has been able to do is to sidestep it. Most of them have given up on one of the premises: either God isn't only good, or God didn't create all things. Pay your money and take your choice.

phantomreader42 said: So, Brian, you're saying that your god is UTTERLY devoid of ANY selfish feelings such as, say, jealousy? Exodus 20:4-6 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: {5} Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; {6} And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Of course, there's no way this will penetrate Brian's web of delusions or his thick empty skull. Just like it's utterly beyond his comprehension how anyone could question the justice of punishing innocent people for the crimes of their ancestors.

Brian said: God- The embodiment of SELF-SACRIFICING LOVE. UTTERLY devoid of ANY self-protectionism, self-interest, self-love, selfishness of ANY kind. If this his so then He does not need to do anything to justify or protect the rules he has set, if they are perfect like He says they will justify and protect themselves at last. Psa 18:30 [As for] God, his way [is] perfect

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD [is] perfect, Brian said: He is truly like- merciful, just, respectful of freedom of choice, doesn't make arbitrary rules/laws but only for the protection and welfare of His creatures, so there will not arise another rebellion against Him again in the future of eternity.

Brian said: Why should you consider anyone an authority for anything? Just because something is popularily taught or believed does not make it true. I believe Christ over anyone. Faith is substance of things hoped for and evidence of things not seen.

fnxtr said: You haven't even explained why we should consider you an authority on anything. Saying the same things over and over doesn't make them true. Really, it doesn't.

Brian said: He obviously would not have to be jealous the way humans would be selfishly jealous. I hope you are not looking it up in the dictionary because the bible must define itself.

phantomreader42 said: So, Brian, you're saying that your god is UTTERLY devoid of ANY selfish feelings such as, say, jealousy? Exodus 20:4-6 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth: {5} Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me; {6} And showing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God: Of course, there's no way this will penetrate Brian's web of delusions or his thick empty skull. Just like it's utterly beyond his comprehension how anyone could question the justice of punishing innocent people for the crimes of their ancestors.

Brian said: God- The embodiment of SELF-SACRIFICING LOVE. UTTERLY devoid of ANY self-protectionism, self-interest, self-love, selfishness of ANY kind. If this his so then He does not need to do anything to justify or protect the rules he has set, if they are perfect like He says they will justify and protect themselves at last. Psa 18:30 [As for] God, his way [is] perfect

Psa 19:7 The law of the LORD [is] perfect, Brian said: He is truly like- merciful, just, respectful of freedom of choice, doesn't make arbitrary rules/laws but only for the protection and welfare of His creatures, so there will not arise another rebellion against Him again in the future of eternity.

Way to dodge the question there, so-called Christian.

You have still not explained why we should take your word for anything.

No-one gives a rat's about your interpretation of the Bible.

You're wrong about biology, Brian.

Just wrong, that's all. Not subversive, or evangelical, or even important. Just wrong.

Bye now.

If you still think God kills....
Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

Jhn 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but AS MY FATHER HATH TAUGHT ME, I speak these things.

Jhn 8:54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that HE IS YOUR GOD:

Jhn 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son(Christ) can do NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise.

Jhn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me.

DID JESUS CHRIST EVER KILL EVEN THOUGH HE SAID HE DID NOTHING WICH THE FATHER(GOD) DIDN'T DO? NO JESUS NEVER KILLED AND HE DID EVERYTHING THE FATHER DID.

The seeming contradiction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God is just because of finite, erring, foolish mortals interpretations.

He gave the Jews till AD 70, about 37 years after they killed Christ- officially rejecting God, before he could let/allow the Romans to KILL them. It is the Romans who KILLED the Jews and destroyed Jerusalem not GOD. The Jews rejected God in Christ Jesus so He could do nothing to protect them from the Roman assault.

I rest my case.

I rest my case.

Then how come Brian also previously said that all people who die died because they rejected God, thus inviting God's wrath upon them, somehow preventing God from saving them?

That, and if the Jews killed Jesus, how come it was Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross?

And if the Jews were all killed by the Romans, where does Brian think all of the Jews TODAY come from?

Oh, wait, it's because Brian is an inane idiot who's delusional enough to think that he can somehow browbeat us with inane lies and veiled threats of God killing us if we don't kowtow to Brian.

Brian babbled: DID JESUS CHRIST EVER KILL EVEN THOUGH HE SAID HE DID NOTHING WICH THE FATHER(GOD) DIDN'T DO? NO JESUS NEVER KILLED AND HE DID EVERYTHING THE FATHER DID.

Stanton said: That, and if the Jews killed Jesus, how come it was Roman soldiers who nailed Him to the cross?

It has been the special work of Satan to lead fallen man to rebel against
God's government, and he has succeeded too well in his efforts. He has tried
to obscure the law of God, which in itself is very plain. He has manifested
a special hate against the fourth precept of the Decalogue, because it
defines the living God, the Maker of the heavens and the earth. The plainest
precepts of Jehovah are turned from, to receive infidel fables.

Man will be left without excuse. God has given sufficient evidence upon
which to base faith if he wish to believe. In the last days the earth will
be almost destitute of true faith. Upon the merest pretense, the Word of God
will be considered unreliable, while human reasoning will be received,
though it be in opposition to plain Scripture facts. Men will endeavor to
explain from natural causes the work of creation, which God has never
revealed. But human science cannot search out the secrets of the God of
heaven, and explain the stupendous works of creation, which were a miracle
of Almighty power, any sooner than it can show how God came into existence.

"The secret things belong unto the Lord our God: but those things which are
revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever." . . . God's ways are
not as our ways, neither are His thoughts as our thoughts. Human science can
never account for His wondrous works. God so ordered that men, beasts, and
trees, MANY TIMES LARGER than those now upon the earth, and other things,
should be buried in the earth at the time of the Flood, and there be
preserved to evidence to man that the inhabitants of the old world perished
by a flood. God designed that the discovery of these things in the earth
should establish the faith of men in inspired history. But men, with their
vain reasoning, make a wrong use of these things which God designed should
lead them to exalt Him (Spiritual Gifts, vol. 3, pp. 94-96).

Brian said: If you still think God kills.... Isa 55:9 For [as] the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts. Jhn 8:28 Then said Jesus unto them, When ye have lifted up the Son of man, then shall ye know that I am [he], and [that] I do nothing of myself; but AS MY FATHER HATH TAUGHT ME, I speak these things. Jhn 8:54Jesus answered, If I honour myself, my honour is nothing: it is my Father that honoureth me; of whom ye say, that HE IS YOUR GOD: Jhn 5:19 Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son(Christ) can do NOTHING OF HIMSELF, but what he seeth the Father do: for what things soever he doeth, these also doeth the Son likewise. Jhn 5:30 I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just; because I seek not mine own will, but the will of the Father which hath sent me. DID JESUS CHRIST EVER KILL EVEN THOUGH HE SAID HE DID NOTHING WICH THE FATHER(GOD) DIDN'T DO? NO JESUS NEVER KILLED AND HE DID EVERYTHING THE FATHER DID. The seeming contradiction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God is just because of finite, erring, foolish mortals interpretations. He gave the Jews till AD 70, about 37 years after they killed Christ- officially rejecting God, before he could let/allow the Romans to KILL them. It is the Romans who KILLED the Jews and destroyed Jerusalem not GOD. The Jews rejected God in Christ Jesus so He could do nothing to protect them from the Roman assault. I rest my case.

to free themselves from difficulties thrown in their way by infidel geologists, adopt the view that the six days of creation were six vast, indefinite periods, and the day of God's rest was another indefinite period; making senseless the fourth commandment of God's holy law. Some eagerly receive this position; for it destroys the force of the fourth commandment, and they feel a freedom from its claims upon them. They have limited ideas of the size of men, animals, and trees, before the flood, and of the great changes which then took place in the earth.
Bones of men and animals are found in the earth, in mountains and in valleys, showing that much larger men and beasts once lived upon the earth...... very large, powerful animals existed before the flood which do not now exist. Instruments of warfare are sometimes found; also petrified wood. Because the bones of human beings and of animals found in the earth, are much larger than those of men and animals now living, or that have existed for many generations past, some conclude that the world is older than we have any scriptural record of, and was populated long before (p. 93) the record of creation, by a race of beings vastly superior in size to men now upon the earth. {3SG 92.1}

..... without Bible history, geology can prove nothing. Relics found in the earth do give evidence of a state of things differing in many respects from the present. But the time of their existence, and how long a period these things have been in the earth, are only to be understood by Bible history. It may be innocent to conjecture beyond Bible history, if our suppositions do not contradict the facts found in the sacred Scriptures.
But when men leave the word of God in regard to the history of creation, and seek to account for God's creative works upon natural principles, they are upon a boundless ocean of uncertainty. Just how God accomplished the work of creation in six literal days he has never revealed to mortals. His creative works are just as incomprehensible as his existence. {3SG 93.1}

Where are the bones of giant human beings in science books? Why are they obscured? It's much easier to tread on a boundless ocean because then I can do what I desire.
You have to accept the 4th commandment which reiterates the literacy of Genesis to be saved. Grace is not a licence to break the 4th commandment. Or perhaps you have been taught that licence is liberty... Is making God all and in all limiting ourselves?

I think we've had enough of Brian. He's made himself plain. Any onlooker would be aware by now of what he is and where he's coming from.

And to think that these are the loons who'd blame antisemitism on Darwin. Words fail me.

Oh, but if you want a laugh after the grim business of wading through the swamp of superstition, ignorance and hubris inside Brian's noggin, have a look at the sites he linked to. Photoshop has a lot to answer for.

Brian said: Where are the bones of giant human beings in science books?

Brian said: The seeming contradiction between the Old Testament God and the New Testament God is just because of finite, erring, foolish mortals interpretations.

At January 6, 2010 10:57 PM, Brian said: I rest my case.

At January 7, 2010 12:53 AM, Brian said: They were destroyed by what they used to crucify Christ ...

Dan said:

At January 6, 2010 10:57 PM, Brian said: I rest my case.

At January 7, 2010 12:53 AM, Brian said: They were destroyed by what they used to crucify Christ ...

Well, that was a 2 hour rest.

Dan calls it a rest. I call it a lie.
Who's the Prince of Lies, again, there, Brian?

fnxtr said: Dan calls it a rest. I call it a lie. Who's the Prince of Lies, again, there? Brian!

Dave Lovell said:

Brian said: Where are the bones of giant human beings in science books?

Where indeed! Brian, can you tell us where and when they were found, and by whom, and where they are (and can be examined) now? You know, the sort of boring little details scientists like to see in their science books. I'm sure their study would be of immense interest to hundreds of thousands of scientists and archaeologists the world over, not to mention Joe Public. The first popular science book documenting them would probably make its author a millionaire.

Brian said: No, It wouldn't. They would hide them to perpetuate a lie, people cannot stand having things told them about their origin, they have to figure it out themselves. PROUD.

In 1936 Larson Kohl, the German paleontologist and anthropologist, found the bones of gigantic men on the shore of Lake Elyasi in Central Africa. Other giant skeletons were later found in Hava, the Transvaal and China. The evidence for the existence of giants is incontrovertible. "A scientifically assured fact," says Dr. Louis Burkhalter.

1. Large bones in stone graves in Williamson County and White County, Tennessee. Discovered in the early 1800s, the average stature of these giants was 7 feet tall.
2. Giant skeletons found in the mid-1800s in New York state near Rutland and Rodman.
3. In 1833, soldiers digging at Lompock Rancho, California, discovered a male skeleton 12 feet tall. The skeleton was surrounded by caved shells, stone axes, other artifacts. The skeleton had double rows of upper and lower teeth. Unfortunately, this body was secretly buried because the local Indians became upset about the remains.
4. A giant skull and vertebrae found in Wisconsin and Kansas City.
5. A giant found off the California Coast on Santa Rosa Island in the 1800s was distinguished by its double rows of teeth.
6. A 9-foot, 8-inch skeleton was excavated from a mount near Brewersville, Indiana, in 1879.
7. Skeletons of "enormous dimensions" were found in mounds near Zanesville, Ohio, and Warren, Minnesota, in the 1880s.
8. In Clearwater Minnesota, the skeletons of seven giants were found in mounds. These had receding foreheads and complete double dentition.
9. At Le Crescent, Wisconsin, mounds were found to contain giant bones. Five miles north near Dresbach, the bones of people over 8 feet tall were found.
10. In 1888 seven skeletons ranging from seven to 8 feet tall were discovered.
11. Near Toledo, Ohio, 20 skeletons were discovered with jaws and teeth "twice as large as those of present day people." The account also noted that odd hieroglyphics were found with the bodies.
12. Miners in Lovelock Cave, California, discovered a very tall, red-haired mummy In 1911
13. This mummy eventually went to a fraternal lodge where it was used for "initiation purposes."
14. In 1931, skeletons from 8 ½ to 10 feet long were found in the Humbolt lake bed in California.
15. In 1932, Ellis Wright found human tracks in the gypsum rock at White Sands, New Mexico His discovery was later backed up by Fred Arthur, Supervisor of the Lincoln National Park and others who reported that each footprint was 22 inches long and from 8 to 10 inches wide. They were certain the prints were human in origin due to the outline of the perfect prints coupled with a readily apparent instep.
16. During World War II, author Ivan T. Sanderson tells of how his crew was bulldozing through sedimentary rock when it stumbled upon what appeared to be a graveyard. In it were crania that measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown nearly three times as large as an adult human skull. Had the creatures to whom these skulls belonged been properly proportioned, they undoubtedly would have been at least 12 feet tall or taller.
17. In 1947 a local newspaper reported the discovery of nine-foot-tall skeletons by amateur archaeologists working in Death Valley.
18. The archaeologists involved also claimed to have found what appeared to be the bones of tigers and dinosaurs with the human remains.
19. The Catalina Islands, off California, are the home of dwarf mammoth bones that were once roasted in ancient fire pits. These were roasted and eaten by human-like creatures who were giants with double rows of teeth.

Giant Skulls Found
Ivan T. Sanderson, a well-known zoologist and frequent guest on Johnny Carson's TONIGHT SHOW in the 1960s (usually with an exotic animal with a pangolin or a lemur), once related a curious story about a letter he received regarding an engineer who was stationed on the Aleutian island of Shemya during World War II. While building an airstrip, his crew bulldozed a group of hills and discovered under several sedimentary layers what appeared to be human remains. The Alaskan mound was in fact a graveyard of gigantic human remains, consisting of crania and long leg bones. The crania measured from 22 to 24 inches from base to crown. Since an adult skull normally measures about eight inches from back to front, such a large crania would imply an immense size for a normally proportioned human. Furthermore, every skull was said to have been neatly trepanned (a process of cutting a hole in the upper portion of the skull).
In fact, the habit of flattening the skull of an infant and forcing it to grow in an elongated shape was a practice used by ancient Peruvians, the Mayas, and the Flathead Indians of Montana. Sanderson tried to gather further proof, eventually receiving a letter from another member of the unit who confirmed the report. The letters both indicated that the Smithsonian Institution had collected the remains, yet nothing else was heard. Sanderson seemed convinced that the Smithsonian Institution had received the bizarre relics, but wondered why they would not release the data. He asks, "...is it that these people cannot face rewriting all the textbooks?"

Giant Footprints
In South Africa, a giant footprint of a woman measuring over 4 feet long has been carbon dated at approximately 9 million years old. Pointing to the probability of this being a female human-like species' foot, proportionally the two-legged being would need to be some 30 feet tall! The local African people commonly refer to this as a highly revered and sacred site. Giants, twice the size of gorillas, were found in Java.

The petrified remains of a giant were found in South Africa. A well-known anthropologist declared that these remains showed that these man's ancestors must have been giants.

Giant Devils
Within an ancient burial mound near the town of Sayre in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, skeletons measuring approximately 7 feet in length were discovered in the 1800s. But the most remarkable feature of these tall skeletons was not their height, but the strange horn-like protrusions above the brow region on their skulls. It was estimated that they were buried around 1200 AD. According to some sources, the skeletons were sent to the "American Investigating Museum" in Philadelphia, and vanished.

Revised Articles
In Lampec-Rancho California, in 1833, soldiers discovered a skeleton 11' 9" long which was covered with boulders with an unidentified writing. A similar writing was unearthed on the isle of Santa Maria off the cost of Los Angeles. In July of 1887 in Eureka Nevada, a human leg was found measuring 38.9 inches form the knee to the heel. The man was over 11 foot tall. In Crittenton Arizona in 1891 a sarcophagus was uncovered containing a human 3 meters high and had 12 toes. More recently skeletons ranging from 2.8 meters to 3.12 meters were found by soviets in the Caucasus Mountains. In China skeletons 10 feet tall have been found. In the Philippines a giant human skeleton was found at gargation, Measuring 17 feet long. In the Eagle three Cole mine at Bear Creek Montana in 1920 two human molars were found three times larger than normal. In Braton Tennessee human footprints were found in solid rock 33 inches log and one foot wide. These also have six toes each. Tools found in Morocco are so large their users must have been at least 12 foot tall. Other Giants found around the world are: the Java giant, the south China giant, and the South Africa giant. (See The Timeless Earth p. 26)

In 1833,soldiers digging a pit for a powder magazine at Lompock Rancho, California, hacked their way through a layer of cemented gravel and came up with the skeleton of a giant man about twelve feet tall. The skeleton was surrounded by carved shells, huge stone axes, and blocks of porphyry covered with unintelligible symbols. The giant was also noteworthy in still another respect :He had a double row of teeth, both upper and lower. When the natives began to attach some religious significance to the find, authorities ordered the skeleton and all the artifacts secretly reburied — and , of course ,lost to the scientific study they deserved.

This particular giant, incidentally, bore marked similarity to another, that of a giant man with double rows of teeth whose skeletal remains were dug up on Santa Rosa Island, off the California coast. Subsequent research has shown that he, or his descendants, feasted on the small elephants which once lived on that island and which have vanished like the giants who ate them, countless ages ago.

Near Crittenden, Arizona, in 1891, workmen excavating for a commercial building came upon a huge stone sarcophagus eight feet below the surface. The contractor called in expert help, and the sarcophagus was opened to reveal a granite mummy case which had once held the body of a human being more than twelve feet tall -a human with six toes, according to the carving of the case. But the body had been buried so many thousands of years that it had long since turned to dust. Just another silent witness to the truth of Genesis, which tells us that there were giants in the earth in those days, the excavation of over a dozen skeletons 8 to 12 feet tall, around the world, shocked archaeologists.

These skeletons were positively human. Some of these skeletal remains are on Maui in lava caves near Ulupalakua and Olowalu. An example of this is the "mysterious" disappearance of more than 50 perfectly kept gigantic antediluvian skeletons (between 10-14 feet tall) found in a cave in Arizona.

Earth Giants : over the years a number of gigantic human skeletons have been unearthed. The most distinctive of these were the remains of some American giants found in the 1880s at Tioga Point, near Sayre in Bradford County, Pennsylvania, as recounted by Robert Lyman in Forbidden Land. Some other examples include the following:

A decayed human skeleton claimed by eyewitnesses to measure around 3.28 meters (10 feet 9 inches tall), was unearthed by laborers while ploughing a vineyard in November 1856 in East Wheeling, now in West Virginia.

A human skeleton measuring 3.6 meters (12 foot) tall was unearthed at Lompock Rancho, California, in 1833 by soldiers digging in a pit for a powder magazine. The specimen had a double row of teeth and was surrounded by numerous stone axes, carved shells and porphyry blocks with abstruse symbols associated with it.

Several mummified remains of red haired humans ranging from 2-2.5 meters (6.5 feet to over 8 feet) tall were dug up at Lovelock Cave, (70 miles) north-east of Reno, Nevada, by a guano mining operation. These bones substantiated legends by the local Piute Indians regarding giants which they called Si-Te-Cahs. For some reason scientists did not seem to want to investigate these finds further so many of the bones were lost. Fortunately one of the giant Lovelock skulls is still preserved today. It measures almost 30cm (1 foot) tall and resides along with other various Lovelock artefacts in the Humboldt Museum in Winnemucca, Nevada. Some of these artefacts can also be found in the Nevada State Historical Society's museum at Reno.

The Hubbard Discovery
In this magazine for September, 1923, we mentioned a reported discovery by Mr. Samuel Hubbard, of remains of giants in the Grand Canyon of Arizona. Owing to press unreliability, we did not notice this to a great extent. We have now, however, obtained more knowledge on the subject, and there remains no doubt that Mr. Hubbard has actually made a discovery composed of the following parts:

1. Petrified bodies of two human beings about 18 and 15 feet in height respectively. One of these is buried under a recent rock fall which would require several days' work to remove; the other, of which Mr. Hubbard took photographs, is in a crevice of difficult accessibility. The bodies are formed of a limestone petrification embedded in sandstone.
2. An ancient beach, now sandstone, containing a great number of footprints of a giant race, men, women and children; the prints of adults about 17 to 20 inches in length, and corresponding in size and shape to the Carson City and Blue Ridge prints.

Even More Giant Records
According to a press clipping, dated Nayarit, Mexico, May 14, 1926, Capts. D. W. Page and F. W. Devalda discovered the bones of a race of giants who averaged over ten feet in height. Local legends state that they came from Ecuador. Nothing more has been heard of this, but that is not surprising; the word "giant" will flutter the feathers of any scientist into rapid flight, metaphorically speaking, in the opposite direction.

So also with a report from the Washington Post, June 22, 1925, and the New York Herald-Tribune, June 21, 1925. A mining party, it is reported, found skeletons measuring 10 to 12 feet, with feet 18 to 20 inches long, near Sisoguiche, Mexico. The Los Angeles Times, October 2, 1927, says that explorers in Mexico located large human bones near Tapextla, indicating a race of "gigantic size." All this, if unfounded, would be straining coincidence or imagination pretty far.

Press accounts say that the skeleton of a gigantic man, with head missing, has been unearthed at El Boquin, on the Mico River, in the Chontales district. The ribs are a yard long and four inches wide and the shin bone is too heavy for one man to carry. "Chontales" is an Indian word, meaning "wild men."

In the late 1950's during road construction in Homs southeast Turkey, Many tombs of Giants were indeed unearthed. These tombs were 4 meters long, and when entered in 2 cases the human thigh bones were measured to be 47.24 inches in length. They calculated that the person who owned this Femur probably stood at fourteen to sixteen feet tall. A cast of this bone is seen at the Creationist museum in Texas.
Flavius Josephus, the noted Jewish historian of the first century A.D., described the giants as having "bodies so large and countenances so entirely different from other men that they were surprising to the sight and terrible to the hearing." And he adds that in his day, the bones of the giants were still on display!
http://prophecyarchive.com/ray/barr-family.com/godsword/giants.htm

One principal which science would not dispute is that there have been specimens of insects and mammals (and obviously reptiles) all around the world which have been documented in ancient times to have massive proportion compared to their progeny, and many much larger than any human. So it suggests that a giant “anything,” nevermind just a giant human, could exist in nature- and that the account of what actually existed before contemporary formal documentation are shotty at best- lost to myth, legend, and fascist states destroying what records we had.

For those hoping to have a more rational worldview, sticking to what the scholars tell us, all of these pictures can, with any luck, all be traced to such a hoax.
http://www.book-of-thoth.com/article1814.html

SIGH!

So how does this support your moronic claim that people would perpetuate a lie about origins?

Or are you going to go back to babbling on and on and on how wonderful God is, and how He's merciful and just because He murders by proxy?

And why is it so hard for the administrators to deal with a moronic, spamming Antisemite troll?

You can only murder yourself. You will forfeit the existence that your wrong-doing has deemed you unworthy. You will welcome destruction. God will allow you to, if it so happens.

God pleads with you...
Eze 33:11 Say unto them, [As] I live, saith the Lord GOD, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die,

He asks "WHY?! WHY?! Why will ye die?!!! I have done everything I could do to save you without encroaching on your freedom of choice!!!! I cannot force any of my creatures to do anything!!! It is not how my government based on service of willing love operates. I have made every provision so that none of my creatures will have anyone to blame but themselves for being destroyed."

Did Giant Reptiles Share the Earth with Giant Humans?
http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/26/02162.html

So, Brian, you're saying that we're supposed to commit suicide because we won't accept your babbling lies without question?

How stupid can you be?

As a lurker here I for one am thoroughly enjoying this thread. I love the way that Brian, unable to stand the heat of criticism, has degenerated into full-on cut&paste godbot mode. He's hardly even bothering to read anyone's responses any more.

It's like an automatic immune response. As soon as his belief system came under serious attack, the reasoning (or at least what could almost be called reasoning) part of his brain completely shut down and now he's just endlessly repeating a litany of things that he thinks support his beliefs. He's not posting for anyone else now, he's doing it entirely to prop up his own fragile faith.

So please don't let this thread end yet. I want to see how long he can keep this up. My prediction is that this automatic defense phase will eventually exhaust itself and he'll slink away. The real question is just how long it will take. In the meantime this is comedy gold.

SWT said:

Brian said: I thought I already explained that the sabbath has everything to do with 6 day literal creation. Keeping the 7 th day sabbath commemoration to creation is essential to salvation. The eternal law that applies to everyone because it will be kept is in Exodus 20 and the sabbath is included.

SWT said: In that context, I really want to understand why you believe that the Bible mandates a literal interpretation of Genesis that is inconsistent with the available objective evidence, and why that literal interpretation is necessary for salvation.

Actually, Brian, you have explained no such thing. You have asserted it without proof, which is rather different from explaining. There is no reason that one could not faithfully observe the Sabbath but take Genesis 1 as allegory; I know many people who do just that. As Dave Luckett argued in another thread, it's quite likely that the Priestly writer(s) of Genesis 1 (who also wrote Exodus 20 IIRC), probably wasn't trying to be historical; when you try to take it literally you cripple its true meaning. P wrote Genesis 1 to say some important things about the Almighty, not about science.

observing a Sabbath day.

The Son of Man is Christ btw. He is Lord of the Seventh-Day, Friday sunset to Saturday sunset Sabbath. The Creator. Why don't you ask Him(God) in faith? Oh, I almost forgot... most here are faithless. It's pretty fashionable and easy to be faithless and doubt but it is suicidal. I could be the same but I CHOOSE not to be. ONLY YOUR CHOICE could keep salvation from you.

Jhn 20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands; and reach hither thy hand, and thrust [it] into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

"Could those whose lives have been spent in rebellion against God be suddenly transported to Heaven, and witness the high, the holy state of perfection that ever exists there,-- every soul filled with love; every countenance beaming with joy; enrapturing music in melodious strains rising in honor of God and the Lamb; and ceaseless streams of light flowing upon the redeemed from the face of Him who sitteth upon the throne,--could those whose hearts are filled with hatred of God, of truth and holiness, mingle with the heavenly throng and join their songs of praise? Could they endure the glory of God and the Lamb?--No, no; years of probation were granted them, that they might form characters for Heaven; but they have never trained the mind to love purity; they have never learned the language of Heaven, and now it is too late. A life of rebellion against God has unfitted them for Heaven. Its purity, holiness, and peace would be torture to them; the glory of God would be a consuming fire. They would long to flee from that holy place. They would welcome destruction, that they might be hidden from the face of Him who died to redeem them. The destiny of the wicked is fixed by their own choice. Their exclusion from Heaven is voluntary with themselves, and just and merciful on the part of God.
Truth will never be agreeable to a liar; meekness will not satisfy self-esteem and pride; purity is not acceptable to the corrupt; disinterested love does not appear attractive to the selfish. What source of enjoyment could Heaven offer to those who are wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests? "
Great Controversy

Brian,

Can you be saved and go to heaven if you miss one sabbath day? How about two or three? How about 49% of them? If you use Sunday as the sabbath instead of Saturday, will you be condemned to hell? How about if you use Sunday as the sabbath during football season and saturday every other time? Will you be condemned to hell for watching football on saturday, or do you have to watch on Sunday in order to be condemned to hell? What if you take every weekday off and only work on the weekends? What if you have a government job and are required to work on weekends? Isn't that covered by the "render unto" clause? What if you are in a coma on Saturday, do you still get credit for that? What if you are in a war and the other side doesn't take the sabbath off, should you just let them kill everyone they want to for one day each week?

By the way Brian, if you think that one "giant femur" disproves all of evolution, then I guess you have to agree that the millions of fossils intermediate forms that have been found conclusively falsify creationism millions of times over. Good work Brian.

Brian said: Did Giant Reptiles Share the Earth with Giant Humans? http://www.agoracosmopolitan.com/home/Frontpage/2008/01/26/02162.html

Keelyn said: Creationist claptrap to support creationist claptrap. You're funny, Brian.

Everyone else appears to be able to post to this thread, but I've had two posts "held for moderation", not appearing after 36 hours. What's the problem?

Now it lets me post.

I was trying to debunk Brian's long ramble about human giants. I had to do a little digging. Was it because the posts were over ten lines long, or something?

Altair IV, I bet you watch videos of trains coming off their rails and crashing, too, don't you. ;-)

Dave Luckett said: Everyone else appears to be able to post to this thread, but I've had two posts "held for moderation", not appearing after 36 hours. What's the problem?

Brian said: It shouldn't be just a sabbath day, but the seventh day the sabbath of the Lord. Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Evening and morning of the seventh day. The days began at even from creation.

Dave Luckett said: Everyone else appears to be able to post to this thread, but I've had two posts "held for moderation", not appearing after 36 hours. What's the problem?

DS said: Brian, Can you be saved and go to heaven if you miss one sabbath day? How about two or three? How about 49% of them? If you use Sunday as the sabbath instead of Saturday, will you be condemned to hell? How about if you use Sunday as the sabbath during football season and saturday every other time? Will you be condemned to hell for watching football on saturday, or do you have to watch on Sunday in order to be condemned to hell? What if you take every weekday off and only work on the weekends? What if you have a government job and are required to work on weekends? Isn't that covered by the "render unto" clause? What if you are in a coma on Saturday, do you still get credit for that? What if you are in a war and the other side doesn't take the sabbath off, should you just let them kill everyone they want to for one day each week? By the way Brian, if you think that one "giant femur" disproves all of evolution, then I guess you have to agree that the millions of fossils intermediate forms that have been found conclusively falsify creationism millions of times over. Good work Brian.

Brian can't be troubled to spell "Caesar" correctly, yet, he's arrogant enough to expect we kneel to his threats, lies and incompetent evangelism without hesitation.

Brian wrote:

"If “Ceaser” opposes God then you would rather serve God than man no matter the consequences. God sustains everything every moment, If you did die a physical death you would be resurrected to eternal life if you died obeying God."

Thanks for not answering even a single one of my questions. Now everyone can see how ridiculous you insistence on biblical literalism is. And by the way, your bible commands you to obey the government, so I guess you can never work for a government would require you to work on a saturday, good to know.

"The intermediate forms can be evened out by reasoning that amalgamation or mixing of man and beast was possible at one time. Does not falsify creationism at all."

Really? So you think that that explains all of the intermediate forms between terrestrial mammals and whales? Very interesting. Have you published this idea in a scientific journal, or are you just making shit up again? What exactly were you doing with those hippos anyway?

DS said: And by the way, your bible commands you to obey the government, so I guess you can never work for a government would require you to work on a saturday, good to know. What exactly were you doing with those hippos anyway?

Brian said: The bible also teaches that Christians should obey God rather than man.

It has been possible to mix Man and beast and beast and beast and I especially believe that this was possible in the antediluvian age. That is why "all flesh corrupted his way" and "the earth was filled with violence"

Stanton said: Brian can't be troubled to spell "Caesar" correctly, yet, he's arrogant enough to expect we kneel to his threats, lies and incompetent evangelism without hesitation.

Brian said: In 1936 Larson Kohl, the German paleontologist and anthropologist, found the bones of gigantic men on the shore of Lake Elyasi in Central Africa.... (and so forth and so on)

Stanton said: Where is the evidence that this happened?

Brian wrote:

"It has been possible to mix Man and beast and beast and beast and I especially believe that this was possible in the antediluvian age. That is why “all flesh corrupted his way” and “the earth was filled with violence”

So your explanation is that hippos were screwing whales. Have you published this hypothesis in the scientific literature? How about hippos mixing with dinosaurs? Man, the possibilities here are endless. No wonder creationists are always gong on about crocoducks. The way you make shit up, you should have been a scatologist.

Are the soldiers who fight on saturday to defend your freedom going to be condemned to hell by your loving god brian? How about the police officers, fireman, doctors, and nurses that you depend on to protect you, is your god going to send all of them to hell for protecting you?

Brian said: The evidence is in those so called intermediate forms between terrestrial mammals and whales and etc. Fossils are actually good evidence for creation also. Just like people can read one book and come to opposite conclusions so also many may look at fossils and come to complete opposite conclusions.

stevaroni said: So, um, where are they now?

Brian said: Stanton I am not compelling you to do a thing. I am hoping the love of Christ would constrain you but you can resist it.

He will never force himself on you, He only accepts willing obedience out of love and intelligent appreciation of his character.

Aren't you the one who is attempting to limit my freedom of choice by telling me to stop posting on an open forum?

Evolution if so widely taught that my postings on this forum do not even compensate to even out the public acknowledgement.

So I kind of know I am working at a fools errand. All that is left for you is to ridicule me. I'm not surprised. I do not have to have a licence because I have liberty for now. Licence is not liberty and liberty is not licence.

DS said: Right. Rhodocetus is evidence of hippos screwing whales. Got it.

Brian said: The evidence is in those so called intermediate forms between terrestrial mammals and whales and etc. Fossils are actually good evidence for creation also. Just like people can read one book and come to opposite conclusions so also many may look at fossils and come to complete opposite conclusions.

Stanton said: Where is the evidence that this happened?

Brian said: You really would like to see them huh. Why don't you do some digging yourself? If it really mattered to you, why don't you spend a vacation digging in a place where these giant human fossils would most likely be found? There will always be a reason to doubt.

I believe the 4 th commandment even though I never saw it happen and you never have seen evolution happen through your eyes or any instruments. We can measure radiowaves, time and the inner core with instruments but we can never measure evolution or creation. It takes faith- evidence of things not seen.

DS said: Are the soldiers who fight on saturday to defend your freedom going to be condemned to hell by your loving god brian? How about the police officers, fireman, doctors, and nurses that you depend on to protect you, is your god going to send all of them to hell for protecting you?

Stanton said: because you want to stroke your ego by being a martyr.

SWT said:

DS said: Are the soldiers who fight on saturday to defend your freedom going to be condemned to hell by your loving god brian? How about the police officers, fireman, doctors, and nurses that you depend on to protect you, is your god going to send all of them to hell for protecting you?

The question is actually knottier than you suggest. Much of the manufacturing infrastructure in the USA relies on 24/7 operation. To take a specific example, a chemical plant can take days to restart after a shutdown -- if every such facility were to take a Sabbath break every week, they would be prohibitively expensive to operate. Refineries are similarly expensive to start up and shut down frequently. A large coal-fired power plant takes a day to start up. If nobody worked on the Sabbath, we'd be on our way back to the middle ages. Our standard of living relies on having clean running water, electricity, and natural gas (at minimum) -- the facilities that provide these to most metropolitan areas require 24/7 staffing.

Brian said: That is quite hilarious! If the people of this age APE the long-lived people of the antediluvian age in advancements in higher education- so called science, then I'm sure they had something that would make genetic engineering and manipulation look like ape toys. I would say that we have "progressed" more to be like apes rather than the other way round. :)

DS said: Right. Rhodocetus is evidence of hippos screwing whales. Got it.

Brian said: Actually the bible is against having an ego. meekness is not agreeable to self-esteem. All Jesus' disciples were martyrs except one. In the future when it is illegal to keep the seventh-day sabbath I know there will be many martyrs then. Two things I'm preparing for- to be a martyr or be one of the 144,000 literal number who live perfect without sinning when Christ stops restraining plagues.

Stanton said: because you want to stroke your ego by being a martyr.

Stanton said: He did with the Pharisees, then toss you out on your ear like He did with the money-changers.

Brian said: You make the terrible mistake of making Jesus like yourself. He never insulted anyone but he rebuked with tears in his eyes with only love. It is not the whip that made the money changers run, but because Christ spoke with an authority they could not resist. The money changers probably had swords. sword vs whip... which would loose? Looks like you are still under misrepresentation of His character. His ways are higher than your ways and they are not people ways.

Stanton said: He did with the Pharisees, then toss you out on your ear like He did with the money-changers.

Stanton said: Bible teaches against being egotistical, why do you insist on constantly boasting about how your alleged piety is so much better than modern science?

Brian said: Why do they want to make Sunday a rest day then?

Stanton said:

Brian said: Why do they want to make Sunday a rest day then?

Maybe because Christians have been resting and going to church on Sunday for over a thousand years.

Brian wrote:

"You really would like to see them huh. Why don’t you do some digging yourself? If it really mattered to you, why don’t you spend a vacation digging in a place where these giant human fossils would most likely be found? There will always be a reason to doubt."

Well Brian, have you ever looked at the fossils of Rhodocetus? Have you ever even read a scientific journal article about the fossils? Have you ever unearthed a fossil of any kind? HAve you ever even gone fossil hunting, anywhere?

You see Brian, the fact that you spout nonsense about things you know nothing about, then hand out advice that you don't follow yourself, shows everyone the depths of your moral depravity and intellectual bankruptcy. Just keep making shit up Brian, it's very amusing. Just keep making nonsensical comments about apes in response to questions about whales. Just keep ignoring questions that show the absurdity of your ridiculous crap. I'm sure everyone is really amused.

I think that god is going to send you to hell for all eternity for posting on saturday. If she won't, then Nick should.

Brian said: I'm actually basically saying know God or you will commit suicide at last and deny yourself salvation.

Of course it would SEEM like God killed you when he only respected your choice and allowed you to commit suicide because you rejected Knowledge of God as plainly revealed in Christ.

Brian said: It's not the sabbath of creation so no matter how popular and widely accepted it is... It is not right in the sight of God. WRONG DAY made by the Roman Church which is the beast if you know prophecy. Friday sunset to Saturday sunset is the true Sabbath.

Stanton said:

Brian said: Why do they want to make Sunday a rest day then?

Maybe because Christians have been resting and going to church on Sunday for over a thousand years.

Brian said: Of course it would SEEM like God killed you when he only respected your choice and allowed you to commit suicide because you rejected Knowledge of God as plainly revealed in Christ.

Brian said: Why do they want to make Sunday a rest day then? Obama's blogger discusses Sunday Rest http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Tritium/gG5ngR/commentary

SWT said:

DS said: Are the soldiers who fight on saturday to defend your freedom going to be condemned to hell by your loving god brian? How about the police officers, fireman, doctors, and nurses that you depend on to protect you, is your god going to send all of them to hell for protecting you?

The question is actually knottier than you suggest. Much of the manufacturing infrastructure in the USA relies on 24/7 operation. To take a specific example, a chemical plant can take days to restart after a shutdown -- if every such facility were to take a Sabbath break every week, they would be prohibitively expensive to operate. Refineries are similarly expensive to start up and shut down frequently. A large coal-fired power plant takes a day to start up. If nobody worked on the Sabbath, we'd be on our way back to the middle ages. Our standard of living relies on having clean running water, electricity, and natural gas (at minimum) -- the facilities that provide these to most metropolitan areas require 24/7 staffing.

DS said: I think that god is going to send you to hell for all eternity

Brian said: Of course it would SEEM like God killed you when he only respected your choice and allowed you to commit suicide because you rejected Knowledge of God as plainly revealed in Christ.

Brian said: It has been possible to mix Man and beast

And yet, you arrogantly refuse to realize that studying this world does not equal rebellion against God.

DS said: You see Brian, the fact that you spout nonsense about things you know nothing about, then hand out advice that you don't follow yourself, shows everyone the depths of your moral depravity and intellectual bankruptcy. Just keep making shit up Brian, it's very amusing. Just keep making nonsensical comments about apes in response to questions about whales. Just keep ignoring questions that show the absurdity of your ridiculous crap. I'm sure everyone is really amused. I think that god is going to send you to hell for all eternity for posting on saturday. If she won't, then Nick should.

DS said: Are the soldiers who fight on saturday to defend your freedom going to be condemned to hell by your loving god brian? How about the police officers, fireman, doctors, and nurses that you depend on to protect you, is your god going to send all of them to hell for protecting you?

Stanton said: And yet, you arrogantly refuse to realize that studying this world does not equal rebellion against God.

Brian said: Removing God from your studies of this world equals rebellion and if that is not precisely way evolution does by removing him from the position of creator, then I don't know what wouldn't remove God.

Stanton said: And yet, you arrogantly refuse to realize that studying this world does not equal rebellion against God.

So Brian, your answer is yes, those who fight to defend your freedom to post nonsense every day for hours and hours are going to hell as a punishment from your god. Got it.

Now Brian, my interpretation of the bible is that it claims that there is an eternal hell. If not, exactly how long do you think that people will be sent there for missing one saturday? Two? There? What is the process for parole? Are you going to be forced to mate with hippos as your punishment?

By the way, how about all those people who worked all day saturday so you could post here? Are they going to hell for helping you post your crap? Way to go Brian.

Brian wrote:

"Removing God from your studies of this world equals rebellion and if that is not precisely way evolution does by removing him from the position of creator, then I don't know what wouldn't remove God."

Denying evolution would seem to deny god much more than admitting that some myths do not have to be taken literally. Now that is denying god, nature, science and reason.

DS said: Denying evolution would seem to deny god much more than admitting that some myths do not have to be taken literally. Now that is denying god, nature, science and reason.

Brian said: Any kind of war is mans way of dealing with problems not God's. He would have destroyed Satan right away if he was a war god in any way.

stevaroni said: So, um, tell me again, exactly why God doesn't just smite Satan and get it over with? Personally, I think they're buddies, they probably drink together. After all, who else are they going to commiserate with. (Heck, I think that whole Job episode seals it. It was a celestial bar bet if ever there was one "Hey God! Betcha I can make your humble servant..." )

Nope. I tried again, without tags. Apparently I'm not allowed to post any long comment. It's a shame, because it makes it impossible to refute Brian's nonsense in detail. A lie can circle the world before truth can get its boots on, you know?

Dave Luckett said: Nope. I tried again, without tags. Apparently I'm not allowed to post any long comment. It's a shame, because it makes it impossible to refute Brian's nonsense in detail. A lie can circle the world before truth can get its boots on, you know?

SWT said:

Dave Luckett said: Nope. I tried again, without tags. Apparently I'm not allowed to post any long comment. It's a shame, because it makes it impossible to refute Brian's nonsense in detail. A lie can circle the world before truth can get its boots on, you know?

I'd be glad to try posting it for you ... if you want to try that, send me an email at swt.onpt .at. yahoo.com and we'll work out logistics. You could also send an email to the PT crew and they might be able to tell you what the problem is.

DS said: So Brian, your answer is yes, those who fight to defend your freedom to post nonsense every day for hours and hours are going to hell as a punishment from your god. Got it. Now Brian, my interpretation of the bible is that it claims that there is an eternal hell. If not, exactly how long do you think that people will be sent there for missing one saturday? Two? There? What is the process for parole? Are you going to be forced to mate with hippos as your punishment? By the way, how about all those people who worked all day saturday so you could post here? Are they going to hell for helping you post your crap? Way to go Brian.

So, in other words, Brian, they're going to Hell to die again because they don't submit to your own words?

Stanton said: So, in other words, Brian, they're going to Hell to die again because they don't submit to your own words?

Seriously, Brian, why should we believe anything a hypocrite, like yourself, says?

I mean, first you claim that God wants only willing followers who aren't slavishly obedient, then you go on about how spending one's time studying, and not spending every single waking moment grovelling before God, is rebellion.

Of course, then there's how you claim that God is merciful and just, but if we don't obey your own particular proclamations, God will kill us by inspiring us to commit suicide so He can then double-kill us again by obliterating us.

That, and how you also claimed that everyone who's ever died died because God killed them for apparently rejecting him.

Brian said: Actually it's because they do not submit to God's words. There is no "in other words" maybe I'm writing Greek that you can't understand? I'm trying to put the words as plain as possible so there does not have to be an "in other words." They will die because they wanted the satisfaction of their own way not God's they listened to their own[human] words not God's.

Stanton said: So, in other words, Brian, they're going to Hell to die again because they don't submit to your own words?

Really, Brian, if you realize that you will never be able to convince us to reject science in favor for your own bigoted point of view, why do you insist on continuing to preach your lies, stupidity and threats, inviting yourself to further ridicule? This isn't your own private forum, after all.

He does it because he can.

http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/sctstbel.htm#_Toc71912176
{quote}
Must there necessarily be a conflict between science and religion?
In my opinion, no, if it is understood that each treats a different aspect of reality. The Bible is certainly not a book of science. One does not study it to find the intensities and the wavelengths of the Balmer spectral lines of hydrogen. But neither is science concerned with the ultimate spiritual properties of the world, which are also real.

Science makes explicit the quite incredible natural order, the interconnections at many levels between the laws of physics, the chemical reactions in the biological processes of life, etc. But science can answer only a fixed type of question. It is concerned with the what, when, and how. It does not, and indeed cannot, answer within its method (powerful as that method is), why.

Why is there something instead of nothing? Why do all electrons have the same charge and mass? Why is the design that we see everywhere so truly miraculous? Why are so many processes so deeply interconnected?

But we must admit that those scientists that want to see design will see design. Those that are content in every part of their being to live as materialistic reductionalists (as we must all do as scientists in the laboratory, which is the place of the practice of our craft) will never admit to a mystery of the design they see, always putting off by one step at a time, awaiting a reductionalist explanation for the present unknown. But to take this reductionalist belief to the deepest level and to an indefinite time into the future (and it will always remain indefinite) when "science will know everything" is itself an act of faith which denies that there can be anything unknown to science, even in principle. But things of the spirit are not things of science.

There need be no conflict between science and religion if each appreciates its own boundaries and if each takes seriously the claims of the other. The proven success of science simply cannot be ignored by the church. But neither can the church's claim to explain the world at the very deepest level be dismissed. If God did not exist, science would have to (and indeed has) invent the concept to explain what it is discovering at its core. Abelard's 12th century dictum "Truth cannot be contrary to truth. The findings of reason must agree with the truths of scripture, else the God who gave us both has deceived us with one or the other" still rings true.

If there is no God, nothing makes sense. The atheist's case is based on a deception they wish to play upon themselves that follows already from their initial premise. And if there is a God, he must be true both to science and religion. If it seems not so, then one's hermeneutics (either the pastor's or the scientist's) must wrong.

I believe there is a clear, heavy, and immediate responsibility for the church to understand and to believe in the extraordinary results and claims of science. Its success is simply too evident and visible to ignore. It is likewise incumbent upon scientists to understand that science is incapable, because of the limitations of its method by reason alone, to explain and to understand everything about reality. If the world must simply be understood by a materialistic reductionalist nihilism, it would make no sense at all. For this, Romans 1:19-21 seems profound. And the deeper any scientist pushes his work, the more profound it does indeed become. {end quote}

SWT -

I've sent that post as an email, as you kindly offered to send it on. Thank you.

Brian said: It shouldn't be just a sabbath day, but the seventh day the sabbath of the Lord. Friday sunset to Saturday sunset. Evening and morning of the seventh day.

Dave Luckett said: SWT - I've sent that post as an email, as you kindly offered to send it on. Thank you.

Brian said: http://english.sdaglobal.org/research/sctstbel.htm#_Toc71912176 {quote} Must there necessarily be a conflict between science and religion? In my opinion, no, if it is understood that each treats a different aspect of reality. The Bible is certainly not a book of science. ...

Brian wrote:

"They’ll go to hell on the same condition as the rest of us,- if they hate heaven because it is wholly devoid of earthly and selfish interests they will not be there."

So now your answer is no, they won't go to hell just for taking sunday off instead of saturday. Great. I guess it doesn't really matter which day you take off to celebrate a fictitious day of rest for a made up story of creation now does it. Anyway, Dave is probably right, you probably got the day wrong so who cares. I'm sure you can think up lots of other excuses for sending people to hell. Point is, no one here cares.

"Must there necessarily be a conflict between science and religion? In my opinion, no, if it is understood that each treats a different aspect of reality."

You should read this quote carefully Brian. There really is no reason for you to reject evolution. If you do, you can go to hell. If you don't like being told that, then now you know how we feel about your religious crap.

fnxtr said: Altair IV, I bet you watch videos of trains coming off their rails and crashing, too, don't you. ;-)

I confess that I am really surprise to see the Brian’s quote of Allan R. Sandage; is he now supporting theistic positions?
In this quote, Sandage affirms that science and religion treat different aspects of reality, that the Bible is certainly not a book of science. Religion has another field that Sandage identifies with the ultimate spiritual properties of the world. Science follows (and had to follow rigorously) the principle of the naturalistic methodology, that was the cause of its extraordinary capacity to produce results and claims.
Sandage as Christian believes in the existence of a spiritual part of the reality and this part cannot be accessed by the science. This is the domain of the “why-questions”. Science cannot give answers to questions like “if there is a scope in the Universe or if there is or not a God”. As believer he is searching the sense of the life, as a necessary part of the human being. Religion tries to give these answers, but its methods are not the methods of the science and at the end the faith makes the difference.
It is interesting that his claim (that no conflict exists between science and religion) is not based on the request that science is submitted to the religion, but it is also a request to some religious hermeneutics to correct their position in name of a truth that should be visible from both religion and science.
One cannot share this view, but at least it is a respectable position that defines almost correctly the boundary between science and religion.

Germanicus,

Well we know that he never reads what anyone else posts. Now I guess we know that he doesn't read what he posts either.

Or maybe he's just back-pedalling to NOMA because he's beginning to realize that the proselytizing isn't working, and that he really doesn't know shit about real science.

He may be preaching to an educated, skeptical audience for the first time in his entire life.

Who knows. Who cares.

fnxtr said: Or maybe he's just back-pedalling to NOMA

stevaroni, you know the advantage of the Gish gallop is that any old garbage you throw around takes time and effort to refute, and nobody listens by the time the refutation gets there? "A lie can travel around the world before truth can get its boots on", you know?

Well, a version of it is happening here.

That giants thing - every goddam one of those anecdotes falls into one of three classes: hoaxes that mostly originated in sensationalist newspapers or carny shows; frauds made up out of whole cloth; or myths, by which I mean stories that have a tiny kernel of possibility about them, but in which any truth has been rendered unrecognisable by a vast overlay of fictional material.

For example there is no such place as "The American Investigating Museum" of Philadelphia or anywhere else, and there never has been. The Humboldt Museum of Winnemucca, Nevada, exists, but its (perfectly respectable) exhibits consist of early autos, farm machinery, Native American artefacts and general Western Americana. No giant skulls there, never have been. The Smithsonian absolutely denies ever having received any giant bones. (Ah, but they would say that, wouldn't they?)

Every one of those "photographs" originates in known sources, and most of them are not even actually fraudulent. Three, for example, are placegetters in a contest for photo manipulation from 1985, the subject of which was "fantasy archeology". In the age of the digital image, seeing is not believing.

The "giant human footprint" is palpably hand-carved, almost certainly an 'improved' dinosaur footprint. It's the one in Carl Baugh's "museum" in Paluxy, Texas, and it's an imposture that's been exploded for so long that even AiG has dropped it. It probably originated in a curiosity made to sell to tourists in the '30's.

The "giant human femur" in a "creationist museum in Texas" will be the exhibit in Joe Taylor's creationist "Fossil Museum" in Mt Blanco, Texas. It's a model made by Mr Taylor - as he freely admits - from a description he received in a letter from an "anonymous correspondent".

All the others are nothing but somebody's imagination, or are actually anonymous or untraceable. Provenance? We don' need no steenking provenance!

Consider what this shows about the ideation of Brian and others. Think about it. There have been hundreds of like finds made by hundreds of people, sez Brian. None of these people turn out to be identifiable, except for a few cases where they turn out not to have said or done anything like that, or can be shown to be hoaxing. None of the "evidence", not one single specimen, can be found now - and this is material that would make its finder an overnight celebrity millionaire.

This, sez Brian, is because a world-wide conspiracy by a cabal of scientists has managed to suppress it all, hide all the evidence, and shut everyone up, because they hate having their theories questioned.

These would be the same scientists who had such success in getting the world to dance to their tune at Copenhagen, a few weeks ago. Yeah, right.

What gets me about it is that the theology is just as rotten to the core. To prop it up, Brian has to resort to more and more fantasy, believe in more and more screwball stuff, take as absolute truth more and more rootless texts. But that's another subject.

There is an infinity of things that science can test and there is an infinity beyond that even. We'll see in the judgement before God how foolish exalting reason and rationality more than the God who endowed man with those talents was. By then it will be too late to change.... We will also see how degraded humans have become by licentiousness and lasciviousness and how we have sunk lower and lower with each succeeding generation. Satan is the one who doesn't want you to take the RISK of faith because he insinuates that it may be error so we should walk by sight with its limited capabilities and take the seemingly SAFE way.

Few will be saved indeed. FEW.

Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:
Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.
Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Brian said: Few will be saved indeed. FEW. Mat 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide [is] the gate, and broad [is] the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Mat 7:14 Because strait [is] the gate, and narrow [is] the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. Luk 13:24 Strive to enter in at the strait gate: for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and shall not be able.

Dave Luckett said: This, sez Brian, is because a world-wide conspiracy by a cabal of scientists has managed to suppress it all, hide all the evidence, and shut everyone up, because they hate having their theories questioned.

Brian said: It's actually perpetuated by fools willing to question the authority of God but do not question the authority of man. Why not question both with understanding and see what is truth? "The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God." You do not have to say or think "there is no God" you just have to live like there is no God- be wholly absorbed in earthly and selfish interests. Really, groveling before God is what we would do if we really understood His love if we really KNEW Him. Ignorance of God is suicidal.

Dave Luckett said: This, sez Brian, is because a world-wide conspiracy by a cabal of scientists has managed to suppress it all, hide all the evidence, and shut everyone up, because they hate having their theories questioned.

Or should I say do not question the doubts of man.

Stanton said: And yet, you are also the same person who claimed that God didn't want slavish obedience.

Brian said: Or should I say do not question the doubts of man.

Stanton said: So now that you've gotten your message of how you hate the world that God made, along with how you hope and pray that everyone in it who doesn't listen to your babbling rants will be personally driven to suicide, then personally obliterated by a merciless and monstrous God, can you get lost now?

Brian said: Or should I say do not question the doubts of man.

Brian said: It would not be slavish it would be willing groveling because of the beauty of His character. They would see that groveling before God is not really limiting anything, but opens to them an infinite area of study of why God does what He does and did what He did.

Stanton said: And yet, you are also the same person who claimed that God didn't want slavish obedience.

Brian said: Oh I don't hope, I can know for sure, which seems to be something you are against- knowing for sure because scientific mentality seems to be "well believe this for now because we can't know for sure." WELL NEVER KNOW FOR SURE! THERE WILL ALWAYS BE REASONABLE DOUBT.

Stanton said: So now that you've gotten your message of how you hate the world that God made, along with how you hope and pray that everyone in it who doesn't listen to your babbling rants will be personally driven to suicide, then personally obliterated by a merciless and monstrous God, can you get lost now?

Brian said: Or should I say do not question the doubts of man.

Stanton said: Are you aware that to grovel means to bow and scrape in fear or humiliation? Is that your idea of paradise? To offer praise to God solely in the vain hopes that He won't turn His wrath upon you and annihilate you because you're an annoying insect to Him?

Brian said: It would not be slavish it would be willing groveling because of the beauty of His character. They would see that groveling before God is not really limiting anything, but opens to them an infinite area of study of why God does what He does and did what He did.

Stanton said: And yet, you are also the same person who claimed that God didn't want slavish obedience.

Stanton said: So, you really do hate all life and want to see all the people who don't listen to you murdered by God in order to avenge your bruised ego.

We should really grovel at the thought of offending God.

I rather thought that the news that every single one of the anecdotes about giants he posted is either known to be false or is untraceable to reality would make no impression on Brian. He really can't tell truth from falsehood, poor soul.

But Jesus said (John 8:32) that his followers would know the truth, and the truth would set them free. So, since Brian doesn't know the truth, and apparently doesn't care about it, we are to conclude from Jesus's words that Brian isn't one of his followers, and hasn't been set free. That is, he is enslaved.

I wonder who Brian is really following? Is it the same person as the one that holds him in bond? That would be a person who promotes lies as truth, and who tells Brian to act out his fantasies of pride and revenge here. I wonder who that could be? I can't imagine...

But I know, dead set for certain, that it isn't Jesus.

Brian said: We should really grovel at the thought of offending God.

Brian said: The groveling would be infant because His creatures see that HE WOULD NEVER "turn His wrath upon you and annihilate you because you're an annoying insect to Him" He is TOTALLY BENEVOLENT! TOTALLY HUMBLE! TOTALLY GOOD! NO EVIL WHATSOEVER IN HIM!

You seem to twist my words to lay the blame on God always! Give it a rest. God will not kill, annihilate, torture, or destroy.

Stanton said: Perhaps you should stop describing God as a monstrous, attention-starved tyrant.

Stanton said: God wants us to grovel before him like unthinking, fear-filled slaves, that to do anything else is suicidal rebellion,

Brian wrote:

"...then you do not understand and cannot understand anything I write because it if foolishness to you- natural man."

Then stop wasting your time here you ignorant fool.

SWT said:

Brian said: Why do they want to make Sunday a rest day then? Obama's blogger discusses Sunday Rest http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/Tritium/gG5ngR/commentary

SWT said:

DS said: Are the soldiers who fight on saturday to defend your freedom going to be condemned to hell by your loving god brian? How about the police officers, fireman, doctors, and nurses that you depend on to protect you, is your god going to send all of them to hell for protecting you?

The question is actually knottier than you suggest. Much of the manufacturing infrastructure in the USA relies on 24/7 operation. To take a specific example, a chemical plant can take days to restart after a shutdown -- if every such facility were to take a Sabbath break every week, they would be prohibitively expensive to operate. Refineries are similarly expensive to start up and shut down frequently. A large coal-fired power plant takes a day to start up. If nobody worked on the Sabbath, we'd be on our way back to the middle ages. Our standard of living relies on having clean running water, electricity, and natural gas (at minimum) -- the facilities that provide these to most metropolitan areas require 24/7 staffing.

Brian, I have no idea who "Micheal Pearce," who wrote the post about Sunday laws, but the blog is hosted by "Organizing for America" -- it's not, as far as I know, associated with the Obama administration. It's not correct to represent him as "Obama's blogger." Perhaps some of the advantages of a return to Sunday laws posited by Mr. Pearce would materialize, perhaps not. However, Pearce does not address the very serious issues of maintaining our manufacturing and utilities infrastructure. I worked in the chemical manufacturing industry for over a decade and part of my current research is related to environmental controls for electrical power generation. If you knew anything about these activities, you would recognize that my statements are correct. You do want running water, electricity, and heat (natural gas) to be available, don't you? Since I've answered your question, would you please answer mine? Thanks in advance!

Brian said: Are you willingly ignorant of God? Haven't I written that if we KNEW him we would grovel before Him though He does not necessarily require us to grovel with the threatening of force.

The fact that you do not desire to shows your ignorance of God. If you knew Him you would not insinuate that He is a tyrant. Self is a tyrant not God.

Proverbs 19:2; Matthew 6:1; Matthew 10:13-14.

Obey the words of scripture, Brian. Stop it. Go away. Shake the dust from your feet, but do as you're told by Jesus himself. Go.

and who take the Mosaic law very seriously, as commands from the Almighty -- do not interpret Genesis literally.

Stanton said: You also wrote that thinking about anything other than God will cause God to induce us to commit suicide, whereupon He will then obliterate us

Are you just not willing to accept that no fault can ever lie with God though he allows himself to be challenged? He is not imperfect but perfect. Can you comprehend that?

Can you comprehend that you are not an authority, and there is no reason for anyone to believe your bullshit?

If it want religious insight, I'll read a Bible, and talk to a real cleric, not an internet nutjob.

We don't need you, Brian.

Can you comprehend that? My guess is no, you can't.

I refuse to humble myself before you, Brian. When God wants me to humble myself before Him, I will humble myself before Him, and no one else. As was stated, you are not a priest, and you are incoherent, and we all have easy access to our own Bibles, as well as easy access to our own spiritual advisers, who are sane and coherent.

You are not needed here, Brian. You have lied to us, and you have threatened us, as well as demonstrate that you are a hypocrite: there is no way you can earn our trust or our respect.

Brian said: The Mosaic law is not God's Law. God's law is the Ten Commandments as eternal as himself. There before even Moses was born.

and who take the Mosaic law very seriously, as commands from the Almighty -- do not interpret Genesis literally.

Brian said: Are you just not willing to accept that no fault can ever lie with God though he allows himself to be challenged? He is not imperfect but perfect. Can you comprehend that?

You cannot understand the Bible no matter how much you read it as long as you stay as natural men. It will be a bunch of foolish jibber jabber to you.

1Cr 2:14 But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him: neither can he know [them], because they are spiritually discerned.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind [is] enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.

So tell us why giving up everything at the behest of an incoherent liar, like you, just so we can do navel-contemplation of your petty, and murderous interpretation of God not foolish, then?

Honestly, what part of "Brian, you do not have the authority or permission or qualification to meddle with our own spiritual business" do you not understand?

You're an internet predator: you might as well try peddling porn or asking if we could donate to your offshore Nigerian bank account, you're going to get the same response from us. In fact, the Bible warns against falling for the lies of pious frauds, like yourself.

SWT said: The ten commandments are part of the Mosaic law. Would you please answer my question?

Mat 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Stanton said: So tell us why giving up everything at the behest of an incoherent liar, like you, just so we can do navel-contemplation of your petty, and murderous interpretation of God not foolish, then? Honestly, what part of "Brian, you do not have the authority or permission or qualification to meddle with our own spiritual business" do you not understand? You're an internet predator: you might as well try peddling porn or asking if we could donate to your offshore Nigerian bank account, you're going to get the same response from us. In fact, the Bible warns against falling for the lies of pious frauds, like yourself.

Stanton repeated: Honestly, what part of "Brian, you do not have the authority or permission or qualification to meddle with our own spiritual business" do you not understand?

God who is not seen has given me the permission and I am in the process of accepting His qualifications- being like Christ.
1Cr 1:25Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men
1Cr 1:26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, [are called]:
2Ti 1:9 Who hath saved us, and called [us] with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began,
Hbr 3:1 Wherefore, holy brethren, partakers of the heavenly calling, consider the Apostle and High Priest of our profession, Christ Jesus;

God is my authority. See you in the judgement.

I do not need to justify myself in human eyes. I want to be just before God so I must live by faith. Creation can only be understood by faith.
Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.
"The invisible things of Him since the creation of the world are . . . perceived through the things that are
made, even His everlasting power and divinity." Romans 1:20
It is not depth of reasoning that is to be productive of the most good; "the world by human wisdom knew not God"
(1 Corinthians 1:21), but "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost" (2 Peter 1:21). No
amount of reasoning or explanation can tell the whys and wherefores of the creation of the world. It is to be
understood by faith in the great creative power of God through Jesus Christ. "Through faith we understand that the
worlds were framed by the word of God, so that things which are seen were not made of things which do appear" —
(are not present to the eye) (Hebrews 1:3). This is a matter that can be stated, but mere reasoning will never
convince one of the truth of the statement. — Letter 56, 1903.

Brian said: You cannot understand the Bible no matter how much you read it as long as you stay as natural men. It will be a bunch of foolish jibber jabber to you.

Dan said:

Brian said: You cannot understand the Bible no matter how much you read it as long as you stay as natural men. It will be a bunch of foolish jibber jabber to you.

Brian suggests that he is not a natural man. I'd have to agree. Perhaps "Brian" is the name for a spambot.

I have to admit that I was experimenting to see whether Brian would heed the very words of Jesus himself. The result: not hardly.

It truly does astonish me how fanatics simply ignore their own creeds when it suits them.

Brian said: I do not need to justify myself in human eyes.

Brian said: The Sabbath is especially not part of Mosaic Law then.

Brian wrote:

"You cannot understand the Bible no matter how much you read it as long as you stay as natural men. It will be a bunch of foolish jibber jabber to you."

Thus saith the unnatural man. His crap certainly is jibber jabber to everyone.

Bullshit. You do remember God's exact words when He gave you permission to meddle in other people's spiritual matters without their permission?

Oh, wait, you can't, because you're bullshitting in order to justify yourself.

Why is it so hard for the administration to shut down a troll-infested thread?

Dan said:

Brian said: I do not need to justify myself in human eyes.

For someone who doesn't need to justify himself in human eyes, Brian sure wastes a lot of time doing it.

Dave Luckett said: I have to admit that I was experimenting to see whether Brian would heed the very words of Jesus himself. The result: not hardly. It truly does astonish me how fanatics simply ignore their own creeds when it suits them.

Brian said: God who is not seen has given me the permission and I am in the process of accepting His qualifications- being like Christ.

ben said: Brian's comments and our troll-feed responses to them have come to dominate this thread, and I see no signs of discussion of SDAs' positions on evolution. Why not just kill the thread so Brian can go fake-preach elsewhere?

phantomreader42 said: If you are like christ, then christ is a worthless, obnoxious, dishonest asshole, and I want nothing to do with him.

As far as I know Jesus Christ never said "Don't study the world, don't try to understand God's creation, and don't build on the knowledge of others to make life longer, easier, and more comfortable and interesting for everyone".

Did your God give us this Earth to just wallow in ignorance, or to discover its mysteries? Did he give us reason and curiosity just to test us?

Seriously, Brian. You can be pious without self-lobotomy.

Brian said: I'm still learning to be like Christ, it is a lifelong process of learning and unlearning.

fnxtr said: As far as I know Jesus Christ never said "Don't study the world, don't try to understand God's creation, and don't build on the knowledge of others to make life longer, easier, and more comfortable and interesting for everyone". Did your God give us this Earth to just wallow in ignorance, or to discover its mysteries? Did he give us reason and curiosity just to test us? Seriously, Brian. You can be pious without self-lobotomy.

Brian wrote:

"He gave us faith to believe the evidence"

then why don't you?

Brian said: He gave us faith to believe the evidence He has given in His words for things that cannot be seen. Such as creation....none of us were there when the formation of the earth occurred. Trying to find it out would be like attempting to grasp something that you cannot reach even in a lifetime. I guess some like uncertainty because then they can have an excuse that they did not know to have faith...won't work.

fnxtr said: As far as I know Jesus Christ never said "Don't study the world, don't try to understand God's creation, and don't build on the knowledge of others to make life longer, easier, and more comfortable and interesting for everyone". Did your God give us this Earth to just wallow in ignorance, or to discover its mysteries? Did he give us reason and curiosity just to test us? Seriously, Brian. You can be pious without self-lobotomy.

Wow. Absolutely no connection to reality whatsover. Truly astounding.

Stanton said: Paradoxically, you've also been telling us that God will kill us (apparently by forcing us to commit suicide)

Jesus had the same dilemma as I that people, especially the pharisees- the Jews, his own people, could not understand Him.

Jhn 8:43Why do ye not understand my speech? [even] because ye cannot hear my word.
Jhn 8:45And because I tell [you] the truth, ye believe me not.
Jhn 8:47He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear [them] not, because ye are not of God.

Brian said: Jesus had the same dilemma as I that people, especially the pharisees- the Jews, his own people, could not understand Him.

Brian said: You will want to commit suicide just by seeing God. He wont force you to. You will see his complete perfection compared with your imperfection that you will cry for the discontinuation of your existence. You will "welcome destruction" you would "long to flee from Him who died to redeem you" you will be deprived "of the existence which" your "transgressions have forfeited, and of which" you have "proved" yourself "unworthy" That is if the principles that actuate you are considered wicked by God, not by me. I can read the bible and have knowledge of what God considers wicked though. I have tried to say this in a most unobtrusive way? "Yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be; yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be." "They shall be as though they had not been." [PS. 37:10; OBAD. 16.] Eternal oblivion is what the bible teaches and it is consistent with God as just and merciful according to common sense.

Stanton said: Paradoxically, you've also been telling us that God will kill us (apparently by forcing us to commit suicide)

DS said:

Brian said: Jesus had the same dilemma as I that people, especially the pharisees- the Jews, his own people, could not understand Him.

RIght. The only difference is that you are an incoherent blubbering fool.

Honestly, Brian, you're either an incoherent idiot, or you are an evil idiot.

First you describe God as some sort of semi-omnipotent, slavering monster who has to survive on our fear and ignorance, but then you backtrack and claim He's merciful and just, then you backtrack yet again in order to drop unsubtle hints that if we don't do exactly as you, the 2nd Messiah, say, God will drive us to suicide, then double-kill us in order to avenge your tremendous and fragile ego.

Like I said before, go somewhere else to do your spiritual poaching.

You're also a hypocrite, Brian, what with your prattling rant about how people who don't observe the Sabbath on Saturday are going to Hell to be personally obliterated by God for hating Him.

Why would you tell us this over and over again, only for you to violate your own, allegedly sacrosanct religious law by continuing to post more of your incoherent screed on the SABBATH?

Hey Stanton, I never left out the chance that I might destroy myself too? I am depending on the same sustenance from God to live as you are, If I separate myself from Him, no matter how much I may try to clear the misrepresentation of His character up, I will surely die. I really wish infact that I had never existed but as long as I exist I will attempt to clear up the misrepresentation of God- that He kills and tortures and etc.

God is also ever forgiving, He will not hold something against you no matter how long you have been doing it if you sincerely repent. He will "forget" So the problem is with people unwilling to accept that what they are doing is wrong, not God.

Brian said: God is also ever forgiving, He will not hold something against you no matter how long you have been doing it...

Brian said: God is also ever forgiving, He will not hold something against you no matter how long you have been doing it if you sincerely repent. He will "forget" So the problem is with people unwilling to accept that what they are doing is wrong, not God.

There it is, the fundamentalist excuse for doing anything, lying, browbeating, or just remaining ignorant.

"I just have to repent later."

Some serious self-loathing going on there, too. Not healthy.

as long as I exist I will attempt to clear up the misrepresentation of God

The Weight of Evidence if only it was followed we would all be on the same page in knowing about God.

I have not intentionally lied. Show me where I have lied so that I may admit. Perhaps it's because you are unable to understand me? A misunderstanding? Like people think that God kills because they misunderstand the way He works?

people think that God kills because they misunderstand the way He works

Brian said: The Weight of Evidence ...

Brian said: The Weight of Evidence if only it was followed we would all be on the same page in knowing about God. I have not intentionally lied. Show me where I have lied so that I may admit. Perhaps it's because you are unable to understand me? A misunderstanding? Like people think that God kills because they misunderstand the way He works?

Still waiting dipstick. What's the matter, you said your beliefs were based on evidence. Well, where is it? You were lying weren't you? If not, put up or shut up. Until you do, don't ever come back her trying to peddle your religious crap. You have no business trying to condemn anyone if you are nothing buy a lying cretin. May god have mercy on your miserable soul.

Brian said: God is also ever forgiving, He will not hold something against you no matter how long you have been doing it if you sincerely repent. He will "forget" So the problem is with people unwilling to accept that what they are doing is wrong, not God.

Still waiting jackass. Or are you just another cowardly lyin? If you do so have a brain, why don't you use it?

DS said: Still waiting jackass. Or are you just another cowardly lyin? If you do so have a brain, why don't you use it?

So after spewing his religious intolerance and false piety all over this thread for the last month, Brian finally claims that his beliefs are based on evidence. When asked what this evidence is, he hasn't got a clue. He wouldn't know what evidence was if it wrestled him to the ground and spat in his face. From now on, he can be safely ignored. Who knows, maybe someday Nick will see fit to close this abomination of a thread. Until then, Brian can go to hell.

Brian said: I have not intentionally lied. Show me where I have lied so that I may admit.

Brian said: The Weight of Evidence if only it was followed we would all be on the same page in knowing about God.

Brian,

So now you may admit. You lied about the giants, you lied about lying about the giants and you lied about having any evidence of anything. If you do not admit then you will burn in hell for all eternity. Oh yea, since you lied on a Saturday you will be sentenced to two eternities in hell.

Dan said:

Brian said: The Weight of Evidence if only it was followed we would all be on the same page in knowing about God.

Amazing that Brian now thinks evidence is important, as he had earlier indicated that you couldn't understand the Bible unless you believed already.

Brian is here to glorify Brian.

Nothing more, nothing less.

"Look how pious and righteous and penitent I am!"

Egotistical flagellant.

No-one gives a shit about your self-loathing, Brian.

Go away.

fnxtr said: "Look how pious and righteous and penitent I am!" Egotistical flagellant.

On Yom Kippur, the rabbi stops in the middle of the service, prostrates himself beside the bema, and cries out, "Oh, God. Before You, I am nothing!" The president of the temple is so moved by this demonstration of piety that he immediately throws himself to the floor beside the rabbi and cries, "Oh, God! Before you, I am nothing!" Then one of the rank-and-file members of the congregation jumps from his seat, prostrates himself in the aisle and cries, "Oh God! Before You, I am nothing!" The president of the temple nudges the rabbi and whispers, "So look who thinks he's nothing."

Exactly.

Still waiting for the evidence you claimed you already had Brian. What, can't even be bothered to cut and paste long debunked crap from some sleazy creationists web site? We could have so much fun with that. Please enlighten us all about the =evidence we have overlooked and you discovered while reading your holy book on saturday. Or were you lying through your crooked teeth?

It's not surprising that you call me a liar because you call God that too. He used Moses to write the creation account in Genesis and nowhere else did he hint that it wasn't literal. God is a liar to you also. You don't believe the evidence because you reason that it is something else. You need FAITH which you don't have!

You do not have faith in the Bible as the word of God. Without faith there is no evidence for you. Faith is evidence for things that are not seen.

Faith is trusting God--believing that He loves us and knows best what is for our good. Thus, instead of our own,it leads us to choose His way. In place of our ignorance, it accepts His wisdom; in place of our weakness, His strength; in place of our sinfulness, His righteousness. Our lives, ourselves, are already His; faith acknowledges His ownership and accepts its blessing.Ed 253 (1903).

Brian said: [God] used Moses to write the creation account in Genesis ...

Brian said: ... and nowhere else did he hint that it wasn't literal.

Brian said: You need FAITH which you don't have!

Brian said: Faith is evidence for things that are not seen.

Brian,

So you don't have any evidence. Got it. You are a liar. Everyone is wise to your crap. Go away and don't come back or things will get really nasty for you.

DS said: Brian, So you don't have any evidence. Got it. You are a liar. Everyone is wise to your crap. Go away and don't come back or things will get really nasty for you.

Brian said: It's not surprising that you call me a liar because you call God that too. He used Moses to write the creation account in Genesis and nowhere else did he hint that it wasn't literal. God is a liar to you also. You don't believe the evidence because you reason that it is something else. You need FAITH which you don't have!

Brian said: You do not have faith in the Bible as the word of God. Without faith there is no evidence for you. Faith is evidence for things that are not seen.

Dave wrote:

"DS, in my worse moments, I wish it were so. But it’s not. There’s no way to make things nasty for Brian. He can write what he likes."

That's right. Until Nick sees fit to end this farce, he can write anything he wants. But we can ignore him completely and that will be the worst thing for him. Why would anyone want to respond to a lying scumbag who quotes bible verses and then lies with every sentence? If we ignore him he will have to talk to himself. My guess is that even he will not buy his own bullshit.

Brian said: It's not surprising that you call me a liar because you call God that too. He used Moses to write the creation account in Genesis and nowhere else did he hint that it wasn't literal. God is a liar to you also. You don't believe the evidence because you reason that it is something else. You need FAITH which you don't have!

Rilke's granddaughter said: We call you a liar because we have proved that you are a liar. If you don't being accused of lying, then you need to stop lying. You'd better stop anyway, since your continual lies mean that you're going to hell. No ifs, ands, or buts: You, Brian, are going straight to hell. By your own choice. Bad choice, there, babe.

Brian said: It's not surprising that you call me a liar because you call God that too. He used Moses to write the creation account in Genesis and nowhere else did he hint that it wasn't literal. God is a liar to you also. You don't believe the evidence because you reason that it is something else. You need FAITH which you don't have!

Brian said: You do not have faith in the Bible as the word of God. Without faith there is no evidence for you. Faith is evidence for things that are not seen. Faith is trusting God--believing that He loves us and knows best what is for our good. Thus, instead of our own,it leads us to choose His way. In place of our ignorance, it accepts His wisdom; in place of our weakness, His strength; in place of our sinfulness, His righteousness. Our lives, ourselves, are already His; faith acknowledges His ownership and accepts its blessing.Ed 253 (1903).

Rilke's granddaughter said: This is God's problem - not ours. Why should we have faith? Serious question, child. WHY should we have faith?

Faith is evidence for things that are not seen.

have i got a bridge to sell YOU.

You do have faith[evidence in things not seen] that human reasoning and conjecture[so called-science] will [i]eventually[/i] explain everything, while I have faith that everything is already explained by God in the bible. All that needs to happen is for my understanding of His word to catch up, then I would be able to personally step by step explain it for myself as much as I understand.

The only evidence you seem to be satisfied with is how far we have come, so you reason that this progression will eventually continue till every problem is solved.

My evidence is in the accurate inspired history in the Bible and the future predictions that have come to pass.

Brian said: You do have faith[evidence in things not seen] that human reasoning and conjecture[so called-science] will [i]eventually[/i] explain everything, while I have faith that everything is already explained by God in the bible. All that needs to happen is for my understanding of His word to catch up, then I would be able to personally step by step explain it for myself as much as I understand. The only evidence you seem to be satisfied with is how far we have come, so you reason that this progression will eventually continue till every problem is solved. My evidence is in the accurate inspired history in the Bible and the future predictions that have come to pass.

... and when you close a closet door, what happens to the light you trap inside?

Seriously, Brian, why are you still here?

Okay, we get it, you're deeply religious.

No-one cares. Go away.

Poor sad little tosser. A classic fourth stage dweeb: in the first stage, they don't have a clue; in the second, they don't realise they haven't got a clue; in the third, they think they have got a clue when they haven't; and in the fourth, they think that nobody has a clue except them.

You know what's the hallmark of the absolutely perfect sting? The mark goes away happy.

Sorry. Sometimes it gets to me. I'll be all right in a minute.

RobG said: Everything is explained?!?!? Really? I can learn about nuclear power, internal combustion and the printing press in the bible? What about cheese cake? Where in the bible is cheese cake?

Brian said: Yes everything about the origin of life and intelligence.

RobG said: What about cheese cake? Where in the bible is cheese cake?

Brian said: Yes everything about the origin of life and intelligence.

RobG said: Everything is explained?!?!? Really? I can learn about nuclear power, internal combustion and the printing press in the bible? What about cheese cake? Where in the bible is cheese cake?

No, it was "Something about the Greeks".

WHY DIDN'T SHE TELL ME?

"Jenny!" I exclaimed, "Why didn't you tell me?"

Her eyes opened wide. "What do you mean?"

"Well, you had this information and you didn't even

mention it?" I dropped the magazine in front of her.

"You've been sitting on this for a whole week.

It's explosive. The whole world has to be told."

"Oh, that," she yawned. "Dinosaurs… they

don't really interest me."

"But do you know what this means? Dinosaurs were

alive just recently. It knocks the evolutionary time

scale to bits!"

"What? Are you serious?." She picked it up again. "I

need to read this more carefully."

PROTEIN STILL IN DINOSAURS

"Yes," I said, "Dinosaur bones have yielded the

protein osteocalcin. Since long chains such as proteins

naturally fall apart, such a discovery supports a

`recent' age for these fossils. (New Scientist, October

31, 1992, p.18)

In 1961, a petroleum geologist discovered a large bone

bed in northwestern Alaska. Among these were bones of

duckbill dinosaurs, horned dinosaurs and large and small

carnivorous dinosaurs.

At the time, William Clemens and other scientists from

the University of California and Berkeley and the

University of Alaska were quarrying the bone bed.

It took 20 years for scientists to accept that these were

dinosaur bones. An initial announcement was printed in

1985 in Geological Society of America abstract programs

vol.17, p.548.

Already in press at that time was an article describing

the site and the condition of the bones: Kyle L. Davies,

"Duckbill Dinosaurs [Hadrosauridae, Ornithischia] from the

North Slope of Alaska", Journal of Paleontology, vol.61,

no.1, pp.198-200)

Now, here is the problem: these bones are still in fresh

condition. They are not fossilised.

Is this because they were preserved by cold? Not at all.

It is standard geological interpretation that even after

the dinosaurs died out, the entire planet was much warmer.

These developments are certainly food for thought.

It is undeniable that fresh dinosaur bones have been found.

Items have appeared in the secular literature saying

exactly that. It is also evident that preservation in the

fresh state for even one million years is highly unlikely.

The obvious conclusion is that these bones were deposited

in relatively recent times.

This bone bed is stunning evidence that the time of the

dinosaurs was not millions of years ago, but perhaps only

thousands.

It is time geologists recognised the implications of their

own data.

UNFOSSILISED BLOOD CELLS

Real blood cells in dinosaur bones? With traces of the

blood protein hemoglobin?

Preposterous!… that is, if you think these dinosaur remains

are 65 million years old or more.

Okay, let me share with you another discovery.

In the United States in 1990, the bones of a beautifully

preserved Tyrannosaurus Rex skeleton were unearthed.

When these were brought to the Montana State University's

laboratory, it was noticed that "some parts deep inside the

long bone of the leg had not completely fossilized." ( M.

Schweitzer and T. Staedter, 'The Real Jurassic Park', Earth ,

June 1997 pp. 55-57)

Mary Schweitzer and her co-workers took turns looking

through a microscope at a thin section of this dinosaur

bone, complete with blood vessel channels.

She says: "The lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I

had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us

had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red

with a dark center.

Then a colleague took one look at them and shouted,

'You've got red blood cells. You've got red

blood cells!'"

Schweitzer says, "I got goose bumps. It was exactly

like looking at a slice of modern bone."

She confronted her boss, famous paleontologist

'Dinosaur' Jack Horner.

"I can't believe it," she said. "The bones, after

all, are 65 million years old. How could blood cells

survive that long?"

"How about you try to prove they are NOT red blood

cells," responded Horner.

So she tried. And the verdict? "So far, we haven't

been able to."

The evidence that hemoglobin (the protein which makes

blood red and carries oxygen) has indeed survived in

this dinosaur bone casts immense doubt upon the

'millions of years' idea.

Here is that evidence:

* The tissue was colored reddish brown, the color of

hemoglobin, as was liquid extracted from the dinosaur

tissue.

* Hemoglobin contains heme units. Chemical signatures

unique to heme were found in the specimens when

certain wavelengths of laser light were applied.

* Because it contains iron, heme reacts to magnetic

fields differently from other proteins - extracts from

this specimen reacted in the same way as modern

heme compounds.

* To ensure that the samples had not been contaminated

with certain bacteria which have heme (but never the

protein hemoglobin), extracts of the dinosaur fossil

were injected over several weeks into rats.

If there was even a minute amount of hemoglobin present

in the Tyrannosaurus Rex sample, the rats' immune

system should build up detectable antibodies against

this compound. This is exactly what happened in

carefully controlled experiments.

Evidence of hemoglobin, and the still-recognizable

shapes of red blood cells in unfossilized dinosaur bone,

testifies strongly that this dinosaur did not live and

die millions of years ago.

The process of biochemical decay starts soon after

death. These cells should long since have disintegrated…

unless they are just a few thousand years old.

It hasn't been so long!

If you would like to know more about this and related

matters, please go to

http://www.beforeus.com/first.php
INTENTIONALLY
BLIND!

Why not just believe the Bible?

Workin' in a tard mine, goin' down down...

It wasn't red blood cells, you lying fuckwit, it was collagen.

You are a liar. Isn't there a commandment about false witness, Brian?

Have fun in Hell, liar.

Brian,

You should read the original papers on the topic of your last post, referenced on this page. They do not say what you think they say.

As for your question, "Why not just believe the Bible?" ... I do. When I was ordained, I stated publicly that I accept the Scriptures of the Old and New Testaments to be, by the Holy Spirit, the unique and authoritative witness to Jesus Christ in the Church universal, and God’s Word to me. I stand by that affirmation today.

The Bible is not a science text.

The Bible was not intended to be a science text.

You misuse the Bible when you try to use it as a science text.

Please stop before you drive more people away from the gospel.

From the extract to Mary H Schweitzer et al, PNAS, June 10, 1997, vol 12, no 4, 6291-6296: "The most parsimonious explanation of this evidence is the presence of blood-derived hemoglobin compounds preserved in the dinosaurian tissues."

Yes? Under ideal conditions, some traces of tissue - not actual red blood cells, or any cells, apparently, but some of their chemical components - can survive far longer than anyone thought. Big news, back in 1997. The bones were dated by radiometric and by amino racemisation techniques, which agreed on a date of over 60 million years ago.

Well, you could have knocked paleontologists over with a feather. Of course they tried to hush it all up... no, wait, they published it in the biggest journal in the field and shouted the news from the housetops. And then they went back to work, finding, describing and classifying fossils, heartened by the possibility of finding something similar.

Have a look at the site Brian linked to. It's from New Zealand, I'm ashamed to say. I always said that mob were too inbred for their own good.

Brian said: You do have faith[evidence in things not seen] that human reasoning and conjecture[so called-science] will [i]eventually[/i] explain everything,

Brian said:

"You do have faith[evidence in things not seen] that human reasoning and conjecture[so called-science] will [i]eventually[/i] explain everything,"

bullshit asshat no one has faith that science will eventually splain everything in fact we really hope it doesn't cause then we would all be out of a job

this is just the old "if you can't explain everything then I don't have to listen to anything you say" routine it was old two hundred years ago funny how the guys who use it still think its perfectly fine to actually use all of the discoveries of modern science to improve and prolong their lives instead of just claiming the reward for their piety sooner

dino blood oh brother what a howler get a life asshat who do ya think yer foolin talk about intentionally blind what bull semen

fnxtr said: You are a liar. Isn't there a commandment about false witness, Brian?

SWT said: The Bible is not a science text. The Bible was not intended to be a science text. You misuse the Bible when you try to use it as a science text. Please stop before you drive more people away from the gospel.

Brian said: WHY DIDN'T SHE TELL ME? [garbled stuff about dinosaurs] Why not just believe the Bible?

Richard Simons said:

Brian said: WHY DIDN'T SHE TELL ME? [garbled stuff about dinosaurs] Why not just believe the Bible?

Brian stole this from Jonathan Gray's Archaeology. Brian, I thought stealing was forbidden in your religion or is it just something else you forget whenever it is convenient?

Jhn 8:21Then said Jesus again unto them, I go my way, and ye shall seek me, and shall die in your sins: whither I go, ye cannot come.
Jhn 8:22Then said the Jews, Will he kill himself? because he saith, Whither I go, ye cannot come.
Jhn 8:23And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world.
Jhn 8:24I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am [he], ye shall die in your sins.

Brian: You make the scriptures which testify of Jesus an untruth so you deny Christ- "ye shall die in your sins"

Jhn 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
Jhn 7:7 The world cannot hate you; but me it hateth, because I testify of it, that the works thereof are evil.

The world, in which class you belong, hates Christ. "ye shall die in your sins"

See, in Brian's insane little world, he is never wrong. About anything. Ever.

And he's so humble! Just look how humble he is! Everyone, are you looking at how pious and humble Brian is? Look! Look!

Idiot.

So, according to Brian, simply because we can not find any reason to trust him or his rantings, or his lies, and that we refuse to allow Brian to manipulate our intimate relationships with God (of those of us who have them), we "hate Christ."

Brian, tell us again why we should worship you as Jesus? I mean, didn't the Bible say that worshiping false prophets, like yourself, is a big, super-sinful no-no? Oh wait, you don't care, just so long as we're cowed by your threats that God will murder us if we don't bend over backwards in fear.

Please, get lost.

fnxtr said: See, in Brian's insane little world, he is never wrong. About anything. Ever. And he's so humble! Just look how humble he is! Everyone, are you looking at how pious and humble Brian is? Look! Look! Idiot.

Lucky Lucket sez:

Have a look at the site Brian linked to. It's from New Zealand, I'm ashamed to say. I always said that mob were too inbred for their own good.

umm, let's see... sure Ray Comfort born in NZed... but where did he go to actually make money spewing his BS?

We laughed at him... you guys embraced him and made him a millionaire.

Frankly, I think, having lived there for 44 years, that the states have a higher proportion of inbred rednecks than all of the Austro-Pacific.

in fact, it's why I left.

:p

Brian, why do keep lying to us in post after post? The bible's not so bad, but all you're doing is driving people AWAY from Christianity by showing yourself as a lying, boring, whiny, Bible-illiterate.

Hell's weebles, my child, you don't even understand the garbage you're quoting.

The bible's not so bad

ORLY?

O.o

Yes, rly.

It varies. Some of it is downright vile, but most of it is pretty fair, and some of it is beautiful, and some is words to live by, whether you believe or not. So no, it's not so bad.

bah, most of it is utter gibberish, and its saving graces are nothing unique to it, but instead can be found in many other writings before or since.

Yes, I've read the thing cover to cover.

total waste of time.

better poetry can be had, even in period, easily enough. the "words to live by" vary so much in content and message, that surely even you can't say with a straight face you would recommend the whole thing as a valuable moral treatise?

No, you have to cherry pick carefully, and even then the cherries you manage to salvage are only average. Nothing special.

better clean off those specs, Dave.

maybe it's time YOU re-read the thing yourself?

just a suggestion.

You might want to have a listen to a Theologian who has himself decided the musty old thing isn't worth the paper its written on.

try reading what Hector Avalos has to say about it:

The End of Biblical Studies

http://www.amazon.com/End-Biblical-Studies-Hector-Avalos/dp/1591025362

I submit that those that think this book a treasure, were simply brought up to think so, without any real good reason.

I note your opinion, and decline further comment.

fair enough.

Do you take the History in the Bible as it actually happened? Were the Jews called out of Egypt? Did they wander for 40 years in the wilderness? Did God create the earth in six literal days? If it is History, it actually happened as it is recorded. Moses recorded that He was the "meekest man that ever lived", since He wrote that couldn't his meekness also be questioned?

Jhn 12:25 He that loveth his life shall lose it; and he that hateth his life in this world shall keep it unto life eternal.

We're still not impressed by your lies, hatred and stupidity, Brian.

Stop changing the subject, Brian, we're talking about YOU.

You pompous, arrogant, pride-filled liar.

The Prince of Lies is laughing his ass of every time you post your stupidity here, you know that?

He loves it when you make Christianity a laughingstock.

You really want to serve Christ, and make your religion look worthy?

Shut. The Fuck. Up.

April Brown said:

Matt G said: Do the Adventists have a "scientifically rigorous affirmation" of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin? I've checked Wikipedia, but they don't have a published number.

Don't think so - that whole "# of angels on the head of a pin" story was brought up when I was in school, but in the context of "see how silly Catholics can be." That probably wasn't entirely fair, but theological questions like that were presented as being irrelevant and/or sacreligious.

Debates over angels on heads of pins may not have happened exactly as later parodists claimed, but as Mr Long points out, there were long discussions in the Medieval over the relationship between the angelic and the physical.

Aquinas was one of the major contributors to this debate. He was attempting to reconcile cutting-edge (for him) science with matters spiritual. So we do get to read about whether or not angels passing from A to B necessarily pass through points inbetween. This is only ridiculous if you either (a) a priori reject the existence of angels or (b) see no need to make religion and science agree.

Is not the modern-day creationist attempting exactly what Aquinas thought he was undertaking? The only difference appears to be that Uncle Tommy had an exceptionally high-level understanding of both his religious and scientific theory -- damn those geniuses, they make me feel inadequate! -- whereas most creationists who post here seem a little more underinformed about both.

I'm not a member, but rather a friend of the church. I don't think the argument is about which way is right (Evolution or Adam and Eve). Apparently, the faith does not stand on sturdy footing unless the 7 day process with Adam and Eve was reality. I think the argument is more about whether alternatives should be presented to the (science) students. The students seem to be arguing - how can they refute the validity of something if they don't know anything about it. Some students have found that learning alternative theories has made their faith stronger. It is a shame that it seems the higher ups in the church feel threatened by alternative theories rather than willing to present them and deal with them head on. What better way to strengthen the faith of their flock?

--- Just saying,
I am a Seventh-Day Adventist, and yet I accept the fact of evolution. . . .

I really hate to say that the SDA church is full of intellectual light weights. . . at least where science is concerned.

I wish they would realize Science is not a threat to God. -sighs-

Friends

It seems we have lost our way. Any true christian will refer back to the bible at the light. God created this world in 6 days. There is study material supporting this fact. If you make a study of the evolution theory and the stuff that is not revealed in mainstream society you will answer the questions for yourself. There is enormous amount of theories of evolution that is easily explained by the creation of the Bible. For instance the start of all of this by the BIG Bang...take note that the Big Bang according to science does not correspond to the LAW OF Thermodynamic or the Law of ANGALER MOVEMT....and this is only the start.

Nyuk nyuk nyuk.

Sorry, no other response is deserved.

Oh, except maybe: stick to the bible-thumping, Armand, your grasp of science is -- to put it mildly -- shaky.

superficial spiritualist evolutionist....

Anyone who assumes that Evolution is some sort of spiritualism is a complete idiot.

The exact same goes for anyone who thinks that they can be smarter than scientists simply by rereading a literal interpretation of King James' Translation of the Bible.

Brian said: superficial spiritualist evolutionist....

Someone said:
Evolution is not a science, but is a religion.

Science, of course, involves observation, using on or more of our five senses (taste, sight, smell, hearing touch) to gain knowledge about the world, and being able to repeat the observation.
No living scientist was there to observe the first life forming in some primeval sea.
No living scientist was there to observe the “big bang” some billions of years ago.
No living scientist was there to observe the supposed formation of the earth.
No scientist was there, no human witness was there to see these events occurring.
And they certainly cannot be repeated today.
All the evidence a scientist has exists only in the present. The average person (including students) are not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past.
Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there, but who are trying to explain how all the evidence of the present (that is fossils, animals, plants etc.) originated.

Webster’s Dictionary defines religion as follows: “Cause, principle or system of beliefs held to with ardour and faith.” Surely this is an apt description of evolution.

Evolution is a belief system – A RELIGION !

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiZGngq5maooKez7bvuf.VLd7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20100722123835AAatZDg

Brian said: The average person (including students) are not taught that scientists have only the present and cannot deal directly with the past.

Evolution is a belief system about the past based on the words of men who were not there,

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AiZGngq5maooKez7bvuf.VLd7BR.;_ylv=3?qid=20100722123835AAatZDg