Movie Review: Ray Comfort’s “The Atheist Delusion”


Well, that’s 62 minutes I’ll never get back.

I watched Ray Comfort’s new movie, The Atheist Delusion: Why Millions Deny the Obvious, which releases today. The style is trademark Ray Comfort as he interviews a dozen or so atheists, mostly 20-somethings. We follow them as Ray works through his arguments, and at the end they’re all left with either a lot to think about or a commitment to follow Jesus. Throw in some nice graphics, take a few tangents, overlay some stirring music, and he’s done. Any subject who saw through Ray’s thin arguments and made him look foolish was cut from the movie to give the impression that this approach is devastating to the brittle worldview of any atheist.

The production quality was good, but one consequence of the high-quality audio was worrisome. You almost never see Ray himself, just the subject of the moment. Often Ray would speak a seamless paragraph while we see the video cut between two or three subjects listening patiently. I see how that makes things visually more interesting, but it brings to mind old charges that in previous movies Ray had mixed and matched video segments to line up pleasing answers in response to questions, distorting what the subjects had actually said. When a subject says, “Yes,” what are they answering? Maybe it’s “Have you changed your mind?” or maybe it’s “Are you still an atheist?” (The Friendly Atheist pressed him on this question here in an interview about the movie.)

“Atheism destroyed with one scientific question …”

That got your attention, right? It’s the tag line for the movie’s trailer. Ray may be a science-denying apologist who refuses to be corrected on his childish understanding of evolution, but surely he’s not going to make a claim like that without something pretty compelling.

Or not. He gives people a book and asks, “Do you believe that book could’ve come about by accident?” That’s the scientific question. He then talks about how marvelous human DNA is and concludes that if the book had a maker, then DNA must have, too. It’s the Argument from Incredulity: “Golly, I can’t imagine a natural explanation for this, so it must be supernatural!”

Let’s revisit the “by accident” part. DNA didn’t come about by accident, it came about through mutation (random) and natural selection (not random). How many times has this guy been corrected on this? I’m convinced that this is just willful ignorance on his part. Telling the accurate story doesn’t suit his agenda, so he lies.

In fact, the sloppiness in DNA nicely defeats Ray’s Design Argument (more here).

“Could DNA make itself?”

Here’s another of Ray’s probing strawman questions. He lives in a simple world: DNA either made itself or God did it. But DNA didn’t make itself; chemistry did. DNA was simply the result of unguided processes. Again, I have to wonder if this wording was clumsy or calculated.

He talked about how nicely fit we are to our environment, which brought to mind Douglas Adams’ puddle that marveled at how well its hole had been fit to itself.

“You’re an atheist, so you believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything.”

Wow. Where do you begin with this black hole of bullshit?

  • An atheist has no god belief. That’s it. Atheists can have any views on cosmology they want.
  • Cosmologists don’t say this.
  • “Scientific impossibility”? Show me. Pop philosophy is not an asset at the frontier of science.
  • What’s the problem with something coming from nothing? Isn’t that how you say God did it?
  • You’re still stuck on “created.” You imagine a cause, but there might not have been one. The Copenhagen model of physics argues that some events don’t have causes.

In an odd attack, he claims that Richard Dawkins says that nothing created everything. Analyzing the hamster wheel that drives Ray’s brain is tricky business, but here’s my theory. Richard Dawkins says it and he’s the pope of the atheists, so therefore all atheists must believe that nothing created everything. Conclusion: “You’re an atheist, so you believe the scientific impossibility that nothing created everything.”

I could begin by saying that I’m not bound by what Dawkins says, but Dawkins didn’t even say this. Ray’s evidence for his charge is a video of Dawkins speaking about physicist Lawrence Krauss’s A Universe From Nothing. Dawkins says, “Of course it’s counterintuitive that you can get something from nothing” … but how did we get from Comfort’s charge of “nothing created everything” to Dawkins’ defense of something possibly coming from nothing? Only in the hamster wheel are these equivalent.

“Which came first, the chicken or the egg?”

In interviews years ago, I heard Ray explain his idiotic understanding of evolution. Say you have two lizards, and because of mutations, they give birth to a healthy monkey (cuz that’s what evolution says happens, right?). The monkey matures and looks for a mate, but since monkeys from lizards is quite rare, it can’t find a monkey of the opposite gender, so it dies without making more monkeys. Cue sad trombone sound.

In the movie, Ray goes down a similar line of “reasoning” to ask whether the chicken or the egg came first. He wonders where the rooster came from to fertilize the egg to continue the line. Then he asks whether it was the heart or the blood that evolved first. If the heart, what was it doing without blood? If the blood, how did it move with no heart? Ray’s questions are useful because they sometimes get a “Gee—I’ve never thought of that” from a layperson, not because they’re effective against a biologist, which would actually count for something.


See also: Fat Chance: Why Pigs Will Fly Before Ray Comfort Writes an Honest Critique of Atheists


The last third of the movie moves from “intellectual” arguments to the usual evangelism. You’re avoiding your conscience, you have selfish motives for denying what you know to be true, morals come from God, you just want to keep sinning, imagine if you died today, and more.

Several reviewers said they needed tissues. I needed a barf bag.

Then there’s Ray’s old standby, the Ten Commandments Challenge®, in which he convicts people based on their failure to satisfy the Ten Commandments. Ray, did you forget that they don’t think the Bible is binding since they’re atheists?

(How the Ten Commandments don’t say what Ray thinks they do here.)

Ray’s project was, “Atheism destroyed with one scientific question,” but that was just clickbait. I don’t remember a single correct scientific statement from Ray in the entire movie. The entire thing collapses into a pretentious pile of elementary and emotional arguments, which, unfortunately, may be effective on people who haven’t thought much about these issues.

As for the contents of his skull,
they could have changed place with the contents of a pie
and nobody would have been the worse off for it but the pie.
— Mark Twain, Life on the Mississippi

Image credit: Living Waters

"But even if the evidence WAS good enough you atheists still wouldn't accept it. What ..."

The Bible Defeats Its Own Resurrection ..."
"Democracy, civil rights, no slavery, freedom of religion and speech--uh, yeah. That's all pretty much ..."

God Is Love—Does that Make any ..."
"If I build a sand castle, I can destroy it. But a sand castle isn't ..."

God Is Love—Does that Make any ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • raylampert

    When you think about it, the argument from design is actually pretty funny because it assumes that the person assuming a creator knows absolutely nothing about how the world works. Which, apparently, is true of Ray Comfort at least.

    • Robert Templeton

      That is the crux of “Intelligent Design”. Instead of attempting to understand how the world works, it suffices to simply say (and I quote), ‘pffft’, and continue, ‘therefore Creator’. It is much easier than, you know, knowing things.

      • adam

        I think THIS is really the crux of ID:

        • Cygnus

          Yup, life is too complex to have developed naturally, so Creationists are stupid by intelligent design.

        • Michael

          Well, some claim God is fundamentally simple, but then if a simple being could be the origin, why not simple non-beings?

        • Robert Templeton

          Why not simply structures that interact to form complexity? These imbeciles (pardon my French) don’t understand that simple principle. Complex storms that create hail, lightning, tornadoes are not formed from more complex systems – they are created by the confluence of simple systemic interactions. And one wonders why we need more (much more!!!) STEM education.

        • Michael

          Yeah, that’s what I meant by “simple non-beings”. Of course to them “God did it” is the simplest explanation.

        • Susan

          to them “God did it” is the simplest explanation.

          To them, it feels like an explanation.

          But it’s no explanation at all. It has no explanatory value.

          And it requires explanations for itself that they can never provide.

          =====

          Edit: As far as I can tell, when it comes to this problem, the sophisticated theologians are no better off than the Ray Comforts the sophisticated theologians sneer at.

        • Michael

          Yep, very true. It’s an “explanation” that gives us the cause only (if that) with no details of any kind. A comparison for this would be if evolution consisted of declaring “nature did it” or something like that.

        • mz

          “As far as I can tell, when it comes to this problem, the sophisticated theologians are no better off than the Ray Comforts the sophisticated theologians sneer at.”

          Of course. This is what, in Comfort’s mind, give’s him license to peddle such tripe. The theologians sneer at Comfort. Comfort sneers at the theologians. And they all sneer at Richard Dawkins. It’s one big sneering party.

        • Dannorth

          Also the hurricane or the tornado also take care of the 2nd law of Thermodynamics argument since they are structures that arise spontaneoulsy along an energy gradient when certain conditions are met.

          Like life they are dissipative structures.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The zero-energy universe hypothesis is also relevant to the second law.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

        • Dannorth

          Interesting. I was not aware of this hypothesis.

          The idea of using the exemple of hurricanes and tornadoes came to me as a counter to the commun misconception creationists have about the 2nd law making it impossible for life to spontaneously arise.

          By providing a vivid example of an object with an indentifiable structure that can appear spontaneously it is possible to refute the creationist argument.

          I wouldn’t use the zero energy universe hypothesis in that context because it is too complex so it would not convincing to someone already hostile to it (and also I only understand it at a superficial level which is not a good position to argue from.

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          Wikipedia’s not a reliable source.

        • epeeist

          In that case why don’t you try Alan Guth’s The Inflationary Universe where the idea is discussed. You can also find a chapter on the subject in Harrison’s Cosmology.

        • Michael Neville

          Then show the errors in the wikipedia article that Bob linked to.

        • Greg G.

          He would rather complain about the evidence than consider it thoughtfully.

        • Michael Neville

          Jimmy doesn’t even complain about the evidence. He just says that the source is unreliable.

        • Pofarmer

          Compared to what?

        • Greg G.

          Wikipedia is more reliable than the Bible.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          1. I gave the link not to back up my statement but to give more information for anyone who’s curious.

          2. I’m pretty sure that it is, indeed, a reliable source. If you’re saying that it’s not infallible, I’ll agree with that.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It is acceptable for scholarly essay’s, so for a blog combox, it will suffice.

          What you have to do, is to rebut it as not a reliable source by showing why. Try again.

        • Rudy R

          Are you claiming the references sourced in the Wiki article are not reliable? What then would be a reliable source?

        • MNb

          No, but as a qualified teacher math and physics I am a reliable source. And I confirm everything in the Wikipedia article; if anything it’s too short.
          There are a few others on this blog who are qualified fur this evaluation.

  • Michael Neville

    to ask whether the chicken or the egg came first.

    The egg came first because the ancestors of chickens were laying eggs before chickens evolved.

    He wonders where the rooster came from to fertilize the egg to continue the line.

    Comfort has had the evolution of sex* explained to him at least twice. He’s even acknowledged the explanation. So for him to wonder about males fertilizing eggs is plain lying on his part. Besides, the argument from incredulity is not evidence for or against anything other than the arguer’s ignorance.

    *To put it simply, sex is a means for two organisms to exchange genetic material. Bacteria and other single-celled organisms exchange genes by injecting them into other organisms. Viral infection is one organism injecting genetic material into another organism.

    • lady_black

      I always laugh when people ask that ridiculous chicken-egg question. It’s right along the intelligence level of “Then why are there still monkeys?”
      Any half-bright 5th grader could tell you eggs existed long before chickens.

      • Kodie

        When I hear that question, I only think of one thing. It might not be the right answer, but it’s all I can think of.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixgf5SlvOB4

        • Greg G.

          The question reminds me of a cartoon with a hen and a rooster in bed, the rooster is smoking a cigarette, and says, “I guess we answered that question.”

  • MNb

    “62 minutes I’ll never get back”
    The remedy is quite funny and only takes 5 minutes:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZVc1ab2RcMs

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I’d seen that before, but it’s fun to see again. I’ve heard of Scandinavian atheists who read American blogs and articles and think, “Surely it’s not as bad as they’re whining about.”

      And then they take a trip to the US. And then they see.

      • igotbanned999

        “Do you believe in God?”
        “Of course I do.”
        “Are you a Christian?”
        “No, I’m a Muslim.”
        “MUSLIM!?”

        Best part

        • lady_black

          And it’s the same God. Don’t tell the Christians.

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          Except Allah had Isa bodily ascend into Heaven and made a phony Isa to be crucified. And Isa wasn’t the Son of Allah. At least according to the Quran…

        • Michael Neville

          You’re right. Islam, like Judaism, is monotheistic. Christianity is polytheistic so Christians on the one hand and Muslims and Jews on the other cannot be worshiping the same god. Although the Christian boss god, Da Faddah, does have certain similarities to Allah and Yahweh.

        • lady_black

          Irrelevant to my comment.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah…nonsense ain’t it?

          The actual Easter story is much, much more rationally acceptable, right? Not a chance of it.

          Or what about…

          [Jesus] twin brother appeared on the scene, stole and then disposed of his dead sibling’s body. With the tomb now empty, the twin claimed to be his dead brother resurrected from the dead. So convincing was the twin that he was able to win over his dead brother’s disciples and even some others who thought his brother was a fake. These individuals immediately began to publicly proclaim that their teacher had been raised from the dead by God and started a religious movement that continues to this day.

          No? Try a bit of Bayesian reasoning.

          The prior probability of a specifically supernatural Resurrection of Jesus by God is so astronomically low that the Resurrection Theory has virtually zero (0) plausibility.

          At least it is according to Dr. Robert Greg Cavin who holds a Master’s in theology from Fuller and Ph.D. from U.C. Irvine. His doctoral dissertation entitled, “Miracles, Probability, and the Resurrection of Jesus” spells out his arguments and his “Twin Theory” for the first Easter.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substitution_hypothesis

        • Cygnus

          Muslim is Christian in Arabic.

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          If that were true, then Christian would be Muslim in Hebrew. Sorry, you can’t have things both ways!

      • cipher

        Precisely. They have made us an object of scorn and derision to the rest of the developed world – which they see as a good thing, because the Bible says they’ll be ridiculed for their faith, so if Europeans are laughing at us, that means everything in the Bible is literally true.

      • saab93f

        Exactly – unfortunately. The discussions and political debates are something I cannot relate to.

      • Pofarmer

        You almost have to feel sorry for the guy. Almost. I get flabergasted sometimes driving to other parts of the U.S. and seeing all the religious messaging we are surrounded with. Arkansas takes the cake. So far.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I lived in Jacksonville, Florida…that was an experience…those good ole boys have got some of that old time religion shit going on for sure.

    • Jack Baynes

      There’s no missing link! Anytime such a link is found, it creates two more spots that require new missing links!

    • Kevin K

      The issue with the Parliament forcing the church to perform same-sex marriage is that the church is government-sponsored. The US First Amendment protects the churches from that form of governmental intrusion.

      • Pofarmer

        Yeah, but that particular pastor was FOR it, which the loo on the Americans face was priceless.

    • cipher

      This demonstrates the utter futility of any semblance of “dialogue”. There is simply no point even in talking to fundamentalists, let alone debating them.

  • Robert Templeton

    Well, that’s 62 minutes I’ll never get back.

    That basically sums it up succinctly, I imagine.

    Chicken-and-egg arguments. DNA is so amazing and soooo complex arguments. The something-from-nothing argument. Have we not heard, explained, and destroyed these fallacies numerous times?

  • T-Paine

    Why do you waste time on this troll? The only ones who take him seriously are the people he cons.

    • Cygnus

      If atheists will ignore and won’t write about theistic, apologists, Christian or Muslim trollers, then atheists will be on unemployment. And being on unemployment after working to show the idiocies of those claiming God existence, doesn’t pay too much..

  • Brian Westley

    Ray “bananaman” didn’t know that bananas were bred by humans, and he doesn’t know that chickens were bred by humans from red junglefowl. They didn’t exist before humans made them.

    • Without Malice

      But, but, the bible says God made all the farm animals. It’s right there in Genesis.

  • Uzza

    Ray demands that we provide proof that evolution is true by showing one species change into another species. OK:

    If, as Ray says, human life begins at conception, then prior to conception the egg and sperm cells are not human. At the moment of conception, these gametes change from their non-human species to human.

    Viola, one species changed into another! Evolution is proved! Drink!

    • Matthew46

      Not always. Sometimes when the sperm fertilizes the egg, it turns into a molar tumor. So, logically, following his reasoning, the tumor is a human life and so removing it constitutes an abortion which in his mind must be murder. Besides, he ignores that in his bible, there is no life until first breath.

  • quinsha

    I hate the “Are you still beating your dog?” type of questions. No right answer unless you step out of the box that the person asking the question is trying to put you in.

  • lady_black

    That’s easy. Eggs existed long before chickens. SILLY Mr. Comfort.

    • Robert Templeton

      That solves that. Next deep question please. 😀

    • busterggi

      Mr Comfort – if human females produce eggs why are there still chickens?

    • Giauz Ragnarock

      I have read that the largest single-celled organism is the ostrich egg.

  • Jane Ravenswood

    Gee, more lies from Ray Comfort. Why do some atheists claim he’s such a great guy?
    and he still has yet to donate those 5000 gift cards he claimed he was going to distribute at the Reason Rally in June.

  • Herald Newman

    Really, that’s all that Ray’s got? From the hype I was expecting some serious science…

    Oh well, goes to show that I shouldn’t expect much from Comfort and company.

    • Cygnus

      Bananas shaped like bananas is serious intelligent designed science

      • lady_black

        Yes, it is. And the designers were human.

        • Cygnus

          Yes, the designers made it to fit the enlarged anus :)

  • Greg G.

    Now I get it. The Bible was written by 1st century computer programmers.

    SMBC

    • Michael Neville

      They were trying to recover from the Y0K problem.

      • Robert Templeton

        Unfortunately, unlike the Y2K problem, the entire system actually failed and the fallout has lasted nearly two thousand years. How much were these guys paid? It was way too much.

  • Cygnus

    Atheists are deluded into believing that theists, apologists, Christians, Muslims and other religions, would stop being deluded into believing that their claims about God existence is obvious.

    • raylampert

      A great many atheists in this country grew up religious. Some even were ordained ministers before realizing that their faith had nothing to back it up. People lose faith in gods all the time.

      • Cygnus

        “A great many atheists in this country grew up religious”
        ===
        In this country we have great atheists who grew up religious. One has to suffer under religious totalitarianism to became a great atheist. In the US “bible belt” and in Arabic countries there’s still religious totalitarianism.

  • epicurus

    Last night I watched the movie “Risen,” with Joseph Fiennes. The trailers before the movie started had me worried it was going to be another terrible bible movie or Ray Comfort style turd movie, but I forged ahead thinking that surely Fiennes could salvage something decent even if the script was bad. Have to say I was pleasantly surprised – Yes, there is a resurrection, but even though I don’t believe it really happened, I suspended disbelief and went along with the story as told through Fiennes’ eyes as a Roman tribune. Don’t want to give ending away, but how he deals with a risen Jesus was interesting, not a convert but not really a denier either, more like how do you deal with this unbelievable event, what does it even mean?

    • Cygnus

      I was reading the bible and someone told me that some guy will resurrect. Goddamn spoiler! I stopped reading the bible.

    • Without Malice

      The whole movie begs the question – one of the greatest unanswered questions in Christian so-called history – of why Jesus went around preaching to thousands at a time, even providing a free lunch for thousands on two different occasions, and was never shy about doing miracles to show that he was the promised messiah, etc.; but after his greatest trick, the resurrection, he runs off and hides out with his home boys from Galilee instead of heading into Jerusalem and showing his glorified self to the Chief Priest, Pilate, and one and all. It almost like he wanted to make it as hard as possible for people to believe the story.

      • epicurus

        Yes, there is no shortage of question begging in the gospel stories and book of Acts.

        • Without Malice

          That’s for sure, especially when it comes to the resurrection. Mark’s original ending had no post-resurrection appearances and the others are all different. In the gospel of Luke he sticks around for a day or two and then returns to his daddy in the sky, but in Acts (according to Christians written by the same man) he sticks around for 40 days explaining all things about the kingdom of God. Too bad no one took notes, could have saved a lot of bloodshed.

        • epicurus

          40 days of explaining yet Paul still has to correct Peter as to the way to become a Christian – that a gentile doesn’t have to become a Jew then a Christian. Of course maybe Peter was right, I’m just going on how the story is told.

        • Kevin K

          The winner gets to write the holy books and the history books.

      • Matthew46

        RE: was never shy about doing miracles to show that he was the promised messiah,”
        ….
        The problem with that is that in Jesus time, it was a Jewish world with a Jewish Torah and the messiah was neither to be a god, nor was he supposed to do any miracles. He was supposed to get rid of the Romans and bring back the diaspora during his lifetime.

        • Without Malice

          You’re right about no Jew expecting the messiah to be God himself but the miracles are a different question. There was no single idea of the messiah, Judaism was very divided then, with many, many sects, each holding different views on the matter. But you’re right that nearly everyone thought the messiah was suppose to humble Israel’s enemies, bring about world peace and the return of the diaspora Jews – even though most of the Jews in the diaspora had no inclination to return. Jesus didn’t do any of these things and thus arose the 2nd coming. An artful dodge to get around the failures. “By golly, just wait till next time and he’ll do all that stuff.”

        • Matthew46

          True, Jesus didn’t do any of those things DURING HIS LIFETIME and therefore was discounted as a failed messiah by the Jews generally. The Nazarenes felt that he was resurrected but there was never any belief that he was a god. The Ebionites believed he was a man and these were the followers of James and the apostles who remained practicing Jews – a subsect of judaism. Eventually when he didn’t turn up, some of them were reabsorbed into the greater body of Judaism, while some like the Ebionites just disappeared after being labelled heretics by Paul’s Christians.
          .
          In Jesus time, according to Josephus, in about 53 AD, two decades after the death of Jesus and about the time Paul came up with Christianity, there were three major sects of Judaism – Pharisees, Sadducees (temple priestly class who didn’t believe in afterlife) and Essenes (Ebionites, according to Eisenman). There was also a group known as Zealots which was a political group.

  • Tuna

    “He talked about how nicely fit we are to our environment.”

    Did he talk about all of the people who were nicely killed by their environment? Did he mention heat stroke, hypothermia, severe allergic reactions, tornadoes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis and earthquakes?

    • Cygnus

      “He talked about how nicely fit we are to our environment.”
      ===
      He concluded that when he found out how nicely a banana fits his arse, enlarged since he was an altar boy.

    • Robert Templeton

      The Earth is 70% covered by water.

      Why don’t we have gills and fins then?

      • Tuna

        We should have gills! I think that’s a serious design flaw.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Worse: we can’t control things with our minds. I wonder why God curtailed that.

        • Greg G.

          I used my mind to control you so that you would read this reply.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Damn it! I knew you got special powers that I didn’t get. I only got a double helping of impatience.

        • Without Malice

          Yeah, if we’re made in his image why can’t we do all that neat magic stuff.

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          God doesn’t control minds. Religion doesn’t control minds. Atheism controls minds.

        • Michael Neville

          Please give evidence of atheism controlling minds and religion not controlling minds.

        • Pofarmer

          This dude is weirder than owl shit.

        • Michael Neville

          About four months ago Jimmy showed up on this very thread to tell us he didn’t have enough faith to be an atheist, that atheism was a delusion, and to plagiarize some Christian apologetics websites. He’s neither a deep thinker nor amenable to actual discussion.

        • Kodie

          Holy crap, Jimmy!

        • Michael Neville

          It appears that Jimmy is limiting himself to hit-and-run trolling this time. He dropped his little turds five hours ago and hasn’t reappeared.

        • Greg G.

          Religionists go to weekly meetings, or even more often, and say “amen” to everything the preacher says because they are brainwashed.

          Atheism doesn’t do that to people. It often comes from a moment of clarity that what the preacher is getting “amens” for is bullshit.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          He does have a point, though. Atheists (and scientists along with them) do need to sing songs periodically to strengthen their “faith” in their respective “religions.”

        • Greg G.

          God doesn’t control minds.

          If “God” created us, he created our minds. He tells Job how his thoughts are so much greater than his thoughts. Couldn’t he have created our minds to be equal to his own? If he created us to have puny thoughts compared to his own, then he is controlling our minds by limiting our abilities. He got all bent out of shape when Adam and Eve got the Knowledge of Good and Evil.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          My question: if God gave us free will, why didn’t he give us the instruction manual to go along with it?

          We’ll have free will in heaven, right? If it’s just human life transplanted in heaven, it will suck–I can put up with some people for just so long, and a trillion years is probably beyond my limit. Conclusion: we’ll have great wisdom. Sure, I could stab you with a knife, but why would I ever want to? My great wisdom would preclude that.

          And back here on earth, we’re stuck with free will without the manual.

          Thanks, God.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hIIb-pZkiuI&t=65

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s always puzzled me how a person could be caught out on a thought crime if there was no mind control.

          In gMatthew we read…

          You have heard that it was said to the people long ago, ‘Do not murder, and anyone who murders will be subject to judgment.’ But I tell you that anyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment…

          You have heard that it was said, ‘Do not commit adultery.’ But I tell you that anyone who looks at a woman lustfully has already committed adultery with her in his heart.

          But how would anyone know what someone is thinking if they had no control over the persons mind?

          Only by the perpetrator confessing can it be known to anyone that they’ve transgressed, and the RCC has “get-away-with-it” provisions written into it’s rituals. So moot.

          https://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/0513f3de55739a6760583ece40cb81f0e74d25-wm.jpg?v=3

          http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-when-i-was-about-eight-i-asked-my-mother-if-it-was-true-that-god-knows-everything-about-andrew-sullivan-100-86-73.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          God doesn’t control minds.

          Yer right, probably the only sensible thing I’ve seen ya write. God controls fuck all, God is imaginary.

          Religion doesn’t control minds.

          So much ignorance packed into just four words.

          https://thewisesloth.com/2012/09/02/15-signs-your-church-is-a-cult/

          Atheism controls minds.

          Topped off with another dollop of theist fuckwittery.

        • MNb

          You’re right. If atheist BobS writes something that displeases me, the ultimate atheist authority in his control centre hidden in the South American Jungle, I make him feel bad via my ultra-energetic mega-powerful atheist brainwaves, which will penetrate any tin hat. As a result he can’t write new blog posts for two full days. Obviously you can conclude he always writes something that displeases me, so he posts only once every three days.
          That unshakably proves my mind power.
          Pray to your god three times a day to sustain your faith, my son, or I’ll get your mind as well.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I make him feel bad via my ultra-energetic mega-powerful atheist brainwaves, which will penetrate any tin hat.

          That’s why anybody with a bit of sense doesn’t us tin foil these days.

          After rigorous testing and trials..

          Only thought screen helmets using Velostat are effective.

          A similar material called LINQSTAT, which is made in Canada, may also be used.

          A full set of instructions on how to construct a “Thought Screen Helmet” can be found at… http://www.stopabductions.com/

        • Michael Neville

          Tin foil hats actually make it easier for the government to track your thoughts.

          The helmets shielded their wearers from radio waves over most of the tested spectrum…but, surprisingly, amplified certain frequencies: those in the 2.6 Ghz (allocated for mobile communications and broadcast satellites) and 1.2 Ghz (allocated for aeronautical radionavigation and space-to-Earth and space-to-space satellites) bands.

        • Michael Neville

          I make him feel bad via my ultra-energetic mega-powerful atheist brainwaves, which will penetrate any tin hat.

          I want to be you when I grow up.

        • adam
        • thatguy88

          “God doesn’t control minds.”

          Prove how much your god sucks amirite

          “Religion doesn’t control minds.”

          CORRECTION: Religion negatively influences minds.

          “Atheism controls minds.”

          CORRECTION: Atheism can and does positively influence minds.

          #tooeasy

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          Atheism falls under the definition of religion.
          “religion – [faith] In general, a deep belief in anything that cannot be proved one way or another by direct observation or by science. Two examples: (1) Belief that there is a God. (2) Belief that there is no God.”

        • Greg G.

          Atheism is the lack of a belief in all gods. It is not necessarily the belief that there is no gods.

          So, atheism doesn’t even fit your contrived definition.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Sure, that’s one definition, though it doesn’t fit my atheistic worldview. Aside: I’ve seen atheism fall under the definition of religion for government purposes. (“Worldview” might be better in this case.)

          Where are you going with this? Atheism has no supernatural beliefs, so it will fit poorly with actual religions like Christianity and Islam.

        • thatguy88

          Wrong by use of fairly common strawman argument. A religion, by definition is:

          – the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

          Two other definitions that fit this umbrella term are:

          – a particular system of faith and worship.

          -a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance.

          At best, atheism could MAYBE fall under the last definition, but that would be a HUGE leap in dishonesty, considering atheism is defined as the following:

          – disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

          If you were to consider atheism a religion, then theism would BY DEFAULT follow suit, except that theism is defined as thus:

          – belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in one god as creator of the universe, intervening in it and sustaining a personal relation to his creatures.

          In other words, theism is the faith or belief in a god or gods, and atheism is the lack of faith or belief in a god or gods. Theism contains religions such as Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, etc that fit under the umbrella term of theistic religions, and atheism contains some practices such as Buddhism, LaVeyan Satanism, Taoism, etc that fit under the umbrella term of atheistic religions/practices. This doesn’t under circumstance make either theism or atheism a religion by definition.

          With that said, by using the examples of “(1) belief that there is a god, and (2) belief that there is no god,” you’re describing positive belief claims, claims of which aren’t required by either party to substantiate due to the fact that they are rooted in beliefs. If either one of these were rooted more or less as (1) there is absolutely a god, or (2) there is absolutely no god,” then yes, the burden of proof would be on the person making the positive claim. The burden of proof is more or less on the person making the positive claim, and more often than not, it is theists (in particular, Christians and Muslims) who claim that there is a god of some sort that exists in some way shape or form. Considering atheism, in a layman’s terms, is a rejection of that claim, the burden of proof isn’t on the atheist to substantiate this.

          In other words, try again. Your point is false.

      • Kevin K

        Well, we DO! When we’re little tiny babies fetuses, we have gill slits! Maybe we developed them the last time god covered the entire planet with water.

    • Kodie

      I had a huge thought about this a couple of winters ago. Humans pretty much force themselves to fit into uninhabitable environments. We invent shelters, heat systems, clothing materials, shovels, plows, etc. We deal with our environments, we are evidently far from naturally created to survive in them. Before recent modern times, in what could already be called industrialized times, people could freeze or starve to death or die of regular causes just because emergency responders couldn’t get to them. That still happens! It just happens less because we’re adapting and confronting these disasters with more human-created technology and action, and that’s …. well, we’re a developed country. People can’t get clean water in lots of places, even in the US.

  • Cygnus

    If you are a scientist, you can say that first was the egg cells microorganism in the starting evolutionary stages, the chicken came later.
    If you are a Creationist, that’s a stupid by design, then the chicken was first, trying to make its point by crossing the road.

  • Ol’ Hippy

    There will probably remain some unanswered questions forever in the scientific realm just because of the type of beings we are. Like the exact mechanism for the big bang or how RNA started replicating and joining forces to make DNA. But it certainly didn’t happen because some supernatural entity did the Picard thing and ‘made it so’. Just because we don’t know and therefore a god(s) made it doesn’t fly but it does show human’s quest for real knowledge won’t be stifled by ridiculous claims an entity made it so.

  • RoverSerton

    I’m still waiting to see “Gods not dead 2” on Net flicks for free so my atheist sons, me and my Christian wife can talk thru it. Can anyone suggest a drinking game for it?

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      I wonder if GND2 would be a vehicle for encouraging healthy conversation. I suspect that the atheists in the crowd would mostly be pointing out how it’s just persecution porn, and things don’t work like that in our world.

      • RoverSerton

        That’s funny, “Persecution porn”. A new film genre. My wife is a good egg and found GND insulting as a christian. I”m sure this “realistic” christian persecution that happens all the time (read never) would not go over well even to her.

        • Robert Templeton

          It’s not new. When I was young, my church group (along with other groups) drove out to Bethlehem, PA (how apropos) to watch a movie that was “persecution porn”. Basically, how to remain faithful through adversity and temptations. This was in the late 1970s.

        • RoverSerton

          I just had never heard the term before “persecution porn”.

    • LadyOfBooks

      How about every time something happens in the movie that wouldn’t happen in the real world, you take a shot. You’llbe be toasted be the end of the opening credits.

      • RoverSerton

        Hoping it could be something definitive like “Schrodingers cat” on Big Bang Theory or “Norm” from Cheers.

  • Waski the Squirrel

    The market of movies like this is not atheists. It is other Christians who want to be reassured in the superiority of their beliefs over those of us who do not believe.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      And to push down those unpleasant doubts.

  • Without Malice

    I hear the Duck Dynasty boys have seen it a dozen times.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Well, yeah! It’s that good.

      • Michael Neville

        Boys and girls, this is what’s known in the rhetoric biz as damning with faint praise.

  • Matthew46

    Well done, Bob.

    • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

      Said the asshole.

  • Duane Locsin

    I have a better title that fittingly describes Ray Comfort.

    “why don’t crack cocaine dealers consume what they sell?”

    In other words Ray Comfort is an atheist and of course doesn’t believe the bs stories he sells, because it would screw up his ability to scam if he did.

    • Herald Newman

      I’ll admit it’s possible that Ray doesn’t actually believe the bullshit he peddles, but the fact remains that there are millions who believe what he sells, and also peddle the same shit arguments that he does.

      At the end of the day there are effectively two Ray Comforts:
      1. The one who believes these lines of bullshit
      2. The one who sells these lines of bullshit
      Both a dangerous, just in different ways!

    • Kevin K

      No, I’m perfectly willing to accept that Comfort really is every bit as stupid and disingenuous as he appears. He’s not a bright man, and he kind of revels in his mediocrity. He has no curiosity, preferring the simplest and least-logical “solution” to any problem rather than even superficial inquiry.

      He’s just found a way to make a living out of being a dullard.

      • http://pandarogue.blogspot.com/ Yǒuhǎo Huǒ Māo

        Ray Comfort has been corrected on his mistakes regarding evolution, cosmology, and so forth so many times that there is no way he believes a word of what he’s saying. He knows about evolution and chemistry and cosmology. He’s not dumb, he knows how he can make a buck – toss out a new video every year or so to “destroy” atheism.

        • mz

          I’m not sure about that. When all you have is an argument from ignorance you have to protect your ignorance at all costs.

    • raylampert

      You’ve seen Scarface, right? “Don’t get high on your own supply.”

  • Kodie

    I don’t understand singling out DNA as something that is created by god, while every other observable example occurs in process. God doesn’t poof up clouds or decide to create islands in the Pacific Ocean, etc. I don’t know why this is difficult material for creationists to grasp. When you plant an acorn, is a tiny oak tree inside? Language, instructions on growing? What I do know is the seed needs to be planted in the ground, have enough sun and water, and then it changes form. Water made the Grand Canyon. Plate tectonics made the mountains. I don’t think life is an exceptional category, like inanimate rocks are one thing, and inanimate DNA is something completely foreign to the composition of the earth, “sparked,” or some shit, into creation and action, to live upon the rocks. They are atoms and molecules that arise from chemical combinations and temperature and whatever, like evaporation removes imperceptible molecules of water into the air, and they don’t just hang up there, they attract into clouds.

    Forgive my terminology, this is probably not a terrific argument, and I could probably try to understand things better to explain what I mean better. I have the sense that in my mind, I understand generally better than a creationist. Life on earth is certainly a special feature that other planets we know of don’t have, but the chemical make-up creating living organisms doesn’t differ that far in my mind from the chemical occurrence of other materials on earth and other planets.

    • Kevin K

      Right. The fundamental scientific issue is that life is basically just another form of chemistry. We’ve known for almost 200 years that there’s no difference between organic and inorganic chemistry. What we’re experiencing as “life” is a series of exothermic biochemical reactions.

      Of course, some cynics would declare that most of the large animals are nothing more than vessels designed to protect vats of e. coli bacteria. We are what we shit.

      • Kodie

        I’m not quite cynical, it’s an ecosystem after all. For people who think humans are the most intelligent and amazing animal (if they even admit humans are an animal species), we really are what we shit, and a lot of that shit doesn’t just come out our asses. It comes out as pseudo-journalism and tweets and all that bullshit. I mean, you make a useful tool and it will surely be also used for as much forgettable and unimportant bullshit as possible. Most human output isn’t in the “intelligence” category.

  • Kevin K

    Thanks for taking the hit so the rest of us can avoid a similar fate. If there was a reward in the after-death, surely you would have earned it.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      :-)

  • Tyler Willis

    This movie sounds horrible. Just. Stay. Away.

    • Kevin K

      On the plus side, it’s only 62 minutes. You could make a drinking game out of it and not get totally plastered. Maybe.

      • Kodie

        62 minutes is a long time not to be doing anything else you want to do, and if you want to get drunk, drink at will.

        • Greg G.

          It might make the beer taste different. In college, we smoked (not actually inhaling) Swisher Sweets cigars with our beers. It produced a different flavor sensation. We did this about four times and decided that having our mouths taste like a garbage can in the morning was worse than any hangover.

          Watching Ray Comfort would only spoil your Southern Comfort.

  • Clover and Boxer

    So, it sound like the exact same Ray Comfort doing the exact same junk he always has. I’m sorry you had to go through that, Bob.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      And yet the conservative and Christian publications are calling it a masterpiece.

      Perhaps they need to get out more.

      • epicurus

        Conservative Christians calling it a masterpiece is no surprise considering many of them think the Bible is so majestic and powerful that no human could have written it without God’s help.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yeah … except that you’d think that the argument from incredulity would be a little more obvious here, even to them.

        • cipher

          Denial – if we could harness it, we’d have an inexhaustible energy supply.

        • busterggi

          No we wouldn’t

        • cipher

          :-)

        • MNb

          This chapter is soooo majestic and powerful:

          http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/gen/10.html

        • epicurus

          C’mon, how can you not be moved by the beautiful flowing prose of
          “And Arphaxad begat Salah; and Salah begat Eber”. Surely no mere human could have written that without divine help.

        • Kodie

          Sounds like science fiction.

        • epicurus

          Hah, totally :-)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Oh, so Togarmah was the son of Gomer! I thought it was Javan–don’t I look stupid now?!

          Thanks!

        • busterggi

          When did Gomer get married? Shazam!

        • evodevo

          Funny that that whole chapter NEVER mentions the Egyptians who ruled Canaan from the Bronze Age down to ~1000 BC ….

      • cipher

        And yet the conservative and Christian publications are calling it a masterpiece.

        Of course they are. “Anything that tells us what we want to hear, shores up our fragile belief system and chases away our nagging doubts for a few brief hours” = “masterpiece”. “Anything that forces us to confront those doubts” = “evil”.

        They’re operating at the developmental level of small children – and not particularly bright or mentally healthy children, at that.

  • Croquet_Player

    Ray “Banana Man” Comfort is a world class dolt. Combine breathtaking ignorance with entirely unmerited confidence, and he’s the unhappy result.

  • John Grove

    Comfort has about as much integrity as you can get into the left eye of a blind mosquito.

  • Peter_Rowney

    Please express your contempt for this disgusting movie by rating it on IMDb.

    http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5910814/?ref_=ttpl_pl_tt

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      Done. Thanks for the suggestion.

      The votes were ten 1s and one 10 for an average 1.8. Sorry, Ray, for pissing on your masterpiece.

  • Thela Ginjeet

    “…Pop philosophy is not an asset at the frontier of science.”

    …Sure it is.

    http://qwantz.com/index.php?comic=1886

  • cipher

    Analyzing the hamster wheel that drives Ray’s brain is tricky business, but here’s my theory. Richard Dawkins says it and he’s the pope of the atheists, so therefore all atheists must believe that nothing created everything.

    This is precisely how Ray thinks. He’s an authoritarian; he sees the world in terms of rigidly defined structures of hierarchical authority – and like most fundamentalists, he thinks that if he sees the world that way, everyone else does as well, which means people who claim there’s no creator are merely trying to deceive themselves into believing they can go on “sinning” and not go to hell when they die. Couple that with pathologically low self-esteem and congenital psychopathy, and you have the conservative evangelical.

    Recent experimental data is strongly suggestive of a neurological foundation for ideological orientation, which I suppose should cause me to feel compassion, but they are, for the most part, such thoroughgoing pieces of garbage, so utterly willing to see billions of their fellow human beings made to suffer unimaginably for all eternity (indeed, many of them anticipate it eagerly), that I find I can’t.

  • Goro

    I was looking for reviews and this article definitely made me want to check the movie out.
    Do you even read what you publish here??? Ray Comfort is not anti science, you so called pro science are anti science. Because all your science based on imaginary presuppositions that change all the time and one can have millions of assumptions which are way above supernatural, and obviously go against naturalism and science. Ray gets to the point, he does not need to circle around billions of years like many do. Show me facts, show me evidence, don’t give me that “may be”, “supposedly”, “highly likely”, “we’re still trying to figure out” bs.
    Anyway, I’ll have to see the movie.

    • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

      don’t give me that “may be”, “supposedly”, “highly likely”, “we’re still trying to figure out” bs.

      What do you recommend we say when science isn’t sure? I suppose it might be comforting to get a definite answer, as you would from Christianity, but surely you’re adult enough to be comfortable facing the truth. If there is no good evidence supporting a confident answer, why accept the confident answer?

      • Goro

        Depends what evidence you are looking for. The world with all its beauty has perfect tuning in every single aspect up to millimeters, milliseconds etc… for every living creature to exist.. This all obviously points to intelligent Creator. When I was an atheist, I just never thought about it and in fact did not want to think about it willingly, I was my own god. To believe that the world somehow appeared and showed up by itself by some billion years of “chemistry” is not just unthinkable…..you have to have huge supernatural amount of faith to believe in this. In addition if you only rely on science, it will not ever be able to prove origin of life unless they create time machine. Besides that, all those guesses will stay as theories and ideas that mankind wants to entertain their minds with.

        • MNb

          “it will not ever be able to prove origin of life”
          Thanks for demonstrating that you’re anti science.

        • Kodie

          You seem like you’re just gullible and uneducated.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The world with all its beauty has perfect tuning in every single aspect up to millimeters, milliseconds etc… for every living creature to exist.

          The environment is tuned to life? Uh, no–life tuned itself to the environment.

          you have to have huge supernatural amount of faith to believe in this

          And yet science says that the universe is billions of years old. And they have the evidence. Kinda hard to argue against that, but I’m sure you will.

          if you only rely on science, it will not ever be able to prove origin of life unless they create time machine.

          Drink something besides Kool-Aid.

          (1) Science doesn’t prove anything.

          (2) Do you have something besides science to point to that can reliably tell us about the origin of life on earth?

        • Goro

          “Uh, no–life tuned itself to the environment.” And they both are in harmony and order together….just by chance I guess.
          “And yet science says that the universe is billions of years old. And they have the evidence.” Show me the evidence and we’ll talk. And where were those people who “prove” billions of years billions years ago?
          “(2) Do you have something besides science to point to that can reliably tell us about the origin of life on earth?”
          I think we are talking about different science. I am talking about observational science, things you can do, experiment and observe right here, right now, and have definite undeniable conclusions. It seems like you are talking about once again theoretical and “may be” “might be” sci-fi science which has no limits as long as it sounds entertaining and anti intelligent.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And they both are in harmony and order together….just by chance I guess.

          Wrong again, as I made clear above. Life is tuned to the environment.

          Douglas Adams’ puddle.

          Show me the evidence and we’ll talk.

          Seek and ye shall find.

          And where were those people who “prove” billions of years billions years ago?

          No idea. I’ve never seen a scientist claim that anything is proven.

          I think we are talking about different science.

          I’m talking about science. I have no idea what you’re talking about.

        • Goro

          In first comment you did not like me saying “tuned”, now you don’t like “harmony and order” and use word “tuned” yourself. So we are saying same thing, you just don’t want to agree even if I agree with you. :)
          And science could mean different things for different people. I don’t see much science behind your article at all. If I were neutral person and read your article I would really have to work on my faith to believe in the “chemistry”.
          Anyway, you can have the last word “I’ve never seen a scientist claim that anything is proven.” What’s the point of discussing further?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          In first comment you did not like me saying “tuned”

          Nope. I said, “The environment is tuned to life? Uh, no–life tuned itself to the environment.”

          And science could mean different things for different people.

          Clueless people, sure.

          I don’t see much science behind your article at all.

          Which article? This post about Comfort’s movie? No, there isn’t much science in the review since the movie isn’t about science.

          If I were neutral person and read your article I would really have to work on my faith to believe in the “chemistry”.

          Which article are you talking about?

          The fact that scientists don’t say that they have faith might give you pause. I suggest you figure out what they use these words to mean and adopt that.

          Anyway, you can have the last word “I’ve never seen a scientist claim that anything is proven.” What’s the point of discussing further?

          No idea what this is supposed to mean.

        • Kodie

          If you think science means whatever you wish, it doesn’t. Science doesn’t use the terms “proof” or “prove”, and if you don’t know what you’re talking about, you should shut up already.

        • MNb

          “So we are saying same thing”
          “A is tuned to B” is the same thing as “B is tuned to A” ?
          You’re anti logic as well.

        • adam

          “”Uh, no–life tuned itself to the environment.” And they both are in harmony and order together….just by chance I guess.”

        • Personal Responsibility

          Re: Stephen Fry, The bone cancer issue is attributed to the fall of man. Ever since, the world has been breaking down and losing information. Bone cancer, malformations, kidney stones, blindness, you name it. There is a big difference in the universe being finely tuned and the earth being cursed. We have earthquakes, tornados, hail storms, etc. None of that prevents the earth from spinning and revolving around the sun.

        • Michael Neville

          Since there wasn’t an Adam and Eve to cause The Fall then you’ll have to try again to explain bone cancer. Either that or give evidence that Adam and Eve existed (the collection of myths, fables and lies called the Bible isn’t evidence).

          Ever since, the world has been breaking down and losing information.

          Define information.

        • evodevo

          I think he’s attempting to include entropy in his “discussion”, except that the Universe has been “running down” since inception and he obviously doesn’t understand the concept.

        • Michael Neville

          I’m sure his understanding of entropy derives from the Second Law of Thermos Bottles.

        • MNb

          The Universe isn’t exactly finely tuned either. Nobody builds a series of huge factories to keep a tiny clock running in a remote corner. And the ratio Universe vs. Earth is immense compared to the ratio factories vs. tiny clock.
          Not to mention that the Fine Tune Argument rather argues for polytheism. There are about 30 natural constants, hence 30 Fine Tuners (otherwise called First Causes).

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          There has been cancer in humans ever since you could call them “humans,” and there was cancer in other animals prior to that point.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Whoa….. where’s this evidence to support what you are asserting here?

        • Michael Neville

          I asked you for evidence some hours ago. Before you can ask you have to provide the evidence to support your claims first. I asked you do define information. So give me a definition.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I could point you to articles about cancer in dinosaurs, but why bother? You just pick and choose your “science” based on how it pleases you, not on whether there’s good evidence.

        • adam

          ..

        • Personal Responsibility

          Ad hominem…. is that all you have?

        • adam

          No, but it suffices in lieu of your stated ignorance of cancer.

          http://www.academia.edu/227680/Epidemiologic_study_of_tumors_in_dinosaurs

        • evodevo

          Ah, but you weren’t there in Eden, were you? So how do YOU know it’s true?

        • adam

          “The world with all its beauty has perfect tuning in every single aspect up to millimeters, milliseconds etc… for every living creature to exist.. “

      • Tonto

        I’m tired of atheism of the gaps. Atheists were sure that the universe existed always in it’s current state. That’s just how it is. Then we learned, against your will, that the universe had a finite beginning. You were devastated and have been trying to create matter from nothing ever since. It’s really sad and very pathetic.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Did the Lone Ranger teach you that? You need to get a better teacher.

          “against your will”? I think you’ve got the labels on your bins switched. Atheists follow the evidence. It’s the Christians who accept scientific theories based on how they feel about them (rather than what the evidence says). Like evolution–makes them feel sad, so they declare it wrong. It’s really sad and very pathetic.

        • MR

          Did the Lone Ranger teach you that?

          Let’s not forget that the word tonto also means “idiot” in Spanish.

        • Susan

          Atheists were sure that the universe existed always in it’s current state

          Aquinas believed that..

          Atheism has nothing to do with universes. It has to do with belief in a deity.

          Then we learned, against your will, that the universe had a finite beginning.

          No. We didn’t. We don’t know anything about the universe past a certain point.

          You were devastated.

          You’d think I’d recall being devastated. But I don’t. I just don’t think anyone making any sort of god claim has made a coherent statement that is supported by evidence. So, I am unable to believe them.

          You should get out more. Apologetics relies to a huge extent on strawmanning atheists instead of making a case for their assertions.

          It’s really sad and very pathetic.

          That’s how strawmen work.

        • Michael Neville

          That the universe had a beginning doesn’t mean your imaginary god had anything to do with that beginning. If you make that claim then you need to provide evidence to support it. Genesis isn’t evidence.

        • MNb

          “Then we learned, against your will, that the universe had a finite beginning.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          It was the atheist commie Alexander Friedmann

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Friedmann

          who was the first to postulate that the Universe had a beginning.It’s your ignorance that’s sad and pathetic.

    • MNb

      The Banana Man is not anti science!? Yeah – and the pope is a hindu.

    • Personal Responsibility

      Science = knowledge. We all have a limited about of science or knowledge. Only God has perfect knowledge or science. The “scientific” community will never acknowledge God because to do so goes outside what can be proven beyond all shadow of doubt. God and science are not incompatible as these guys would try to assert. God is the author of science. He is science. His entire Word is true. Every claim that can be proven either has been proven or will be proven to be true. This infuriates them. How dare God be true! I would think true scientists would want to find the truth wherever that might lead. It’s a shame that the truth is right there before them (Bible/God), and they won’t even consider it. What a waste!

      • Michael Neville

        Before we accept your claim about God being science you need to give evidence that your god isn’t a figment of 2500 year old Hebrew priests’ imaginations. Remember you’re talking to atheists here.

      • MNb

        “God and science are not incompatible as these guys would try to assert.”
        Which guys? Not on this site. If the name of your god is The Flying Spaghetti Monster I dare to maintain that your god is totally compatible with science. If your god is supposed to be the father of a certain Jesus not so much.

        “This infuriates them.”
        BWAHAHAHAHA!
        Never mind christian scientists like John Polkinghorne, Kenneth Miller and Francis Collins.

        “they won’t even consider it. What a waste!”
        BWAHAHAHAHA!
        You wrote why yourself: science = knowledge (I agree) and perfect knowledge is impossible (I again agree). As you defined truth as perfect knowledge science has no use for truth. Science is not interested in the impossible, silly.

      • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

        Yes, scientists do stick with just natural claims because they insist on evidence, but it’s interesting to see that you see no similar limit to what you can pontificate about.

        You’ve made many groundless claims here. Ground some of them.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Genesis 1:25, “God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.”

          Evolutionists state that kinds have changed over time. I can’t keep up with the latest ridiculousness, so feel free to insert whatever is appropriate for today’s “theory”. Chicken to whale? Pig to horse?

          We have ZERO evidence for kinds changing, zero transitional fossil records, and this is taught in Science class? Sounds like it should be in a faith class to me…. Please respond with specific evidences and why this should be taught in a Science class.

        • Michael Neville

          Evolution is one of the most strongly supported theories in science. We have a better understanding of how life forms change over time than we do about how gravity works. Just because someone as ignorant about evolution as you has told you that evolution has no evidence doesn’t mean there is no evidence, it just means you and your mentor are ignorant.

          If you really want to learn about evolution then read Niel Schubin’s Your Inner Fish or Jerry Coyne’s Why Evolution Is True. These books, written by biologists, will explain evolution and give evidence for it. Don’t expect to be taught about evolution by popping up on an atheist blog because you won’t.

          I suggest that since you obviously don’t have a clue about evolution that you not make statements about it. You’ll look slightly less ignorant that way.

        • Kodie

          You’re ridiculously ignorant and uneducated. Some ignorant doofus saw some animals and told stories a loooooong time ago, and that story was over-written by science, and not credible. I can’t believe people stupid as you are so loud and proud of it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          We have ZERO evidence for kinds changing

          Show me the biological consensus saying this, and I’ll believe it.

          Please respond with specific evidences and why this should be taught in a Science class.

          Yeah–that’s how to make America great again. Don’t teach science that makes you uncomfortable.

          “Personal Responsibility”? Shouldn’t you be man enough to face reality, regardless of whether it pleases you or not?

          As for evidence, evolution is the scientific consensus. Let’s let the nice scientists tell us what the science is and stop bothering them, OK?

        • Michael Neville

          Around the year 400 Augustine of Hippo considered the literal interpretation of Genesis. He rejected it for a number of reasons both theological and pragmatic. I’ll give you three of these reasons:

          * You believe that God created the universe. People wrote the Bible. Augustine argued that preferring a book written by people over God’s universe was insulting to God.

          * If there’s discrepancies between God’s universe and YOUR interpretation of the Bible then the problem is probably with your interpretation rather than God’s universe.

          * Quite often unbelievers will know something about the world and the universe and how they work. When a Christian tells an unbeliever something that the unbeliever knows is wrong and cites the Bible as authority for the wrongness then the unbeliever will consider the Christian a fool and dismiss the Bible as a collection of myths and fables with nothing to say on any subject including redemption.

          Congratulations, fool, you’ve just shot yourself in the foot in any attempt to proselytize to the atheists on this blog.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I don’t care what some ancient guy in 400 wrote about God. What relevance does that have?
          All Scripture is God-breathed. You obviously don’t know the Word.
          Who is interpreting anything? The Bible is quite clear. You want to offer any example of where it isn’t clear? Unbelievers cannot possibly understand the Word. I know as I was there once.
          There is nothing that the Bible states that is contrary to any “facts”. You seem to want to mix in evolution as fact when it is clear that none of this can be proven. Scientists (science means knowledge) like to put forth crazy speculation and call that science. That is crap, pure and simple.

        • MR

          I don’t care what some ancient guy in 400 wrote about God.

          Silly, isn’t it, to imagine that some ancient guy hundreds of years ago knew what he was talking about when he wrote those things. Even sillier to pretend that some ancient guy hundreds of years before that knew what he was talking about when he adapted Genesis from stories that were even hundreds of years older.

        • Personal Responsibility

          There are reasons to accept the writings from God’s chosen people and leaders, not some arbitrary guy. You are failing to understand the history of God’s chosen people and what all they went through. The leaders were validated by God, and many events transpired to show how God selected those leaders.

        • MR

          And your hypocrisy is laid bare for all to see. You have no reason to accept those writings anymore than to accept Augustine’s. No way whatsoever to show that God selected or validated any leaders, nor even that God exists. You scoff and sweep aside what some ancient guy wrote and expect us to accept what some other, even more ancient, guy wrote just on your say so. Nice work at making your argument look stupid.

        • adam

          “There are reasons to accept the writings from God’s chosen people and leaders, not some arbitrary guy.”

          Of course there are ‘reasons’

        • Personal Responsibility

          Actually, I quote Scripture most of the time, but you guys don’t like to hear it. So which is it? Do you want me to quote Scripture or not? Talk about circular….. you guys talk yourselves into circles.

        • adam

          “Actually, I quote Scripture most of the time, but you guys don’t like to hear it.”

          I do engage in fantasy escape at times, but I tend to like a variety,

          ” Talk about circular.”

          I’m not so much into circles, but I might engage in conversations about ellipses if you have some interesting ideas.

        • MNb

          I don’t care about quotes from Scripture and hardly ever read them. Greg G and Adam often will.

        • adam

          “All Scripture is God-breathed.”

        • adam

          “Who is interpreting anything? The Bible is quite clear.”

        • busterggi

          All scripture is god-breathed. Then edited, re-edited, translated, re-re-edited, reinterpreted and voted as canon by a succession of commitees – while still continuing to be kept in multiple forms.

        • Personal Responsibility

          The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek were not edited and translated. They are the originals which are God-breathed. You can deflect and cry foul all you want, but the originals are the ONLY ones that I’m referring to. There are a number of English translations that I wouldn’t pay 2 cents for. What does that have to do with the originals? Nothing…..

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You read the books in their original languages?

          The NT is already one society translated from the original. It comes from a Greek culture, which filtered and interpreted the original stories from the Hebrew/Aramaic Jewish culture. Good luck getting past that barrier.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Did I say I read the books in their original languages? No. I was talking about God-inspired. The stone tablets were written with the “finger” of God. I’m not following what your problem is exactly. I don’t have to get past any “barrier.” The facts are the Bible Books were written and were inspired by God, even stronger God-breathed.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You said: “the originals are the ONLY ones that I’m referring to,” and said that some English translations are crap, so I assumed you went to the source.

          Sounds like the originals are as distant from you as they are from the rest of us.

          If you don’t understand the problem, I’m not sure how to explain it any clearer. We don’t have Jesus’s words. We have the interpretation of what Jesus said, coming from a Greek culture 40+ years afterwards. As you may recall, Jesus spoke Aramaic. His culture was Jewish. Not Greek. Get it now?

          You’re saying that God magicked the NT writings so that they’re correct? That’s an interesting hypothesis. Show me that it’s worth believing. (Or is that one of those things you need faith to just accept?)

        • Nemo

          Bats are not birds. Whales are not fish. The Nile River has never run dry in recorded history, and Egypt has never been a desolate wasteland, nor has it ever practiced Judaism as the state religion while speaking the language of Canaan (which is now a dead language, so that will never happen). There are civilizations alive today that have existed before and after the supposed flood.

        • MNb

          “All Scripture is God-breathed. You obviously don’t know the Word.”
          The Word says all Scripture is god-breathed which makes all Scripture The Word.
          Nice circularity.

          “Unbelievers cannot possibly understand the Word.”
          No. What I for instance don’t understand is Lev. 11:13-19, a clear list of birds that also contains bats. What I don’t understand is how to conclude from this that the Bible doesn’t say “bats are birds”. Of course you can explain to me, but explanations are only necessary when something is unclear. So I’m pretty sure you will neglect this and instead wallow in your superior understanding.

          The same for 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chro 4:2. These quotes say clearly that the diameter is 10 cubits and the circumference is 30 cubits. As there is nothing that the Bible states contrary to “any facts” the ratio must be 3. Now I’m just a teacher math and unbeliever, so I don’t understand nothing. But I have learned and continue to teach that that ratio is a bit more than 3,14. So I had expected to read “a line of thirty one cubits and a half did compass it round about.”
          Again I have no doubt that you can explain this – hence admitting these quotes are unclear, if not “contrary to scientific facts”. So again I expect you will neglect this and instead wallow in your superior understanding.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You do realize the Word wasn’t written in English, right? You are subject to an English translation, which ISN’T inspired. You would have to read the original writings in Hebrew to get the perfect inspired Word. That would make perfect sense at the time of the writing. Some things were written specifically for the people at the time of the event/writing; others were written for all times. But I digress.

          Nonetheless, here is your answer:
          A cubit was about one and a half feet. So the dimensions were 45 feet and 15 feet. If the outside diameter and inside circumference were used, the ratio would be exactly 3.14159 if the thickness at the rim was 6 inches. 1 Kings 7:28 and 2 Chronicles 4:5 show that the thickness was a handbreadth. For reference, if this means the width of a hand, my hand is 4 inches wide. If it meant the length of a hand, my hand is about 7 inches long. Furthermore, even if they used the outside circumference, just below the rim, and the rim protruded from the outside of the vessel, accounting for the rim would still explain the difference in ratio.

          Even today we give measurements in so many significant figures. For example, assuming they measured both inner circumference and inner diameter, (or both outer circumference and outer diameter) a circumference of 30 to 30.49 cubits and a diameter of 10 to 9.51 cubits give a ratio of 3 to 3.21. 3.14159 is within that range. Therefore, imprecision alone, without appealing to the rim argument, is sufficient to explain this ratio.

          Is this really why you have a problem with the Bible? Because of a ratio that can easily be explained? Really?

        • MNb

          “You are subject to an English translation, which ISN’T inspired.”
          Just because you say so? That’s not exactly convincing. Any reason you can give to argue that translations aren’t divinely inspired can also be used to argue that the original wasn’t.

          “If the outside diameter and inside circumference were used”
          Nowhere does Scripture tell us that we must use the outside diameter and inside circumference instead of the outside diameter and outside circumference, the inside diameter and inside circumference or the inside diameter and outside circumference.
          These are your words and nothing more. They are not even translated from the original Hebrew and hence according to your own standard not divinely inspired. Suddenly you are OK with your own human fallibility to “prove” something. That’s a double standard.

          Plus your explanation – not divinely inspired, as I can’t stress enough – contradicts what you wrote yourself exactly like I predicted.

          “Who is interpreting anything?”

          You. As soon as you start talking about inside and outside diameter and circumference you are the one who is interpreting. And you do that because

          “The Bible is” not “quite clear”
          on this issue.

          Thanks for neglecting “bats are birds”.

          “Is this really why you have a problem with the Bible?”
          Strawman. This is not my problem with the Bible at all. I deny it’s divinely inspired and hence actually expect such errors and contradictions.
          No, it’s a problem because you – ie not me – state that “the Bible is quite clear”. If it were you didn’t need any explanation, not even your easy one, which, I like to repeat it endlessly, is not divinely inspired according to your own standard.
          It’s also a problem because you – still not me – wrote that

          “There is nothing that the Bible states that is contrary to any “facts”.”
          If that were the case you, a fallible human, wouldn’t need to explain it away, no matter how easily.
          So thank you for contradicting yourself. By offering a human hence fallible explanation of a text that’s supposed to be divinely insprired hence infallible you has proven yourself wrong. The Bible is not quite clear, not even on trivial matters, and does state things that’s contrary to some facts. That’s why you need to add fallible human interpretations and explanations, whether easy or not. Really.

          Fun fact: this is something Augustinus of Hippo already understood 1600 years ago. Your “argument” is that backward.

        • Michael Neville

          The relevance is that an important theologian (you may never have heard of Augustine, ask your preacher about him, you’ll find out he’s well regarded in religious circles) considered Biblical literalism and rejected it for good reasons.

          There is nothing that the Bible states that is contrary to any “facts”.

          The Earth is over four billion years old, not six thousand. A fictitious god didn’t poof plants and animals into being, they evolved from simple one-celled life forms into what we see today. Evolution is a fact, no matter how much you claim it isn’t.

          Also I notice that you didn’t even try to refute Augustine’s objections to Biblical literalism. You actually think that ignoring God’s universe in preference to a book written by people isn’t disrespectful to God? I may not believe in gods but I can tell when someone is spitting in a god’s eye, like you are.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’m doing nothing of the sort. Don’t accuse me of anything. I’m trying to reason with someone who is clearly hateful of any mention of God. Why don’t you at least try to have a conversation?
          You have stated things that cannot possibly be proven. Stating the earth is over 4 billion years old CANNOT be proven in a science classroom, and is therefore, not science. Go back and look at your definition of science if you want to try to PROVE any of the crap you asserted and try again.
          Everything in the universe points to God. I’m not ignoring anything. His Word says that the stars outnumber the grains of sand. You want to disprove that somehow? Good luck! My bet is on God’s Word. There are already billions that are defined.

        • MNb

          “is therefore, not science”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Science never proves anything the way you use the word “prove”. It hasn’t proven either that you will fall downward when you jump from a tower tomorrow (whenever tomorrow is, as long as it’s not today, whenever today is).

          “My bet is on God’s Word.”
          Nope. Your bet is on your personally preferred interpretations of “God’s Word” as your “easy explanation” about outside/inside diameters and circumferences conclusively shows. You are the one who needs good luck.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why don’t you at least try to have a conversation?

          Demonstrate this for us. Get to know Allah. Spend a year as a Mormon. Be a Wiccan for a while. Next, Scientology.

          Tell us how all these experiments worked. It’ll take you years to do it properly. We’ll wait.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’m a devout Christian. I tell you what. Why don’t you go do all that? Oh…. I see. You are a lazy Atheist. I’ll pass.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You make demands on the atheist, but you don’t reciprocate. You just want to assume that your position is correct and demand that the other guy walk in your shoes for a while.

          But that’s OK. As you can imagine, I can play that game as well.

        • epeeist

          Stating the earth is over 4 billion years old CANNOT be proven in a science classroom, and is therefore, not science.

          Proof is of course for mathematics, logic and whisky; science doesn’t deal in proof but probabilities and likelihoods.

          Neither is science done in the classroom but in laboratories, observatories and in the field.

          The other problem with your post is that you do not seem to realise that all scientific hypotheses stand on their own evidence, not on “problems” with other hypotheses. In this case we seemingly have two hypotheses, one that the earth is young, around about 6,000 years old and another, that it is about 4.5 billion years old. Assuming that we find evidence that the second hypothesis is wrong does not validate the first hypothesis.

          Nor do I have to show that the earth is 4.5 billion years old in order to invalidate the claim that it is 6,000 years old. All I need to do is provide evidence which shows the hypothesis is false. This is of course fairly easy to do, one has only got to cite papers on the dating, by counting, of things like lake and river varves, ice cores and coral growth rings, their consilience and consonance with other observations.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Right…. you are very hasty to show the 6,000 year old claim of the Bible is false. Any Atheist who writes a paper on it you will say that’s the “proof.” I’m sorry, but you are blinded by your own biases. You cannot possibly show that the 6,000 year old claim is false.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Science says that the earth is 4.6 billion years old. Science backs up its statements with evidence. The Bible is taken on faith.

          And you say that the Bible carries the argument? Just because, or is there a good reason?

        • Susan

          Any Atheist who writes a paper on it you will say that’s the “proof.”

          Of course he wouldn’t. He was very clear that science doesn’t deal in “proof”.

          Also, you will find devout christians who work in fields of science where the evidence indicates a 4.5 billion year old earth who write papers on it. One doesn’t have to be an atheist to do science.

          What evidence do you have that the earth is only six thousand years old?

        • epeeist

          Right…. you are very hasty to show the 6,000 year old claim of the Bible is false.

          I gave you all the clues to check this.

          Any Atheist who writes a paper on it you will say that’s the “proof.”

          As I said, science doesn’t deal in proof, but strives to produce the best explanation.

          I’m sorry, but you are blinded by your own biases. You cannot possibly show that the 6,000 year old claim is false.

          I’m blinded by my biases and yet you are certain that I cannot show the bible to be false.

          As it is showing that the earth is older than 6000 years or so is fairly easy, Try this paper for example, or this one or this one or this one. This is just a sample, there are a huge number of others.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Or the 6 million years of sedimentary layers in the Green River varves.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_River_Formation

        • epeeist

          Or the 6 million years of sedimentary layers in the Green River varves.

          Well yes, I was saving that one up though for the inevitable “there could have been deposits of multiple layers every year” (is there any evidence for this? No. Do they ever provide a reason why it should be so or a mechanism for it? No).

          At this point I was going to point out papers which show the layer thicknesses have evidence of cycles which correlate with both the El Nino effect and sun spot cycles. On top of that there are also correlations in other varves to volcanic eruptions with known dates, while ice cores have correlations with known supernovae.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ah, but wouldn’t 6 million delicate layers be just like what a violent, worldwide flood would lay down?

        • epeeist

          Ah, but wouldn’t 6 million delicate layers be just like what a violent, worldwide flood would lay down?

          Bugger, I hadn’t thought of that…

          Obviously, “Checkmate, atheist”.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You are confusing science with theories. Science is knowledge; theories are just, well, theories. Anyone can have a theory and can base it off of whatever they feel with help their theory. I get it. You cannot prove in a lab that these historical theories of the earth are true. You might feel that they are compelling and believe them, but that is your choice. Please don’t confuse your beliefs with science. Beliefs are not science, and they never have been.

        • Kodie

          You are confusing theories with hypotheses.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m pretty sure you have no idea what “scientific theory” means. But you can show me I’m mistaken.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Scientific theories are usually testable and make falsifiable predictions. I want you to do that with the creation of the universe. You see how stupid that sounds? So don’t come at me with your arrogant attitude about knowing how we got here because you don’t. So stop piling on the bull. You guys like to rationalize (“rational lies”).

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Scientific theories are usually testable and make falsifiable predictions. I want you to do that with the creation of the universe.

          The Big Bang is the scientific consensus. I don’t need to defend it. The ball’s in your court if you don’t like it.

          You see how stupid that sounds?

          I do indeed. Some rube is rejecting the scientific consensus because it hurts his god’s feelings? And in the 21st century, too. Wow.

        • MNb

          Evolution Theory is testable and makes falsifiable predictions.
          Our Universe wasn’t created. The various Big Bang Theories that describe the origin of our Universe are testable and make falsifiable predictions.
          You’re the on who’s stupid.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOLOLOLOL…… please cite one scientific experiment that can falsify creation. You really are a loon. You have drunk the whole batch of the kool-aid. I don’t call you stupid (like you call me) but you are clearly misguided. Why is it that you feel that something as grand as the creation (or in your case, formation) of the universe is something a man on planet earth can prove? That is ridiculous!

        • Kodie

          Yeah, this is coming from someone who thinks the bible is a sacred document breathed into being by a magical ghost, and totally not a compilation of stories made up by humans and passed through cultures and societies that had no knowledge of science. You think that makes you sound smarter than a scientist?

        • MNb

          Not only are you stupid, you enjoy being stupid. By now you act so stupidly that you don’t know anymore what you write yourself.

          “please cite one scientific experiment that can falsify creation.”
          You are the creacrapper, not me. You are the one who should cite one scientific experiment that can falsify creation, to demonstrate that your creacrap is science. I maintain it can’t exactly because it isn’t science. That’s stupidity nr. 1.
          I wrote that Evolution Theory is testable and makes falsifiable predictions. I didn’t write that only experiments can do so. That’s stupidity nr. 2.
          Find me a cat fossil that’s 80 million years old. Then Evolution Theory is falsified. That you aren’t even capable of thinking up something like that shows that you’re not capable of thinking scientifically. You wrote that you taught at a university. My guess is that you taught the subject of sharpening pencils and bending paperclips. That’s stupidity nr. 3.
          But if you insist – Evolution Theory makes predictions that can be tested in lab.

          http://www.juliantrubin.com/topicprojects/evolutionprojects.html

          That’s stupidity nr. 4.

          “the formation of the universe is something a man on planet earth can prove?”
          Evolution Theory is not about the formation of our Universe. That’s stupidity nr. 5.
          Physics deals with the formation of our Universe. We can “prove” it in the same way we can “prove” Newton’s Law of Gravity and Ohm’s Law. To do so we need empirical data. To decide which Big Bang Theory is correct (there are several) we need more empirical data. For technical reasons they are hard to acquire. That you don’t know, understand, want to accept this elementary stuff is stupidity nr. 6.
          You are the one who needs to prove that physics never will be able to formulate a correct Big Bang Theory (physicists have managed to falsify one and also to falsify Steady State – creacrappers like you never achieve anything like that). You don’t even try; you only fling some crap like an angry monkey flings his poo. That’s stupidity nr. 7.
          Your final stupidity is that you think you only need to refute Evolution Theory and Physics to prove your creacrap. Wrong. You need to provide empirical evidence for your own theory. You don’t even try. That’s stupidity nr. 8.
          Thanks for confirming once again that you reject science. Of course you will keep on denying it and that makes you, how unsurprising, a liar.

        • Greg G.

          you taught the subject of sharpening pencils

          I get the image of PR sharpening new pencils right down to the eraser.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Too much responsibility and a risky business letting him loose around sharp objects.

          https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/53/14/2c/53142c0e3290eec12b12499aba00afd2.jpg

        • adam

          “please cite one scientific experiment that can falsify creation. You really are a loon”

          No experiment is needed, just simple logic

        • Personal Responsibility

          Loon!

        • adam

          Loon?

        • MNb

          I agree, you are a loon. Plus a fool. Plus a stupid. Plus a liar.

        • adam
        • Personal Responsibility

          People keep asking for signs God exists, He sends Jesus, and they nail Him to the cross…… go figure….

        • adam
        • Greg G.

          Jesus was nailed to a cross, Thor has a hammer.

          God hates evil. Odin hates Ice Giants. You don’t see any Ice Giants.

          Maybe we should follow the Norse religions.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And that means what to people in the 21st century? It’s just a story.

        • Michael Neville

          please cite one scientific experiment that can falsify creation.

          Creationism is not falsifiable as its proponents base the conjecture on the Bible, a book written by people, which provides accounts of creation and other events that cannot be tested by observation or experiment but are instead accepted as infallible truth. This is one of the primary characteristics of pseudoscience. No matter what evidence is presented, there is no way that creationism can be contradicted. Even when evolution is observed in the laboratory (see Richard Lenski’s study of e coli), creationism always allows for an after-the-fact justification of the inconsistent observation with an argument to authority. Put differently, for any possible observation you can imagine creationism can explain away both that observation and its opposite. Only showing that God does not exist would undermine creationism, and that is impossible. Since no observation is allowed to contradict creationism and it has no predictive value, it is not science.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Well it happened, so you will have to change your mind about science. By the way, science means knowledge. So if you know something firsthand, you have science.

        • adam

          “Well it happened, so you will have to change your mind about science. ”

          Well when you demonstrate that it has happened, then it will be science, instead of myth.

          ” By the way, science means knowledge. ”

          But YOU have not demonstrated that you have any knowledge.

        • Michael Neville

          I see that you didn’t understand the point I was making, not that I’m surprised. What I said was that creationism can’t be falsified because it has an answer to every objection or question, even if the answers are contradictory.

        • Kodie

          You don’t know any of that firsthand, and that’s not what science means, either. You are so proud of your ignorance.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You can try to change the word to mean whatever you want. Look it up.

        • MNb

          One thing is for sure – the word science doesn’t mean what you want it to mean.

        • Greg G.

          You changed the word to mean whatever you wanted. That is not what science is to most English speakers. If you understand the word science so poorly, it is no wonder that you don’t appreciate the power and the value of science.

        • Kodie

          http://www.dictionary.com/browse/science?s=t

          noun
          1.
          a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:
          the mathematical sciences
          2.
          systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.
          3.
          any of the branches of natural or physical science.
          4.
          systematized knowledge in general.
          5.
          knowledge, as of facts or principles; knowledge gained by systematic study.
          6.
          a particular branch of knowledge.
          7.
          skill, especially reflecting a precise application of facts or principles; proficiency.

          I looked it up, it doesn’t mean what you thought it meant. It means you’re a liar who tries to stretch your pile of shit stories that you believe are true to “know” them, to a vague Latin etymologically-adjacent word. Fuck you Christians thinking you can usurp words from the dictionary and apply them to your stinking pile. That goes for all your abstract nouns like love and peace and justice, you get them fucking wrong, so you should stop applying them to your religion.

        • Rudy R

          Why is it that you feel that something as grand as the creation (or in your case, formation) of the universe is something a man on planet earth can prove?

          So if man on planet Earth can’t prove how the universe is created, isn’t it ridiculous that you are trying to prove a god did it?

        • Personal Responsibility

          No because Jesus walked the earth, claimed to be God in the flesh, performed many miracles in front of hundreds of witnesses that have been recorded for you to read. Jesus authenticated Genesis. You get the whole package here, so what seems more reasonable? Believe you or believe Jesus? I’ll take Jesus every day of the week!

        • adam

          ” claimed to be God”

          Lots of people have claimed to be God

        • Rudy R

          Jesus never claimed to be God in the flesh. If he had, what would be your evidence for belief in his claim? Miracles? Is that evidence corroborated outside the Bible? Jesus did not authenticate Genesis. There is no known original texts written from Jesus’ hand nor is there any copies. The first written claims of prophecy fulfillment in the NT from the OT is from Paul, who could have naturally invented stories whole clothe so the Jesus story appeared to fulfill prophecy.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “If you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.”

          There are many examples of Jesus claiming to be God. If you understood the culture of the day, you would know this. You would also know that this is why the Pharisees wanted Him dead because of blasphemy.

        • Rudy R

          John 14: 10
          Do you not believe that I am in the Father and the Father is in me? The words that I say to you I do not speak on my own; but the Father who dwells in me does his works.

          This scripture would imply that Jesus was the vessel of God, and not God. Sort of your modern-day Benny Hinn. And the Pharisees wanted Jesus dead because he challenged their authority.

        • MNb

          According to the Gospels, which are hardly an unprejudiced account. I suspect that the riot at the Temple had a lot more to do with it.
          The pharisees were supported (still according to the Gospels) by the sadducees. That’s remarkable, because usually the two were opposed to each other. If the Gospels are written after 70 CE it’s easy to explain why the Pharisees get most of the blame: with proto-christians they were the only jewish sect that survived the Destruction of the Temple.

        • busterggi

          Prolly also were sick of the never-ending Yackety-Sax in the background.

        • Personal Responsibility

          He is simply pointing everything to God the Father. Why did Jesus pray? Did He pray to Himself? Well, sort of. He prayed to God the Father, who is God as well. Jesus is the full manifestation of God. They are 3 people/persons, but they are one. Jesus came to show man the way. Man is to mimic Christ. I’m not understanding if you have a problem with that or were heckling.

        • busterggi

          So Jesus is yahweh and he talks to & argues with himself – does the nameless holy spook cast the deciding vote as to which of the other personalities is right?

          You know that makes no sense.

        • Rudy R

          The triune god concept was invented by the Catholic Church in the 4th Century. There is no forcing a round peg into a square hole with this illogical concept. It’s pure craziness for anyone that doesn’t drink the Christian Kool-Aid.

          Matthew 27: 46
          About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli, lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).
          So we are led to believe that Jesus yelled to himself, asking himself why he had forsaken himself. Yeah, the Trinity is logically sound.

        • Kodie

          Why had god forsaken him anyway?

        • Rudy R

          And if Jesus is God, how is the crucifixion a sacrifice? Kodie, if you could make sense of any of this Christian nonsense, you’d be a believer.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Three persons in one. I get it that you don’t get it. That doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

        • Michael Neville

          So what’s your evidence that such a nonsensical critter exists and does the 3 in 1 thing?

        • Personal Responsibility

          There is no evidence for a “nonsensical critter” but plenty of evidence for God. Have you read any evidence for God books? Or researched anything on the subject?

        • Greg G.

          The existence of suffering shows that there is no benevolent omnipotence. If suffering does nothing, then it is unnecessary, then it is pure sadism to allow suffering to exist. If suffering does something, that something is logically possible to do, so an omnipotence, or even a sufficiently powerful being, could do whatever suffering does, so all suffering is unnecessary. If an omnipotence exists, it is not benevolent. But maybe it is not powerful enough to end suffering, which means no omnipotence.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “The existence of suffering shows that there is no benevolent omnipotence”

          Hardly. Just because you don’t understand doesn’t mean your conclusions are true. How do you define suffering? Pain? What level? How much? Pain actually protects us.

        • Michael Neville

          There’s no evidence for any gods, let alone your sadistic bully of a god. Yes, you incredibly stupid godbot, I have researched evidence for your or any other gods’ existence and guess what, there was nothing but guesses and “well, it must have been” bullshit from priests, preachers and shamans all trying to push the products of their or their ancestors’ imaginations as being “gods”.

        • Personal Responsibility

          lol…. more insults from another one. Zero value here. You guys are really showing your value.

        • Michael Neville

          Whine whine whine. You are such a whiner that Ernest and Julio Gallo should hire you.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We’re a right pair of winer’s, but the missus prefers Blossom Hill rose over Ernst & Julio Gallo and I’m into South African Pinotage as ya know.

        • Rudy R

          I get it that you get it. That doesn’t mean it is true.

        • Rudy R

          I’m not heckling. The construct of a triune god is illogical and breaks the three laws of logic:

          The law of identity: P is P.
          The law of noncontradiction: P is not non-P.
          The law of the excluded middle: Either P or non-P.

          A father is a male parent and a son is a male offspring of the father. According to the second law:

          Father is not Son.

          Therefore, Jesus is not God.

        • Personal Responsibility

          That’s funny. H2O can be ice, water, or steam. Why is that a problem? It’s still H2O, right? Just a different form.

        • Rudy R

          You’re committing a category error. The H2O molecule does not change when in a solid, liquid, or gas. It’s still one part hydrogen and 2 parts oxygen. H2O is H2O, no matter the state.
          What’s funny is that you completely ignore my comment and counter with a failed analogy.

        • Myna A.

          What’s funny is that you completely ignore my comment and counter with a failed analogy.

          That’s PR’s modus operandi. If you can’t answer, then pretend the question was never asked or just pull something out of your alternate universe and apply that. I wonder how the individual ever came up with the user name, Personal Responsibility?

        • Personal Responsibility

          What changed about the Trinity?

        • Rudy R

          I assume you glossed over my comment on the illogical notion of a triune god. I’m not aware that the Church changed the concept of the Trinity. A God is universally defined as eternally bodiless, eternally omnipotent, and eternally omniscient. Jesus was a human being, not eternally omnipotent and not eternally omniscient.

          If we can both concede that Jesus was a human, I can address the two other defining characteristics.

          Matthew 11: 27 All things have been handed over to me by my Father; and no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him.
          All things were handed to Jesus (Son) by God (Father), so he did not have all things eternally as God. Jesus was not eternally omnipotent or eternally omniscient and since he was not eternally omnipotent or eternally omniscient, then he did not share the same defining characteristics of a god, therefore, is not god.

        • busterggi

          “A God is universally defined as eternally bodiless, eternally omnipotent, and eternally omniscient.”

          Now by universal you’re not counting biblegod, right? Because biblegod walks around, can’t find Adam & Eve, moons Moses and gets his aqss kicked by Chemosh.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah, but only when HE is not being and immaterial mind outside space and time though, right?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ya shoulda tried a cartoon…a cartoon is more at PR’s level of understanding…science, as in chemistry on this occasion, not so much so.

        • Michael Neville

          That’s modalism, it’s a heresy, a denial of the Trinity.
          Modalism states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son; and after Jesus’ ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, this view states that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time–only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ.

        • Greg G.

          That’s modalism

          Rats! Seven minutes too late to to point out the heresy.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’ve never suggested modalism. I pointed to a simple illustration that it is possible to be in 3 different forms yet be the same substance.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Right–Modalism. It makes sense when applied to water but is heresy when applied to the Trinity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course…especially if, as is the case here, one is too stupid to understand what modalism actually means.

        • Greg G.

          That’s the heresy of modalism, Patrick.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Michael Neville

          A scientific theory is not a guess. The germ theory of disease is not a guess that certain diseases are caused by itty-bitty critters. The theory of gravity is not a guess that masses attract each other.

          All I’m seeing from you is that Augustine was right, when a Christian tells an unbeliever something the unbeliever knows is wrong then the unbeliever will consider the Christian to be a fool.

        • Personal Responsibility

          The Bible contains practical health laws and principles that, after being virtually forgotten, were rediscovered only in recent decades.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Amuse me–tell us these laws.

        • adam

          “Beliefs are not science, and they never have been.”

          Of course

          That is why religion is a ‘belief’, otherwise it would be science.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You are confusing assertions in religious texts by stating that they are not compatible with science, which I totally reject. The religious dogma is a belief, but there are always assertions that can be corroborated and/or proven within the religious texts.

        • MNb

          Like pi equals 3 and bats are birds, no doubt.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Please cite a source for what you are describing. One example please.

        • MNb

          So you don’t know your own favourite Holy Book.
          Pi equals 3: 1 Kings 7:23 and 2 Chro 4:2.
          Bats are birds: Lev 11:13-19.
          Of course you are going to explain them away. That only means your interpretation while we just agreed to take The Bible literally – ie without your interpretations. The fact that you need to provide explanations will only prove that your favourite Holy Book is unclear and cannot be taken literally – as every single sensible christian since Augustinus of Hippo understands. That again will prove what fool you are.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Just because you can’t read and understand the Bible in the time period and culture that it was written doesn’t mean that something is wrong with it. Heaven forbid that you don’t get it……. how could one possibly question your intellect or capability of grasping Biblical content. I guess you made 100% in every course in school too. You really are full of yourself, aren’t you? And you even said if I can explain it that the book is unclear or cannot be taken literally. You seem to have already made up your mind or so what’s the point? I won’t waste my time.

        • MNb

          “in the time period and culture that it was written”
          Ie we can’t take these quotes literally.

          “so what’s the point”
          That Biblical literalism fails before it even starts; that every single comment of yours, build as it is on your claim of Biblical literalism, is a total failure; that you can only maintain your position by producing stupid lies and hence that you’re a fool.

          “I won’t waste my time.”
          In terms of a meaningful discussion every single comment of yours is a waste of time.
          In terms of unintentional comedy you’re quite a success.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You clearly can’t grasp the written English language if you come to the conclusions you do about what I wrote. No wonder you believe whatever a quack “scientist” lays out in front of you.

        • Kodie

          Put up or shut up. You claim to be in a science field for 35 years, and nobody believes you. Especially when you start calling actual scientists “quacks” because you disagree with them. Go ahead and specifically tell us what you know in your field experience better than they do.

        • MNb

          Funny how you whine about me attacking you and now hide your lack of content behind a wall of lies.
          Stupid hypocrite.

        • MNb

          “Science is knowledge; theories are just, well, theories.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          How do you know that you will fall downward and upward when you jump off a tower tomorrow? Because of a scientific theory backed up by empiricial evidence.
          Newton’s Theory of Gravity and Classical Theory of Electricity (Ohm’s Law and such) are exactly that – just theories. Just like Evolution Theory.
          Scientific knowledge without theories is a contradiction in terms.
          Man, are you a fool.

          “You cannot prove in a lab that these historical theories of the earth are true.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          http://www.livescience.com/43584-earth-oldest-rock-jack-hills-zircon.html
          Where have scientists proven that? In a frigging lab. By using what you creacrappers call “observational science”. It’s testable. The tests are repeatable.
          Because creacrappers also are a bunch of liars – including your hero Ol’ Hambo from AIG – there is tries (and man, is it lame) to refute this observational, testable, repeatable science. That’s a hilarious read just after reading the crap about the difference between historical and observational science – when it doesn’t suit those bunch of crappy liars they immediately without hesitation reject the latter too, just after they claimed they accept it.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Case in point: Can a theory be wrong?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Oops! You don’t get to walk away from getting something fundamental like the meaning of “scientific theory” wrong. Let’s first get you defining this correctly and then we can move on.

        • MNb

          Yes. They are proven wrong by empirical data – something you thus far have carefully avoided to provide.
          Hint: a quote from a badly outdated book written by some ignorants who claim divine inspiration doesn’t count.

        • Personal Responsibility

          If a theory can be wrong, why do you latch onto it like it is truth? It is not the truth.

        • adam

          “If a theory can be wrong, why do you latch onto it like it is truth? ”

          Because, science demonstrates which theories are wrong.

          Religion keeps claiming that ‘truth’ is MAGIC

        • MNb

          Thanks for confirming your bias.
          I never even once used the word true or truth, stupid liar.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Did I say you did? You clearly don’t understand the word “like”. And you are supposed to be the smart one? Then you attack again. Who’s the liar? It’s pretty obvious. Sorry to cause another tantrum.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Science is backed by evidence. It ain’t perfect, but it’s pretty good (consider the means by which we’re communicating–all based on science).

          You got something better? I’m dying to hear about it, along with the evidence that shows its reliability.

        • Personal Responsibility

          So any historical text is thrown out?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          ?? Not what I said. I said that science is our best route to understanding reality.

          Historical texts are pretty weak compared to repeatable experiments.

        • Greg G.

          Theories can be shown to be wrong by disconfirming evidence. There is none for evolution. There are tons of evidence for confirmation of evolution.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You are one dumb and ignorant individual.

          How can someone be so asinine with just one head?

        • Greg G.

          Maybe he has five heads and his hat fits like a glove.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It would take ya to have more than five heads to be as simple as that dolt.

        • epeeist

          You are confusing science with theories. Science is knowledge; theories are just, well, theories.

          It would help if you knew what “theory” meant in science. It is in fact the zenith of scientific exploration rather than simply speculation.

          As far as I am concerned one of the best descriptions of what constitutes a good theory is The Virtues of a Good Theory by Fr. Ernan McMullan, though I don’t think it is available online. An alternative is Thomas Kuhn’s Objectivity, Value Judgment, and Theory Choice.

          As it is a good theory will have, at a minimum, passed critical testing and have a wealth of evidential backing. It will also have good explanatory power (in terms of something like Hempel type covering laws) and empirical fit.

          Good examples might be Einstein’s theories of relativity. For these we have evidence in the shape of light speed isotropy, time dilation, relativistic kinematics and Lorentz invariance amongst other things. You will note however that we still refer to these as theories relativity even though they have strong evidence and their predictions have been shown to be correct to one part in a billion and better.

          You cannot prove in a lab that these historical theories of the earth are true.

          As I have said before science doesn’t do “proof” or “true”, what it does is provide the best explanations it can.

          Do you actually think that a sentence like the above is sufficient to dismiss the conclusions of the papers that I referenced? Where are your arguments as to why they are false, why the consonance between them is so strong, why the consillience of results from a wide number of different disciplines.

          Since you seem to have some problems with peer reviewed academic papers here is a popular article on a possible new dating technique.

          Please don’t confuse your beliefs with science.

          You really don’t see the irony in this sentence?

        • Ignorant Amos

          As I have said before science doesn’t do “proof” or “true”, what it does is provide the best explanations it can.

          I’d like to think that a one time teacher of science at a university would know and use the correct terminology. That he doesn’t seem to know or understand these basics is kind of telling.

          A teacher of science at a university, my arse.

        • epeeist

          A teacher of science at a university

          Liberty, Regents or Bob Jones “universities”…

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah, at least one of those have been suggested already, but the wide mouthed frog has clammed up under interrogation.

          I’m gravitating more towards… http://www.tntuniversity.com/

          Or a position in this department…
          http://hpplc.indiana.edu/ohp/ClownScience.shtml

          http://i3.cpcache.com/product_zoom/704830125/clown_university_college_35x21_oval_wall_decal.jpg?height=460&width=460&padToSquare=true

        • epeeist

          Science is knowledge

          I missed this, what do you mean by “knowledge”? Here are some questions for you:

          1. Do you know that the statement ‘The equation x^n + y^n = z^n has no non-zero solutions for n > 2′ is true?

          2. Do you know that the statement ‘The sun will rise at 05:56 on 19th August, 2016 in Manchester UK’ is true?

          A more complex example

          3. You drive past a field in which there is a sheep. Unbeknown to you the ‘sheep’ is actually an extremely lifelike statue. However behind a hill in the field, where you cannot see, there is a real sheep. Do you know that there is a sheep in the field?

          EDIT: misplaced copy-paste.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Do you know you are being a donkey with these stupid questions or do you need me to help you out?

        • epeeist

          Do you know you are being a donkey with these stupid questions

          I usually find that when people resort to ad hominem that it indicates they do not have an argument.

          do you need me to help you out

          Oh, I no very well what the answers to these questions are, I just wondered whether you did. It would appear that you do not. To put it bluntly, you are claiming that “science is knowledge” but you don’t know what counts as knowledge.

        • Dys

          There is a distinction between a scientific theory and the layman usage of the word theory. You’re falsely conflating the two.

          You cannot prove in a lab that these historical theories of the earth are true.

          Firstly, science isn’t about proof. Secondly, if you think science is strictly limited to lab work, then your understanding of science is simply wrong. You’re trying to assert the false distinction between what undereducated creationists call observational and historical sciences.

        • Ignorant Amos

          …your understanding of science is simply wrong.

          Surely not…this is a person with 35 years experience in a science oriented environment. A teacher at a third level education establishment, no less.

        • Greg G.

          You’re falsely conflating the two.

          I’d say he is truly conflating the two usages of “theory”.

        • MR

          fallaciously conflating the two

        • epeeist

          fallaciously conflating the two

          Committing the fallacy of equivocation.

        • Michael Neville

          PR is the guy with multiple “science” degrees, taught Science 101 at a secular university, and was an Assistant Manager at the Science Я Us store in West Bumfuck, East Virginia. He knows all about science.

        • Greg G.

          I was thinking he may have worked at Best Buy. That place sells technology so it’s a science related field.

        • busterggi

          He’s so sciency that he uses the periodic table to check punctuation.

        • Greg G.

          He LiKEs PErIODs.

          IF YOU KNoW HOW, YOU CaN RuN ThAt WITh No ReSPoNSiBiLiTiEs.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “Firstly, science isn’t about proof.”

          Folks, this is an atheist talking…. LOLOLOLOLOL! You have it on record! I knew you guys were full of it!

        • Dys

          Your inability to understand the basic tenets of science is telling. Mathematics deals in proof. Science deals with theories and laws, not proof.

          Someone with actual science degrees would know that. I can only assume that you’re a liar.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Are you serious? Everyone knows that science isn’t about proof. Proof is limited to math and logic.

          Read something besides Answers in Genesis. You’re embarrassing yourself. And baby Jesus is crying.

        • Kodie

          A guy with 35 years in vague connection with a science “industry” ought to be familiar with scientific terminology, I would think??? No, you don’t, because you’re uneducated dummy. You really have no idea how stupid you sound when you talk.

        • adam

          “You cannot possibly show that the 6,000 year old claim is false.”

          http://humanorigins.si.edu/oldest-pottery

          Early humans may have made bags from skin long ago. By around 26,000 years ago, they were weaving plant fibers to make cords and perhaps baskets. Some of the oldest known pottery from Japan’s Jomon culture, seen here, is about 18,000 years old.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Some site claiming a number of years is not proof. Do you want to offer some scientific proof for years? What dating method was used? What are the errors of using such a method? What other possibilities are there? What bias is included? How does this method work on known dates?

        • Kodie

          Do you know how to read?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Do you?

        • adam

          Full Definition of year Merriam Webster

          1 a : the period of about 3651/4 solar days required for one revolution of the earth around the sun
          b : the time required for the apparent sun to return to an arbitrary fixed or moving reference point in the sky
          c : the time in which a planet completes a revolution about the sun

        • Personal Responsibility

          I was talking about proof about the number of years claimed.

        • MNb

          Ask an expert.
          You (and we) not understanding it is totally irrelevant.
          Good to read again that you reject science according to your own irrelevant standard. These dating methods are part of observational science. It’s done in labs and are repeatable.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Each dating method is flawed. If you believe they are accurate, you are denying the science you claim to adhere to. That’s hypocrisy.

        • adam

          “Each dating method is flawed”

          Yet “God” is supposed to be unflawed?

        • Ignorant Amos
        • MNb

          Define accurate.
          An inaccuracy of even 50% still refutes your claim that The Earth is 6000 years old.
          You’re the science denier, not me.
          Plus you once again confirmed that you reject observational, repeatable, falsifiable science in labs when the outcome doesn’t suit you.
          You’re the stupid liar, not me.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Now you’re lying. It’s sad when you can’t even have a conversation without being libeled and smeared. You guys are doing a great job of the devil’s work. And regarding the 50% inaccuracy……. LOLOLOL! Good luck with that. People are really getting stupid when they go with 50% inaccuracy. That’s a FAIL in any classroom!

        • Myna A.

          you are very hasty to show the 6,000 year old claim of the Bible is false

          It was Archbishop James Ussher who calculated the creation of the earth as having occurred in October of 4004 B.C. in 1650 (Annales veteris testamenti, a prima mundi origine deducti) and continued his calculation in 1654 (Annalium pars posterior).

          http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/scopes/ussher.html

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I thought I was confident in the consensus view of scientists, but here an unlettered clot tells me that evolution is crap. It all makes sense now!

          The scales have fallen from my eyes. Thank you, brother.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Any time. Glad I could help!

        • epeeist

          There is nothing that the Bible states that is contrary to any “facts”. You seem to want to mix in evolution as fact when it is clear that none of this can be proven. Scientists (science means knowledge) like to put forth crazy speculation and call that science

          So what you are saying is that any scientist who does research and comes to conclusions that are contrary to the bible is wrong. That any scientist who writes a book which contains information contrary to the bible is wrong. That any scientist who teaches students things that are contrary to the bible is giving them wrong instruction.

          Of course this doesn’t just apply to scientists, you would presumably say the same thing about historians and archaeologists, or in fact any person or discipline producing material contrary to the bible.

          And your evidence that all these people are wrong would be?

        • MNb

          The Bible of course, silly Epeist!

        • Personal Responsibility

          Why do I have to have evidence somebody’s foolish theory is wrong? That makes no sense. History cannot be tested repeatedly to be proven in a classroom. You are making the same mistakes that have been repeated so many times. So here it is again.

          Link: https://answersingenesis[.]org/what-is-science/two-kinds-of-science/ { remove [ ] }

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why is the link encoded? And why do you suppose Answers in Genesis to be a reliable source of scientific information?

        • Susan

          Why do I have to have evidence somebody’s foolish theory is wrong?

          Because otherwise, you’re just making shit up about subjects that you’ve never bothered to learn about.

          Which theory of a 4.5 billion year old earth is wrong and what evidence do you have that counters all the evidence in multiple disciplines that is consistent with the evidence of that theory?

          More importantly, what evidence do you have that the earth is only six thousand years old?

        • epeeist

          Why do I have to have evidence somebody’s foolish theory is wrong?

          We’ll ignore the fact that you are begging the question by referring to theories as “foolish” before you have shown that this is so.

          The simple point that I was making that you seem to have missed is that if your claim that the bible is correct then the whole of the system that is science must be wrong (I am of course taking a Quinean view on the holism of science). Now given the ability of science not only to provide an explanatory basis for phenomena that we are aware of but also to make novel predictions which are then validated (such as the recent discovery of gravitational waves) your claim is a strong one.

          To put it bluntly, why should one accept that science is wrong when its explanatory power and empirical fit are so strong unless it can be shown to be wrong?

          History cannot be tested repeatedly to be proven in a classroom.

          Well like scientists, historians don’t prove things they too come to probabilistic conclusions based on evidence. And they don’t do this sitting in classrooms either.

          As for your “two kinds of science”, this is nonsense. Yes there are sciences in which we make experiments and other sciences where we can only make observations. However we can check these observations for consonance with other data and consilience with other theories. We can also look at the consequence of reaching theories based on observation and check whether they fit with new data.

          This is of course where your AiG reference falls down, it blithely throws out the idea that the rate of radioactive decay may have changed. Now this would mean that the electro-weak force would have had to have changed, so does AiG take into account what the consequences of this would be? Of course not. The question then arises, does it elsewhere make an argument based on “fine-tuning”? Because if it does then this would be in contradiction to its claim that the rate of radioactive decay has changed.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You guys like to pit the Bible against Science. Nothing could be further from the truth. I’ve said many times that there is nothing in science that contradicts the Bible. The Bible claims that the earth hangs on nothing. This was well before anyone knew what was holding the earth. I could list many examples of scientific FACTS that are revealed in the Bible well before anyone could possibly know about it. Nothing is contradictory in the Bible with “Science” as long as you are talking about provable things. Archaeological digs have shown events in the Bible to be perfectly accurate.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Personal Responsibility

          Your assertions are argumentative at best. I could argue many of the points back at you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I could argue many of the points back at you.

          And yet you didn’t. Makes me think that you can’t.

        • adam

          “I’ve said many times that there is nothing in science that contradicts the Bible.”

        • Greg G.

          Except that Jesus was not a Jewish ghost, he was a cosmic Jewish lich.

        • Michael Neville

          How many XPs would you get for killing Jesus?

        • busterggi

          Enough to go up 1 level.

        • adam

          Well…….
          If you want to get technical..

        • Myna A.

          I like that!!

          I found this great link to a discussion on the evolution of storytelling: http://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/vestigial-tale-part-1-1.3086744

        • Personal Responsibility

          Have you ever witnessed a miracle?

        • adam

          No

          Have you ever witnessed an alien anal probing?

        • Michael Neville

          The Bible says that the Earth was created before the stars. The Earth is 4.54 billion years old. The universe is 13.82 billion years old and the first stars started burning about 400 million years after the Big Bang.

          The Bible says vegetation was created (Gen 1:11)before the Sun (Gen 1:16). How could the plants survive without sunlight?

          The Bible says the Moon shines with its own light (Gen 1:16). Moonlight is reflected sunlight.

        • Personal Responsibility

          First, you numbers are off. He created everything in 6 days. I would agree with you that plants would have a difficult time surviving without light for millions of years, but that’s why they only had to survive one day without sunlight, but it doesn’t say that there wasn’t light. Remember what was created on Day 1?
          So are you suggesting that we do not get illuminated from the moon? You must have never been in the military because you would know on a full moon night that you get 38% illumination. Just because the moon is reflecting light doesn’t negate the intention of illuminating the earth at night. If that’s all you have, you really are looking to try to find fault where there is none. Go back and read the original Hebrew if you want the exact language.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          on a full moon night that you get 38% illumination

          What does this mean? That a full moon gives 38% of the light of the noonday sun? Citation needed.

        • MNb

          “You guys like to pit the Bible against Science.”
          Only because you’re foolish enough to maintain that the Bible is scientifically reliable.

          “I’ve said many times ….”
          You can repeat it as often as you like, you’ll still look like a fool.

          “I could list many examples of scientific FACTS that are revealed in the Bible well before anyone could possibly know about it.”
          Like pi equals 3 and bats are birds. They both contradict science, hence according to you math and biology got it totally wrong.

          “as long as you are talking about provable things.”
          Yeah. It can’t be scientifically proven that pi equals 3 and bats are birds.
          That or you’re a fool.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Can you please assert one issue and let’s address? And you can stop with the fool talk or I’ll bail. I’ve already addressed several of these alleged issues.

        • Michael Neville

          But you are a fool. You keep repeating things that we know are wrong, like that the Bible is completely compatible with science. We keep showing you where the Bible, especially the 2500 year old creation myth some Hebrew priests stole from the Babylonians, is wrong and you stamp your little footsies and whine that we’re calling you a fool. Stop being foolish and we won’t call you a fool. Or are you too much of a fool to understand this concept?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Stamp your foot next time and maybe you won’t be so irritated. You can call me a fool all day long. At least I don’t pretend it is by faith in Jesus Christ that a person is saved. You seem to think you are saving people by all this so-called knowledge you possess that actually makes you look silly. You can’t prove how we got here, so stop acting like you can.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          What your faith pretends or not is totally irrelevant to atheists.
          A creacrappy fool telling us we look silly is a compliment. I only would start worrying if you wrote something positive about us.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I don’t question your wanting to know more. That’s inherent in all of us. We are on the same team in trying to discover more truth about the world we live in. The problem is that any possibility of a Creator is immediately thrown out as an impossibility. That, to me, is where you all are biased. If you would at least concede the possibility, then I think the world would be a better place.

        • adam

          “The problem is that any possibility of a Creator is immediately thrown out as an impossibility.”

          All you have to do is demonstrate that your MAGIC, is real and you could end atheism in a heartbeat.

        • MNb

          “The problem is that any possibility of a Creator is immediately thrown out as an impossibility.”
          Wrong again. I can tell you exactly what would make me accept a god or gods. I can also tell you exactly what would make me accept that that god is the christian one.
          We have discussed that here on this very blog.
          You’re the biased guy, not me.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’m not biased; I’m a Christian. I’m spoken for. I have not once denied that. Why would I consider anything else? You would have to have a mountain of evidence (that is provable, repeatable, falsifiable, etc.) to the contrary, which is not possible, to have any impact on me and my faith in Christ. I’m not open to other faiths or no faith. Is that clear now?

          Please divulge what would help you to accept God, and in particular, Christianity.

        • Greg G.

          I’m not biased; I’m a Christian.

          You are a creationist. That means you are biased. Most Christians accept evolution.

          Please divulge what would help you to accept God, and in particular, Christianity.

          There are a hundred things in my sight in my living room that I accept are real. There are a few things out of sight in my pocket that I accept are real. The barrier to overcome for convincing me that something is real is not difficult.
          If there is an omniscient god, it already knows what would make me accept it. If it is omniscient, it could do it. If it wanted me to know this, I would already know it. If it is logically possible for a dog to convince me it is real, why can’t a god?

          If prayer worked, you could ask your god for what would help me accept Christianity.

        • Kodie

          Curious how religions only spread by hearing about it from people. Why does anyone ever have to talk about religion, to try to convert, to try to even in the least to convince us they’re not the crazy one. God does nothing to improve that impression.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Please divulge what would help you to accept God, and in particular, Christianity.

          God not being mysterious. Christians say that they see him in a beautiful sunset or a puppy. I see him in tornadoes and cancer.

          It’s weird how they’re so pleased with the god that they imagine and I’m not very impressed with the bastard that I see.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          If you would at least concede the possibility, then I think the world would be a better place.

          Why ask MNb to concede that he could be wrong when you won’t?

        • Personal Responsibility

          You know deep down in your gut that it is wrong to murder someone. That is because God wrote His law on your heart. You know it is wrong to lie, steal, commit adultery, etc. You have morals yet you don’t even know why you have them or where they came from. God is Holy and righteous and is where you got all that from. Morals don’t come about by random chance. The anthropic principle clearly shows that there is no way possible that life could have come about any other way than a Creator. Am I wrong? No. I’ve been born again (Spiritually born). I was dead spiritually (like you), yet now I am alive. Once you are born again, you will understand exactly what I am talking about. When discussing with Muslims, they don’t even know where they stand on Judgment Day. What’s up with that? They don’t have a relationship with the Creator. They are lost. So they can be as adamant as they want, but their religion is based on “because I said so.” Christianity is not. If you had to choose any religion in the world, which would you choose and why?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You know deep down in your gut that it is wrong to murder someone.

          Correct.

          That is because God wrote His law on your heart.

          Wrong again. It’s because humans are social animals (like wolves, for example), and evolution selected for traits that support living in societies.

          Evolution nicely explains why life is the way it is. Your answer is the supernatural, which has never had any evidence behind it for doing anything. Which one do you think I’m going to go for?

          You have morals yet you don’t even know why you have them or where they came from.

          I just explained them. And now you do, too.

          Morals don’t come about by random chance.

          Correct, again. You’re doing pretty good! Now, for bonus points, tell me why “human morality was shaped by evolution” is quite different from your hypothesis that it came about by random chance. Go on—show us that you understand what evolution says and have been reading something besides Answers in Genesis.

          The anthropic principle clearly shows that there is no way possible that life could have come about any other way than a Creator. Am I wrong?

          I suggest you make your proof public, show that abiogenesis is impossible, and get your Nobel Prize in Biology. (There’s a cash prize, too, BTW.)

          Once you are born again, you will understand exactly what I am talking about.

          Once you become a zombie, like me, you will understand exactly what I am talking about.

          When discussing with Muslims, they don’t even know where they stand on Judgment Day.

          What Judgment Day?

          [Islam] is based on “because I said so.” Christianity is not.

          Huh? Muslims read their source document just like Christians do.

        • Greg G.

          Morals don’t come about by random chance.

          But they can come about by random chance and natural selection. Many species care for their young which could come about by increments of care that results in more reproductive success. A social species could develop from expanding little bits of that caring to other members. If it results in greater reproductive success, the genes will spread faster. The “not killing others” trait could come from “not eating your offspring” instinct in small beneficial increments.

          You seem to have got your information about evolution from unreliable religious sources.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I wasn’t posting about evolution as I believe it is crap.

        • Greg G.

          You know deep down in your gut that evolution is right but you use it as a test to convince yourself that your faith is real.

        • Kodie

          You were posting about it being crap. Can’t you even keep up with yourself? And, yet, in several dozen posts, nothing like an argument why you think it’s crap, nothing but denial and namecalling, nothing from your vast science field to indicate any research or knowledge on your own part for what you do believe, except some lines from a storybook myth. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, and just pouting and whining about how you should be treated better, I don’t know why you think you should be.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Why is what you believe interesting in this instance? Do you have a doctorate in biology? Are you qualified to evaluate the evidence? When the consensus view of biologists is that evolution is our best explanation for why life is the way it is, how do you have the arrogance to declare that they’re wrong?

        • adam

          Not just biologists:

        • Personal Responsibility

          So if 300 million people have a stupid idea, guess what, it’s still a stupid idea. Here’s what some scientists “believe” (and they call this science because some “scientist” is a quackhead?).
          Link: https://mic[.]com/articles/139828/do-aliens-exist-here-s-what-scientists-say-about-life-on-other-planets#%5B.%5D9nvGp3xXU { remove [ ] }

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It’d be easier if you’d give the links without the gibberish.

          No idea what this link is supposed to show.

          And the fact remains: your hubris knows no bounds if you declare yourself king of all scientists who can declare what is good science and what is bad. And I thought that Christians were supposed to be humble–no?

        • Ignorant Amos

          So if 300 million people have a stupid idea, guess what, it’s still a stupid idea.

          What? Like your billion’s of Christians argument ya fucking retard?

          So, 300 million, stupid idea, billion’s, sound idea, right?

          You’re a really funny guy. That clown degree is really paying off.

          A university teacher, my arse.

        • WayneMan

          “So if 300 million people have a stupid idea, guess what, it’s still a stupid idea.”

          Yes, and religion fits this very well. Then you follow this with:

          “Here’s what some scientists “believe” (and they call this science because some “scientist” is a quackhead?).

          Not pointing out that the article you site is based on a whopping 7 (seven) scientist. And It is simply a matter of probabilities. We now know that there are billions of galaxies, and each galaxy contains billions of stars, and so far, it appears that each star has one or more planets. That means that even though the chance of a life form on any given planet may be very small, when you have found literally trillions lotto tickets, those odds become very good.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Fine, but don’t waste my money looking for little green men.

        • WayneMan

          I don’t, and I won’t. If they are out there, they will find us or we will find them in due time. I don’t spend anymore time or money trying to find a god either. Those odds are much worse.

        • MNb

          Great. We won’t waste our money on badly outdated books written 2000+ years ago that are promoted by morons like you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Do we each get to pick where our tax dollars go to? I think the defense budget is too high. I’d like to shift my contribution to social programs.

          Or does it not work like that?

        • adam

          “You know deep down in your gut that it is wrong to murder someone.”

          but bible “God” does not.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Judgment is without mercy. You will find that out if you continue in your ways and declare yourself righteous before a Holy, Perfect Judge and God.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yet more threats involving your imaginary big brother. You know what? I don’t believe you even have this big brother. Show him to us.

        • adam

          ”’

        • Susan

          Judgement is without mercy. You will find that out if you continue in your ways and declare yourself righteous before a Holy, Perfect Judge and God.

          Why should anyone believe you?

          You are so outrageous at this point that I’m not even sure you’re not a Poe.

        • MR

          There comes a point where it’s just a joke.

        • Susan

          just a joke

          PR is the sort of christian that “sophisticated christians” explain does not reflect their position.

          None of those positions is better than Last Thursdayism.

          Not so far, anyway.

          And PR (who might be an atheist troll, but is just as likely a devoted creationist) represents a very large part of christianity that christians don’t seem to mind as much as they mind atheists for challenging their assumptions. . .

          They all go on about an agent running the whole thing from central command.

          But they have no evidence.

          And they don’t seem to be willing to show their work.

        • Greg G.

          Ephesians 2:4
          But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us,

        • Kodie

          Here you are again judging us for having “ways” that will be judged by your imaginary friend.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’m not the judge. I’m preaching truth. I’m here because I don’t want you to be judged. Get it? Probably not……

        • Kodie

          An omnipotent, omniscient god though you’d be a good representative? I am not impressed by your imaginary threats. You sound like a crazy person telling me about the voices in your head told you to poison the jello at the mental ward.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Yeah, read the words of Christ Himself. You can attack me all day long, but that doesn’t get you to the ultimate point of stating who you believe Christ is and whether you are calling HIM a liar. That will be what you will have to account for.

        • Michael Neville

          If (and that’s a big IF) your god exists and I’m before him, I’ve got some very pointed questions to ask of him. He better justify himself to me because, as far as I can tell, your god is evil. Okay, Yahweh, what’s the point of childhood leukemia? Why do you let genocides happen? And don’t give me any bullshit about a “mysterious plan.”

          I have as much right to question your bully of a god as he does to question me. At least I try to live a moral life. Your god kills people just because he can.

        • Personal Responsibility

          First, I applaud your concerns for what we would all call terrible situations. I could list hundreds myself that hurt me to think about. But if you step back, what is the purpose of any bad situation? Think about muscles. Without tests and trials, our muscles would wither away and become useless. But they can grow strong by resistance and adversity. I know I used to work out with weights when I was much younger. No pain, no gain comes to mind, and I hated that saying by the way.

          However, when we introduce life illnesses, that seems to generate a sense of something much greater than the muscle example. But should it? If you believe life is only about the here and now and nothing exists when after we die, then who cares, right? Too bad for them, but at least I’m alive, right? But if there is something greater than us, what difference does it matter if we are here 2 minutes or 110 years? It’s all temporary any way. You might ask about pain levels or extended lengths of time in pain. But we have medications that can ease pain.

          I could go on, but I have asked the question, “Why couldn’t we just skip all this life on earth and go right to heaven to be with Him?” The problem is that we would be just like the angels, and there is no redemption for them. He wanted to be our Savior and redeem us. He created this physical world to set up the way to express the greatest love as He showed in His Word, that there is no greater love than a man lay down his life for a friend. God is merciful, but He is also a righteous judge.

        • Michael Neville

          No pain, no gain comes to mind, and I hated that saying by the way.

          Look at this picture and tell me what that girl has to gain by starving to death.

          http://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/3575/8755/original.jpg

          The problem is that we would be just like the angels, and there is no redemption for them. He wanted to be our Savior and redeem us.

          So it’s an ego thing. “I want to be the big, bad Savior of Mankind™!” Big deal. I’m not impressed by your god’s narcissism.

          God is merciful, but He is also a righteous judge.

          If your god supposed to be loving then he wouldn’t have children starve. No, still not impressed by your asshole of a god.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          PR worships a pretty messed-up god.

        • adam

          ” God is merciful, but He is also a righteous judge.”

        • adam

          ” He wanted to be our Savior and redeem us.”

          Only a very small number of us, remember that Jesus said it would only be a few.

          The rest he wants to torture for eternity

        • adam

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          When you bring up workouts, then you’re talking like an atheist. Yes, we can see that the life we have on earth–sometimes great and sometimes shitty–there is an upside to tragedy. But needing to find the bright side of life as atheists do makes life look like a godless one.

          Too bad for them, but at least I’m alive, right?

          Who thinks like this? No atheist I know. You don’t get it.

          He created this physical world to set up the way to express the greatest love as He showed in His Word, that there is no greater love than a man lay down his life for a friend.

          In the first place, he’s not dead. So no, he didn’t lay down his life for anyone.

          In the second place, this is how he shows the greatest love? By creating a world with some sort of bizarre loyalty test that most people will fail so that they can go to hell? That’s the best love he can show?

          Get a new religion, pal. This one is broken.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Have you ever been in the military? I take it that you haven’t because if you had, you would know what it means to lay down your life for someone. Or at least be willing to. You only do that for people you love.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I understand what laying down one’s life means. And that’s why Jesus, who’s alive and well and watching TV in heaven right now, didn’t.

        • Personal Responsibility

          So you don’t think his bodily form died?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nope. “Died” means stayed dead. If he’s up in heaven playing video games on his Jumbotron, that’s not dead.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You only do that for people you love.

          You don’t half write the biggest lot of ignorant ballix.

          How can you be so asinine with just one head?

        • Michael Neville

          It’s obvious that PR was never in the military and certainly never in combat.

        • Myna A.

          Do you have any concept of what the human ego is? You have a particularly self-enchanted one. Imagine an afterlife filled with human egos competing with an egocentric deity. Then again, so in heaven, so on earth…or so it is said.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Why are you so judgmental?

        • Myna A.

          You’ve just proven my point. :)

        • Personal Responsibility

          A question makes your point? Strange……

        • adam

          “Yeah, read the words of Christ Himself.”

        • Kodie

          Christ is a fictional character. All we have here is you and your stupidity that you keep making claims. Nobody is talking but you, and you speak nonsense. Christ doesn’t speak, he’s fictional.

        • MNb

          Jesus lied, probably in good faith, but for a messias claimant that doesn’t make it any better. He was not Christ simply because that doesn’t mean anything.
          We won’t have to account for anything after we die: ashes to ashes, dust to dust. I won’t be there anymore to account for anything. The more often you threaten us with this the more stupid we think you are and the less we will be inclined to take your belief seriously.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Jesus lied is your message. My message is Jesus is Truth. They clearly can’t both be true. So if that is where we are then there is nothing more to discuss with you. Best to you!

        • MNb

          Your message is also full of lies, so shrug.

          “there is nothing more to discuss with you.”
          For the dozenth time: there never was any discussion with you. There was an exchange of comments, but because of your stupidity and willful ignorance it never deserved the label discussion.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Nice…. I hope you feel better.

        • MNb

          Impossible – I already felt excellently. Me feeling excellently doesn’t depend on your level of stupidity and ignorance.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Neither does mine on yours.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t believe there is a god so I don’t blame him for drowning all but 8 people and two or fourteen of each “kind”, whatever that means. Young Earth Creationists say God actually did those horrible things in the Bible. The way he did Job was terrible, but nothing compared to what he did to Job’s family to prove a point to Satan. The Satan character won despite losing the bet by making God look petty in that story.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You are entitled to your opinion, but who are you to judge God? Do you not believe the reason for the flood was that people were involved in evil day and night and thought about doing evil all the time? What is wrong with snuffing out evil? That is the righteous thing to do.

        • adam

          ” but who are you to judge God? ”

          Someone with better morals.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOLOLOLOL…… better based on what?

        • MNb

          The idea that happiness is the principle that grounds ethics.

          Any more silly questions?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Based on humans’ shared morality.

          List the shitty things God does in the OT. Put some imaginary name next to them–maybe “Billy the Hun.” Then ask anyone if Billy is a good person or not.

          What do you suppose they’ll say?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ha ha…”Billy the Hun” is a sectarian pejorative that I might get called in my part of the world.

        • Michael Neville

          According to your propaganda your god is a sadistic, narcissistic bully with the emotional maturity of a spoiled six year old. He kills people just because he can. He encourages slavery, rape and genocide. Most of humanity is more moral than your vicious thug of a god.

        • adam

          Never committing genocide for one.

        • MNb

          If snuffing out evil snuffing out you is the righteous thing to do. According to your own belief system you’re an incurable sinner and hence evil. Exactly that’s why you need Jesus – because you’re evil.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t judge God because I don’t believe any such being exists. Do you think your God should not be judged? How do you come to that conclusion without making a judgement. Do you think Job’s wife and children got a fair deal? Were his replacements any better? Why do you excuse God for that?

          The Flood is a mythical story.

          Snuffing out evil isn’t a bad thing if you are certain what you are snuffing out is evil and you are not doing collateral damage. The Bible leads many Christians to snuff out things that are not actually evil.

        • adam

          “Yeah, read the words of Christ Himself. ”

          Read em and weep:

        • Personal Responsibility

          Why would I weep? And do you understand parables? Obviously not.

        • MNb

          Yeah, as a christian who lacks compassion you don’t have any reason to weep when other human beings are mistreated.

        • adam

          Your boy, sanctions slavery, and supports the beating of slaves as well.

          Yes, I understand parables.

          Obviously so.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah, but Jesus didn’t say that, the author of Luke said Jesus said that. Jesus didn’t say anything. Lots of people have said Jesus said lots of shite…and the odd gem plagiarised…but there is nothing in evidence for Jesus saying anything.

        • adam

          ..

        • epeeist

          but bible “God” does not.

          Strange isn’t it, how humankind can develop systems of ethics which are better than those of this purported god’s.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You know deep down in your gut that it is wrong to murder someone.

          Nope..unlike BobS…not always. Can’t you think of a scenario where you could deem murder justified?

          One example is the crime of passion.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_of_passion

          Let me tell you, it would be a sorry bastard that harmed my grandchildren, that fucker will suffer, and I’d gladly do the time. So no, deep down in my gut I’d be celebrating the offing of such an oxygen thieving piece of shite.

          What was Abraham going to do Isaac btw? Or what did David do to Uriah?

          That is because God wrote His law on your heart.

          What a load of shite. Apparently your god stated it was a-okay to murder people under certain circumstances. Haven’t you read your bible soft boy?

          Here, let me help you with just one example…

          Deuteronomy 13:

          6 If your very own brother, or your son or daughter, or the wife you love, or your closest friend secretly entices you, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods that neither you nor your ancestors have known, 7 gods of the peoples around you, whether near or far, from one end of the land to the other), 8 do not yield to them or listen to them. Show them no pity. Do not spare them or shield them. 9 You must certainly put them to death. Your hand must be the first in putting them to death, and then the hands of all the people. 10 Stone them to death,because they tried to turn you away from the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery. 11 Then all Israel will hear and be afraid, and no one among you will do such an evil thing again.

          12 If you hear it said about one of the towns the Lord your God is giving you to live in 13 that troublemakers have arisen among you and have led the people of their town astray, saying, “Let us go and worship other gods” (gods you have not known), 14 then you must inquire, probe and investigate it thoroughly. And if it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done among you, 15 you must certainly put to the sword all who live in that town. You must destroy it completely, both its people and its livestock. 16 You are to gather all the plunder of the town into the middle of the public square and completely burn the town and all its plunder as a whole burnt offering to the Lord your God. That town is to remain a ruin forever, never to be rebuilt.

          You know it is wrong to lie, steal, commit adultery, etc.

          Again, not always though. And again, it’s advocated in your big book of contradictions. Even YahwehJesus lied. For fuck sake go and read your scriptures ya knobhead.

          You have morals yet you don’t even know why you have them or where they came from.

          Wrong… https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hob11SYaPoo

          God is Holy and righteous and is where you got all that from. Morals don’t come about by random chance.

          The morals of that piece of shite you worship in the Bible are fucked up. Probably the reason why you’re so fucked up too.

          The anthropic principle clearly shows that there is no way possible that life could have come about any other way than a Creator. Am I wrong?

          Completely wrong. Which creator by the way?

          They are lost. So they can be as adamant as they want, but their religion is based on “because I said so.”

          And competing religions say the same about yours.

          Christianity is not.

          Of course you’ll say that, you are so high on the Kool-Aid that you are away with the fairies.

          If you had to choose any religion in the world, which would you choose and why?

          Jediism, because of The Force. Makes more sense than that ballix you adhere to anyway.

          http://www.viralthread.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/jedi.png

        • Personal Responsibility

          Too much to respond to…. not wasting my time.

        • WayneMan

          “You have morals yet you don’t even know why you have them or where they came from.”

          It is called empathy, an ability to put yourself in someone’s situation and understand feelings from their perspective. It is a learned behavior. Some people brought up in extremely harsh conditions, or with mental disabilities, have exhibited a complete lack of any empathy abilities (ie: no morals).

        • Personal Responsibility

          Congratulations, you a monkey’s uncle…..

        • Greg G.

          Well… more like a monkey’s nephew.

        • Kodie

          I think the world would be a lot better place without people clinging to superstitions and ignorantly repeating propaganda invented to destroy the overwhelming scientific evidence. Your superstition is silly, a grown up with an imaginary friend, that you think the world would be a better place with more people like you and less people telling you how stupid that is.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Jesus walked the earth. If you have any sense, you wouldn’t deny that. He healed people and made claims about being the Son of God, frankly God Himself in human form. You can choose to believe Him or not believe Him. His Word clearly teaches you will bow down and confess Him as Lord now or you will do so in the hereafter, at which time it will be too late for you. It’s your call. I choose to believe Him and you call me stupid. Ok, I can call you stupid for not believing Him (but I won’t). See how that works? Now what would that accomplish? Calling people names is the dumbest thing you can do. It adds zero value and only tries to show how unintelligent you are. But feel free to keep doing it. You are living up to your Athestic mean-spiritedness.

        • Kodie

          It’s a myth and a superstition, wishful thinking and willful ignorance on your part. There is no part of what you say that I find credible, it’s a fucking story.

        • busterggi

          Yeah, we’re so mean-spirited that you’d think we came up with the idea of torturing people in hell for eternity, not some all-loving god.

        • Susan

          Jesus walked the earth.

          Were you there?

        • Greg G.

          Jesus walked the earth. If you have any sense, you wouldn’t deny that.

          From Did Jesus Exist as Part One:

          Odd as it may seem, no scholar of the New Testament has ever thought to put together a sustained argument that Jesus must have lived. To my knowledge, I was the first to try it, and it was a very interesting intellectual exercise.  –Bart Ehrman

          Ehrman had to rely on imaginary evidence to make his case.

          The extra-biblical evidence appears to be dependent on the gospels. The gospels appear to be fiction based on the literature of the day, most of it being hundreds of years old at the time. The epistles only refer to Jesus in quotes and allusions to OT scripture, again hundreds of years old.

          You haven’t given any reason to think Jesus was real.

        • adam

          “Jesus walked the earth.”

          Many Jesi have walked the earth.

          “He healed people and made claims about being the Son of God, frankly God Himself in human form.”

          Yes, I think I met two of him on the mental ward at the hospital I worked at.

        • Greg G.

          Luke says Jesus was circumcized. Did he heal himself?

        • adam

          Well this baby couldnt:

          “New York City is investigating the death last September of a baby who
          contracted herpes after a “ritual circumcision with oral suction,” in an
          ultra-Orthodox Jewish ceremony known in Hebrew as metzitzah b’peh.

          In a practice that takes place during a ceremony known as the bris, a
          circumcision practitioner, or mohel, removes the foreskin from the
          baby’s penis, and with his mouth sucks the blood from the incision to
          cleanse the wound.”

          http://abcnews.go.com/Health/baby-dies-herpes-virus-ritual-circumcision-nyc-orthodox/story?id=15888618

        • Michael Neville

          The only known fact about Jesus’ body is that he has seven penises. During medieval and renaissance times seven different churches in Europe and Asia claimed to have Jesus’ foreskin, removed during circumcision and the only part of him left on Earth, as relics.

          Why this astounding bit of information never made it into the Bible is a mystery.

        • Greg G.

          Ah, he must have regenerated his foreskin instead of healing the removed one back on like he did the high priest’s servant’s ear. In Luke, Mary and Joseph took him to the temple on the 8th day for the circumcision, but they must have had to take him back every day for a week for a new circumcision.

        • busterggi

          Its in the Book of Revelation –

          13:1
          And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and
          saw a beast rise up out of the
          sea, having seven heads

        • Greg G.

          I see. The author of Revelation stood on the beach and saw Jesus skinny dipping.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yipes! I’m suddenly feeling very … inadequate in the presence of this very manly Jesus.

        • Michael Neville

          You and me too, brother.

        • Kodie

          It kept growing back!

        • MR

          That’s the problem when you’re just oozing healing powers. Poor guy had to keep a professional mohel on staff.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’ll be the reason why there was a number of holy prepuces floating about in churches throughout Europe during the middle ages.

          According to David Farley, “Depending on what you read, there were eight, twelve, fourteen, or even 18 different holy foreskins in various European towns during the Middle Ages.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Prepuce

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Holy shit–just how many peckers did this guy have? I thought it was the Hindu gods that were sex monsters.

          I mean, cuz it can’t be that the relics are all bogus, right?

        • Michael Neville

          From the wikipedia link IA gave:

          According to David Farley, in 1900, the Roman Catholic Church resolved the dilemma by ruling that anyone thenceforward writing or speaking of the Holy Prepuce would be excommunicated.

          We better shut up about the you-know-what or else we’ll be excommunicated. We should save that event for something really worthwhile like listening to Tim Minchin’s “Pope Song”.

        • epeeist

          We better shut up about the you-know-what or else we’ll be excommunicated.

          Given that they have stopped formal defections from the church then this may be the only way out.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A remember back in the day Tyler Durden mentioning this back-tracking of the RCC. Iirc, he went through the whole deconversion process, including the interview without coffee with the bishop.

          I did a Google search to see if I could find his testimony, but to no avail. What did show in the search was a thread where I ended up going head-to-head with a masters in theology guy. An evangelical in Uganda no less.

          It was surreal to read through some of those comments…some of them are essays on their own…and to see where I’ve changed my approach and how much I’ve learned since. Memory lane.

          https://richarddawkins.net/2012/12/census-2011-what-has-caused-this-massive-flight-from-christianity/#li-comment-53937

          Am glad a found that thread though, if only because I was able to retrieve a favourite comment that I had lost.

          “Donald Akenson, Professor of Irish Studies in the department of history at Queen’s University has argued that, with very few exceptions, the historians of Yeshua have not followed sound historical practices. He has stated that there is an unhealthy reliance on consensus, for propositions which should otherwise be based on primary sources, or rigorous interpretation. He also holds that some of the criteria being used are faulty. He says that the overwhelming majority of biblical scholars are employed in institutions whose roots are in religious beliefs. Because of this, he maintains that, more than any other group in present day academia, biblical historians are under immense pressure to theologize their historical work and that it is only through considerable individual heroism that many biblical historians have managed to maintain the scholarly integrity of their work.”

        • epeeist

          A remember back in the day Tyler Durden mentioning this back-tracking of the RCC. Iirc, he went through the whole deconversion process, including the interview without coffee with the bishop.

          Indeed he did, he got in just before the church stopped the process. I understand the reason they stopped it was that quite a number of Germans decided they were fed up paying the tax that the government collects on behalf of the church.

          Incidentally, I met Tyler in Dublin along with a few others.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I understand the reason they stopped it was that quite a number of Germans decided they were fed up paying the tax that the government collects on behalf of the church.

          Maybe, but it matters not as anyone can opt out of the German tithing of salaries on religious grounds. One just has to opt out by making a declaration to the government that one is leaving the faith. By coincidence, I was talking about this very subject elsewhere fairly recently.

          http://blog.mygermanexpert.com/2013/06/10-Facts-about-German-Church-Tax.html

          I know the RCC and German bishops were up in arms because of the cash they’re losing as a result. The ban on defections could well have been a vain attempt to stifle the haemorrhage of those bailing with their money intact.

          Incidentally, I met Tyler in Dublin along with a few others.

          Good fer you, he came across as a nice guy. He made an appearance on Outside the Sun a wee while back, but didn’t stick around.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Have you heard of the Icelandic church that does nothing except refund to its members the tax that it gets from the state?

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/dec/08/new-icelandic-religion-sumerian-gods-tax-rebates-zuism

        • Ignorant Amos

          No I hadn’t. That’s mint.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m heading south of the border maself next week to visit family in Mayo, so I’ll be taking advantage with a visit to the newly accredited Gold Tier International Dark Sky location.

          http://darksky.org/first-international-dark-sky-park-in-ireland-receives-accreditation/

          It’s 50 minutes away from where am staying, so it would be rude not to.

        • epeeist

          I’ll be taking advantage with a visit to the newly accredited Gold Tier International Dark Sky location.

          I’ve just come back from a place where the sun never sets (at this time of year at least).

          Very strange to see the daily weather report where the sunrise and sunset times say “Sun above the horizon”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yeah…seen yer pics from the link at EN…beautiful shots…although it looks freezing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Just got the pic..another load of recognisable monikers…funny how the mental image one has of a person conflicts with how they actually appear.

          I used to deal extensively with a lot of folk on the telephone, then when I eventually met them, they very rarely appeared how my mind imagined them.

        • epeeist

          What did show in the search was a thread where I ended up going head-to-head with a masters in theology guy.

          The person I remember with a shudder from the RD.net days was Dianelos Georgoudis, someone who could produce multiple several thousand word responses in a very short period. Steve Zara and I had several tussles with him.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I remember the name, a right piece of work. I was a lurker back then. The conversations were too deep for my intellect. On the atheist side that would be btw.

        • Greg G.

          The Muslims have it right. You get 70 virgins when you get to heaven so you need seventy penises.

          Luke 22:34 KJV
          And he said, I tell thee, Peter, the cock shall not crow this day, before that thou shalt thrice deny that thou knowest me.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Muslims have it right. You get 70 virgins when you get to heaven so you need seventy penises.

          Someone is going to be very disappointed because those Muslims will be two dicks short. Or not, as it happens.

          This is a cruel and ugly lie about Islam that has been so widely perpetuated that it is accepted as fact. Corrections to the association of Islam with suicide and the killing of innocents are not made in the media. Instead it is glued even tighter by reporting that NOT a person disobeying Islam, but a Muslim imbued with Islamic religious fervor committed a suicide.

          The Quran says nothing about 70 virgins, or even 72, nor does any other Islamic texts. Though wives are mentioned in one.

          Sunan al-Tirmidhi Hadith 2562 says:

          The Prophet Muhammad was heard saying: “The smallest reward for the people of Paradise is an abode where there are 80,000 servants and 72 wives, over which stands a dome decorated with pearls, aquamarine, and ruby, as wide as the distance from Al-Jabiyyah [a Damascus suburb] to Sana’a [Yemen]”

          This is as a weak Hadith that has no Sanad — line or sequence of narration. Although listed in an authoritative collection, this particular Hadith has technical weaknesses in its chain of transmitters and is therefore not considered impeccable. As a result, Muslims are not required to believe in it. Even if the Hadith was true, there is nothing about it that says that if someone commits suicide they would get 72 virgins in paradise.

          In fact, the Quran explicitly condemns suicide and advocates the fiery place for those who commit said.

          But let there be amongst you Traffic and trade by mutual good-will: Nor kill (or destroy) yourselves: for verily God hath been to you Most Merciful! If any do that in rancour and injustice,- soon shall We cast them into the Fire: And easy it is for God. ~ Qur’an 4:29 – 4:30

          The Hadith’s make clear it is a sin.

          Bukhari Volume 2, Book 23, Number 445: Narrated Jundab the Prophet said, “A man was inflicted with wounds and he committed suicide, and so Allah said: My slave has caused death on himself hurriedly, so I forbid Paradise for him.”

          Bukhari Volume 8, Book 73, Number 73: Narrated Thabit bin Ad-Dahhak: ”And if somebody commits suicide with anything in this world, he will be tortured with that very thing on the Day of Resurrection.

          So why do these moonbeams strap explosive vests to themselves? Well, they are brainwashed. Look at PR on this very thread.

          The fucked-up-in-head-mad-mullahs interpret where the Quran teaches (3:169):

          “Do not consider those killed [while engaging] in God’s cause dead. Rather, they live with their Lord, who sustains them!”

          As meaning all who die in God’s cause, but the verse states killed.

          The Quranic idiom, “killed while engaging in God’s cause” is a reference to martyrdom for acting on being a Muslim, whether as a persecuted and powerless individual or as a warrior fighting in defense of Islam, country, justice, freedom and peace. A Hadith in Sunan al-Tirmidhi states that in contrast to the suicide, the martyr does not even feel the pain of his death (Fada’il al-Jihad, 26:1663). He is also forgiven all his sins and has the right to intercede on behalf of his own family to enter Heaven. So, suicide is forbidden, killing of noncombatants is forbidden, but martyrdom is rewarded with entrance into heaven and, therefore, with great material rewards in the world to come.

          Isn’t it a pity that so many folk are so willing to believe the shite being force fed to them by religious clerics, rather than find out the right way of things for themselves?

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’s the thing about fictional myths…they can be endowed with all manner of fantastical attributes and believers won’t even bat an eyelid about it.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I wonder how the author of Luke knew. I wonder who did it? Does that mean some old man had Jesus cock in his mouth? That’s some claim to fame.

          I suppose he must’ve been circumcised seeing as the Church kept it…until it was stolen that is anyway.

          For centuries, the relic of the Holy Foreskin was considered by believers to be the only piece of Jesus’ flesh to remain on earth after he ascended to heaven, and thus was among the most sacred relics in Christendom. Then, on New Year’s Day 1983, in a tiny village in the Italian countryside, Father Don Dario announced to his expectant flock that their beloved relic had been stolen.

          Proof positive Jesus was real…ha ha, take that and shove it in yer pipe silly mythicists.

        • Michael Neville

          Do you have any evidence for these claims besides the book you worship?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Plenty of eye witness testimonies, letters from Paul to the churches, other manuscripts.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Eyewitness? Paul saw a vision only.

        • Greg G.

          Paul’s conversation with Jesus is in Acts only. Paul’s vision was of the third heaven and he didn’t mention seeing Jesus.

        • Michael Neville

          Either you’re lying AGAIN or you’re so ignorant you don’t even know you’re ignorant. There are no eye witnesses and other manuscripts. The passage in Josephus’ Antiquities of the Jews is a Second Century forgery, Pliny the Younger and Tacitus were both born after Jesus supposedly died so they weren’t witnesses, and Paul’s letters are in the book you worship so doesn’t count as evidence of the truth of the book you worship.

          Try again, this time with evidence you haven’t pulled out of your ass.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Silly boy.

        • Susan

          I don’t question your wanting to know more. That’s inherent in all of us.

          Of course it isn’t. Here you are dismissing entire fields of science without showing any understanding of them at all. You are happy to settle on answers that don’t add up and seem completely uninterested in checking your work or showing your work.

          We are on the same team in trying to discover more truth about the world we live in.

          Give me an example of your attempts to discover more truth about the world we live in.

          The problem is that any possibility of a Creator is immediately thrown out as an impossibility.

          No. The problem is that you make claims you can’t support and dismiss entire fields of expertise because they don’t agree with your unsupported claims.

          You are one of those christians many other christians call a strawman, although you exist in huge numbers (assuming you’re not a Poe).

          I think the world would be a better place.

          Better, how?

        • Greg G.

          The problem is that any possibility of a Creator is immediately thrown out as an impossibility because the world would be a better place if it was true.

          FTFY

        • Michael Neville

          I’ve just realized why you’re making the arguments you are. You don’t worship God or Jesus, you worship a book. You could not care less about Jesus except that he’s a character in the book you worship.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Wrong again. It’s amazing how many statements you make that are completely wrong.

        • Michael Neville

          You worship that Bible of yours. You claim it’s inerrent. If there’s a contradiction between the universe that God made and your Bible, you forsake God’s universe and go with the book. You don’t give a damn about God, you only care about what your precious book.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Someone who doesn’t know me is trying to tell me what I care about. Genius….. How many accusations can you muster in one post? This is why no one can have a conversation with you. Your blood pressure rises because you loathe people who confront your sin problem.

        • Kodie

          Aw, the poor little figment of your imagination is offended? Nobody here has a sin problem. You have gone as far as you can go here, it’s too far above you.

        • Michael Neville

          Someone who doesn’t know me is trying to tell me what I care about.

          I’m going by what you write here. You’re a Biblical literalist, you hate science, you consider Answers In Genesis to be a reputable, reliable source for science, and you whine whenever anyone gives you evidence that doesn’t support your anti-science views.

          If you don’t like how people respond to the bullshit you’re posting there’s a simple solution: Stop posting religious, anti-science bullshit (you do realize this is an atheist blog).

        • Personal Responsibility

          There is nothing I have posted that is Anti-Science. That is where you all keep lying. I can post that my favorite color is blue. Is that science? Science means knowledge, so you tell me. Anti-Science would be 1=2. I haven’t done that, so stop misrepresenting.

        • Kodie

          Everything you’ve posted was anti-science. You keep lying that it is science!

        • Michael Neville

          There is nothing I have posted that is Anti-Science. [sic]

          Examples of your anti-science:

          We have ZERO evidence for kinds changing, zero transitional fossil records, and this is taught in Science class? Sounds like it should be in a faith class to me…. Please respond with specific evidences and why this should be taught in a Science class.

          Evolution is science. Claiming that “kinds” (whatever they are) don’t evolve is anti-science. Claiming there are no transitional fossils is anti-science. Pretending there is ZERO evidence for evolution is anti-science.

          You seem to want to mix in evolution as fact when it is clear that none of this can be proven. Scientists (science means knowledge) like to put forth crazy speculation and call that science

          Evolution is a fact, not “crazy speculation.” The only reason you reject evolution is that the narrow interpretation you give to the Bible you worship is anti-evolution.

          When you want to date a rock and say that it is 6 billion years old, you are exercising discretion using assumptions, which most times are wrought full of errors.

          Radio-isotope dating is quite accurate, it’s falsifiable and reproducible, and does not require “discretion using assumptions” (whatever that’s supposed to mean). Rejecting such dating is anti-science.

          I could go on but I think that’s enough evidence from your own words to show that you’re anti-science.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOL…. you really want to believe that you have transitional fossils. Bull! You don’t, so stop acting like you do. There are none! We should be seeing some today. Do things ever stop evolving? Why don’t we see things still transitioning? Hint: Because it doesn’t happen!

        • MNb

          “Do things ever stop evolving?”
          Things don’t evolve. Populations do.
          Fool.

          “Why don’t we see things still transitioning?”
          We do. You were blinkers.

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
          http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/evolution-watching-speciation-occur-observations/
          http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation

          Ah well, someone who rejects science can be expected to deny facts.

        • Michael Neville

          Yes, you incredibly stupid fool, there are transitional fossils. The fossil linkage from animals similar to pigs to ocean living whales is quite well known to everyone who isn’t an ignorant creationist. You don’t accept transitional fossils because they get in the way of your worship of the Bible. For that matter, God gets in the way of your Bible worship because you refuse to look at his universe.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ve heard it said that every fossil is a transitional fossil since a transition between what came before and what came after.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t believe that. A fossil of species that went extinct with no descendants could not be a transitional. It would just be a dead end.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good point. It needs a successor to be a transitional fossil.

        • Kodie

          Things that go extinct stop evolving. Anyway, you are an illiterate moron, deny what you don’t understand. You love to be stupid.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Oh yes, and you love to put people down. Do you think you are causing me any issues whatsoever? If anything, you are motivating me to continue in reaching people who are lost. So thank you, sort of.

        • MNb

          “Do you think you are causing me any issues whatsoever?”
          Do you think you are causing us any issues with your silly threats about afterlife?

          “motivating me to continue in reaching people who are lost”
          Please continue on this site – you by far haven’t exhausted your unintentional comical talents yet.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Kodie is actually trying to help you. She’s giving you an honest reaction to what you’re saying.

          Are you honestly trying to be an evangelist? Then listen to the feedback and adapt. Empty claims and threats just make you look like an idiot. Give us evidence and arguments. If you don’t have any, leave.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Why don’t you leave? This is a public forum.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          This is a public forum.

          ?? Yes, and it’s my forum.

          What was that in response to? I was trying to help you out with that last comment. What’s the problem–that doesn’t fit with your worldview that everyone is mean to the poor Christians?

        • MR

          Yes, and it’s my forum.

          Oops. =S

        • Greg G.

          In case you don’t know, that gray box next to his name with “Mod” in it means “Moderator” which means it is his forum.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Ok, and that matters because……

        • Kodie

          Good job telling the author of this blog to leave, you dumb shit.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Congratulations. You just have reached a higher level of stupidity than any christian on this forum before.

        • Personal Responsibility

          That tells me a lot. I’m glad to be of service.

        • adam

          Hey, I didnt get serviced yet.

        • MNb

          It tells us a lot that you’re not capable of admitting your stupidity.

        • Kodie

          It’s really arrogant and insulting that you think anyone is lost and needs your help. You’re already proven how willfully stupid you are about reality, nobody wants to follow you down to stupid town.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’m glad you feel the need to speak for the general public. It shows YOUR arrogance. And by the way, I can’t help anybody. Only the Holy Spirit can pierce the heart. So much for your comment.

        • Michael Neville

          Nice deflection of Kodie’s argument. She doesn’t claim to be speaking for the general public whereas you claim to be speaking for your god. As for the “Holy Spirit”, first you have to show us that this figment of your imagination exists. So stop being an arrogant asshole and start giving us some evidence your god isn’t fictional.

        • adam

          Reply”Only the Holy Spirit can pierce the heart. ”

          How doesn an immaterial imaginary being interact with a physical human heart?

        • Kodie

          If you can’t help anyone, why do you and all Christian insist on using threats of hell and accusations of sin as if that means anything in the real world? That’s part of your cult fantasy, go play your stupid games in your silly cult for adults who can’t cope with reality.

        • MNb

          With three upvotes of regulars it seems like she speaks for the general public of Crossexamined indeed.

          “Only the Holy Spirit can pierce the heart.”
          Well, then I’ll patiently wait for that to happen. I won’t hold my breath though. Also kudos for demonstrating how useless apologetics is. Plus for admitting that the Holy Spirit doesn’t use you when doing his job.

        • Personal Responsibility

          He does use many avenues. How did John the Baptist get called within the womb of Elizabeth? Did someone talk to him? No. God anointed him at the appropriate time… in the womb. It may take a person; it may not. That is not up to me. In your case, it may not be me. That’s not my issue. It could take a catastrophic event, joyful event, a good word from someone, other circumstances, etc. None may work for you. Either way, it is on YOU to pursue truth. Not the other way around.

        • adam

          “How did John the Baptist get called within the womb of Elizabeth?”

          He didnt

        • MNb

          “He does use many avenues.”
          Perhaps, perhaps not. But he doesn’t use the avenue called Personal Responsibility or any other human being given your “I can’t help anybody, only the Holy Spirit can pierce the heart.”

          “None may work for you. Either way, it is on YOU to pursue truth.”
          Got it. The Holy Spirit only can pierce my heart if I believe that it can pierce my heart, after which it isn’t necessary anymore that it pierces my heart.
          Good job making no sense.

        • Greg G.

          It is a made up story. If John recognized Jesus in the womb (Luke 1:41), why did he send a messenger to Jesus to ask, “Are you the one who is coming, or should we look for another?” (Luke 7:19-20)

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And John baptized Jesus, saw the dove, and heard God’s voice.

          Maybe he was getting forgetful. Early onset Alzheimer’s?

        • Greg G.

          In the John 1:30-34, John the Baptist even says he saw the dove descend. But he only recognized his cousin Jesus because of that.

          Maybe he was getting forgetful. Early onset Alzheimer’s?

          Touching Jesus should have cured him of that unless water short circuits healing miracles.

        • Philmonomer

          If after baptizing Jesus, watching the Spirit of God descend upon Jesus, and hearing God’s voice, and John still could become a skeptic, I feel like my skepticism is entirely justified.

          It’s almost as if the whole thing isn’t true.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’ll have to remember that angle. Good one.

        • Michael Neville

          Either way, it is on YOU to pursue truth.

          If your god wants me to believe in him then it’s up to him to give evidence that he exists. No evidence, no belief. Is that so difficult for you to understand?

        • Rudy R
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Anti-Science would be 1=2.

          Anti-science would be declaring that evolution is crap.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOLOLOL….. Anti-science is calling evolution anything but crap.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And you would know. Because you’re not a biologist.

          Strange logic–maybe you need to be a Christian to get it.

        • MNb

          Put some effort into it and you’ll find some muslims and hindus as well.

        • MNb

          “There is nothing I have posted that is Anti-Science.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          “I can post that my favorite color is blue. Is that science?”
          The fact that you post that can be investigated with the scientific method, fool.

          “Science means knowledge, so you tell me.”
          I just did.

          “Anti-Science would be 1=2. I haven’t done that.”
          You did something similar – you denied that according to your favourite Holy Book bats are birds – if taken literally.

        • MNb

          The only sin problem is a product of your overheated stupid mind.

        • Greg G.

          Stamp your foot next time and maybe you won’t be so irritated.

          Is that what works for you? Is that how you relieve the stress of denying the evidence? No, thanks.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I don’t deny evidence. I deny your ridiculous conclusions from the evidence. You want to show bones? I claim that proves something died. You claim that proves evolution and the earth is billions of years old. See the problem?

        • Kodie

          The problem is you deny without knowing what went into the conclusions. It’s not just looking at them and going, “welp, must be 20,000 years old. This one looks 30,000.”

          You do nothing but make yourself sound like an idiot.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “you deny without knowing what went into the conclusions”

          How would you know? I have studied this subject immensely. Just because you disagree, that makes me uneducated? Really? Well I disagree with you, so I guess that makes you uneducated. See how that works? People can come to different conclusions. That’s life.

        • Kodie

          Because in every statement you make, you expose yourself as totally ignorant of science and biology. You don’t know that theory in science is the conclusion, not the hypothesis. You think you can just look at bones and decide there’s no way to know, and scientists just post their hypotheses, and atheists just believe them. You disagree, and you’re so arrogant about it, but you don’t sound like someone who knows anything about science or the scientific method.

          It’s really up to you to start sounding more intelligent if you want to be taken seriously. I don’t think you can do it, you get off on sounding like an ignorant moron, and you think that’s supposed to make us feel bad, or repent, or respect you, or ???? I don’t know your purpose for being here. Seems like you just want to laugh at us and call us idiots – the more you go on, the more idiotic you make yourself look, so if that is satisfying to you, keep it up.

        • adam

          “People can come to different conclusions. That’s life.”

          Yep, some believe in MAGIC, that they cant demonstrate.

        • Ignorant Amos

          But that’s because you are an ignorant fuckwit too stupid to realise that the bones mean more than just something died to those that understand the science even a smidgen better than you…which really wouldn’t be that difficult from what I’ve witnessed.

        • MNb

          Yup, you do deny evidence, even according to your own irrelevant standard.
          You deny the results from dating methods – good, solid, falsifiable, repeatable observational science done in labs.
          Stupid liar.

        • Greg G.

          It is not just bones, it is fossilized bones in patterns. The evidence of age of the earth and the universe is supported by many different fields of science. You are picking and choosing evidence without even trying to understand it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And DNA is a palimpsest showing its history. DNA also supports evolution–Francis Collins is an eloquent spokesman for this point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Even the science of dendrochronology is an absolute dating method that puts the world older that these creotard fuckwits believe it is ffs.

          Currently, the maximum for fully anchored chronologies is a little over 11,000 years from present.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_dating

          How does this moron expect us to take his asininity serious?

          University teacher, my arse.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You don’t know anything is right or wrong about creation or even 2,500 years ago. YOU WEREN’T THERE!

        • Susan

          YOU WEREN’T THERE!

          I was there.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          But you were? How do you speak with such authority about Creation?

        • Myna A.

          And you don’t know anything is true or false about anything that occurred even a hundred years ago, much less 2,500. YOU WEREN’T THERE.

        • MNb

          And you weren’t there when President Obama was elected. If you say you’re lying. Videos don’t count as proof any more than Harry Potter movies count as proof for Hogwarth.
          You weren’t there when your ancestors came into existence 1000 years ago. You don’t know their names, you don’t know where they lived. You weren’t there.
          You’re an alien.

        • Greg G.

          You can’t prove that you you existed 10 seconds ago. You may have popped into being with an intact memory 5 seconds ago.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Then you have just removed your complete argument from a scientific perspective. Everything is belief. So why are you limiting yourself to science when you can’t even prove your own existence? Silly discussion you started.

        • MNb

          Nope. Greg G uses your own argument against you. You are too stupid to recognize it and too dishonest to admit it.
          Fool.

        • Greg G.

          Then you have just removed your complete argument from a scientific perspective.

          Nope, I just used creationist reasoning to show the results of picking and choosing the evidence to support a pre-determined conclusion instead of basing the conclusion on all the evidence.

          Everything is belief.

          Reality exists. It is better to base belief on the evidence that reality presents rather than to imagine that everything is belief. Failure to do this effectively can be harmful. If you have to escape from a burning building, it doesn’t matter how firmly you believe you are on the first floor and can climb out the window to safety if you are not in reality on the first floor.

          So why are you limiting yourself to science when you can’t even prove your own existence?

          Science is the best method we have ever had to learn about our reality. You should try it. But as soon as there is a better way than science to learn about reality, I’ll start using that.

          Silly discussion you started.

          You started it.

        • Personal Responsibility

          * yawn *

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          My thoughts exactly. Your comments are of the schoolyard variety. They don’t inform us of anything.

          Earn your keep. Your goal should be to say something thoughtful, new, and interesting. Isn’t that what Jesus would want?

          And if you don’t, you’ll be visiting blog Purgatory.

        • Greg G.

          Your cognitive dissonance must be depriving your brain of oxygen.

        • MNb

          I assert what I like and don’t need your advise for it, thank you.
          Whether you’ll bail or not is up to you. I don’t care.
          I remember you have addressed some issues. I just like to remind everyone what big fool you are.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Do you feel better? Why do you defend something that will curse you? I thought you guys were open minded….. yeah right.

        • MNb

          I already felt good, but indeed, as far as your foolish is entertaining it makes me feel better.
          I don’t defend anything. I tell what science says and how it works.
          Will it curse me? All the better. The prospect of sharing afterlife with fools like you is what scares me. That fate is worse than anything you threaten me with. If Heaven if full of mindless creacrappy fundies like you it’s worse than Hell.

        • Personal Responsibility

          They know not what they say, Lord. I have a small taste of what you experienced while you were here on earth. They reject truth and fill it with lies to satisfy their own sinful desires. They don’t even admit their own sinfulness. Shame……..

        • adam

          Sin?

        • MNb

          I know perfectly what I say, liar. Of course I don’t admit my own sinfulness. Sin is a meaningless word, exactly because there is no god.
          I know what shame is, but I’m not ashamed to state clearly that whatever you threaten me with can’t be as bad as spending eternity in the company of stupid liars like you. If Heaven is full of mindless creacrappy fundies like you it’s worse than Hell.
          I know perfectly what I say here, liar.

        • adam

          ” Lord. I have a small taste of what you experienced while you were here on earth.”

        • Personal Responsibility

          You are sick individual….

        • adam
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Cool! You found the image that PR stole his Jesus photo from.

          I wonder what it says about someone that their Disqus avatar (their picture of themselves) is Jesus Christ, Creator of the Universe.

        • adam
        • MNb

          If you are mentally healthy I prefer to be a sick individual as well.

        • Personal Responsibility

          It was a request, relax. How about I attack you and call you names for a while and see if you will stay to chat? That never ceases to amaze me that when people are losing discussions, all they can do is attack and name call. Loserville.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!

          “How about …..”
          Be my guest. I’d enjoy it.

          “when people are losing discussions,”
          So you’re also self-delusional. Well, I’m not amazed that foolish creacrappers like you fall back on threatening with their imaginary skydaddy when they are losing discussions. They all do. It’s their last stand.
          “You will not like the outcome.”
          “That will curse you.”
          Only a foolish loser like you would need such remarks.
          “all they can do is attack and name call.”
          As if I’d ever stupid enough to defend your untenable position.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Your comments are missing words and make little sense, so I’ll presume you are done discussing. All you are doing is name calling, which is typical from your ilk.

        • MNb

          “I’ll presume ….”
          Wrong presumption. There never was a discussion, so I never begun and hence can’t be done. Only merciless mockery makes sense with creacrappers like you.

          “All you are doing …”
          You’re a liar. Like all creationists I’ve ever met on internet.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Jesus is truth. You’re response to that will have eternal consequences.

        • MNb

          You are lie.
          Plus you are stupid. After making exactly clear what I think of those eternal consequences you are threatening me with you still keep on threatening me.
          Oh wait – my mistake. You don’t threaten me because you think it works; you threaten me because it’s the only way for you to have an orgasm.

        • Ignorant Amos

          And you can stop with the fool talk or I’ll bail.

          Don’t make assertions you won’t standby.

          http://pre12.deviantart.net/5b8b/th/pre/f/2013/114/d/9/quote___remain_silent_be_a_fool_by_rabidbribri-d62uvvr.jpg

        • Greg G.

          I’ve said many times that there is nothing in science that contradicts the Bible.

          Ken Ham disagrees with you. But it is a matter of how you interpret the Bible.

          Genesis 30:31-43 tells us how Jacob conned his father-in-law (not that his father-in-law didn’t deserve it) by accepting the spotted, speckled, and striped animals as his payment, then made striped rods and let the best livestock mate in sight of them. This caused their offspring to be striped, speckled and spotted. The weaker animals mated with no striped rods in sight and produced solid colored offspring.

          Jacob got rich doing this.

          That’s not scientifically sound way to produce livestock with spots.

        • epeeist

          You guys like to pit the Bible against Science.

          Actually it is usually the other way round, it is normally creationists who like to pit the bible against science.

          I’ve said many times that there is nothing in science that contradicts the Bible.

          And yet I have given you a small sample of papers that show the earth to be older than 6,000 years, papers that you seem to be either unwilling or incapable of showing to be wrong.

          I could list many examples of scientific FACTS that are revealed in the Bible well before anyone could possibly know about it.

          Really? And yet to don’t actually provide any.

          Archaeological digs have shown events in the Bible to be perfectly accurate.

          But archaeology is a historical science and cannot therefore be proved to be true, according to you at least.

          But go on, lets have some archaeological evidence for the demolition of the walls at Jericho, the captivity of the Jews in Egypt or the Exodus.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Why? Just so you will try to refute it? No thanks. You don’t really care anyway. All you want to do is trash anything that could possibly point to a Creator God and an absolute moral standard. You hate God and all He stands for, which is perfection and holiness. I’ll never understand people like you. I am very skeptical of people and of religion. I did not become a born-again believer until I was 35. So don’t even get into it with me pal. You don’t know anything about anything, yet you claim to know everything about everything.

        • epeeist

          Why? Just so you will try to refute it? No thanks.

          Can we make any inferences from this rant and avoidance of the the points that I made?

          One reasonable inference is that you are incapable of actually providing any argument or evidence to show that the papers I referenced are false. A second inference would be that you are incapable of providing any evidence for the claims you have made.

          You hate God and all He stands for

          How can I hate something I lack belief in?

        • Personal Responsibility

          I don’t have time to go off and perform research for you. That’s up to you. If you firmly believe what you believe, then by all means, who am I to change your mind?

          You can hate the thought of God and having to be accountable to a higher power.

        • Michael Neville

          In other words you have zip point shit evidence to support your opinions but somehow it’s our fault.

        • adam

          “I don’t have time to go off and perform research for you. ”

          Obviously, you dont even do your own research.

          “You can hate the thought of God and having to be accountable to a higher power.”

          I didnt realize YOUR “God” cared about people being accountable to it?

          What is IT accountable to?

        • adam

          “You can hate the thought of God and having to be accountable to a higher power.”

          So YOU hate Ganesh?

        • Kodie

          You cannot even comprehend how powerless and irrational you are.

          You can hate the thought of people not believing your idiotic fairy tale and make up rationalizations to pretend you are on top of shit, but you aren’t.

        • epeeist

          I don’t have time to go off and perform research for you

          Nah, you are incapable of refuting the references I gave or of producing archaeological evidence. That’s why the evasion.

          You can hate the thought of God

          The only person exhibiting hatred here is you.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Then you have completely missed out. The whole purpose is love. God doesn’t want any to perish but all to everlasting life. You don’t understand Judgment and Mercy at all. Once you accept responsibility for your sins and lostness, you will be seek a Savior.

        • epeeist

          Then you have completely missed out.

          I think we are just about done here. You have been given ample opportunity to show that the papers I referenced are false and to produce archaeological evidence to back your claims.

          Instead you have simply resorted to preaching. It might work for your co-believers, but for those with even a smattering of education and critical thinking ability it is transparently obvious that your claims are vacuous.

        • MNb

          Exactly because I want to accept responsibility for my many wrongdoings I don’t seek a savior who will release me from that responsibility – which is exactly what happens when I accept him and his blood gift at the cross.
          You are the one who has completely missed out.
          Epeeist is right that as every single stupid christian apologist you immediately turn to preaching when you appear to back up your claims regarding scientific matters, like archeology. My point here is that your preaching doesn’t make any sense either.

        • Greg G.

          Accepting responsibility for doing something wrong is not the same thing as apologizing to a voice in your head.

        • Michael Neville

          Or to a voice in PR’s head.

        • adam

          ” The whole purpose is love.”

          One sick son-of-a-bitch….

        • MNb

          “You can hate the thought of God and having to be accountable to a higher power.”
          Sure. The more fortunate that there is no reason to believe in such a higher power. Plus if there is it certainly isn’t the stupid version you keep on promoting.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Biblical Christianity is what I have been discussing. Is that what you are calling a stupid version?

        • MNb

          There are so many Biblical christianities that it is a meaningless term.
          What I’m calling a stupid version is the stupid version of a higher power you keep on promoting.

        • Personal Responsibility

          In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. If you can’t fathom the “possibility” that God created everything, but whole-heartedly defend molecules to man, I can see where the problem is.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The problem is that you reject science and don’t much care for the value of evidence? Or am I misreading you?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Completely misreading. I agree that 1 + 1 = 2. We can prove that all day long. But saying the earth is billions of years old is not provable. Prior to man coming onto the scene, no one can even speculate what the universe was like because NO ONE WAS THERE! So please don’t try to provide some speculation based on assumptions that aren’t credible.

        • Ignorant Amos

          NO ONE WAS THERE!

          How do ya know Godidit then?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          What do you mean, “No one was there”? I was there. It happened just as the scientists say.

          No, it’s not provable. Nothing in science is provable. Go learn something before you waste our time.

          And is this your argument? When you run this past those egghead scientists, do they agree with your logic? If you and they disagree, which one do you think I should follow?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Nothing in science is provable? Really? That seems like a cop-out. So why do you rail against theists so much? Nothing can be proven, so it is just two people with varying opinions based on whatever information they both may have. It doesn’t matter who agrees or not. That seems like chaos to me. So chemistry (categorized as a science) is not provable? Electrolysis makes hydrogen and oxygen out of water every time. Or do you consider that math? This condescending attitude you display is a bunch of psychobabble to make yourself feel better about your position. I get it.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Nothing in science is provable? Really?

          Really. Learn about science before you whine about it.

          Nothing can be proven

          Say–I have an idea! Let’s follow the evidence where it leads. We won’t be certain that we’re at the right destination, but we’ll do the best we can with what we’ve got.

          It doesn’t matter who agrees or not. That seems like chaos to me.

          And yet you look around and people are following the evidence fairly well. A bit chaotic, but that’s just reality.

          So chemistry (categorized as a science) is not provable?

          Geez—did you pay attention in school at all? Proofs are for logic and math.

          This condescending attitude you display

          It’s a response to your dismissive approach to science.

        • epeeist

          It’s a response to your dismissive approach to science.

          It is amusing isn’t it, as I noted in this post this is someone who claims to have qualifications in science but doesn’t know what a scientific theory is; doesn’t know that science doesn’t deal in proof or truths that are universal, necessary and certain; doesn’t or can’t deal with references to actual scientific papers; doesn’t know that scientific theories in one field can draw support from theories in other fields, in fact seems to know absolutely nothing about science, its foundations or its philosophy. Given the above post I think we can also add probability to the list of things he knows nothing about.

          Of course these “science qualifications” might just be in the oxymoronic “creation science”.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ain’t it marvelous how the Lord uses even the simple-minded among us for his unfathomable purposes?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Mysterious ways indeed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Proofs are for logic and math.

          And alcohol, don’t be forgetting about the alcohol.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good point. Interestingly, that’s the sense in the oft-misunderstood aphorism, “the exception that proves the rule.”

          “Proves” in this case means “tests.”

        • MNb

          “Nothing in science is provable? Really?”
          Really. There always remains room for doubt, no matter how far fetched. Not only learn about science, also learn about philosophy of science.
          That seems like a cop-out.

          “Electrolysis makes hydrogen and oxygen out of water every time.”
          Results in the past do not guarantee anything for the future.

          Not that your favourite Holy Book proves anything. NO ONE WAS THERE either when your god supposedly created the entire shenanigan. If you were honest – but I have yet to meet the first honest creacrapper yet – you would be an agnost.

          Btw BobS is wrong on one issue underneath. Logic and math don’t prove anything either (the way you use the word proof) because by definition you can’t prove assumptions and axiomata.
          Without realizing it you admitted the reason why you believe your crap just above.

          “assumptions that aren’t credible.”
          You don’t have a method to decide which assumptions are credible and which aren’t. There isn’t any as soon as you accept NO ONE WAS THERE. The only reason you think your assumptions are credible is because you like them, because they make you feel good. In combination with

          “to make yourself feel better about your position”
          that makes you a hypocrite.
          Nobody here is surprised – it’s what you’re a creacrapper for.

        • Personal Responsibility

          More insults…. that’s what you do best. Nice person you are.

        • epeeist

          But saying the earth is billions of years old is not provable.

          I see the reset button has been pressed. We have been over this before and as I said then you ignore the consonance between observations and the growing consilience over time.

          Prior to man coming onto the scene, no one can even speculate what the universe was like because NO ONE WAS THERE!

          But nobody was there to see your purported god supposedly creating the universe. So don’t try pushing your speculation on us.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A predicted it, did I not?

        • Personal Responsibility

          You are missing the point. Jesus was there, and Jesus became a man. He validated Genesis. So you can’t make the case that my assertions are baseless. You can say you don’t believe them, but that doesn’t make them invalid. They are not only perfectly valid, but they are the truth. This truth can never be provable to whatever standard you want to set for yourself. But it is beyond any other reasonable explanation. Of course, it’s ultimately a faith claim, but there are many reasons why we can show that the universe cannot be more than say 100,000 years old max. You would never accept anything I write because you have been blinded by this billions of years nonsense. Like adding a few more millions of years to actually to make any difference.

        • epeeist

          You would never accept anything I write because you have been blinded by this billions of years nonsense.

          When last we discussed ages I presented you with a small selection of papers that showed that the earth was older than 6,000 years. I invited you to show why they were wrong, but of course you avoided this invitation and the papers completely.

          So, I now present you with a selection of papers that provide evidence for the universe being approximately 13.7 billion years old, such as this one, this one, and this one and this one.

          So, over to you. Tell us why these papers are wrong.

          (Oh, and I can’t resist including a link to this page, which is more evidence for the ΛCDM model of the universe).

        • Ignorant Amos

          How is PR meant to understand these papers with no knowledge of science?

          Oh, aye, wait a wee minute…scratch my last. He has that knowledge…allegedly.

        • epeeist

          Oh, aye, wait a wee minute…scratch my last. He has that knowledge…allegedly.

          From the same institution that Ian Paisley got his doctorate from no doubt, or one that is similar.

          But he is going to scuttle away from this post as he did from the one I gave on ages using simple counting methods or the one in which I took issue with his claims about relativity.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The poor simpleton is that simple he doesn’t even realise how simple he comes across.

        • MNb

          Where did Ian Paisley got his doctorate? I always thought the man was a bigot, but also was well educated. I’d like to be shown wrong.

        • Michael Neville

          Paisley’s doctorate was an honorary one given by Bob Jones University in 1966. This historical trivia is the result of extensive research into the question of Paisley’s education (I read the wikipedia article on him).

        • Ignorant Amos

          Paisley was clever in that like all the best holy rollers he could manipulate a gullible audience and he applied the skill to his political life.

          He was a fundiegelical young earth creotard and bible literalist who was able to take advantage of the religious sectarianism that abounds in this country and was ten times worse in the last century. He wasn’t that well educated, but he had street smarts and knew how to rabble rouse with his fire and brimstone style.

        • MNb

          You don’t give him enough credit yet. The man did everything he could to prolong The Troubles as long as possible – for his own political advantage.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nah, not really. You give him too much credit if you think he was that instrumental in prolonging the Troubles. There were greater powers afoot on that score. He was a zealot and refused to capitulate to republicanism until he got the conditions that were right for his community. His achievement and the legacy he now leaves, is that in eventually going into government with the republicans and implementing the GFA…with the largest political mandate behind him to do so, even though his stance was NO to begin with. The pinnacle of his political career was becoming fist minister, that would never have happened had the Troubles continued. Subsequent elections have ratified that position with his party maintaining dominance.

        • MNb

          Thanks. I never could stomach the man (including reading his biography) since I as a teen saw him opening his mouth on Dutch television in the late 1970’s.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In the 1960s, Paisley developed a relationship with the fundamentalist Bob Jones University located in Greenville, South Carolina. In 1966, he received an honorary doctorate of divinity from the institution and subsequently served on its board of trustees.

        • MNb

          Great. Now we have a very good idea what we can expect when creationists will take over.

          “I say to the Dublin government, Mr Faulkner says it’s “hands across the border to Dublin”. I say, if they don’t behave themselves in the South, it will be shots across the border!”

          “Save Ulster from sodomy!”

          “Line dancing is as sinful as any other type of dancing, with its sexual gestures and touching. It is an incitement to lust.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          There is enough of them in the Northern Ireland Assembly to be making a nuisance of themselves.

          We had a culture minister that wanted creationism represented in the Ulster Museum.

          Yesterday the creationism v evolution debate was given another hearing when it was revealed our Culture Minister Nelson McCausland wrote to the trustees of National Museums Northern Ireland suggesting that alternative views on the origins of the universe should be displayed.

          http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/creationism-v-evolution-showdown-at-the-ulster-museum-28538247.html

          The National Trust here was even susceptible to the knuckle dragging fuckwittery.

          The National Trust has defended its decision to include references to creationist theory at a new state-of-the-art visitors’ centre at the Giant’s Causeway in Northern Ireland.

          https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jul/05/national-trust-creationism-giants-causeway

          And the onetime health minister Edwin Poots, another muppet looking creotard, banned gays from giving blood due to his bigoted religious mumbo jumbo. He also had his hands involved in the Giants Causeway controversy.

          Poots is a young earth creationist and rejects the theory of evolution. In the same interview, when asked by BBC presenter William Crawley how old the Earth was, Poots replied: “My view on the earth is that it’s a young earth. My view is 4,000 BC.” Young earth creationism is accepted by the Free Presbyterian Church of Ulster, of which Poots is a member, and other conservative evangelicals in Northern Ireland. He is close to the Caleb Foundation, a creationist lobby.

          Poots caused controversy by banning blood donations from gay people, saying “I think that people who engage in high-risk sexual behaviour in general should be excluded from giving blood.”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edwin_Poots

          Thankfully all these decisions have been overturned, but lots of these YEC fuckwits are still in our government.

        • Personal Responsibility
        • epeeist

          https://answersingenesis.org/e

          No, that isn’t how it works. I gave you a sample of four papers each of which showed that the earth was older than 6000 years or so. It is down to you to show me why these are false.

          Once you have done that then I will tackle the claims on your AiG page.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Yeah, sure you will.

        • epeeist

          Yeah, sure you will.

          I said I would and, if and when you tackle the papers I referenced, then I will.

          You see you have a couple of problems here. The first is that when it comes to science you are an incompetent with delusions of adequacy. When my two daughters were 11 they had a better knowledge and understanding of science than you have exhibited here. This of course makes its almost impossible for you to follow what the papers actually say.

          The second is that those papers are pretty solid. Am I going to claim that they are true (or even True)? No, of course not, all conclusions in science are tentative and provisional. But they provide a much better explanation then anything you have put forward. Oh, and the conclusions are based on testable, repeatable observations.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You are asserting a philosophic argument. There are no winners in those arguments.

        • epeeist

          So once again you avoid tackling the references I gave you, instead shooting off into a displacement activity.

          You are asserting a philosophic argument.

          What, that theories are both tentative and provisional? This has been accepted in the philosophy of science since at least the beginning of the 19th century.

          There are no winners in those arguments.

          So we can add philosophy to the subjects that you know SFA about.

          As Peter Van Imwagen points out in his Metaphysics there are no philosophical facts. But this does not mean that anything goes, for example a singular existential statement is sufficient to refute a proposition with universal quantification.

        • MNb

          As you won’t tackle the four papers Epeeist linked to anytime soon I’ll address just one point of that stupid and dishonest AIG link:

          http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/moonrec.html

        • MR

          Presumably PR would set every person who committed a crime free if there wasn’t an eyewitness.

        • epeeist

          if there wasn’t an eyewitness.

          But there is always an eyewitness, his god watches over everything.

          It would see that the best way to determine cases in which there is only forensic evidence (which shouldn’t be admitted because it observational and historical rather than experimental 8-| ) would be to subpoena this god character.

          Of course we would have to change sentencing a bit to ensure that he turns up, he seems to be a lot keener on retributive rather than restorative justice.

        • MNb

          Exactly that’s why I can maintain you’re an alien descending from aliens, because NO ONE WAS THERE when your ancestors about 1000 years ago were born.

        • Greg G.

          But where did God come from. The “always existed” excuse is more far-fetched than Last Thursdayism which postulates that everything came into being with coherent evidence and intact memories last Thursday.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Do ya think PR took the correct coloured pill and has escaped the matrix?

        • Greg G.

          He has gone away for the better part of a week before.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I call it a sabbatical to Croydon in order to prostrate one self in front of the huge magical reset button.

        • Personal Responsibility

          From infinity (God) to finite (Man in space/time). The finite cannot explain infinite. I get it. But that doesn’t negate its truth.

        • Michael Neville

          And what’s your evidence that your supposed, illusionary, non-existent god is infinite?

        • Personal Responsibility

          My evidence is logic. When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning. Anything that creates time must exist outside of time, which is eternityl. There are also many Bible verses that discuss God before the beginning of time. The two naturally go together – science and Christianity.

        • Greg G.

          Alan Guth has shown that space is like negative energy where virtual particles can spontaneously generate, the energy of the particles is equal to the negative potential energy of all the forces between them, so space, energy, and time don’t need a creator. They could happen spontaneously.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Yeah, we see this happening all the time. If it were spontaneous, we would have seen quite of few by now. The witnesses would be innumerable. However, we don’t.

        • Susan

          My evidence is logic.

          Logic is not evidence.

          When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time, the results showed that time has a beginning. Anything that creates time must exist outside of time, which is eternityl. There are also many Bible verses that discuss God before the beginning of time.

          Assertions are not logic.

          The two naturally go together – science and Christianity.

          As methods go, they have nothing to do with each other.

          One is a method for creating highly reliable maps of reality.

          And the other is special pleading.

          Which is (repeatedly and deservedly) beaten with a stick by people who care a whit about logic. .

        • epeeist

          When Stephen Hawking, George Ellis, and Roger Penrose extended the equations for general relativity to include space and time

          Err, what? General relativity has always included space-time. The generalised energy-momentum tensor is defined in curved space-time.

          the results showed that time has a beginning

          Citation please

          Anything that creates time must exist outside of time, which is eternityl.

          Nope, eternity is infinite or unending time. As it is you are begging the question by assuming that something created time.

          There are also many Bible verses that discuss God before the beginning of time.

          So? In Hindu mythology the universe is formed, destroyed and then re-formed. This fits well with Penrose’s cyclic conformal cosmology or Turok and Steinhards ekpyrotic cosmology. Why should we privilege the bible in this?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Time to crack open a bottle of wine and cut up some cheese for crackers, this could be fun to watch.

        • Greg G.

          Suddenly, I’m craving Havarti.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Not tried that yet. The jalapeño flavoured variety sounds scrummy.

        • Michael Neville

          The universe had a beginning. It’s called the Big Bang. What’s your evidence that your supposed, fictitious, non-existent figment of some Hebrew priests’ imaginations had anything to do with the beginning of the universe? And you still haven’t shown that the universe couldn’t have created itself. Your ignorance and incredulity are not evidence of anything but your ignorance and incredulity.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Time had a beginning. Do you not agree with that statement?

        • Michael Neville

          Sure, I’ll agree. Now give some evidence that your god is outside of time or is eternal or whatever bullshit you’re working up to in an attempt to show your god isn’t a figment of bronze age Hebrew priests’ imaginations.

        • MNb

          Logic is not evidence.
          Category error.
          Evidence consists of empirical data; we apply induction to it.
          Logic begins with assumptions, presuppositions, axiomata. We apply deduction to it.

          “the results showed that time has a beginning”
          No, they didn’t. And it weren’t Hawking, Ellis and Penrose who did this, but atheist commie Alexander Friedmann and catholic priest Georges Lemaitre.

          “Anything that creates time must exist outside of time.”
          Prove it.
          Prove that there wasn’t time before the beginning of our Universe.
          Prove that the “creation” of time wasn’t just a part of that very beginning of our Universe and that it demands an external agent.
          You can’t, because you have restricted yourself
          1. with your NO ONE WAS THERE;
          2. to using logic only and hence cannot prove your assumptions. I only need to use your own method against you again: your assumptions aren’t credible.

          Plus of course you’re dishonest again. The extension of General Relativity you incorrectly attributed to Hawking, Ellis and Penrose also conclude that our Universe is much older than the 6000 years you promote.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Forget it. I have sources for my assertion, but because you are being such a donkey, I’m not even going to bother.

        • MNb

          If you have sources for your assertion you either pull off an appeal to authority or your assertion is not an assertion anymore.
          Thanks for the compliment. Donkeys, unlike you, are highly respectable animals.
          Ah well, you’re a creacrapper. So you demand absolute proof when you read something you don’t like and don’t even try to provide it yourself when someone demands it for you.
          Creationism leads to moral bankruptcy.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “Creationism leads to moral bankruptcy.”

          Ha! You are already there. Disgusting and filthy-mouthed. You cannot even possibly admin you have any character flaws or are full of pride, sinfulness, or any other condition that is contrary to righteousness. That is your whole problem. You are perfect in your own mind. Congratulations!

        • Michael Neville

          But you are morally bankrupt. If your religion requires you to lie to us then it’s immoral. Since you’re lying, Mr. “Science Degrees”, you’re immoral.

          I don’t claim to be perfect. I have my faults. However I don’t lie to people like you do, so I lack the immorality that you have.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Jesus is Lord of all and claims to be “the Way, the Truth, and the Life.” I believe that 100% and share it with you. You call me a liar. If that is where we stand, I’ll gladly take your insults. However, I’d recommend you think about it before it’s too late.

        • Michael Neville

          A Christian threatening an atheist with hell is like a small child threatening an adult that Santa won’t bring him any presents.

          As for me calling you a liar, I do that for one simple reason. You tell lies. You say the Bible is inerrant. That’s a lie, the Bible is full of errors. You say the world was created a few thousand years ago. That’s a lie, it’s over four billion years old. You say your magic sky pixie poofed life into existence in six days. That’s another lie, it took life billions of years to evolve into what we see today. If you don’t want me to call you a liar then there’s an easy fix. Stop telling lies.

        • Personal Responsibility

          If someone repeats a truth claim, that is not a threat. That is simply the truth. Because you don’t believe it doesn’t make it less true. You obviously don’t get it. Christians don’t threaten. They are providing the gospel to save. It would be a threat if they were saying they were planning something against you. Nope, not at all. We know what will happen to unbelievers and are trying to help you. If you can’t figure that out, then you are more far-gone than you’ve previously displayed.

        • Michael Neville

          Your magic sky pixie will send me to hell for not believing in it? What an asshole your god is. Any god that sadistic doesn’t deserve belief. And it doesn’t say much for you that you worship an asshole of a god.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Nope. You go to hell because of your sins. God hates sin. You either get purified or pay the price. You committed the sins. Don’t try to blame anyone else but yourself. You reject the very notion of God. Enough said.

        • Michael Neville

          Since sins are offenses against the gods and the gods don’t exist then sin doesn’t exist either.

          You reject the very notion of God.

          That’s because there’s no evidence that any gods, not just your favorite sky pixie but any gods, exist. You bring out some reasonable evidence of their existence then I’ll change my mind. But you bleating about your lying Bible, your immoral god, and how I’m going to hell because you say so isn’t going to change anyone’s mind.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “there’s no evidence that any gods”

          That is such a lie and you know it. I think it is hilarious that a sinful, morally bankrupt individual is attempting to judge God. That is just laughable. Conversation ended.

        • Kodie

          You don’t provide any evidence. We’ve encountered a lot of Christians and most of them at least try really hard. You are the kind who doesn’t even know what that means. Sure, an omnipotent god chooses not to contact any of us directly, but instead, picks YOU, a fucking moron, to drool the gospel at us. What good is that supposed to do? Is that really his best idea? You’re in over your head.

        • Michael Neville

          Got any evidence for gods? Both you and I know that you don’t. So you’re lying when you call me a liar.

          If the conversation is ended then why do you keep replying to me? You need to work on your lies, you piece of shit.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s what I’ve come to recognise as what I call the “catnip syndrome”…I sometimes get it myself. He can’t help himself, he get’s a buzz out of it, even though his replies are complete fuckwittery and he is continually making an even bigger arse of himself with each reply.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Instead of “Nuh uh!” give evidence.

          You’re becoming more trouble than you’re worth. You can sit at the adults’ table and contribute to the conversation with evidence and arguments, or you can leave.

        • epeeist

          Instead of “Nuh uh!” give evidence.

          Not.going.to.happen.

          I have come across my share of creationists over the years but it is rare to come across one so profoundly ignorant and yet so convinced of his knowledge and understanding.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You do have to wonder if someone like that is just yanking our chain.

          But yeah. He needs to get useful cuz so far he’s just a pain in the ass. He’s had his warning.

        • Ignorant Amos

          PR comes across far too stupid to be that sleeked.

        • epeeist

          Arrogance, ignorance and certainty – all in one package.

        • MR

          Arrogance, ignorance, deceitfulness and certainty – all in one package.

          FTFY

        • Personal Responsibility

          You clearly didn’t understand my last statement. Conversation ended.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yup, conversation ended.

          Bye.

        • MR

          Oh, thank God.

        • Susan

          Oh, thank God.

          I think what makes me squirm so much about people like PR (who has recently been banned) is that they are the exact people that other christians accuse us of strawmanning when we address them.

          I don’t even know if he’s real. It’s so easy to fake deeply held belief systems based on non-sequiuirs and logical fallacies.

          I don’ know about you but I’m exhausted from trying to figure out who’s real and who isn’t.

          Even the most sofistimicated feologions are unable to clearly define terms and support them. They are hugely invested in accusing us of strawmanning when we address large christian arguments or specific christians who show up and claim stuff.

        • Myna A.

          …I’m exhausted from trying to figure out who’s real and who isn’t.

          I hear ya. Wayyyyyy exhausting.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I cringed at every single comment the fuckwit posted. I still can’t believe the stupidity.

        • MR

          There’s a point where there’s no real dialog going on anymore and they’re just lobbing the ball back without any attempt to actually engage. They can only keep hitting the reset button so many times before the conversation spirals into farce.

        • MNb

          “I’m exhausted from trying to figure out who’s real and who isn’t.”
          To avoid that exhaustion I stopped trying a long time ago.

          “They are hugely invested in …..”
          That’s good news afaIc. It demonstrates the intellectual bankruptcy of christian thinking. This is what stunned me about six years ago, when I decided to go into apologetics. That includes the prominent ones, both in the USA and The Netherlands.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh, thank God Bob.

          FTFY

        • Ignorant Amos
        • MNb

          You are the one who didn’t understand what BobS wrote …..
          Let me spell it out for you.
          He seriously considers to ban you.
          Unless you give evidence.
          However you already have demonstrated that you don’t understand what that word means (or just lie about it – with creacrappers like you the difference is often impossible to tell and highly irrelevant anyway) expectations are very, very low that you will give evidence any time soon.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m happy to pay the price for my errors. Unfortunately for you, hell isn’t that.

        • Michael Neville

          I realize you won’t accept this but I have to explain it to you in hopes that you’ll understand why you preaching your creationism and Biblical literalism at us is doomed to fail.

          Some time ago I told you that around the year 400 Augustine of Hippo considered the literal interpretation of Genesis and rejected it. You ignored it but I want to bring it up again. One of Augustine’s arguments against literalism was that unbelievers often will know something about the world and the universe, how they were created and how they work. If a Christian tells an unbeliever something the unbeliever knows is wrong and cites the Bible as the authority for the wrongness then the unbeliever will consider the Christian a fool and regard the Bible as nothing but a collection of myths and fables with nothing important to say on any topic including redemption.

          The regulars on this blog know about how old the universe and the Earth are. We have some understanding about how the universe and the world were created. We know something about how life began and how life forms evolve. So when you throw your creationism at us we are not going to accept it because we know creationism is wrong. Augustine was quite correct. We consider you a fool for believing things that are not only wrong but are obviously wrong. We regard the Bible as nothing but a book of myths, fables and lies and not an authority on anything.

          So it’s completely useless for you to preach to us about things we know are wrong. You’re not going to change our minds and, quite frankly, you’re not very good at presenting your wrongness to us. So do us all a favor and stop posting here.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “the unbeliever knows is wrong”

          There’s the problem. You can’t possibly KNOW something is wrong and counter to the Bible. I can simply apply the same things you all do to me. You can try to show something is wrong, but ultimately, the Bible is and will be shown to be true. There are a number of artifacts that have been dug up to show the historical accounts are true. Some of the historical figures have been found and identified, even back to Jesus’ time and beyond. There is more evidence supporting the Bible that has been found. Nothing found has ever contradicted the Bible. Your silly lab tests and theories in the 21st century do nothing to disprove the Bible. They only show how far man has gone to deny the inevitable and the undeniable.

        • Michael Neville

          Just because you’re so ignorant that you’re a creationist doesn’t mean that I’m ignorant. Also I’ve given several examples of errors in the Bible which you’ve ignored. We both know that’s because you can’t explain those errors away so you pretend they don’t exist.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’ve explained your alleged errors many times to many people who try to distort the truth of the word. If I missed one of your attempts, my apologies, but don’t think for a second that you will have the last word on the matter. Your ignorance is clear if you keep asserting Biblical error.

        • Michael Neville

          No, ignorant fool, you haven’t explained shit. You’ve made assertions that your “holy” book is inerrant but you keep ignoring all the errors in it because you worship that book. It hurts your weak brain to think that the book you worship actually is a collection of myths, fables and lies with no relationship with reality. So you pretend the book you worship is error free.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I love it when they get mad. It shows they have a lot of passion. Paul was the same way before his revelation. You could be the next Paul. I actually hope you are!

        • Michael Neville

          I’m not mad. I’m not even annoyed. And I sure wouldn’t want to be a religious fanatic like your hero Paul. But I couldn’t be like him. I’m not enough of a stupid asshole. Hey, maybe you should become Paul. You’re certainly stupid.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOL…. more insults. Typical.

        • Michael Neville

          Your ignorance and stupid just cry out to be insulted, shit for brains.

        • Ignorant Amos

          When any attempt at rational dialogue is fruitless, what is left is ridicule and mockery. The colour of the language being used is then left up to the individual doing the ridiculing and mocking. Just my tuppence worth anyway.

        • epeeist

          The colour of the language being used is then left up to the individual doing the ridiculing and mocking.

          Well yes, personally I tend to avoid profanities, but that is as much as anything because I prefer the misericorde to the broad sword. But each to his own.

        • Ignorant Amos

          We know one another long enough to understand the strengths and weaknesses in both approaches.

          While you prefer the surgical accuracy of weapons such as the epee, or misericorde even. Which I’ve grown to appreciate over the years. I still like the cleft of my claymore or battle-axe even.

          In my opinion, PR is defo a claymore job at this point. Your repeated efforts at precision dispatchment failed due to the lack of intellectual uptake.

          Sometimes it really does take a sledgehammer to crack a nut. And when there is nothing left of the nut to salvage, at least a bit of enjoyment was gleaned through the process.

          At the end of the day, it depends on how dirty one is prepared to get when wrestling the pig while still getting some entertainment. Why should the pig have all the fun?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Cute! When you infuriate someone, just recast that as someone on the verge of converting to your belief.

          I’ll try that myself sometime, next time I try to convince someone to believe on faith rather than evidence.

        • Greg G.

          Augustine thought the six day creation was ridiculous because God would not have needed that long.

        • Michael Neville

          True. I am not an admirer of Augustine. I’ve sometimes wondered that if he’d been married instead of having mistresses then he might have had a rational view of sex.

          Da mihi castitatem et continentiam, sed noli modo. “Grant me chastity and continence, but not yet.”

        • Ignorant Amos
        • MNb

          Of course you can see where the problem is. Your problem – not mine – is what science (not me – I just accept it) says: molecules to man indeed. It goes even a bit farther back: plasma produced by The Big Bang to man. Exactly that makes your version of a higher power such a stupid one – you have to reject well established science.

        • Personal Responsibility

          If I show you a book, will you tell me there is no author? You have words in a language organized on pages between two covers. It just showed up that way after billions of years. That makes no sense. That is equivalent to what you are claiming. We are much more complex. DNA information is incredibly complex. Single-cell life has multiple parts that could NOT have been introduced sequentially as they wouldn’t work that way. It has been proven that multiple parts must work in tandem to function. There is no way you can remove God or some external supernatural force from the beginning. It doesn’t matter how much time you give it.

        • Greg G.

          You can hate the thought of God and having to be accountable to a higher power.

          Christians say that a lot. What exactly do you imagine atheists are doing that you are not doing when you make that accusation? Is getting an extra half hour of sleep on Sunday really that bad?

        • Personal Responsibility

          You clearly don’t get it. It’s not about what we do. It’s about what HE’S done. Christ died for our sins. You have not accepted that free gift. I have. When you repent and trust Christ as your Savior, He will renew your mind and give you new desires. You will desire to do the Father’s will. That is the difference.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You have not accepted that free gift.

          Speaking just for myself, I can’t accept that “free gift” because it would require believing in things on insufficient evidence.

          Show us how it’s done. Believe in fairies.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You are actually correct in a sense. Read Hebrews 11:6, “And without faith it is impossible to please Him, for he who comes to God must believe that He is and that He is a rewarder of those who seek Him.”

          It requires that you believe He exists. So let’s start there, shall we? How did we get here? Please be very specific.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I believe things based on evidence, obviously.

          Can you believe in fairies? If no, perhaps you can understand my difficulty in believing in God.

        • MNb

          And if we can’t answer that question to your satisfaction your answer is “hence goddiddid.”
          Even theologians have recognized since many decades how foolish that is.

          “How wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. If in fact the frontiers of knowledge are being pushed further and further back (and that is bound to be the case), then God is being pushed back with them, and is therefore continually in retreat. We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don’t know.”

          Dietrich Bonhöffer, 1944.

        • Greg G.

          How did we get here? Please be very specific.

          Don’t know about you but as near as I can work out, it was New Year’s Eve. Mom and Dad may have partaken of some fruit of the vine. I hope you know the rest.

        • Michael Neville

          My mother claims that I was conceived during the honeymoon at Yellowstone National Park. I don’t know, my memory is a little shaky going back that far.

        • Michael Neville

          Why does your god need to be believed in and worshiped? Is he insecure? Or is he a megalomaniac?

        • adam

          “It’s about what HE’S done. Christ died for our sins. ”

          then why is there is still, sin, clearly YOU dont get it.

          “You have not accepted that free gift. I have. When you repent and trust Christ as your Savior, ”

          It is not free when it is conditional, you keep LYING about this.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOLOLOL…… it’s based on your acceptance. That’s what you don’t get. Who said sin would disappear? It will accounted for with Christ’s blood for those who have trusted Him as their personal Savior and Lord.

        • MNb

          “it’s based on your acceptance”
          That’s exactly what the cartoon says, silly. I’ll spell it out for you: “if you don’t let me in”. That refers exactly to your “acceptance.

          “It will accounted for with Christ’s blood”
          Again exactly what the cartoon says: “I have to save you”.
          You’re laughing at yourself and are too stupid to recognize it.

        • Greg G.

          it’s based on your acceptance.

          It’s conditional on your acceptance. Substituting a different word does not change the meaning.

        • adam

          “LOLOLOL…… it’s based on your acceptance. ”

          So you lied, its not free.

          If Jesus died for sin, why is there still sin?

        • Personal Responsibility

          If someone brings a gift to your door and rings the bell, and you don’t answer nor accept it, then the gift will just sit there on your doorstep never to be opened and accepted. It was free, you choose not to open the door and accept it.

        • Michael Neville

          But your god doesn’t ring the bell. He leaves the gift hidden in the compost heap or in the neighbor’s rose bushes or at the Fedex office.

        • Greg G.

          Why would he make it important to accept the gift when you don’t need it? Why not offer you the free gift when it is needed?

        • MR

          And if you don’t take/find the gift, he’s going to exact eternal revenge. Sounds like a stalker.

        • Kodie

          And if you don’t take/find the gift, he’s going to exact eternal revenge. Sounds like a stalker mafioso.

          FTFY.

        • MR

          Ok, but still a stalker ’cause he claims to love me. A cross between Marlon Brando and Glenn Close.

          “Nice rabbit, it’d be a shame if somethin’ happened to it.”

        • Myna A.

          What’s in the package? An “Avoid Hades, Go straight to the Elysian Fields” pass?

          Just believe.

          Seems like the gift has some stipulations.

          [Ed.]

        • MR

          It makes no sense, which is why even many Christians are beginning to reject the whole concept of hell. Many of the younger generation Christians are beginning to question the concept of hell, and I’ve noticed among my Christian family/friends that as they get older they often lose belief in eternal punishment. You really can’t reconcile finite “sins” and infinite punishment. It just makes God look incredibly petulant.

        • adam

          “If someone brings a gift to your door and rings the bell, and you don’t answer nor accept it, then the gift will just sit there on your doorstep”

          Until I get home and pick it up

          But YOUR “God” is powerless to even ring the bell.

          Again, its not free, when it come with a threat.

        • Kodie

          It seems more like, if you accept the gift, you have to set aside everything worthwhile and real in your life, which for PR must have been worse than nothing, and become a pawn for a cult, an Amway salesman for Jesus, hang up your brain and peddle this garbage to people who think you’re nuts, continue thinking you’re not the one who is nuts, because the whole cult course is training you to think you’re better that way than any other way. Religion in his case sounds like a disease, a virus, that uses him like a puppet, and that’s all he lives for. I mean, listen to any one of these morons, they sound like they have nothing else to live for. They are addicts to their cult, and addicted to martyring themselves by putting down perfectly good people who get alone ok.

          I mean, nobody gets heaven, no matter how hard they work, and nobody gets hell, no matter how much they reject the “gift”, but if you believe there’s a gift and you accept it, the strings are basically quit your old life and let the cult use you like a pawn. There’s nothing appealing about it.

        • adam

          This reminds me of some of the conversations I have had with my wife.

          Paraphrasing – “Some people tend to over intellectualize faith, it is just something you accept and believe to accept Jesus’s love”

          “I can’t reconcile, everyone being punished for Adams ‘sin’ and Adam being punished with death for being innocent and ignorant, I can’t reconcile that MOST people are going to end up in hell with eternal punishment done in a finite life by failing to believe. I cant reconcile The Flood Genocide by a disappointed ‘God’ as love”

          Faith means I would have to throw all my morality away to accept these kinds of thing as ‘love’, when I know they are not.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You clearly don’t get it. The world is ALREADY condemned. It is going down the toilet. You are choosing not to put your hand up to get pulled out. That is no threat. That is the reality of our situation.

        • Greg G.

          We get what you are trying to say. We need evidence to show that what you say is true. We understand that you believe it with insufficient evidence. That is gullibility. What you are saying should be “going down the toilet.”

        • Personal Responsibility

          Everyone has their level of standards for evidence, direct and circumstantial, as well as the ability to make inferences and draw conclusions. We are looking at the same set of evidence, direct and circumstantial, and yet we have made different inferences and conclusions. Why attack me? I’m not attacking you. I’m simply pointing out the differences and laying out the field. Just because you don’t agree with the inferences and/or conclusion, why call me gullible? Any information should be scrutinized, not taken at face value. I have done my research. Have you? If so, then so be it. I think you are mistaken, but that’s beside the point.

        • Greg G.

          I have done my research. Your method works for any religion whether it is right or wrong. Your method does not treat the same evidence evenly. Your method does nothing to eliminate confirmation bias, it relies on it.

        • Personal Responsibility

          How would you know?

        • adam

          You mean the perfect world created by your ‘perfect’ “God”

        • Personal Responsibility

          You already know about the fall of man, so I’m not going back to redress.

        • adam

          Yes, I know the story of the fall of perfect man in a perfect world created by a perfect “God”

          But no sight of perfection.

          Only an impotent god.

          Who is going to mass murder almost all of its creation with a flood, because he regrets his imperfection.

          You know a Sadistic Loser…

        • Personal Responsibility

          He created you….

        • Michael Neville

          No, adam’s mommy and daddy created him by having sex.

        • Personal Responsibility

          So he wasn’t a test tube baby? Hmmmm…… did he reveal this to you?

        • Michael Neville

          Just because you were created in the lab doesn’t mean anyone else was. By the way, the experiment which produced you is universally considered a failure since all it did was produce a substandard, ignorant asshole.

        • Personal Responsibility

          What a terrible self-perception you have!

        • Michael Neville

          Yawn.

        • adam

          Strange, my mom never cheated on my dad.

          So you are bearing false witness, AGAIN.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Follow your ancestry. You will ultimately get to Adam, and God created Adam. Ultimately, God created everything and everyone.

        • Greg G.

          Ultimately, God created everything and everyone.

          So there was no Evil before God created everything and everyone. He has never shown remorse for creating it. He seems to be in denial. But if he created everything and Evil is something…

        • Personal Responsibility

          Define evil.

        • Greg G.

          You said God created everything. If Evil (by any definition) exists, God created it. Isaiah quotes God as admitting that he created Evil. (Modern translation use a synonym. )

        • Personal Responsibility

          God is above evil. He can use evil to bring about righteousness. A knife can be a source of evil is used for the wrong purpose. But it can also be used a source for ultimate good. Would you define evil as people/noun or actions/verb?

        • Greg G.

          If you don’t want to get your feet wet, you can walk around the puddle or you can push an old lady into it and step on her.

          Likewise, an omnipotence can accomplish anything with or without evil. Using evil to do it is evil.

        • adam

          Nope, Adam is a myth.

          Ultimately Man created God

        • busterggi

          And it was not one of our better works.

        • MNb

          Prove it. Were you there?

        • Kodie

          Condemned by whom?

        • MNb

          Your world is condemned indeed.
          Ours isn’t.
          But yeah, a bigot stupid ignorant like you would have preferred to live say 650 years ago, enjoying pleasures like famine and the black plague.

        • Personal Responsibility

          So there aren’t natural disasters going on right now? Tsunamis? Tornados? etc., etc. What a sheltered life you think you live…….

        • MNb

          So mankind hasn’t learned to deal much better and efficiently with those natural disasters? Famine hasn’t decreased? Black plague still manages to wipe out 30 – 50% of entire populations? How firmly have you stuck your head into the sand, just to remain the bigot stupid ignorant you prefer to be.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Even more insults.

        • Greg G.

          But if you open the door and accept the invisible gift, you get to pretend the gift is eternal life but then they start guilt-tripping you into financial support and suggesting ten percent of your income. What’s a fraction of your income compared to eternal life? Besides God will give you ten times as much as you give.

          Did you fall for that one? That blessings from God trick is thousands of years old.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s when the package is a paper bag of dog shit that’s on fire. You stamp it out, and the joke’s on you!

          I bet Jesus laughs a lot when that happens.

        • Greg G.

          That’s when the package is a paper bag of dog shit that’s on fire.

          I didn’t put that bag on your porch and I swear on a stack of Bibles.

        • Kodie

          I really wonder how much money he has given them so far. On another blog that no longer exists, there was this one guy who came to ask us how to get his money back. He had seen that he was foolish to spend so many years wrapped up in his cult, giving them money, and tried writing a letter to ask for it back, or at least most of it. None of us sympathized with him, either, when the answer he (allegedly) got was “no”. I mean, sure it sucks, but lesson learned and all.

        • Greg G.

          I recall a similar story from a long time ago. It was probably on talk.origins.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You don’t understand grace giving. You are not compelled to do anything. IF you give, God loves a cheerful giver, so don’t give anything without doing so with the right motives. God doesn’t need your finances.

        • Greg G.

          I didn’t say you were “compelled.” They lay a guilt-trip on you. They make you feel guilty about everything.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Who is they? I’m not aware of this so-called guilt-trip.

        • Greg G.

          Most any church that relies on support from its members. Do you tithe? Do you throw a buck in the collection plate? Why or why not?

        • Personal Responsibility

          My contributions to my church and any other charitable contributions are between God and me. I will say that we are commanded to support our local church.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          It doesn’t work that way. “For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous” (Romans 5:19). It’s like someone brings a gift to your door and it blows up, covering you and everyone in your house with Salvation Powder. Doesn’t matter whether you wanted it or not, pal–you’re going to heaven.

          Taking your example at face value, no, it doesn’t work like that either. There is a requirement for the “gift,” which is believing something. You don’t believe? Then you don’t get the gift.

          Believe in leprechauns.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’ve explained it to you very gracefully and you have attempted to make it something it is not. You of course can do whatever you want. You’re clearly misguided, and I am not here to argue your position. If that is your position, then that is your position. I completely disagree with your position, but if you are not interested in alternatives to your position, then there’s nothing more to discuss.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You don’t agree. Yeah, I get that, but show me why I’m wrong.

        • Personal Responsibility

          In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. Do you believe that there is a “possibility” that God created everything?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re asking if I’m certain that there is no God? Of course not. Anyone who’s spent much time at this blog knows that.

          But you’re simply avoiding the issue. Are things getting too hot for you? Can’t respond directly? The challenge is for you to support your remarkable claim that God exists.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Well, you admitted that God is at least a possibility. That’s a start. Some who won’t even go there are not worth discussing matters. So you consider yourself an atheist or agnostic?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Well, you admitted that 1 + 1 = 2. That’s a start. You could’ve just said that up front.

          Show me atheists who are certain that there is no god. There aren’t many of them.

          Yes, I’m an atheist and an agnostic.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Well, I can’t show you atheists who are certain that there is no God, but they have claimed that they are certain. Of course, they can’t be certain and won’t apply the rational thought they claim to have.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Looks to me that the atheists who are certain that there is no god have more evidence backing up their position than the Christians certain that there is one.

          But I assume you’ll simply say that the opposite is true. In that case, give me your evidence for God.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “Looks to me that the atheists who are certain that there is no god have more evidence backing up their position”

          That’s just laughable. Yes, these people are omniscient. Any fool can claim they know everything. Silly.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not gonna give me evidence for God? Or perhaps you’re doing me a favor because what you’d point to is just the basic arguments any uninspired apologist puts forward. In that case, thanks.

        • Personal Responsibility

          The universe itself is evidence. It is ordered, which is where we get the term Cosmos from. You can only get order from intelligence, which leads to a Creator.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You can only get order from intelligence

          Let sugar water sit out. Very disordered. Let the water evaporate, and you get sugar crystals–very ordered.

          Order can indeed come from disorder. Think about it.

        • epeeist

          Order can indeed come from disorder. Think about it.

          Oh FFS, now you have done it. He’s going to go all second law of thermodynamics…

        • Personal Responsibility

          Order has never come from disorder. If sugar water is your example, that is laughable. Please describe how that provides “order.”

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I just did. Sugar water is disordered. Lots of entropy. Sugar crystals that come from letting the water evaporate are ordered.

          http://s3.amazonaws.com/kidzworld_photo/images/2014129/10b0f8c8-2f45-40b6-8a3e-5caafb02b29e/sugar-crystals-article.jpg

        • Personal Responsibility

          No, you just removed the sugar from the water. Just because it looks different doesn’t mean it’s ordered. It’s still sugar. If it spelled out your name, that would be order because intelligence was behind it. Do you not understand the difference? Really?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Say, I like that! The Idiot Gambit–just be too stupid to understand the defeat of your argument. I’ll never play that card, but I think it suits you.

          If you want to pretend that sugar crystals have no more order than the sugar dissolved in water, fine. I’ll let the lurkers make their conclusions.

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s not a difficult conclusion to arrive at, that’s for sure.

        • epeeist

          I’ll let the lurkers make their conclusions.

          I think there is only one conclusion:

          https://i2.wp.com/www.votersopinion.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/Jesus-facepalm.jpg

        • Dys

          Just don’t tell PR about entropy and what happens when water freezes. His head might explode.

          But really, PR has fallen victim to the illogic of the “everything is evidence” canard, not realizing that if you don’t have anything to compare against, you’re really just begging the question.

          If everything is evidence for god, and god created everything, then everything is ordered, and PR has no business talking about disorder at all, since by his own rules, it can’t exist. But if disorder doesn’t exist, then order itself is a meaningless term, and PR’s attempt at an argument is completely self-defeating.

        • epeeist

          Please describe how that provides “order.”

          Bob Seidensticker has pointed out the reduction in entropy. Another way of looking it is in terms of Kolmogorov complexity, sugar water has a much higher complexity than sugar crystals.

          You might also want to luck at the synthesis of buckminsterfullerene by simply generating burning graphite in an electrical arc. They have also been found in space.

          http://www.nature.com/polopoly_fs/7.27995.1439197819!/image/c60-buckyball-web.jpg_gen/derivatives/landscape_300/c60-buckyball-web.jpg

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah…bucky-balls…it’s been a while.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’m not sure what you are trying to point out. I’ve been through both inorganic and organic chemistry. Yes, atoms can come together to form molecules. Even atoms can have different isotopes. What does this have to do with order?

        • busterggi

          There is a lot of stupid out there but you are stupid at a sub-atomic level.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Have you heard the term “fractally stupid”? It came from the Atheist Experience and obviously means stupid at any and all levels.

          Some people are just begging for the label.

        • busterggi

          Fractal patterns can be attractive, stupidity isn’t.

        • epeeist

          I’m not sure what you are trying to point out.

          Why does this not surprise me.

          I’ve been through both inorganic and organic chemistry.

          And why is that I get the feeling that if I started talking about, say, the methylation of vitamin B12 by methyl mercury halides or potential barriers to rotation in methyl isoxazoles that you wouldn’t have a clue what I was talking about.

          hat does this have to do with order?

          In both the example that Bob Seidensticker and I gave you have an initial state with a very large number of possible configurations, in other words there is a very high entropy which means a large level of disorder. My example has probably got the higher entropic state.

          In the end state you have few possible configurations, hence a low entropy; in other words a highly ordered state.

          In both examples we get a highly ordered state from a disordered one.

        • MNb
        • Personal Responsibility

          Yes in a sense. He created the water cycle for snowflakes to be beautiful crystals. You have no idea what all He built. He knows how many hairs are on your head. He knows how many grains of sand on the seashore. He is very detail-oriented, yet very loving and merciful.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          So he made beautiful snowflakes? How about cancer–did he make that, too? What about tsunamis? Guinea worm?

        • Myna A.

          And speaking of guinea worms and assorted parasites….Radio Lab: http://www.radiolab.org/story/91689-parasites/

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Myna A.

          Must be that, “…penalty of Adam,” thing going on.

        • Greg G.

          Then God made slush, too. I think it was Tallulah Bankhead who claimed to be “as pure as the driven slush”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Or one of Dawkins favourites, ichneumon wasp.

          This quote by Charles Darwin: “I cannot persuade myself that a beneficent & omnipotent God would have designedly created the Ichneumonidæ with the express intention of their feeding within the living bodies of caterpillars …” [from this letter to Asa Gray, 1860] is often brought up in discussions about how Darwin began to lose his faith while writing On the Origin of Species.

          Or this quote from an essay by Stephen Jay Gould:-
          Since a dead and decaying caterpillar will do the wasp larvae no good, it eats in a pattern that cannot help but recall, in our inappropriate anthropocentric interpretation, the ancient English penalty for treason — drawing and quartering, with its explicit object of extracting as much torment as possible by keeping the victim alive and sentient. As the king’s executioner drew out and burned his client’s entrails, so does the ichneumon larvae eat fat bodies and digestive organs first, keeping the caterpillar alive by preserving intact the essential heart and central nervous system. Finally, the larvae completes its work and kills its victim, leaving behind the caterpillar’s empty shell. Is it any wonder that ichneumons, not snakes or lions, stood as the paramount challenge to God’s benevolence during the heyday of natural theology?

          http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_nonmoral.html

          That God character is one sick fucker.

        • Myna A.

          The Tinkerbell Effect!!!! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tinkerbell_effect

          In part:

          “The Tinkerbell effect points out a significant flaw in the brain’s system of receiving and interpreting visually available information: it is not directly representative of reality. With the overwhelming amount of sensory information, the brain summarizes it by filling in what it cannot make sense of. In other words, it is an act of imagination.”

        • Dys

          You’re still kicking around? You don’t have an argument to support your position, you aren’t qualified to discuss science, you engage in circular reasoning, and you’re a hypocrite besides.

          When you make assertions that you can’t defend, you don’t give anyone a reason to believe you. Yet that’s all that you’re apparently capable of. You’ve made it quite clear you don’t have anything to offer in support of your assertions.

          In the Beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.

          That’s the claim. There’s no good evidence for it though.

          Do you believe that there is a “possibility” that God created everything?

          It hasn’t even been determined that a god is a possible.

        • Personal Responsibility

          A simple No would have sufficed. So if God or an outside supernatural force is taken off the table from the beginning, then you have already started in a biased way. You have no idea how we got here, so there is no reason to take anything off the table. Then start ruling things out. You cannot rule God out.

        • Dys

          Actually, if you read what I actually wrote, you’d notice that I didn’t rule god out. I stated that we don’t know if a god is even possible or not. Therefore, jumping straight ahead in order to start ascribing actions to him is unwarranted.

          You have no idea how we got here, so there is no reason to take anything off the table.

          And yet there’s no reason to entertain the notion that a magical spirit created everything when there’s no evidence supporting the proposition either.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You are not starting with a blank slate of possibilities then. You can’t even see your own bias.

        • Greg G.

          No, he didn’t rule out God. There is just no evidence to support the idea yet. The whole idea originated from a lack of evidence and an overabundance of imagination. There are lots of creation stories from the ancient past. They all have one thing in common and that is a complete lack of evidentiary support. Twist Genesis as much as you like and it does not explain the data we have.

          The problem is the blank slate of evidence in favor of a god. Surviving god concepts tend to be carefully contrived so as to not be scientifically testable. Gods that made predictions that turned out to be testable didn’t fare too well. Defining a god to be untestable by science to keep them from being testable, means they can’t be supported by science either. Don’t blame science for that.

        • Personal Responsibility

          God is not testable by any means we have today. That doesn’t mean He isn’t testable. Prove your great, great, great grandfather existed. I bet you have zero evidence for his existence; therefore, he must not have existed.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Huh? No one disputes that great, great, great grandfathers exist. Nor does anyone doubt that Greg G. has one (or that he has as many as 16 unique ones).

          And you’re saying that this is equivalent to our knowledge of god(s)?

        • Personal Responsibility

          I said nothing of the sorts. I’m merely pointing out the shallowness of your arguments.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Shallowness of my arguments? You were the one who brought up grandfathers (which we all agree exists) to somehow support your claim of god(s) existing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Prove your great, great, great grandfather existed.

          You actually are an imbecile if you can’t understand why that request is so retarded.

          Knowledge of science, my arse.

        • Greg G.

          I bet you have zero evidence for his existence; therefore, he must not have existed.

          I accept that bet. Let’s say, $1000 in United States currency.

        • Dys

          I see the point has sailed over your head, and your reading comprehension is subpar.

          You are not starting with a blank slate of possibilities then

          You haven’t demonstrated that god is in the class of possible things.

          You can’t even see your own bias.

          That I try not to believe things that don’t have any compelling evidence for them? In that case, I’m biased against alien abduction stories, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, the chupacabra, and a wide swath of conspiracy theories.

          Once again, try reading what I write, and not want you want me to have written.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Let’s see…..billions of years creates life forms…… silly. You have zero evidence for that yet you cling to it. See your hypocrisy? Probably not.

        • Dys

          Actually, there is evidence for it. Granted, abiogenesis is a hypothesis and not a theory, but to say there’s no evidence for it just demonstrates your ignorance. So there’s no hypocrisy on my part. You’re just woefully uneducated on science and don’t know what you’re talking about.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOL….. our entire food industry counts on there being no additional life forms in the food chain. But you think complex life can come about by random chance and billions of years…… LOL…..

        • Dys

          Who said anything about random chance? You should stop reading creationist drivel – it’s making you incredibly ignorant.

          “No additional life forms”? What are you talking about?

        • Personal Responsibility

          How on earth would anything occur without random chance according to you? Is someone or something orchestrating evolution according to you? You sound very confused.

        • Greg G.

          Even with random chance, something will happen. We don’t know how many possible ways life could evolve on its own. Given a few million years on every facet of every grain of sand on every beach on the planet and who knows how many possible ways for life to start, it could be inevitable.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Bull. Stare in an empty closet for a thousand years. See what jumps out at you. Increase to a million years… nothing? Increase to a billion, no make it 100 billion. Congratulations, you just wasted 100 billion years staring into an empty closet. There’s your Evolution 101 course.

        • Greg G.

          No, you gave Stupidest Religion in the World 101.

          Stare at a whole spinning planet with hydrocarbons and liquid water, for millions of years and you will see lots of complex chemistry. Maybe we would see life like our biochemistry arise and maybe some other biochemistry. Or don’t stare at it. The chemistry still happens.

        • Personal Responsibility

          No it wouldn’t. Ever hear of a heat death? Study thermodynamics.

        • Greg G.

          Notice that I specified liquid water. I don’t think you know what heat death is.

        • Susan

          How on earth would anything occur without random chance…?

          Define “random chance”.

          Is someone or something orchestrating evolution…?

          What do you mean?

        • Dys

          How on earth would anything occur without random chance according to you?

          So in your myopic worldview, something is either totally random, or someone is forcing things to happen? Mutations are random, but evolution isn’t.

          Is someone or something orchestrating evolution according to you?

          Evolution doesn’t have anything orchestrating it beyond natural laws. But it’s not random.

          I’m not confused, you don’t understand even the basics of evolution.

        • Ignorant Amos

          PR doesn’t understand the basics, end of.

        • Personal Responsibility

          What drives natural law? Why is “natural law” supreme? Where did it come from?

        • Dys

          Natural laws are descriptive statements concerning how the universe operates. Humans created the conceptual statements, and they describe inherent properties of the universe. As such, your questions are all category errors.

          The transcendental argument doesn’t work, sorry.

        • MR

          And in a way, Genesis is also a hypothesis. The difference is that millions of scientists around the world are dedicating their lives to working out a coherent understanding of the world around us, testing this hypothesis, tossing out that hypothesis, slowly giving us a clearer picture of our world and producing concrete results. Millions of preachers, meanwhile, do nothing to test their hypothesis, yet confident beyond reason, continue to preach it to the masses without even an attempt to test and verify.

        • Dys

          Yeah…but then you’ll get believers like PR who’ll pretend the layman’s definition of a hypothesis puts it on par with a scientific hypothesis.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Again, there is ZERO evidence. Please tell me what you are considering evidence. I gotta hear this….

        • Dys

          Again, you’re wrong. The Miller-Urey experiments, despite some flaws, showed that you can get organic compounds from inorganic matter.

          As for some other evidence I’m relatively certain you’ll dismiss out of hand, here’s an article for you:

          http://www.csmonitor.com/Science/2015/0623/How-can-life-emerge-from-nonliving-matter-UNC-scientists-find-new-evidence

          Have you stopped pretending you have an informed opinion on science yet?

        • epeeist

          The Miller-Urey experiments, despite some flaws, showed that you can get organic compounds from inorganic matter.

          Miller-Urey is quite old now, there has been a fair amount of research done since. There are ideas such as PNA, RNA and sulphur worlds. I picked up this recent paper which gives information on chiral molecules in meteorites.

          But organic molecules from inorganic ones is older than that, Wohle’r synthesis of urea was done in 1828, this effectively killed off the vitalist hypothesis..

        • Personal Responsibility

          “Where does life come from? Despite years of research, scientists still rack their brains over this most existential question.”

          How is this proof of anything? Do you actually read what you post? I must have missed something. Having the components necessary for life and life itself are two different things. I have explained that before. If I squash a fly, the dead fly is not alive. He has all the parts necessary, but he is not alive. Just because someone can cook up some amino acids in a lab, that proves nothing. If you were to cook up a human, well then, you might get my attention. Nice try…..

        • Dys

          Once again, science isn’t about proof. If you had any actual knowledge of science, you’d know that.

          Just because someone can cook up some amino acids in a lab, that proves nothing

          Correct. It doesn’t prove abiogenesis occurred. But I never said it did. I said it was evidence for the hypothesis. Which is significantly more than the “goddidit” speculation.

        • Susan

          You can’t even see your own bias.

          You’ll have to show that Dys is showing bias. You can’t just accuse her of it. What exactly is Dys’s bias?

          Is there a “reason to entertain the notion that a magical spirit created everything when there’s no evidence supporting the proposition”?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Yes, you have testimony from individuals. You also have prophecy from individuals who could have only known what they did by Someone outside of time. You all seem to conveniently throw out testimonies by individuals, where that is some of the strongest evidence around.

        • epeeist

          You cannot rule God out.

          But if your god is in the class of all possible things then so is the god of the Muslims, as are the gods of the Hindus or the god of the race of sentient, free-floating gas bags on an unnamed planet in IOK-1. They have been around a lot longer than us and they know that their god is the true one and all others are simply figments of other races imagination.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Like I said, start ruling things out.

        • epeeist

          Like I said, start ruling things out

          So what are you going to rule out and what reasoning are you going to use to do this?

        • Personal Responsibility

          The mind that God gave me.

        • epeeist

          The mind that God gave me

          It seems that we can add logic to the things you know nothing about.

          You are claiming that you can determine whether your god is a possibility using the mind that your god gave you. This is of course petitio principii, a logical fallacy.

        • Personal Responsibility

          * Yawn *

          Your assertions that we got here from anything other than a direct creation from an intelligent mind is unreasonable and illogical. There is no explanation why life is possible. You can compare a fly, which has the same exact molecules, to a fly I just swatted. One is alive and one is dead. They have the exact same molecules, but one is alive and one is not. You cannot get from molecules to actual life. It is not possible. Life has to come from life in our world. God started the life process in our world.

        • Greg G.

          That fly was made from molecules taken from dog shit or possibly a skunk corpse. Then it was alive.

        • epeeist

          Your assertions that we got here from anything other than a direct creation from an intelligent mind is unreasonable and illogical.

          Special pleading

          There is no explanation why life is possible.

          Argument from personal incredulity.

          You can compare a fly, which has the same exact molecules, to a fly I just swatted. One is alive and one is dead. They have the exact same molecules, but one is alive and one is not.

          Red herring and false equivalence.

          You cannot get from molecules to actual life. It is not possible. Life has to come from life in our world.

          Another argument from personal incredulity.

          God started the life process in our world.

          Bare assertion, begging the question and most important of all, a non sequitur.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Excuse after excuse after excuse why you will never bend or even consider anything other than we all got here from some processes over billions of years. And you will continue to waste your time making excuse after excuse after excuse because you are so enriched with wisdom that you fail to see the obvious. Best to you.

        • MNb

          “There is no explanation why life is possible.”
          God of the gaps. Has been outdated since at least 70 years. Then again your mindset has been outdated for at least 400 years.

          “You cannot get from molecules to actual life.”
          You’re in for a surprise. Within a few decades scientists will exactly do that in a lab. Using “operational science”. Of course that won’t make you admit you were wrong. That’s because all creationists are dishonest.

          “They have the exact same molecules, but one is alive and one is not.”
          Life and death are about interactions between those molecules, stupid. So you lied about your scientific credentials. Ah well, all creationists are liars.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “… all creationists are dishonest.”

          Nice touch. I’ll bow out with that. You have tarnished billions of people with a single stupid statement. Congratulations. This is the typical response. Tarnish and minimize, make them subhuman to destroy. I really feel sorry for people like you. What a miserable life you must lead!

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Your assertions that we got here from anything other than a direct creation from an intelligent mind is unreasonable and illogical.

          And yet evolution remains the scientific consensus. Must be difficult being you.

        • Personal Responsibility

          If 250 million people have a stupid idea, it’s still a stupid idea. There are more Christians than Atheists in the world. Do you really want to go with that argument about consensus? Thought not….

        • Michael Neville

          Do you even know what a consensus is, Mr. “Science Degrees”? Incidentally, the vast majority of Christians have no problem accepting evolution, an ancient Earth, an even more ancient universe, and the rest of reality you reject.

        • Kodie

          Christians aren’t experts at anything though. You can’t even fucking read for comprehension.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I’m talking about the scientific consensus. I always accept it as our best approximation at the moment. (From what platform could I possibly reject the consensus of a discipline for which I don’t understand the evidence?)

          There are more Christians than Atheists in the world.

          And when there are more Muslims than Christians, are you going to convert?

          Thought not …

        • Ignorant Amos

          Seriously?

          That’s your argument?

          Counter what you THINK is the fallacy of ad populum with an actual example of the argumentum ad populum, really?

          What a dumb fucker you are, sheeesh!

          Why don’t you try reading for comprehension.

          Do you really want to go with that argument about scientific consensus?

          FTFY

          Thought not….

          Ya thought wrong, AGAIN!

          Google is your friend. Here’s an exercise for ya…go do some research and find out why you are still being an embarrassing silly pants.

        • Greg G.

          Over two-thirds of the world’s population think Christianity is wrong. Over three quarters of the world’s population think Islam is wrong. 85% think Hinduism is wrong.

          Obviously, most of the world is wrong about religion. Pick a religion and most of its followers think every other denomination is on the wrong track.

          It seems that humans have a tendency to be wrong about religion. If there was a religion that was correct, it shouldn’t have to impose itself on people to be accepted. People should reject the tendency to follow a false religion.

        • adam

          “Do you really want to go with that argument about consensus? ”

          The scientific consensus?
          Sure.

        • Kodie

          Your explanation is fictional.

        • adam

          “When the human condition is analyzed, it is found that it takes an intelligent mover to create order out of chaos ”

          And yet dont you make the very same claim for your “God” character?

        • MNb

          And …. circularity again. “God gave you your mind to reject the suggestion that God can be ruled out.”
          I wrote this before I read Epeeists’ comment underneath.
          Your stupidities become more and more amusing. Please continue.

        • Greg G.

          Or just rank the possibilities by likelihood. Your god ranks with the Hindu gods, far below the vague gods of Deism.

        • Personal Responsibility

          How would you judge possibilities without bias, which is clear on your part?

        • Greg G.

          You judge on the strength of the evidence. There is no evidence for any god, but the more theology applied to a god makes it less likely to be correct. The deistic god has no theology, so it has less going against it.

          For example, there is a slim chance there will be a cat on my porch when I go home but I have no evidence for it. If we say a calico cat with one eye will be on my porch, we have a reduced chance of being correct. Saying it will have a blue collar makes it less likely. If we say the cat’s name is Yahweh, we are more likely to be wrong. The more details we add, the less likely we are to be correct.

        • Personal Responsibility

          That’s anthropic-centric. Start with God-centric and you start with the correct answer. God revealed Himself to Adam immediately. He walked with Adam in the Garden. That’s quite hard for Adam to deny. He appeared before many people in OT times. He called a nation and saved them from destruction many times. He exiled His people. His Glory was shown to many people over and over in the OT. Everything was undeniable by them, and even so, some sinned against God’s chosen people and were killed. But you know all this. You and many others continue to make the bogus assertion that man created God. Nothing could be further from the truth. Since the beginning of time, the devil has been asserting counter-arguments, just like you all are doing. Everything you are asserting is diametrically opposed to the truth. You may want to believe your assertions with 98% confidence. The problem is the 2%. You know down deep that you could be wrong. And I know you are. Please consider what I am trying to tell you, which is the Truth.

        • Greg G.

          It’s not anything-centric. If you start with god-centric you rule out non-god-centric explanations a priori no matter what the evidence shows. If you start with capital G God-centric, you are less likely to be right and can only go farther from what is true.

        • Personal Responsibility

          God created everything, He was there, He informed us of what happened in His Word. Are you suggesting God is a liar? Why would he lie?

          Also, God created Adam. How old was Adam 5 minutes after he was created?

        • busterggi

          God never informed us off anything, semi-literate goatherders did.

        • Greg G.

          I don’t accuse God of anything. I think that those who say God speaks through the Bible are telling lies

        • Ignorant Amos

          Or ignorantly deluded.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          God a liar? He’s as much a liar as Pinocchio–not really, since he’s pretend.

        • MNb

          And begin with the Bible with all its errors.
          We’ve gone over that one already, haven’t we? First you claimed the Holy Book was totally inerrant, then you backpedaled with the strawman “really, you don’t believe because of those irrelevant quotes?”

        • Personal Responsibility

          ??? Not only did you lose me, but now you are misrepresenting me. The Bible is inerrant in its original form.

        • Greg G.

          How do you know that the Bible was inerrant in its original form and what good would that do anybody when it has been written with errors before it was canonized?

        • Personal Responsibility

          There have been zero issues with anything of doctrinal matters. The most common errors seen are copyist errors, which may not make a mark fully to read as 40,000 instead of 4,000 for example. Over 99.9% of the entire Bible is fully correct word for word.

        • Greg G.

          You don’t know what changes were made in the first copies of each original manuscript.

          In ﹰMark when the leper asked ﹰJesus to heal him, did ﹰJesus respond with anger or pity?

        • Personal Responsibility

          All you are doing is attempting to throw confusion in. Do you know the answer to the question? If not, then there is no reason to discuss. If so, then make an assertion.

        • Greg G.

          I am not adding confusion. This is the state of ﹰNew ﹰTestament studies. If you don’t know this, you are already confused, plus you are overstating that there are zero doctrinal errors.

          I do not know the answer to the question and neither does anyone else. Some manuscripts say Jesus reacted with anger but more say it was with pity. But scholars favor “anger” because it is more likely that a active would change anger to pity than pity to anger.

          It has been shown that there were more variations done before canonization than after. It is likely that changes would have been made before each story and letter was widespread and considered important. There are apparent seams in the texts that look like material was added or removed.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I admire your tenacity in the face of such an imbecilic lost cause.

        • Greg G.

          He bet me that I had zero evidence of my great great great grandfather. I have accepted the bet. I can’t wait to see his excuses for reneging on it.

          PS: http://disq.us/p/1bkoowr

        • Ignorant Amos

          Anno….that’s why a said this…

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/movie_review_ray_comforts_the_atheist_delusion/#comment-2874788585

          I was speechless at the absurdity of the fuckwits fuckwittery. Youse lot that still continue in addressing his retardedness all deserve a medal.

          I can’t quite grasp how such a dim cunt can manage to operate a computer or manage to read and write.

        • Greg G.

          Over 99.9% of the entire Bible is fully correct word for word.

          From a quick search, I found two sources that give the number of words in the Bible. One says 31,101 and one says 31,102. If 99.9% of them are correct, then less than 32 are wrong.

          The Woman Taken in Adultery (John 7:53-8:11) is considered to be a interpolation, meaning it was not in the original text. The NRSV version of that interpolation has 230 words and the NIV has 222 words, according to a script I wrote. That alone shows that Bible is less than 99.3% correct.

          The most reliable manuscripts have Mark ending at Mark 16:8 so Mark 16:9-20 is another interpolation. The NRSV has 277 words in those verses and the NIV has 260 words. That puts the reliability down to less than 98.5% correct with just two known interpolations that I knew off the top of my head.

          We still cannot know what was changed or added. The epistles are very consistent. In the letters to the Corinthians, Paul refers to previous letters. These are lost unless they are in 2 Corinthians as some scholars have argued. So even the most consistent writings are suspect.

          Maybe you should stop exaggerating the qualities of the Bible.

          You offered a bet that I had zero evidence that my great, great, great grandfather existed. I accept that bet. I am willing to wager up to $1000 of US currency. What are say you?

          http://disq.us/p/1bkoowr

        • Personal Responsibility

          * yawn *

        • Greg G.

          Are you just that bad at math? Do you not care whether what you say is honest?

          Are you reneging on the bet you offered?

        • Ignorant Amos

          That’ll be 3 for 3 then….

        • epeeist

          Do you not care whether what you say is honest?

          He is a creationist, as the saying goes “One can be honest, intelligent and a creationist. Just not all three at the same time”.

        • Michael Neville

          Our squeeky toy is back! And still dumber than dirt!

        • Personal Responsibility

          What a troll you are! Nothing of value….. typical.

        • Michael Neville

          On the contrary, you do have value. You’re our squeeky toy. You say stupid things, get smacked down, and then say other stupid things to get smacked down again. Squeek for us, squeeky toy.

        • Myna A.

          Do you always go to people’s doors and call them trolls?

        • Personal Responsibility

          All the notifications come in to Disqus, so I see these notifications (and reply to them) on a sidebar to any story that links to it I guess. I am reading a political story on Newsmax and see I have notifications, so I reply. If that causes anyone an issue, then don’t link to Disqus, which is linked to many sites. I don’t know where the comments are coming from quite honestly. I may have originally posted in the “main area” of a site, but that was some time ago, and I don’t even remember which site it was.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Please! That’s Dumber than Dirt!® Let’s have some respect for trademarks.

        • Michael Neville

          How do you know the Bible is inerrant? Does it still say bats are birds? Does it still have pi equal to 3? Does it still have goats getting striped coats when exposed to sticks? If it still says those things then it’s got errors in it.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You can start here. You obviously don’t know Hebrew……

          https://answersingenesis.org/is-the-bible-true/isnt-the-bible-full-of-errors/

        • Michael Neville

          You actually expect me to read AIG? Ken Ham lies about atheists, he lies about evolution, and he even lies about his religion. Why should I waste my time on a set of lies?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Yep, discount the article, which was written by someone other than Ken Ham. It was actually written by Paul Taylor. Nice try. You all scream for examples, I give you some, then you run and hide because of big, bad Ken Ham. What is wrong with you? Sounds like defeat to me.

        • Michael Neville

          AIG is Ken Ham’s website. Just because someone else produced the lies instead of Ham doesn’t mean that AIG is anything other than a bunch of lies about evolution and religion. Unlike you, I’m neither ignorant or stupid. AIG sole function is to push creationists lies. You need to ask yourself why do you creationists lie all the time? I can tell you why, because you have no evidence for creationism and people like Ham and Taylor know this.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Then I will discredit ALL evolutionist websites because they are garbage. They create fairy tales because they can’t explain.

          Try focusing on the content. If you can’t, then you are a hypocrite!

        • Michael Neville

          Just because you’re an ignorant fool doesn’t mean that evolution isn’t true. Here’s a simple question, ignorant fool. Give me a one or two sentence explanation of what you think evolution is. I bet you can’t do it without looking it up.

        • Myna A.

          On the other hand, it might not be a bad idea for him to look it up. He might actually learn something.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’ll do it in one. Evolution is a lie. Didn’t have to look it up either…..

        • Michael Neville

          In other words you don’t have a fucking clue about what evolution is. It must be really pitiful to be you, Mr. “Science Degrees”, lying about something that you don’t know enough about to lie convincingly about.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Gutter mouth.

        • Greg G.

          Tone troll.

        • Michael Neville

          Tone trolling will not do you any good, you ignorant fool. I’m a retired Navy chief. I don’t call a spade a spade, I call it a fucking shovel.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The knobhead has clearly not been in close contact with service personnel or spent any length of time in a barracks room environment. Let alone been in a high adrenaline releasing circumstance.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M5fgRgAk9uk

          If it is in your vocabulary and it is relevant, get it used.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • Dys

          And since you clearly don’t understand it, keeping yourself an ignorant moron is in your best interests. We get it.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’m totally up to date on your religious dogma of evolution. You just won’t admit it is faith based and that you will die accepting what other brilliant idiots claim to be science. Think for yourself for once.

        • Dys

          I’m totally up to date on your religious dogma of evolution.

          Yes, we understand that you reject science. And your constant misrepresentations of evolution make your assertion of being up to date on it a complete and utter lie.

          You just won’t admit it is faith based and that you will die accepting what other brilliant idiots claim to be science.

          Because it’s not faith based. Faith based is believing that a book written by scientifically ignorant Jews over 2,000 years ago contains an accurate understanding of the origins of life.

          You’re rejecting the scientific consensus, formed by people far more qualified than you, and backed by actual evidence. Unlike your foolish mythology. You don’t understand evolution, you don’t understand science, and you’re too incompetent and dishonest to admit your glaring faults.

          Think for yourself for once.

          As you regurgitate the cliched ignorance of creationists. You’re a silly, uneducated moron.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Ain’t faith wonderful! You get to believe things that are pleasing rather than those that are true.

          If it pleased me that you didn’t exist, could I wish that truth into existence?

        • Ignorant Amos

          If it pleased me that you didn’t exist, could I wish that truth into existence?

          Being an internet forum evil overlord you do indeed have the power to smote PR out of existence in one world at least. Go on, cause him not to exist here. He has over run any smidgen of usefulness he might ever have had anyway and is now just cluttering the place up inane dross. All and sundry can see his nakedness, morally and intellectually. If he was a pet animal that was so injured, we all know what the humane thing, why let his CE existence to continue when there is so much suffering on both sides. Do the humane thing. Go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on,….go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on, go on…as Mrs. Doyle would say.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Buybull is a lie and I HAVE looked it up…get a grip ya infantile cretin.

        • Myna A.

          You obviously don’t know Hebrew……

          Suggesting, of course, that you do. Perhaps a bit of Aramaic as well? Greek? A little Latin might help, too, with those science and history courses you so desperately are in need of.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Tut! tut!…let’s start with the basics, English comprehension. PR needs to be able to walk before ya set him off running.

        • epeeist

          You obviously don’t know Hebrew……

          Ah, a punt to the Hebrew. This is obviously the YEC equivalent of the Catholic punt to Aquinas.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Ah a non-response. That is obviously the evolutionist’s equivalent of a punt to Dawkins.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          The Bible is inerrant in its original form.

          If this is just a theological statement, it does nothing to support your position. If it’s a claim, then prove it.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Funny. You guys latch onto theories until they are disproved. This is an assertion that is written. So you should easily be able to disprove it if it is not accurate. You cannot do so; therefore, it must be true.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Funny. You guys latch onto theories until they are disproved.

          What is funny about that? I thought you claimed to understand science? Understand science, my arse. You are one dumb fuck.

          This is an assertion that is written. So you should easily be able to disprove it if it is not accurate. You cannot do so; therefore, it must be true.

          Your imbecilic understanding of science is beyond reproach. Why do you insist on embarrassing yourself with this asininity?

          The strength of a scientific theory is related to the diversity of phenomena it can explain, and to its elegance and simplicity (see Occam’s razor). As additional scientific evidence is gathered, a scientific theory may be rejected or modified if it does not fit the new empirical findings; in such circumstances, a more accurate theory is then desired. In certain cases, the less-accurate unmodified scientific theory can still be treated as a theory if it is useful (due to its sheer simplicity) as an approximation under specific conditions (e.g., Newton’s laws of motion as an approximation to special relativity at velocities that are small relative to the speed of light).

          Why don’t ya just piss off with all your knuckle dragging arseholery.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Disprove what? “The Bible is inerrant”?

          I can’t. Nor do I have to.

          Your turn: prove it true.

          You cannot [disprove the claim]; therefore, it must be true.

          Is that your final answer? You seriously claiming that this is an axiom by which you live your life?

        • Susan

          Like I said, start ruling things out.

          What are your criteria for ruling things out?

        • MNb

          I can rule out god defined as an immaterial/ supernatural/ transcendental entity that interacts with our natural reality just fine.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Then you cannot exist because you cannot get from molecules to man no matter how you try. Did you notice that we have 2 different genders? Even under the fallacious guise of the possibility of a “common ancestor”, how did “it” become two different genders? I’ve got to hear this wild fantasy of yours.

        • Greg G.

          We are descended from creatures that had male and female sex organs. One would have had a mutation that disabled the female organs and left the male organs intact. That one could mate more so the mutation spread until it became difficult to find a mate with female parts. One with a mutation for only female parts would be able to find mates and could concentrate more energy on those offspring and not waste any producing sperm.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Nice fable, but that’s really gross. We see so many of these in the fossil record….. NOT! You guys just make up crap as you go.

        • Greg G.

          Biology is gross. A religion based on death is grosser. A religion based on a crucifixion is grossest.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Jesus is alive. That is the basis for Christianity. He beat death. You should try to understand the true meaning. It is a saving grace.

        • busterggi

          “Jesus is alive. That is the basis for Christianity. He beat death. ”

          So much for sacrificing himself, the whole thing was a cheat.

        • Greg G.

          I understand what Christianity is about. It is founded on lies.

        • Michael Neville

          You must be a discipline of Ray Comfort. He likes to say that evolution requires each gender to evolve separately. The evolution of sex has been explained to Banana Man at least twice and he’s acknowledged the correction to his claim. So now when he says the genders have to evolve separately he’s lying.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Just like parts of the body that cannot function without having all the parts put together at once, evolution CANNOT explain the need for sexual reproduction. It had to have started that way. You make it sound like all these little chromosomes, proteins, other chemicals are just morphing themselves together to produce the next something or another. Sounds creepy, like invasion of the body snatchers. No. It did not happen that way. It was orchestrated by a Creator who created them male and female. It’s that simple.

        • Michael Neville

          Sexual reproduction is a means for organisms to exchange genetic material. There are other means as well. When you’re infected by a virus, which is basically a naked cluster of genes, you receive new genetic material. Much of the so-called “junk DNA” is actually viruses which infected our ancestors.

          You don’t understand either sexual reproduction or evolution so it’s a waste of time for you to try to lecture us on shit we know is not only wrong but obviously wrong. If you’re going to pretend your “creator” did anything then you first have to provide evidence your “creator” isn’t just a figment of your religious leaders’ imaginations. Good luck with that.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I understand you want to reduce God to a test tube in a lab. It doesn’t work that way. If Jesus Himself appeared to you right now, called you by name, explained your life history to you and gave you a mission for your life going forward, then disappeared after several hours where you could see, touch, smell, feel, and hear Him, would you become a Christian? OR Would you disregard it as something that cannot be explained and therefore discount the entire experience? What would you do?

        • Kodie

          Yeah, funny how he never does that. Instead, we get dummies like you preaching nonsense at us about their imaginary friend. You’re the problem here, not god. You’re the idiot and the world seems to be full of more gullible idiots than sensible people. Keep believing, we know you’re addicted to your ego, but you talk nonsense. Jesus won’t appear just like Superman won’t appear to save the day, and Santa Claus won’t bring presents. You are not credible. The experience you’re talking about is not something we need to worry about analyzing.

        • Michael Neville

          I don’t want to reduce your god to anything because it’s impossible to do something to an imaginary being.

          If Jesus showed up and convinced me that he was actually Jesus then I’d start asking him some serious questions like why are he and his dad assholes. He better have a good explanation for the problem of evil or I’ll spit in his face and tell him to fuck himself. I might believe in your god, given reasonable evidence for his existence, but I would never worship such an evil, immoral character. It doesn’t say much about you that you worship a sadistic bully who kills people just because he can.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Then have a nice day because you will never get the opportunity.

        • Myna A.

          Then have a nice day because you will never get the opportunity.

          And wouldn’t you just shit if he did get the opportunity for being honest and you didn’t, for being a dishonest mole.

        • Michael Neville

          Of course I’ll never have the opportunity because Jesus doesn’t exist.

        • Myna A.

          If Jesus Himself appeared to you right now, called you by name, explained your life history to you and gave you a mission for your life going forward, then disappeared after several hours where you could see, touch, smell, feel, and hear Him, would you become a Christian?

          How would you know it was Jesus? What would be the test? Would it be visual? Was he the darker skinned Middle Eastern man he surely would have been? Or the lighter skinned prince of the Renaissance? Would he replace that broken cupboard door with his carpentry skills while telling you your life history and explaining his plan for you? Did he smell like the spikenard Mary anointed his feet with? Have you ever actually smelled spikenard? It smells like a barnyard.

        • Personal Responsibility

          He claimed to be Jesus, showed you the nail holes that still exist in his hands and feet. Paul was convinced on His way to Damascus. I’m sure you would be able to tell. The question is: what would you do?

        • Myna A.

          Even though you failed to answer my hypothetical question, I shall have the courtesy to answer yours.

          I would invite him in for some cheese, bread, wine and conversation. On his departure, I would offer him a button, a token of remembrance, if you will, so he wouldn’t forget my plea.

          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/22d20fc9711c379256b32dfea23b1fbfafea81854c2ec388a81ecdd94e7f64e5.jpg

        • Kodie

          Hold up there – you believe Paul actually did see Jesus. Paul was convinced by something, but you don’t really know what. That bullshit convinces you, but you have to have some critical thinking here, you HAVE TO! You just don’t, that’s the problem. You believe an account of a person who isn’t you who was convinced by something and attributed it to Jesus Lord and Savior, but that is how urban legends start. You have to pretend you’re smarter than that, and you have to accept we’re smarter than you.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You find a story of evidence compelling? Most of us prefer the evidence itself.

          Would you convert to some other religion because they also have a story about compelling evidence?

        • Greg G.

          I might. He would have to tell me more than things I already know, that nobody else knows yet that I could verify that those things were true. If the story was just things I happen to know, I would think it was something I imagined or that it was a waking dream. Something like where I could find buried treasure or how to cure cancer, maybe.

          Too many people have waking dreams and think it is more profound that it actually is.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Read the story of the woman at the well. She was convinced.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Are you saying that you’d be convinced by the equivalent stories in other religions?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Don’t be daft…that would be circular reasoning of course.

          ohhhppps! Wait a wee minute isn’t that what….ach, never mind.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You do know that that’s exactly what it is, a story…right?

          It never actually happened.

          Scholars have noted that this story appears to be modelled on a standard betrothal scene from Hebrew scriptures, particularly that of Jacob in Genesis 29. This convention, which would have been familiar to Jewish readers, is subverted by presenting Jesus as the bridegroom of the Jewish people, in a scene which follows on from a scene in which John the Baptist compares his relationship to Jesus with that of the friend of a bridegroom.

        • Pofarmer

          I’m just, kinda, wow.

        • Greg G.

          I think it is also based on the Widow at Zarephath in 1 Kings 17. When the disciples bring up food, Jesus talks about food they don’t know about, which may be derived from the oil and flour that never run out that Elijah made happen for hte old lady.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yes…I read about that in Matthew Henry’s Complete Commentary on the Bible.

          https://www.studylight.org/commentaries/mhm/1-kings-17.html

        • Greg G.

          Yes, in John 4:1-26, we find a common Bible trope of meeting a woman at a well. Here she gets the evidence she needs to make her believe. In John 20:24-29, Thomas gets the evidence he needed to quell his doubts.

          In Judges 6:36-40, Gideon has doubts so he puts some fleece on the grass and asks God to make the fleece wet with dew and the grass dry. That happens but he still has doubts so he does it again but asks for the grass to be wet with dew and the fleece dry. That happens.

          In Genesis 17:17-22, 18:10-15, Abraham and Sarah laugh at the idea that they would have a child but they received the proof.

          In 1 Kings 18:20-40, Elijah is able to prove to the people that they should follow the Lord instead of Baal by barbecuing steaks on a divinely lit fire.

          In Acts 5:1-11, Ananus and Sapphira withhold from the disciples the proceeds of the sale of property. They each drop dead when accused of this sin in front of the others.

          If a doubter needs evidence, they get it. Why can’t a doubter still get the required evidence today?

          Instead we get James 1:7-8, where the doubter should not expect anything from the Lord. Instead, we find our car keys without praying to find them. We sometimes get a sweet parking spot without prayer. We have remission of diseases at the same rate as those who pray for it. Why do we never get a clear, unambiguous sign from God if it is important that we do?

          The following video explains how faith makes it impossible to know and doubt is forbidden. The believer has neither certainty nor uncertainty.

          https://youtu.be/bdTZBVlg3nI

        • Personal Responsibility

          You did. You got Jesus. The rest got signs and wonders from sinful men. Once Jesus came, there is nothing else until the end based on Revelation. Repent before it’s too late.

        • Myna A.

          Too many people have waking dreams and think it is more profound that it actually is.

          Not to stray too far from the path, but that sort of thing, not associated with the hypnagogic state, lucid dreaming, Charles Bonnet Syndrome or any recognized mental health disorder, is intriguing to me, and especially if more than one person experiences it at the same time. What the hell is that, I wonder?

          I looked up anomalous experiences. It’s informative, but still leaves some questions unsatisfied…not in any profound or fanciful spiritual sense, but just that it occurs at all.
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anomalous_experiences

        • epeeist

          I looked up anomalous experiences.

          I don’t have problems with anomalous experience. What I do have a problem with are the inferences that people draw from such experiences (and yes Eben Alexander, I am looking at you).

          I go back to Adelard of Bath in his Questiones Naturales, namely that one should search for natural causes for natural events.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That Eben Alexander is a right cad. An excellent example of how to prey on the gullible.

          The extensive Dr. Parnia led AWARE (AWAreness during REsuscitation) study, the reults of which we all waited for with anticipation, was pretty well inconclusive, though it threw up some surprising results that require further research.

          http://www.southampton.ac.uk/news/2014/10/07-worlds-largest-near-death-experiences-study.page

          >Conclusions

          CA survivors commonly experience a broad range of cognitive themes, with 2% exhibiting full awareness. This supports other recent studies that have indicated consciousness may be present despite clinically undetectable consciousness. This together with fearful experiences may contribute to PTSD and other cognitive deficits post CA.

          http://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572%2814%2900739-4/fulltext

        • Myna A.

          …namely that one should search for natural causes for natural events.

          Agreed. I have contemplated that these experiences, given the absence of any known health issue, prolonged or sudden stress (incl. hysteria), may, in fact, be more natural than we currently understand. Religious inferences are meaningless in that people report experiences that parallel their cultural belief system, but I am intrigued by anomalous occurrences that can be considered more universal. Might these experiences be due to the actual physical environment, state of consciousness in the particular moment of occurrence, etc.

          I almost deleted the original comment, but I’m glad I didn’t as now I can study a bit on Adelard of Bath…which I first misread as Abelard and thought, what? Oy, I’m tired.

        • Ignorant Amos

          The Miracle of Fatima is an example of mass hallucinogenic phenomena that the religious believe to one thing, while the science world knows it isn’t.

          What the holy rollers say….

          The Bishop of Leiria, in his pastoral letter on the Our Lady of Fatima apparitions wrote: “The solar phenomenon of October 13, 1917, was reported and described in the newspapers. It was most wonderful and left an indelible impression on those who were present. This phenomenon, that no astronomical observatory has recorded, and was not natural, was seen by people of all classes and social classes, believers and unbelievers, journalists of the leading Portuguese newspapers, and even individuals from several kilometers away from the place where they were; which dispels any explanation of collective illusion. ”

          http://aleteia.org/2015/10/13/the-day-the-sun-spun-the-miracle-of-fatima-98-years-ago-today/

          What science says…

          The fact that different people experienced different things — or nothing at all — is also strong evidence of a psychological explanation. No one suggests that those who reported seeing the Miracle of the Sun — or any other miracles at Fátima or elsewhere — are lying or hoaxing. Instead they very likely experienced what they claimed to, though that experience took place mostly in their minds.

          http://www.livescience.com/29290-fatima-miracle.html

          Interestingly Pope PiusXII did lie about having seen it himself. 33 years after the occurence.

          Pius XII wrote, “I have seen the ‘miracle of the sun,’ this is the pure truth.”

          Pius XII’s note says that he saw the miracle in the year he was to proclaim the dogma of the Assumption, 1950, while he walked in the Vatican Gardens.

          He said he saw the phenomenon various times, considering it a confirmation of his plan to declare the dogma.

          The papal note says that at 4 p.m. on Oct. 30, 1950, during his “habitual walk in the Vatican Gardens, reading and studying,” having arrived to the statue of Our Lady of Lourdes, “toward the top of the hill […] I was awestruck by a phenomenon that before now I had never seen.”

          “The sun, which was still quite high, looked like a pale, opaque sphere, entirely surrounded by a luminous circle,” he recounted. And one could look at the sun, “without the slightest bother. There was a very light little cloud in front of it.”

          https://zenit.org/articles/pius-xii-saw-miracle-of-the-sun/

          Hardly surprising though.

        • Myna A.

          Instead they very likely experienced what they claimed to, though that experience took place mostly in their minds.

          I’ve always looked at the incident at Fatima as being a mass interpretation of something witnessed, on line with a sort of, “Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No, it’s Superman!” The gatherers are already there for a singular purpose and have a collective mindset. Something appears to occur out of the ordinary and it is declared as as supernatural. The witnessing minds concur by interpreting the event as divinely directed, even as it is occurring. The inference, of course, is specifically religious, but could be considered, in reality, a mass pareidolia by suggestion of a natural, albeit unusual, event.

          That Pious XII lied about being among the witnesses is, as you say, hardly surprising because it suits a purpose to have done so.

          There is a phenomena where I live. In the Winter, if there is snow on the ground and the moon is appearing over the horizon, the reflecting light hits on a church steeple and projects a large luminous cross over the sky. As the moon further rises, the image slowly dissipates. It’s on the same line as reflections of the sun snow snow on mountains that give off halos in the form of crosses…a term I suddenly forget.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Of course. That is the difference between the religious account and the scientific account in mycomment.

          … even individuals from several kilometers away from the place where they were; which dispels any explanation of collective illusion.”

          How much confidence can we place in the Bishop though? Not much I suspect. Lying for Jesus is their stock in trade.

        • busterggi
        • Myna A.

          “And the realm of campfire stories is perhaps where the Grey Man of Ben MacDhui best belongs. Never underestimate the power of nature to magnify feelings of dread, loneliness, and isolation. Everyone who has spent a night in a tent outdoors knows the effects of small, unexplained sounds on the mind. The cold, foggy Cairngorms are the ideal place for such sensations to augment, and for our animal senses to trigger animal responses. The Grey Man need not be a physical creature for it to be — as far as our minds are concerned — utterly real.”

          Exactly. Thanks for the link!

          I was contemplating more mundane, less dramatic occurrences that would fit into the category of the anomalous, but that was a great read in terms of folklore and how the mind seeks to “fit” some sort of rationale/story from sensory perception or distortion, thereof.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Pareidolia is the bane of the military everywhere.

          It is a common experience in the military, particularly on on exercise in the field, with sleep deprivation and especially with young “sprogs”. While on the “death stag”, to challenge a “perceived intruder” to reply to the “password” and when there is no response, mistakenly open fire and “stand to” the whole “troop”.

          A pain in the arse to be sure, but better to be safe than sorry. Though the powers that be never seen it that way.

          Glossary:-

          Sprog = A new military recruit or a recruit fresh out of training arriving at a unit.

          Death stag = guard duty during the worse period of the night. 2-4 a.m.

          Perceived intruder = a bush, shadow, sound, or other innocuous phenomena mistaken for a potential enemy.

          Password = a predetermined response to allow an advance with safe passage to within the protected area. A two word countersign to a two word challenge.

          Stand to = alerting the sleeping forces under ones guard to stand ready for an attack, especially one before dawn or after dark.

          Troop = a military sub-subunit, subordinate to a squadron. In many armies a troop is the equivalent element to the infantry section or platoon.

        • Greg G.

          I suspect there were a few people who thought they saw something and asked people around them if they saw something and they agreed. So the report became that everybody saw something. Then the something became what they were looking for. How did they determine how many people were there?

        • busterggi
        • Myna A.

          I agree, the something did become what they were looking for. I don’t know how the number of gatherers was determined, though. It was likely a good size number, given that Marian apparition sites rarely wont for large crowds.

          Still, an anomalous event witnessed by one or a small number of people, say 3 or 4, is intriguing to me. But I realize the mind looks to piece together what occurs with the senses, so it’s often difficult to get an account that doesn’t offer some attachment to story, internally or externally related.

        • Pofarmer

          Not only that, the reports from people “miles away” who claim to have seen the event, come from months later, after it had been extensively covered in the local news. Interestingly, there were reporters there who basically said, “What happened, we didn’t see anything.”

        • Ignorant Amos

          The emperor does indeed have new clothes. I even didn’t see them myself. However, which believer will be first to rock the boat?

        • adam

          ” It doesn’t work that way.”

          Like with Santa, it doesnt work at all.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Ridiculous…. Santa is a man-made fable. I beginning to think you are.

        • Kodie

          It’s probably going to be difficult to help you understand… but, we all believe in Santa. Santa stops bringing presents if you don’t believe in Santa, and Santa continues to bring presents the rest of your life if you believe in Santa. If Santa doesn’t come to your house at Christmas, it’s because you deny he exists, but Santa comes to my house every Christmas. Santa comes to all our houses. Why do you hate Santa?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Santa is a man-made fable.

          And Jesus is a manmade legend. See how that works?

        • adam

          Same thing for adults who never grew up:

          You know like you…..

        • Ignorant Amos

          What is it with Christians and analogies?

          They are shite at making anything near a half decent one and they are shite on the uptake when a more than half decent one is made.

        • adam

          Normally I call Cognitive Dissonance, but sometimes you just have to call Childishly Stupid.

        • MNb

          What else can they do? They don’t even have a terminology to describe the supernatural reality their god is supposed to reside.

        • Ignorant Amos
        • MNb

          Ridiculous…. your god is also a man-made fable.

        • adam

          “I understand you want to reduce God to a test tube in a lab”

          You cant put the IMAGINARY in a test tube.

        • Greg G.

          James 1:7-8 says that should not expect that to ever happen.

        • Michael Neville
        • Personal Responsibility

          “The first eukaryotes to engage in sex were single-celled protists that appeared approximately 2 billion years ago”

          Bull. Enough said. Zero evidence for that just like all the other petty assertions. Grow the imaginations and create the fairy tales.

        • Michael Neville

          Unlike the myths and fables of creationism, evolution wasn’t just imagined by biologists. Just because YOU don’t understand what a eukaryote is doesn’t mean they weren’t sexually reproducing a couple of billion years ago. Your ignorance and incredulity is not evidence against evolution, they’re just evidence of your ignorance and incredulity.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOLOLOLOL! You think you know what happened 2 billion years ago? LOLOLOLOL! Keep on with your willful ignorance. Grasp it, hold on to it, till the bitter end……

          Or actually think for yourself because that explanation is ridiculous. Life does not get more complex. It actually breaks down and becomes less complex. Everything is breaking down. Ever heard of entropy? smh….

        • Dys

          LOLOLOLOL! You think you know what happened 2 billion years ago? LOLOLOLOL!

          If you’re going to play the completely idiotic “were you there?” game, you’d better throw out your bible, along with all its miracle claims, Jesus, etc. Otherwise you’re being a complete hypocrite. After all, you weren’t there.

        • busterggi

          “Otherwise you’re being a complete hypocrite.”

          Waaaaaaaay too late for that.

        • Michael Neville

          Hey Mr. “Science Degrees”, if you actually did know something about science then you’d know why things that happened two billion years ago are known to reasonable, intelligent, knowledgeable people. Since you’re stupid and ignorant, you don’t accept what science says but all that means is that you’re stupid and ignorant.

          Don’t throw the Second Law of Thermodynamics at me. You don’t have a clue about what it means or that the Earth is not a closed system. Here’s a hint, ignorant fool. The next time you outside on a clear day look at the sky. You’ll see a big, bright ball. It’s called the “Sun” and provides lots of energy to the Earth. Here’s another hint, ignorant fool. If life forms did not become “more complex” then how did you grow from a clump of cells in your mommy’s tummy into a adult?

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOLOLOL….. did we gain any more chromosomes after we were conceived? No. Just because someone gains weight, that is not adding information. Are you that confused?

        • Michael Neville

          Do you even have the slightest idea what chromosomes are and what they do?

          When you changed from a zygote to a fetus to a baby to a child to an adolescent to an adult you didn’t just “gain weight.” The changes you underwent in the womb were quite significant. Just because you don’t know or admit what those changes were doesn’t mean they didn’t happen to you.

          The more you rattle on about life forms the more you show that you don’t know anything about biology. I suggest, Mr. “Science Degrees”, that you do some serious shutting the fuck up about things you’re absolutely clueless about. That way you won’t appear as stupid and ignorant as you are.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Wow…. your vocabulary is very intellectual. Four-letter words are really impressive….. gutter mouth.

        • Greg G.

          Don’t be a tone troll.

        • Michael Neville

          Aw, did I upset your poor little Christurd sensibilities, shit for brains? That’s too bad. If you’re going to play with the big kids then you need to play by the big kid rules. Got that, you maggot infested heap of hog shit?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Hey, if swearing and profanities are good enough for the Bible, in the Hebrew of course, but then you know the Hebrew okay, and the great Bard Shakespeare, I won’t fell intellectually inferior to you, ya dumb cunt.

          Somewhere along the line, Christians took the biblical commands against “perverse language” and “corrupt communication” and equated that with the Seven Words You Can’t Say On The Radio.

          There are words that the Bible says [you] should not say, or at least not say without very good reason and in the right attitude. But rather than being crude words or words referring to vulgar bodily acts (shit, ass, fuck) or insulting/cursing words (damn, hell, bitch, bastard), the words [you] should be careful saying are the holy, sacred words.

          If there are any words that [you] as Christians aren’t supposed to say lightly, it’s not what [you’ve] come to understand as the “curse words,” but rather the holy ones. With the “curse words,” there’s nothing intrinsically wrong with pronouncing them, only with how [you] use them.

          https://markoftheredpen.wordpress.com/2013/06/02/curse-words-in-the-bible/

          Your ignorance is nothing but outstanding.

        • Dys

          Oh boy…you’re going to pretend to understand what is and what is not information now? Aren’t you tired of parading your blatant stupidity around?

          It’s no wonder you’re an ignorant creationist. You don’t have the integrity or personal responsibility to investigate science, especially if it disagrees with your uninformed religious dogma.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Please tell me what information was gained after conception. I’m waiting.

        • Greg G.

          Mutations.

        • Dys

          Please tell me what information was gained after conception. I’m waiting.

          There’s plenty of information gained after conception. It doesn’t happen in the form of DNA or chromosomes, but information is gained. Brain plasticity is a real phenomenon, for instance.

          What I was pointing out is that you aren’t capable of having an honest conversation about anything science related because you’re simply not qualified or educated on these topics, and your constant dishonest assertions make it clear you’ve no interest in living up to your username.

          Long story short, you don’t know what you’re talking about, and you’ve clearly no interest in changing that.

        • Greg G.

          But genes sometimes duplicate on a chromosome and when one of those mutates, no information is lost but some is gained.

        • epeeist

          Ever heard of entropy? smh….

          So we can add thermodynamics to the list of things that you know SFA about. We already know that you know nothing about statistical mechanics since you have no clue about order or disorder.

          Ever noticed of a stonking great yellow thing in the sky? The thing that blankets the earth with large amounts of energy so that it can’t be considered to be an isolated system. That means that classical thermodynamics doesn’t apply. One has to use non-equilibrium thermodynamics with Onsager relationships.

          Care to tell us about entropy in non-equilibrium systems? No, thought not.

        • MR

          I seem to remember being taught in high school about entropy in closed systems, and how the earth is not a closed system because of that big ol’ honkin’ energy source beaming down from the sky. Entropy 101. Do you think they quit teaching that, or do you think that PR maybe was home-schooled and gets his-her science from apologetic websites?

          I first ran into the entropy farce when I went to a seminar called The Truth Project. A friend had recommended it to me as a reconciliation of science and religion. That’s back when I was still a believer. I had never let science interfere with my belief because I figured that either science would catch up to the Bible or that we just didn’t have a full understanding of the Bible. But, I was stunned at the conference as I sat there and listened to lie after lie that they put out about what science says. They were misrepresenting science so that they could shoot down a straw man. Basically what PR is doing here.

          My thought at the time was, “whether science has it right or wrong, maybe I don’t know, but what I do know is that if you’re misrepresenting what the science says, you’re already wrong. God most certainly is not on your side if you have to lie or misrepresent your case. I watched as Ravi Zacharias and others worked their apologetic magic and it made me realize what a dirty racket the whole thing was. What they were preaching wasn’t meant to counter their perceived opponents claims, it was to meant to keep the sheep in the fold. It was a slap in the face to me, and a wake up call. That’s when I turned to the one source that I knew I could trust: The Bible. An honest reading of that then really crumbled my faith.

          I should dig out those Truth Project cds.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          That’s an enlightening story of your rejection of faith. Thanks for sharing.

        • MR

          Thanks, Bob. Of course, it was more complicated than that, but that event led to the crumbling of what I call the second pillar of my faith. That is, my trust in religious leaders. It led me to scrutinized what they said and to watch more closely for bias, hidden agendas (agendae?), etc.

        • Greg G.

          That is similar to a part of my rejection of religion. I decided to read some books on evolution to see if I could find “quotemines”. I found one and saw that, in context, it was not implying what the creationists authors wanted people to believe.

          But I actually saw what “evolutionists” were actually saying and that the creationist authors and creationist preachers had no idea what they were talking about. It occurred to me during a sermon that if the preacher couldn’t get right what he could read for himself, how could I believe him about things like heaven?

        • Myna A.

          Evolution never threw me off, perhaps because I used to go fossil hunting with my father all the time when I was very young. I remember asking something about the great flood and Adam and Eve, and he simply said that those were just stories and didn’t have much to do with anything. This was from a man who sincerely believed in the paranormal.

          What did throw me off was the underlying hypocrisy I saw all around me in the hallowed halls of Christendom, and that at a very early age, and eventually witnessing the smugness and moral judgments of so many of the faithful believers. After being exposed to a variety of other religious systems, I came to realize it was all a chain of story influenced by sociocultural factors and the human mind’s need to cushion itself from inevitable realities. I never saw this as negating a conscious force (again, and always, I just don’t know), but certainly illustrated the enduring power of story.

          Now that I begin to understand the deeper deception of Christianity, in particular, the more I see how desperate the storytellers are to preserve some semblance of control over all and sundry. Islam is no better.

        • MR

          Amen.

          As a teenager I remember asking Grandma M, who held fundamental beliefs but hadn’t yet drunk the more politico-conservative Kool-Aid that was to come later…, I remember asking her why the Bible said the earth was only thousands of years old but science said it was millions of years old (I was going to correct myself to “billions,” but back then I probably thought and said millions). I remember her looking me square in the eye and saying, “I don’t know.”

          That honesty and sincerity gave me the thumbs-up not to fear science and the okay to learn about it. I probably haven’t heard an honest comment about the subject since until Jimmy-boy admitted he had no evidence for God.

          Like I say, I never let the age of the earth or evolution or anything science claimed interfere with my beliefs, but Grandma M’s sincerity did allow me to have a desire to learn science and to gain a sense of science that over the years has proven to be consistent. When science talks about dinosaurs, each time I read a book or article, the range of years lines up with what I’ve learned. When science says I won’t find land dinosaurs in California, but that I will find ice age mammals, lo and behold, when I read the newspaper I read about the discovery of saber-tooth tigers and mammoths at construction sites, never a dino to be found. When they say the inner United States was an inland sea, I can visit the local icthyosaur fossil in Nevada and mosasaurs in Kansas. I can apply bits of physics that I learn to the things I see around me. Sugar and salt solidifying out of a solution or the concept of entropy using the simple example of a closed house and a fireplace.

          So when I see people like PR [or SM] trying to twist science to mean something else, trying to demonize science when they clearly have no idea what they’re talking about, when even an idiot lay person like myself sits back and cries foul, well, I call bullshit. Bullshit on their lies, bullshit on their deception, and bullshit on a religion that encourages such…, bullshit.

          [e]

        • Myna A.

          “I don’t know” is a humble honesty that holds out the proverbial key to explore all that, which might be possible. Your grandmother gave you a gift, in the metaphorical sense, and you obviously had the insight to accept it.

          My sense is that so many, many Christians and Muslims have the need to demonize or twist scientific evidence to their comfort level because of a great internal fear. Fear of having been lied to, perhaps. Fear of nothing to follow. Fear of chaos. Fear of self-extinction in death. Fear of being of no great import to the mechanism of the universe, you live, you die, and religion equips that fear with some illusory bargaining power. That’s why I asked PR about the bargain aspect, but I suspect the answer, the honest answer, would be no…if there were no bargain, if there weren’t something in it for PR, there would be no need to believe.

          In my view, religion has been man’s greatest folly, whether some current of sublime force exists or no. The more aggressive religions are no better than any violent dictatorship. They simply carry their crimes against humanity and the earth under a different banner…one they think absolves them before their storied god. It’s monstrous and it is bullshit, I agree.

        • MR

          Fear of having been lied to, perhaps. Fear of nothing to follow. Fear of chaos. Fear of self-extinction in death. Fear of being of no great import to the mechanism of the universe, you live, you die, and religion equips that fear with some illusory bargaining power.

          …if there were no bargain, if there weren’t something in it for PR, there would be no need to believe.

          I think it can all be rolled up into fear of death. Non-existence. You hear it when they speak of objective meaning, value and purpose. That talk is always paired with death. It’s always about dying with no meaning, value and purpose. But, they don’t care about those things, they just don’t want to die.

          Ask them what their objective meaning, objective value, objective purpose is and watch them flounder. Would a God need any one of us? Are we not all dispensable? What need could a God possibly have of us?

          What is the objective meaning of mankind? Of a Christian?

          What objective purpose do we serve? To worship God? Can God not get along without the worship of PR or of Jimmy, of one, two, three Christians, or of millions? Can God not do without the worship of every single one of us? What objective purpose could we possibly serve?

          And what objective value do we add to the universe? Extinguish one Christian, would God or the universe suffer? Would it even be noticed? Extinguish all of mankind. The universe would go on like we never existed. What possible difference does it make to anyone except us?

          No. “I don’t want to die!” is the underlying plea. That’s what they’re bargaining for. Eternal life. It’s certainly not about meaning, value and purpose. It’s that desire to live forever. That’s the deal they’re making. That’s the bargain it’s all about.

          Imagine they were fed all the same Christian propaganda except for one thing: “In the end,” says the literature, “in the end you die.”

          Where is their objective, meaning, value and purpose now? What is the point now?

        • Myna A.

          I agree, when it all comes down to dust, it is all about death. And not only this, but that somehow eternal life will preserve all the self-conceits of one’s experience in life, and one’s enemies, which, of course, are god’s enemies, too, will be eternally tormented for your righteous amusement and blessed contemplation.

          No, if there were no bargain, there would be no value in believing the story. Maybe the meaning of life is that there is no meaning. Or, maybe like Abraham Kaplan once wrote, you have to ascend to the source of your meaning rung by painful rung…or something to that effect.

          I’m not prepared to say that consciousness, itself, does not survive the death of the vessel, but, all things considered, I don’t think it goes anywhere. It just spreads out into the ether and becomes a part of everything else. Whether it finds a new host and recycles itself, I have no idea. But even that, I admit, goes a bit into the realm of the imagination and the woo my family was so traditionally fond of.

        • Kodie

          Where you list the fears, I have to say by my own observation, they literally fear a literal god literally damning them to literal hell for even considering that he doesn’t exist. It’s the brainwashing. As much as they count meaninglessness as a deterrent from considering atheism, I get the feeling they could live with that if it were true, but they can’t live securely watching over their shoulder for the god damning them throughout their lives for walking out on him. It’s not a religion, it’s an abusive relationship.

        • Myna A.

          An abusive relationship is a good way to describe it. I know progressive Christianity attempts to smooth out the savagery of the story, but you know the nagging doubt of fire and brimstone is still there. Better safe than sorry type of thinking.

        • epeeist

          Do you think they quit teaching that, or do you think that PR maybe was home-schooled and gets his-her science from apologetic websites?

          Do we know where he is from and hence which textbooks he might have used? I understand that text books in some states are not what might be called rigorous in that there have been attempts to “teach the controversy”.

          As for home schooling, it wouldn’t surprise me. Again, my understanding is that religion is a substantial reason for home schooling in the US.

          (I should add, I live in the UK and if my two paragraphs are wrong then I will willingly accept correction).

          But, I was stunned at the conference as I sat there and listened to lie after lie that they put out about what science says.

          Which is essentially what Personal Responsibility has done while he has been here. Now whether he is a proponent of these lies or has just drunk the Kool-aid I wouldn’t know.

          An honest reading of that then really crumbled my faith.

          You do know this Isaac Asimov quotation:

          Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived.

        • MR

          Now whether he is a proponent of these lies or has just drunk the Kool-aid I wouldn’t know.

          And I do think it’s more a question of drinking the Kool-aid.

          But many years ago I expressed frustration to my pastor about my Christian friends spreading political falsehoods via email (this was before Facebook, or at least before it became popular with the mainstream). I said that on the one hand I understood because they believed the things they were forwarding and were generally concerned. They weren’t the ones who were actually inventing the lies. But a simple Google search would show that most, if not all, of what they were spreading were lies, pure and simple. He thought about it a moment and said, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

          That really struck me to the core. Exactly. It doesn’t matter whether you believe the lies or not, if you’re spreading something that is not true, your ignorance on the subject doesn’t matter. (The same is true in the eyes of the law. Ignorantia juris non excusat.) If you’re espousing something that is not true, you’re bearing false witness, plain and simple. God, if there were a God, could not be on their side. That was the first pillar of my faith that crumbled.

        • epeeist

          But many years ago I expressed frustration to my pastor about my Christian friends spreading political falsehoods via email

          It goes back a way though, Luther is alleged to have said:

          What harm would it do, if a man told a good strong lie for the sake of the good and for the Christian church…a lie out of necessity, a useful lie, a helpful lie, such lies would not be against God, he would accept them.

        • Michael Neville

          So Luther promoted that favorite tactic of Christians without an argument: Lying for Jesus.

        • MR

          I guess my pastor had better morals.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Oh it goes back way further than that.

          “For if the truth of God hath more abounded by my lie unto his glory, why yet am I also adjudged a sinner?” – St. Paul, Romans 3.7.

          Or old Golden Mouth John Chrysostom…

          Do you see the advantage of deceit? …

          For great is the value of deceit, provided it be not introduced with a mischievous intention. In fact action of this kind ought not to be called deceit, but rather a kind of good management, cleverness and skill, capable of finding out ways where resources fail, and making up for the defects of the mind …

          And often it is necessary to deceive, and to do the greatest benefits by means of this device, whereas he who has gone by a straight course has done great mischief to the person whom he has not deceived.”– Chrysostom, Treatise On The Priesthood, Book 1.

        • Greg G.

          Paul was saying that even if some of the OT prophets were unfaithful, it would not diminish God’s faithfulness. Paul used a lot of scripture but often misquoted or taken out of context. I wonder if he is trying to blame the OT authors for that.

          New Testament scholar, Peter Enns says Paul was winging it.

          Jerome called Paul out on it in the 5th century:

          “I will only mention the Apostle Paul. … He, then, if anyone, ought to be calumniated; we should speak thus to him: ‘The proofs which you have used against the Jews and against other heretics bear a different meaning in their own contexts to that which they bear in your Epistles.

          We see passages taken captive by your pen and pressed into service to win you a victory, which in volumes from which they are taken have no controversial bearing at all … the line so often adopted by strong men in controversy – of justifying the means by the result.”

          Epistle to Pammachus (xlviii, 13; N&PNF. vi, 72-73)

        • Ignorant Amos

          Also as one commenter at The Friendly Atheist states…

          “However, in context, Paul is actually censuring other Christians who say “Let us do evil, that good may come” (that is, from God’s judgement). But like Paul, we can “take the passage captive” to make a point.”

          Christians were lying from the get-go.

        • Kodie

          I seem to remember being taught in high school about entropy in closed systems, and how the earth is not a closed system because of that big ol’ honkin’ energy source beaming down from the sky. Entropy 101. Do you think they quit teaching that, or do you think that PR maybe was home-schooled and gets his-her science from apologetic websites?

          I don’t remember learning that at all, but then I wasn’t required to take science past 10th grade to get a Regents Diploma, and so I didn’t. I think that means I missed chemistry and physics.

          I wasn’t required math either, but I stuck with math.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I think that means I missed chemistry and physics.

          And yet you display a much sounder understanding of both, along with biology, than the duty fuckwit PR with all his 35 years experience in a science environment. Go figure. Or maybe he is just a lying toerag on that count, what da ya think?

        • Ignorant Amos

          I might add that my own formal education in the sciences isn’t much better. I stopped taking physics in year 10 myself, much to my own dismay on reflection. I took chemistry and biology to ‘O’ Level, but evolution theory played no part in any of it. My knowledge of all three subjects has come much later by reading popular books on the subjects by experts in the fields and what I’ve picked up over the years via experts in the fields on forums like this, knowledgeable folk such as epeeist. That was one of the greatest benefits of being a member of the Richard Dawkins forum, the free education available was tremendous. There were intellectuals in a plethora of fields engaging in discussions on there, and there was an impetus on the less well educated to go find out stuff or look foolish.

          I’d like to think if I had 35 years experience as PR claims, my knuckles wouldn’t be dragging in the same way his are. I haven’t and yet mine are not.

        • MNb

          “I seem to remember”
          Me too. Lovely, isn’t it, how PR refutes his own alleged credentials?

        • Ignorant Amos

          Yip, an ignorant know nothing knuckle dragging moron to be sure…

          Physics 101…

          Next question: how is life able to maintain this low entropy state, in apparent defiance of the second law? Well, life is part of the Earth-Sun system. We can regard this as “a closed system” to a very good approximation – a vast ocean of space separates it from other systems. But the Earth alone (plus moon, of course!) is not “a closed system”: the Sun – a nuclear fusion reactor – provides the Earth with a constant input of low entropy “organised” energy in the form of high intensity photons (particles of light). Plants can use this energy to make food which animals such as ourselves can eat, keeping the low-entropy-maintenance machinery of life running.

          https://freedomthistime.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/steadystate3.jpg

        • Personal Responsibility

          Watch some Missler videos to understand. Unless you list your credentials, you’re blowing smoke. Uh huh…..

        • epeeist

          Unless you list your credentials, you’re blowing smoke. Uh huh…..

          My qualifications? Undergraduate and post-graduate degrees from recognised universities (fortunately here in the UK we don’t have travesties like Liberty “university”). My doctorate was in molecular physics (“Potential Functions in Small Molecules”).

          While taking my doctorate I took a number of adjunct courses, including philosophy of science and logic.

          I have worked at a number of universities here in the UK as well as at research institutes and for the Science and Engineering Research Council.

          I have also worked at the Paris Observatory and at the European Space Agency Technical Centre in the Netherlands.

          Right, that’s my qualifications. Yours are? Unless you list your credentials, you’re blowing smoke.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I only need one – God’s Word. That’s more truth than you’ll ever discover on your own.

        • Greg G.

          Ah ha ha ha ha!

        • Myna A.

          Methinks the Irish Rovers were wrong about those unicorns. I think one did manage to get on that floating zoo by way of one of the Shetland ponies carrying a cuckoo in the nest, for which the saucy mare dare not confess. After all these millennia, the ponies have carried the gene for playing silly games and the ones born with a horn have had to shield themselves in the shelter of the enchanted forest.

          Now, by some great and divine sorcery, and this you must take note of, it appears they can tap the keyboard with their magical horns and make sentences. PR is living proof of this genetic mystery and that what I say is true.

          Yo.

        • Kodie

          I remember being brought to the Ringling Bros. Barnum & Bailey Circus in Madison Sq. Garden in 1985* to see the fucking unicorn, it’s real, I was there, I fucking sawr it.

          http://www.villagevoice.com/news/heres-the-hideous-goat-creature-ringling-bros-claimed-was-a-unicorn-in-1985-6667020

          *I didn’t actually remember it was in 1985, but the article tells me that’s the year they, uh, trotted this…. uh horseshit? goatshit? out for the public to gawk at. I was too old to buy into it, and I’m pretty sure my mother didn’t buy into it, I just remember her at around the 80s, and before, and beyond, attempting to pop culture us kids a bunch. We saw E.T. twice, and almost waited on line for 3 hours (the amount of time one might expect to wait on line back in the olden days) for tickets to Return of the Jedi, but meh, we missed the first two, what the hell. We made the trip to see that fucking unicorn, fake or not, once in a fucking lifetime fucking unicorn gimmick, goddammit, for the express purpose that we might be able to tell people we were goddamned there, witnessing a historical event manufactured specifically by the inheritors of the operation created by the man who did say “there’s a sucker born every minute” as a fake historical, once-in-a-lifetime gimmitunity, by gluing a plastic horn on the 2nd or 3rd goat I had ever seen in real life up until then.

        • Greg G.

          That makes a lot of sense but I think PR is the other end of a unicorn.

        • epeeist

          I only need one – God’s Word.

          So let’s go over your posting history with me:

          1. You make claims to the age of the earth, I present you with a selection of papers which show a greater age and invite you to show why these papers are false.

          Your response: cowardly avoided

          2. You pour scorn on the consensus view of the age of the universe. I present some example papers using a variety of different methods which provide evidence for this view and invite you to show why these papers are false.

          Your response: cowardly avoided

          3. You cast aspersions on my qualifications in order to undermine the comments I make about a particular point about science. I give you my qualifications and invite you to give yours in return.

          Your response: cowardly avoided

          In other words, you have shown hypocrisy and intellectual dishonesty of the highest order.

          In the rest of your posts on this site you have exhibited no knowledge or understanding of science, its methodology, history, its foundations or the philosophy that underpins it.

          You have had little credibility for a long time here, I would suggest with this latest post what little you did have has been reduced to zero.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You have had little credibility for a long time here, I would suggest with this latest post what little you did have has been reduced to zero.

          Well into moral and principled negative equity, or negative net worth, I’d even suggest.

        • Kodie

          PR has 35 years in contact with a science industry! Beat that shit! He won’t tell you his specific experience or capacity in a science industry because you’ll stalk him.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You wonder how asexual reproduction became sexual reproduction? Read a textbook. It’s more clearly spelled out there than most of us could explain it.

        • MNb

          1. Irrelevant for what I wrote. But given the fact that your cognitive skills are damaged by creacrap beyond repair that’s only to be expected.
          2. Science can’t explain is a terrible argument.
          3. Your question only exposes your stupid ignorance and your unwillingness to learn. Your “wild fantasy” betrays your antiscientific bias. Because of course scientists have considered this topic.

          http://www.simplypsychology.org/gender-biology.html

          Not that you will accept anything from this page. You’d rather lie your sorry creationist ass off.

        • Myna A.

          but if you are not interested in alternatives to your position…

          The only alternative I can see you pleading for, is that science to go back to Sunday school and view existence through the Christian lens. If you consider that many here were once theists, Christian ones at that, do you honestly argue for the abdication of reason and for all to rediscover some revelation in a discarded story? It doesn’t work that way. Even IF one were to contemplate a conscious force within the vast universe, no man’s religion has affected its movement one iota. All stories are eventually vanquished, all monuments crumbled, and new stories and new monuments sprouted.

          Do you honestly expect that in the 21st century, mankind needs to go back nearly two millennia and dig through the dusty rubble and raise a chalice to ancient desert religions? Humanity has enough on its plate facing reality as it exists right now.

          I asked you once before, and I can’t find where you answered, but the question was: If your God offered you nothing, would you still believe?

        • Personal Responsibility

          I’ve never argued for the abdication of reason. Reason is a God-given gift. You wouldn’t have reason without God either, but I give credit where credit is due. All credit goes to God for even being able to have a conversation and think at a higher level.

          I’m sorry but your question is a useless hypothetical. He does offer us something. He offered us His forgiveness. He wants us to live forever with Him. The very things you all complain about will all be right again after we are out of this cursed world. All He has done has continuously provided over and over and over. He has put up with a ton of ridicule in NT times, yet continues to be patient. That is where I don’t understand what the problem is. You all attack that which you don’t know, yet won’t explore the possibility of what so many claim to be true.

          I’ll ask you, how do you define truth?

        • Myna A.

          All credit goes to God for even being able to have a conversation and think at a higher level.

          Evolution gets the credit. The impulse of life to continue forward, to progress.

          And speaking of conversation, do you realize how many would be killed in the most horrible ways imaginable for even having this conversation prior to the collapse of the Christian theocracy in Europe?

          I’m sorry but your question is a useless hypothetical.

          Of course it’s hypothetical, but only useless because you are afraid to answer it. Your devotion is contingent on a bargain. Ideally, love that is pure is without condition. What religion effectively does is create a god with human attributes and foibles. It opens the door to god echoes inside the brain. What pisses you off, pisses god off. What you like, god likes. What you reason, god reasons. Take responsibility for your own brain chattering.

          A driving force within the universe, if one were to argue, is more sublime, its power absolute, and commands the greater respect. It displays no prejudice. It offers no bargain. Mess with it at your own peril. Poison the water, become ill. Blow off the mountain tops to mine the earth’s coal for faster profit, destroy the Eco-system of an entire region. Seek shelter when the lightning begins to strike from the storm clouds or risk being electrocuted. And on and on the list goes.

          The very things you all complain about will all be right again after we are out of this cursed world.

          Not as long as the human ego is involved it won’t. And the world is not blessed nor cursed. It is what it is. Treat your children cruelly, and they may very well repeat the cycle of anguish. Treat them kindly, and it may very well ripple forward to the benefit of others.

          All He has done has continuously provided over and over and over.

          Explain what is provided? The hope that springs eternal? Hope that the harvest is not ruined by drought, frost, disease, locusts, flood or storm? Hope that the invader doesn’t arrive while you sleep?

          You all attack that which you don’t know, yet won’t explore the possibility of what so many claim to be true.

          As has been pointed out many times in this forum, you are arguing with those who’ve come from your story and some from greater vantage points than you have thus far demonstrated. You have yet to give any evidence that your story is nothing less than a story. If the trend continues as projected, Islam will overtake Christianity in worldwide numbers by 2050. The Christian story will recede. And at some point, Islam and its story will also recede. If history teaches anything, it teaches the rise and fall of empires.

          I’ll ask you, how do you define truth?

          The Natura Sophia…the Wisdom of Nature. All things rise and then must pass.

          And now a few words about God from Professor Levy (Crimes and Misdemeanors, 1989) to contemplate.

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sv7wCUKDH4

        • Kodie

          If no one came to your door and no one left a gift and you open the door thinking someone had knocked, and you bend down to pick up an imaginary gift, and then you proudly proclaim said visitor and said gift, you’re hallucinating. People like you just don’t get what we’re talking about – you are deluded, and you gain some inner boost whether you convince someone you’re not, or you delude them, or you insist you’re not, and they can’t convince you that you are, you are blathering on about some sales nonsense that nobody here wants, needs, or believes exists. You’re a pest, an adult with an imaginary friend, and you think you’re winning. You are just a pawn of a money-making organization, you have bought every trick in the pamphlet. They told you we “wish to live in sin”, so you believe those liars, instead of us, who say, we don’t know what the fuck you’re carrying on about, but there isn’t any need for it here.

          You don’t have an argument, plus you’re dumb as a box of hammers.

          If you think you’re just the kind of guy some imaginary ghost named Jesus needs, why don’t you keep it to just you and your friend, and leave sane people out of it?

        • Greg G.

          Now, it’s a desire to “do the Father’s will.” What was that bit about “being accountable to a higher power” then? Is God’s will double-talk?

          The church tells you there is a such thing as sin that you need to be forgiven for. You have pretended to accept a free gift. If you want to be a good person, then be the best person you can be. You don’t need to pretend that you are doing the will of a figment of your imagination.

          You can do horrible things when someone starts telling you that “your Father’s will” is to keep gays and lesbians from being married, for just one example.

        • Greg G.

          If God had made Jesus instead of Adam and made Eve out of his toenail clipping, would they have eaten from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil? Then there would be no Fall of Man, no need for people to be sent to hell, no need for the crucifixion and resurrection.

          If only God was omniscient…

        • Personal Responsibility

          He knew exactly what He was doing.

        • Greg G.

          If someone creates a bomb with a random timer so that the bomber would not know when or if the bomb would go off, the bomber is responsible for the deaths of all the people who died because of it. If a person accidentally causes an explosion from a gas leak, the person is still responsible for the injuries and deaths caused buy it.

          If God didn’t know what he was doing, he was negligent when he inadvertantly created Evil. On the other hand, if he knew what he was doing, he intentionally created Evil. Either way, he is responsible for Evil.

          I don’t believe God exists but you are blaming him for creating Evil and you cannot even admit it.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Created evil? What is evil to you?

        • Greg G.

          It is possible to think about something without accepting it. I do not accept the religious concept of Evil. Neither should you.

          I am presenting the what follows logically from the Creator-God concept and the supposed existence of Evil. If there was nothing but God and God created something and now there is Evil, it came from God, directly or indirectly.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Creating moral beings who can choose righteousness or not does equate to creating evil. Evil is simply the absence of righteousness. Evil actually points to Goodness. Like a shadow points to the sun, you cannot have “evil” without good. You can have the sun/light without shadows, but you cannot have shadows without having sun/light. The same is true with your so-called evil.

        • Greg G.

          Pleasure is a righteous thing. Pain is an evil thing. The absence of pleasure is not pain. The absence of pain is not pleasure. In fact, you can have both simultaneously, a massage is pleasure even if you have a sore toe.

          Being ignored by a stranger is neither righteous nor evil. Being tortured to death by a stranger is evil. When church people have to come up with such contrived notions, you should get up and leave because they are speaking nonsense.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Pain is evil? Where did that come from? Why not just suck down Novocaine to get rid of all pain/evil? What a dumb definition!

          You have described hedonism. That is not righteous. Where do you get your definition of righteous?

        • Greg G.

          A Christian in another forum recently said “evil = suffering”. He seems to think he speaks for all Christians. I disagree with him.

          Do you not understand the structure of a sentence? The sentence doesn’t say all evil things are painful. Evil things are things we don’t like. We use novocaine because we don’t like pain.

          I didn’t imply hedonism. You wish I did for some reason.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Just a faith statement? Or do you have evidence that would convince the rest of us?

        • adam

          “I don’t have time to go off and perform research for you.”

          What’s obvious, is that you dont have time to go off and perform research even for yourself.

        • Personal Responsibility

          That’s just not true. What part of the Bible shows that God loves you UNCONDITIONALLY? He created the lake of fire for Satan and his demons. Are you that naive?

        • MNb

          Great. Then your god doesn’t love me, because I don’t fulfill the conditions. That lack of love is mutual.
          Given that lake of fire apparently your god hates me. I don’t hate your god though; I just don’t believe in him, nor in Satan, those demons and that lake of fire.
          And that lack of hate makes me the morally superior character. It’s even in your own Holy Book: Matth. 5:43-48. Your supposed god sees me as the enemy and apparently will throw me in the lake of fire – very unloving. I don’t feel any urge to do the same to him.

        • Greg G.

          What part of the Bible shows that God loves you UNCONDITIONALLY?

          That’s what Christians keep telling us. Why don’t you go argue with them? The following site quotes many verses to support the claim.

          Is God’s love conditional or unconditional?

          God’s love, as described in the Bible, is clearly unconditional in that His love is expressed toward the objects of His love (that is, His people) despite their disposition toward Him. In other words, God loves because it His nature to love (1 John 4:8), and that love moves Him toward benevolent action. The unconditional nature of God’s love is most clearly seen in the gospel. The gospel message is basically a story of divine rescue. As God considers the plight of His rebellious people, He determines to save them from their sin, and this determination is based on His love (Ephesians 1:4-5).

        • Pofarmer

          There are certainly a lot of plot holes around John the Baptist and Jesus relationship. It’s almost like Jesus was stuffed into a JTB story.

        • adam

          ” He created the lake of fire for Satan and his demons. Are you that naive?”

          Are you that dishonest?
          Mark 9:43, 48-49 “And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire…where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’ For everyone will be salted with fire.”

        • Greg G.

          Jesus loves you unconditionally on the condition that you believe he loves you unconditionally.

        • adam

          So:

        • Myna A.

          I don’t have time to go off and perform research for you.

          But you made the claim about no contradiction, you see. One might assume you have your references in hand.

          Do you ever listen to yourself? I mean really, deeply listen to yourself? You are like so many others who come through the door covering their ears and chanting, “Lalalalalala,” until running away with the same bleat echoing inside their head.

          You believe because someone told you a story and you believed it. If your god offered you nothing, would you still believe? Christians and assorted religionists always speak to what their god wants, but they never speak about what they expect in return. So, your devotion is no more freely given than any gift you believe was offered.

        • Kodie

          I kind of suspect PR’s life was such a piece of shit before he met the people who introduced him to Jesus, and like many in the cult life, they think all who are not part of the cult must also suffer lives of total and utter shit until they are introduced to Jesus. They just don’t believe it’s possible to be normal and alright and everything without Jesus. They are afraid to go it alone, they can’t cope, so they assume nobody can cope. They assume we’re damaged and wanting and living terrible lives like they were, and just rebelling. It’s insulting as much as it is ignorant. That’s the worst damage of religion, convincing people they are helpless to cope, and convincing them that everyone is helpless to cope. Poor damaged PR, brainwashed to believe every stupid lie his cult tells him. They got his life straightened out (to some degree), and he thinks they know everything. Then again, I don’t agree substituting whatever this bullshit is in place of whatever addiction he had before (and I don’t like to make these assumptions, but it seems like it’s usually an addiction) has improved his life. He is now a puppet and not free. He thinks he has answers, he has nothing. He has a shallow unsubstantial story holding his whole life up from whatever shit heap it used to be, and by mere superstition he clings to it, and really believes he has the power to help others with his pathetic sales pitch.

        • MR

          Two things you said reminded me of something that happened a couple weeks ago.

          A pretty Asian girl knocked on the door and wanted to talk to me about God. It was the perfect opportunity to have a real life conversation, but I was on the phone with my mother (which the girl saw that I was on the phone when she walked up to the house). I thanked her, said I couldn’t talk at the moment and pointed to the phone. She tried to give me a booklet, which I politely refused, “It’s free, no just take it, no obligation….” Then she began her spiel anyway. I pointed again to the phone in my hand, but that didn’t phase her. I interrupted her and said I had to go. “Do you know God?” “I’m sorry, I no longer believe,” I said (thereby coming out to my mother in the process, by the way). “May I ask why?” “No, I’m sorry, I’m on the phone.” She just kept asking questions and trying to get me to take her booklet, and I started getting annoyed, because I had been very polite up to this point and she kept pressing and pressing.

          …like many in the cult life, they think all who are not part of the cult must also suffer lives of total and utter shit until they are introduced to Jesus. They just don’t believe it’s possible to be normal and alright and everything without Jesus.

          Finally I responded in a more serious tone and just started to close the door and she said curtly, “Well, I hope you find happiness.” I stopped, opened the door again and said, “Oh, I’m quite happy, thank you.” What I really wanted to say was, “You condescending little….”

          Anyway, your point about not believing it possible to be normal and all right without Jesus made me think of that. I did finally get the door closed and finished up with my mother. (“You no longer believe?”) I mean, she kind of knew already, but….

          So, later I took stock of the girl’s tactics, because that’s exactly what they were. I’ve been reading a book on persuasion and the tactics used to get people to part with their money. She was a textbook example: Offer a “free” gift (imposes a sense of obligation on the receiver to reciprocate in some manner), get your foot in the door, don’t take no for an answer, repeat the message, feign interest, imply that your mark is missing out on something (e.g., happiness), etc. I really wish now that I did have time to talk with her so that I could turn around and point these out to her and ask her why a loving God would need to send someone to use the tactics of marketers and con men, which relates to the other point:

          …and really believes he has the power to help others with his pathetic sales pitch.

        • MNb

          “I really wish now that I did have time to talk”
          Remember: the more time he/she spends at your door, the less time he/she can spend at other doors. You might do quite a few people a favour.

        • MNb

          Ah, the good old “I have something but won’t show you because you don’t believe” trick.
          You are stupid beyond measure.

          “I am very skeptical of people and of religion.”
          Yeah and the pope is a buddhist and the Donald a Marxist.
          Ah well, you are just another creacrapper who starts flinging slurs like a monkey slings his poo when asked to back up his claims. The only interesting question that remains is how stupid you were before you were 35.

        • MR

          The only interesting question that remains is how stupid you were before you were 35.

          There does seem to be something seriously wrong, or at least suspect, for someone to be converted at 35. Perhaps not surprising in this case considering the sustained lack of intellectual integrity.

        • Kodie

          I don’t think there’s anything really weird about it. You don’t have to be indoctrinated Christian to be ignorant and gullible.

        • Personal Responsibility

          See, the more that is shared, the more personal the attacks become, and you are way off message. That’s why you guys are mostly a waste of time. I praise God for the one or two who actually ask thought-provoking questions to find out more information. If you are already closed-minded and committed to atheism, whatever that means, then why even respond? Why even waste your time? That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.

        • adam

          “See, the more that is shared, the more personal the attacks become, and you are way off message.”

          But that seems to be YOUR message.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          People engage with you because they hope to find interesting arguments/evidence for the Christian position and (since this is a dialogue) to get your reaction to atheist rebuttals. Where are you confused?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Personal attacks…. that doesn’t concern you? Did I say I was confused?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not confused? Then why the stupid question?

          Life’s a mirror. Bring evidence and arguments and engage thoughtfully and see if the “personal attacks” fall away.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Life’s a mirror? That makes no sense.

          It’s hard to engage in thoughtful commentary when people sling mud, call you names, and use profanity. It takes zero thought to do any of that.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re just determined to not learn a single thing, not change a bit, aren’t you?

          Your style isn’t helping people listen to your message so you (or someone reading this who’s actually open minded) might want to adapt so you can be seen as reasonable.

        • MNb

          It’s impossible to engage in thoughtful commentary when people every second comment threaten with the lake of fire and are not capable of seeing how void this threat is.

        • MNb

          “See ….”
          Agreed. Then be consistent and don’t talk about your scientific credentials at all.
          You’re still stupid.

          “That’s why you guys are mostly a waste of time.”
          That’s your problem, not mine. Nobody here forces you to enter this blog. May I conclude that you’re another christian yellow chicken who can’t bear the responsibility for his own decisions? If not, then either quit or stop whining.
          You’re still stupid.

          “I praise God …”
          Good for you. I hope it makes you feel good. It’s totally irrelevant for me.

          “then why even respond?”
          Because I feel like.

          “Why even waste your time?”
          Your stupidity is quite entertaining hence you’re not wasting my time.

          “That’s the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.”
          This is what I mean with entertaining. You are the one who keeps on complaining about waisting time, not me. You are so stupid that you don’t even recognize that what you write here applies to you and not to me.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOL…. good day.

        • Pofarmer

          The point is, we do care, that’s why we’re here, and that’s why we’re atheists. I’m sorry for whatever emotional trauma you had that led to your experience at 35.

        • Kodie

          You must know it won’t hold up to scrutiny. God is a fictional character, who ought to be able to defend himself, sure, right? Why would he send idiots like you along to spit and spurt and blurt and blather out nonsense and arrogance? We do collectively know a lot of shit, but you aren’t giving any reason to even consider your fucking side of things. You resort to threats and retreat when asked for any kind of evidence. You don’t have a lot of confidence that you’re right, you don’t know how to articulate anything, all you have is this false bravado and it’s obviously bullshit. Why would anyone want to be an asshole like you? Does god love you having to be such a liar and an asshole, bullying people with hell and having nothing of substance to even consider what you believe truth to be true? Why would god think you were up to the task? He must know your limitations better than you do. Why would you defy god and go out on your own like this? How much money have you given them?

        • adam

        • Personal Responsibility

          Conversation over with you.

        • MNb

          What conversation? You write nonsensical creacrap, Adam posts appropriate cartoons. With creacrappers like you conversations are impossible at beforehand.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Tell me how you really feel…..

        • MNb

          Thoroughly entertained by your stupidities.

        • Personal Responsibility

          And more name calling….. typical.

        • MNb

          You asked a question.
          I answered honestly.
          If you don’t like my answer, don’t ask.
          Fool.

        • Personal Responsibility

          More attacks…..

        • MNb

          You’re a sitting duck, you don’t even fly away from this blog.
          Silly fool.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Even more attacks…. I hope the readers see how Atheists really behave.

        • MNb

          Of course. As long as the duck called Personal Responsibility keeps on sitting I will attack.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Reread your last 50 comments. I don’t recall a coherent argument or accurate and relevant evidence in any one of them.

          Suggestion: work on the log in your own eye first.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Let’s see…. I haven’t called you names, but tried to address your ideas. You guys call me names and tell me to work on the log in my own eye. Wow…. unbelievable. Lost folks don’t even realize how lost they are.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Make that fifty-one comments.

        • Kodie

          That’s the kind of response you get when you are too stupid to know how stupid you sound. You’re ignorant beyond belief, and you are evasive as fuck. What little you pretend to know, you’ve revealed in vague, short statements that tell us enough that you don’t know shit.

          But keep trying to make us sound like we’re being mean to you just because you preach the lord. That is the least of all. It’s possible to be Christian and not also be such a fucktard about science as you are, and it’s possible to be Christian and articulate your ideas and carry your end of a discussion, but instead, you insult all of our intelligence with your insistence on being here and thinking you are impressing us with your idiotic blather and ignorance. Good luck with that.

        • MNb

          Liar. You have repeatedly called me names and insulted me. Not that I mind; on the contrary. I like it that I can use it to expose you as the incurable liar you are.
          Stupid liar.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Ah, diddums…them bad atheists been calling ya names, have they?

          Then stop insulting my 7 year old grandsons intelligence, ya ignorant twat.

          Name calling vis a vis the threat of an eternity of torment in hell…hmmmm?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Quoting scripture is telling the truth. You have a problem with the truth? I don’t use the language you use to address other people. We are all God’s creation, even if some are foul-mouthed.

        • Michael Neville

          Whine whine whine. You don’t need to be born again, you need to grow up.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You can ridicule me all you want. I hope you feel better because unless you repent, you will not like the outcome. Best to you!

        • MNb

          Booooooh.
          Creacrappy fundie literalist falls back on threatening with bullies. That’s what toddlers do. “Wait, I’ll bring by (imaginary sky) daddy and he will teach you!”

        • Personal Responsibility

          Judgment will be upon all those who die in their sins. You don’t even acknowledge the flood, even though there is plenty of evidence even among other ancient cultures about the flood. Why would you believe anything else the Bible shows to be true?

        • MNb

          Booo.
          Creacrappy fundie keeps on threatening me with his imaginary sky bully.

          “Why would you believe anything else the Bible shows to be true?”
          Independent external confirmation for instance. No problem with the Babylonian Exile.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You can’t prove it.

        • MNb

          What can’t I prove? That creacrappy fundie Personal R threatens me with his imaginary sky bully? It’s right in your comments.
          That there is independent external confirmation of the Babylonian Exile? Now that would be hilarious – you denying non-Biblical evidence for something that happened according to the Bible.
          Man, are you stupid.

        • Ignorant Amos

          You don’t even acknowledge the flood, even though there is plenty of evidence even among other ancient cultures about the flood.

          That takes the biscuit. Get ta feck outta here ya gormless moron.

        • Personal Responsibility
        • MNb

          Wanna rethink that?

          http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood1.html

          Many great floods.
          None of them global.

        • adam

          You DO understand that the china great flood doesnt jive with the biblical account?

          “The setting for the flood was a landslide, caused by an earthquake, that
          planted a massive natural dam across the Yellow River where it travels
          through the Jishi Gorge after emerging from the Tibetan plateau. To
          judge from the remaining sidewalls, the researchers wrote in Friday’s issue of Science, the dam would have risen some 800 feet above the river’s present level.”

          Not a world wide flood by any means…

          So YOU LOSE AGAIN, loser.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Nope….and your link does fuck all to support a Noahic type flood as described in the OT which is a physical impossibility ya Clampitt.

          How can a person be so asinine with just one head.

          There are plenty of articles that explain why the idea of a world encompassing flood is a loada ballix…other than common sense….which isn’t very common apparently.

          https://ncse.com/cej/4/1/impossible-voyage-noahs-ark

          Floods occur, even big floods, but not floods on the biblical scale ya moron. Btw, if that Chinese flood is meant to support your bullshit, your YahwehJesus has fucked up big time as he promised a catastrophic flood would never happen again, the useless wanker.

          You, a university teacher, my arse.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          How can a person be so asinine with just one head.

          Multiple heads to go up multiple asses? Maybe PR is a hydra.

        • Greg G.

          Disqus is not YouTube. You can paste a link and it will make it an active link or you can add HTML to make a link out of your chosen text.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Thanks!

        • epeeist

          Wanna rethink that?

          But this is archaeology yet again, something you have said can’t be relied upon. Or can it only be relied on when it supports your position (even when they used, shock horror, carbon-14 dating)?

          But of course this is an epic logic fail, the bible reports a flood and there was a flood in China, therefore they were the same flood. You seem to be missing a few steps in your schema here, in other words it is what we call a non sequitur.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You want to ignore writings that could be pointing to the same event. You are asking me to swallow a pill that is based on fantasy and yet you won’t even consider that the two events, both of ancient writings, could be related. Go figure…….

        • epeeist

          Go figure…….

          Oh I do figure, what I figure is that you are prepared to accept archaeology when it supports your position but dismiss it when it does not.

          In others words, you show a complete lack of intellectual integrity.

        • MNb

          That’s what he’s a creacrapper for. Have you ever met a creationist with intellectual integrity? Not me.

        • MNb

          My dear fool, your pill (the Chinese flood is the same as the many Mesopotamian ones) is the one based on fantasy. I perfectly want to consider that the two events are related. I just see no single shred of evidence for it.
          But of course you never cared about evidence anyway. That’s why you the previous time carefully neglected

          http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood1.html
          http://www.livius.org/fa-fn/flood/flood5.html

        • adam

          “Judgment will be upon all those who die in their sins. ”

          And Santa wont bring you any presents…

        • Kodie

          The funny thing is, you Christians don’t realize how idiotic you sound with your baseless claims and denial of reality, and then pile it on with threats of your superstition getting to us. If you want us to believe in the figment of your imagination, you’re going to have to do a lot better than wishes.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I don’t have to do anything. I am not required to convert you. I try to be patient with you to see if you have any intrigue or open door. When I see none, I move on. I don’t do this for my health. I do it to spread the Gospel for those who the Lord has opened their ears. If that is not you, then simply say no thanks and move on. I think it’s quite telling that you have some sort of idea that I “have to do a lot better”. You have to be open and seeking God before anything productive can happen. Otherwise, you will be whatever you’ll be.

        • Kodie

          Yeah, I’m sure going to open my ears to believe in a figment of your imagination, over credible reality and science. If you want to argue for your beliefs, or deny reality, you’re going to have to step it up. Otherwise, you are done. You got to the end of blathering on about everything you think you know, which was really unimpressive, and went directly to the “repent or you’ll be sorry” know-nothing empty threat pretty quickly. No reason to believe you. That’s why it’s funny – all you Christians have this arrogance to think anyone would just be interested in picking up a superstition based on anything you’ve written.

          I mean, do you want to argue, you should come up with substance, exactly what you know and why you don’t think scientists have it right about evolution, and not plain immature denial and scoffing. You’ve had opportunities to get into it, but you just flip your hair and deny. If you want to feel like you’re just doing your Christian business of shitting your Christianity wherever you like, you’ve done that and there isn’t any more. If there isn’t any more, I suspect it’s not that you don’t want to, aren’t required to, but actually can’t contribute anything of substance.

        • adam

          ” I do it to spread the Gospel for those who the Lord has opened their ears. “

        • MNb

          “When I see none”
          There is none here on this blog.

          “I move on.”
          No, you don’t or you would have quit already.
          Even here you are self delusional.

          “Otherwise, you will be whatever you’ll be.”
          As long it’s not being like you it will always be better than being like you.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOL…. too funny. I hear so much crap from you people. It never ceases to amaze me. If you won’t even acknowledge your sinfulness, you are unreachable.

        • Kodie

          Not like you tried very hard, or have any evidence.

          I don’t know how we’re supposed to acknowledge a concept that is only true in your superstition.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I never asked you to. So I take it you think billions of people are delusional? But you and your small cohort are just so smart that you know all the secrets and everyone is out to try to coerce you into something you don’t want? News Flash: Nobody is trying to do anything. You obviously are misguided, have bad information, or are listening to others who are.

        • Kodie

          Yes, billions of people believe they are too smart to be fooled. None of you ever met god, it’s an apparently compelling rumor that appeals to emotional fears and insecurities. The same way kids think there’s a monster under the bed or in the closet.

        • MNb

          There are not billions of stupid fundies like you in the world. Most christians actually dislike your literalism as much as we do.

        • MNb

          Thanks for the compliment. Your god being

          “arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully”
          unreachable is exactly where I want to be.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          I don’t do this for my health. I do it to spread the Gospel

          Maybe if you focused on truth (backed up by evidence) and followed that rather than blindly preaching Jesus (evidence or no), you’d be a more credible authority.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Who said I don’t?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Perhaps I misunderstood. Correct me if I got it wrong. I thought that you were conveying the Christian message, regardless of evidence for or against. My suggestion was quite different.

        • Michael Neville

          We do.

        • Personal Responsibility

          You’d be wrong again, and again, and again. I would think that you guys would get tired of being wrong, but you all just keep doubling down. Why don’t you think for yourself for once instead of “counting on the experts” to lead you astray?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          When you’re not a scientist, you need to choke down your arrogance and admit that they know more about the topic at hand than you do. The scientific consensus is our best guess at that part of reality. That’s no guarantee that it’s correct, but it’s the best we’ve got.

        • MNb

          Asks the guy who parrots Ol’Hambo, Lee Strobel and the plagiarist Missie Chuckie.

        • Michael Neville

          Why don’t you accept reality instead of a 2500 year old creation myth some Hebrew priests stole from the Babylonians? Reality is a lot more interesting than worshiping one book.

        • Kodie

          I love that you are such a dupe of creationists, and pretend that you know anything about thinking for yourself. Keep it coming, dummy.

        • MNb

          You yourself.

        • Michael Neville

          Typical Christian. When you’re losing an argument you resort to threats.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOL! I haven’t lost anything. How self-righteous to declare yourself a winner! Do you think I am losing anything? You are on the losing end because of your close-mindedness and hardened heart.

        • MNb

          You’re an established liar, so you won’t be the arbiter of your own stupid game.

        • Michael Neville

          You’ve lost any respect that any of us here might have had for you because of your refusal to accept reality, your whining and, finally, your lying. So yes, you’ve lost.

        • MNb

          It cannot be scientifically tested that Obama was elected president in 2008. It’s history. Hence I can maintain that I was elected.
          It cannot be scientifically tested that you were born out of humans. It’s history.
          It cannot be scientifically tested that your ancestors from 1000 years ago were humans. That’s history. Hence I can maintain that you’re an alien in disguise.

          “Why do I have to have evidence somebody’s foolish theory is wrong?”
          Because that’s how the scientific method works.
          Thanks for admitting that you reject science. Not that anyone here is surprised.

        • Personal Responsibility

          We have video proof that Obama was elected – nice try. We were all eye witnesses too. Without witnesses and corroboration, you can only speculate what happened. So your assertion is a miserable fail.
          You obviously don’t know the scientific method. Please educate yourself and try again before you embarrass yourself further. I don’t reject science. I reject your ridiculous misconception of what you think science is.

        • MNb

          Videos prove zilch, just like fossils prove zilch. The nice try is yours.

          “We were all eye witnesses too.”
          There are eyewitness accounts for speciation and mutation. There is corroboration.
          However we don’t have eyewitness accounts for the births of your ancestors 1000 years ago.
          You’re an alien.

          “You obviously don’t know the scientific method.”
          BWAHAHAHAHA! Writes the guy who not only bleats about the difference between observation and historical science (which is irrelevant and meaningless for the scientific method), but also contradicts himself immediately what he claims about that difference as soon as the results don’t suit him.

          “Please educate yourself”
          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          I’m a well trained and experienced teacher math and physics, trained by well trained and experienced physicists and mathematicians.

          “and try again before you embarrass yourself further.”
          Thanks for the compliment. As soon as a creacrapper, ignorant and liar like you writes this I know I have had success.

          “I don’t reject science.”
          You admitted it yourself, even according to your own irrelevant standard.

          “I reject your ridiculous misconception of what you think science is.”
          Which happens to be exactly the same conception as experts have, so thanks again for your compliment.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “I’m a well trained and experienced teacher math and physics, trained by well trained and experienced physicists and mathematicians.”

          I’ve taught at a major university for years along with actually being in the industry, so your credentials don’t impress me. And because you brought up credentials, the smarter you think you get, the more foolish, arrogant, and narcissistic you will become. Enjoy!

        • Susan

          I’ve taught at a major university for years along with actually being in the industry

          What do you teach?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And what is your discipline?

        • Myna A.

          I’ve taught at a major university for years along with actually being in the industry, so your credentials don’t impress me

          You write and respond more like a first quarter community college freshman, if even that.

          And what do you mean by “industry”?

        • MNb

          I didn’t mention my credentials to impress you, silly fool, but to refute your claim that I don’t understand science.
          Let me guess.
          You didn’t teach biology.
          You weren’t working in the oil industry or something comparable.
          You taught at something similar to Bob Jones University.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Actually I taught at a secular university. It was in the Science field, but not Biology. So how would you evaluate Dr. Chuck Missler?

        • MNb

          A stupid liar. See above.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Stop teasing me! Now I’m trying to fill in the details. I’m guessing … chair of Physics at CalTech. Or Princeton.

          Am I close?

        • Kodie

          Computer Science, Library Science?

        • adam

          Astrology?

          But most likely one of the ‘creation sciences’ in a woo woo university

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Janitorial Science?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Hardly…..

        • Ignorant Amos

          Didn’t we have a fuckwit here fairly recently that made similar bleating’s about having an expertise in everything and taught in a top US uni and had pupils that are wranglers at Oxford, or Cambridge, or some such?

          Could this be a puppet?

        • MNb

          Could, but I don’t think so. PR’s style is different plus Georgieboy wasn’t a YECer.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Right enough…good point.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Well if that is true and you have taught at a major uni…then that makes it even worse, you should know better ya dipstick.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Typical atheist ad hominem…

        • Michael Neville

          Unlike you, we’re either scientists or have had extensive contact with scientists. We know how science is done and what the scientific method is. You quite obviously do not. You don’t even know what a theory is, which is a basic concept of science. So when you tell us you’ve been involved with science then you’re lying because we know you don’t know anything about science other than you hate it.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Oh yes, mighty one. You got me there…….. please….. I have multiple science degrees and have taught it along with being in the industry for decades. But that is totally irrelevant. Why do you bring up crap that is irrelevant? I would love to provide credentials to a third party, who is uninterested, so s/he would stamp validation on my claim. I refuse to offer that type of information on a public forum because quite frankly, I don’t trust you guys. Bunch of stalkers.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          My contact information is on the About page. You can email me your credentials and then tell me what kind of summary you want me to publish here.

        • Myna A.

          It will be interesting to see how that goes.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I think that’s what must have spooked him and he’s done a runner to Croydon.

        • Michael Neville

          As I said, don’t lie. You don’t even know the basics of science. You said that evolution was just a theory, which shows that you do not know what a theory is. Plus you’re so coy on the details of which science you’re supposed to have taught and worked in. Real scientists don’t say “I’m a scientist”, they say “I’m a [planetary astronomer] [petroleum geologist] [optical physicist]” They give their specialty because calling themselves a scientist is too broad a designation. So I don’t believe you when you claim to have “multiple science degrees” and to have taught it. You don’t speak the language correctly.

        • Kodie

          PR never claimed to be a scientist. He tiptoes around science industry and vague degrees so god doesn’t smote him for lying. He doesn’t have to be very specific to give some information, but he won’t give any information – because he’s a liar and whatever his real job is is lame. A grown man who thinks he’s constantly being watched by a space ghost is paranoid that people on the internet can discover who he is and want to find him and … ??

        • Michael Neville

          The other problem PR has is that he doesn’t know enough about science to convincingly lie about it. A good liar needs to have some knowledge of the subject they’re lying about. But since we know more about science than PR does it’s easy to catch even the vague lies he’s trying to make.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I think it’s fair to draw the inference from this comment of PR that he is claiming a knowledge of science on a par with MNb…

          I’ve taught at a major university for years along with actually being in the industry, so your credentials don’t impress me.

          At least that was the impression it gave me.

        • Kodie

          I think he’s just hoping we won’t notice the waving hands.

        • Ignorant Amos

          There was also this claim.

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL……. I’ve been in the Science community for about 35 years…. LOLOLOL. Good one! You guys like to make yourself seem so smart now don’t you……..

          https://disqus.com/home/discussion/crossexamined/movie_review_ray_comforts_the_atheist_delusion/#comment-2842807822

          So he’s not a baby, even though he gets on like one.

        • Kodie

          Ok, so you admit you have no background at all in science, no education, no credentials.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Not at all. I wouldn’t be paid what I am paid without them.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And you belong to Mensa, and you have a big dick.

          Uh huh. Show us the evidence. I already told you you could email me to point to your credentials and I would pass along only what you told me (but I don’t want to see anything about your dick).

        • Kodie

          Your riddles are boring and don’t give your claims any credibility. Don’t care what you make, you’re a liar.

        • adam

          Does having a Grindr account, account for credentials?

        • Susan

          I have multiple science degrees and have taught it along with being in the industry for decades.

          I am a world class ballerina. I used to be a neuroscientist but my heart told me to dance.

          But that is totally irrelevant. Why did you bring up crap that is irrelevant?

          You brought it up. You accused MNb of not understanding science. MNb explained to you that he was qualified in maths and physics and had been trained by qualiied people in their field.

          You then accused him of bragging (though he wasn’t) and made some handwavey claim about credentials you show no evidence of having.

          Admit it. You’re a Poe.

          I refuse to offer that type of information on a public forum

          Then, don’t claim it on a public forum.

          Bunch of stalkers.

          Admit it. You’re a Poe.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Don’t ask it on a public forum.

        • Kodie

          Nobody’s asking for your prison ID#, just say you are an ex-convict.

        • epeeist

          I have multiple science degrees and have taught it along with being in the industry for decades. But that is totally irrelevant.

          And yet, as others have noted, you don’t know what a scientific theory is; you don’t know that science doesn’t deal in proof or truths that are universal, necessary and certain; you don’t or can’t deal with references to actual scientific papers; you don’t know that scientific theories in one field can draw support from theories in other fields. In short you seem to know little if anything about the foundations of science.

          Oh, and just for completeness, I have a doctorate in molecular physics during which I took adjunct courses, one of which was the philosophy of science. I have worked on a variety of research programmes besides that of my Ph.D. at a number of scientific establishments including the Paris Observatory and the technical arm of the European space agency.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Where is our little friend? I hope he hasn’t decided that it’s too hot in the kitchen for him.

        • epeeist

          Where is our little friend?

          He seems to have discovered an urgent appointment in Croydon and taken his delusions of adequacy with him.

          If he really was a science teacher of some kind then one has to feel sorry for his students.

        • Ignorant Amos

          He’s probably gone there on a quest to find the reset button.

          He did the same just over a week or so ago iirc.

        • epeeist

          He’s probably gone there on a quest to find the reset button.

          You reckon he thinks we will have forgotten who he is or the comments that he has made?

        • Ignorant Amos

          It’s certainly debatable and I’ve seen it happen before. It doesn’t seem to fizzle on his type of believer. That they are repeating the same bunkum to the same folk over and over again ad nauseam I mean.

        • MNb

          Time for some wild speculation.
          He claimed he was a teacher at a secular university.
          He also claimed he worked in some industry.
          Past tense.
          Engineers are infamous for the popularity of creationism.

          http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Salem_Hypothesis

          PR was an engineer, teaching at a university of technology. He also did some work in his field at some factory or something.
          He got kicked out because of his radical creationism, promoting YEC iso doing his actual work.

          This quote

          “I’ve been born again (Spiritually born). I was dead spiritually (like you), yet now I am alive”

          (it’s somewhere on this page) seems to confirm my speculation. I dare to bet that he was “born again” after he got hired, not before.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That sounds a lot more plausible that the scenario PR has inferred.

        • Kodie

          Time for some wild speculation.

          Nope, not wild enough. Why wouldn’t he just say he was an engineer? His language is lies and evasion, and having a non-science job in a science-adjacent setting seems more likely. He’s also afraid that knowing what he did for a living would enable us to find out who he is and where he lives, so he’s really paranoid that his job title is too embarrassing or too specific, or that we’ll write to him in jail or whatever.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Bunch of stalkers.

          Whaaaa?

          You came here ya ignorant wanker.

          YOU are the one spouting lies about fictitious credentials we all know you don’t have ya silly tosspot.

          Show us the money or shut ta fuck up about the expertise you display no inkling of understanding.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Not taking the bait, cheesecake. Have fun with your wild imagination there. You’d rather cling to lies than even explore the truth.

        • Kodie

          We know you’re a liar. Keep admitting what a liar you are. “God” knows your heart, you know nothing.

        • Ignorant Amos

          I’m not entertaining your retarded moronic fuckwittery, you are not even worth the effort to ridicule, mock and take the pish out of, let alone try and educate.

          You fucked of a week or so ago to Croydon and have now returned with more imbecilic trolling having pressed the reset button. You are not even worth wasting the steam of a shite on ya ignorant fool.

          I leave you for the rest to chew on.

        • Dys

          I have multiple science degrees and have taught it along with being in the industry for decades.

          And yet you made the same mistake almost every other uneducated creationist makes in confusing a scientific theory with the layman’s definition of a theory.

          Your inane proclamations on this site are in direct contrast to you being a scientific expert of any kind. To be blunt, if you really do have multiple science degrees and can’t see any problem with the BS you’ve been posting here, you should return them, because you don’t deserve them.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I love it when an atheist judges me because he is the first one to tell people they ought not to judge. Hypocrite!

        • adam

          “I love it when an atheist judges me because he is the first one to tell people they ought not to judge. ”

          And i thought that was the Jesus character in the stories?

        • Dys

          I didn’t say anything about telling people they ought not to judge. So not only am I not a hypocrite, but you’ve just demonstrated how full of shit you are. Congratulations!

        • Kodie

          You have an imaginary lord you presume to judge others for, but we do not have your imaginary lord. You are a fucking idiot, it says so in the words you say. Lie about having anything to do with science, it’s just maybe harder to lie about it, with your lord watching, than you thought it would be, but you have nothing to do with science. You have either something to do with handling groceries or pizza or a shovel, not that there’s anything wrong with that, or you have something to do with something pretending it’s science. You know zero about science. Nobody’s buying your pretend background or experience in or teaching in or ambient science “industry”.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Typical theist fuckwit…using terms you don’t understand ya cockwomble.

          A university teacher, my arse.

        • Ignorant Amos

          WTF is a “typical atheist ad hominem” and how does it differ from a untypical atheist ad hominem, or just an atheist ad hominem, or an non atheist ad hominem?

          You don’t appear to understand the ad hominem fallacy at all.

          Let me help you out… https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/ad-hominem

        • Dys

          Typical atheist ad hominem…

          That you employed first, hypocrite.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Irrational too.

        • Dys

          Yes, you are most certainly irrational as well as a massive hypocrite. At least you’re spotting your more obvious flaws. Good job.

        • adam

          Yes, and I had to flunk you out of science class for lying about your homework and conjuring magic.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Libel much?

        • Kodie

          So, another subject you know nothing about?

        • Ignorant Amos

          A teacher in a university, my arse.

        • MNb

          No. You’re an established liar.

        • adam

          Nope

          Lie much?

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          So you think that miracles and magic ARE THE SAME FUCKING THING??

        • Michael Neville

          What’s the difference? Be specific.

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          Miracle: an effect or extraordinary event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a supernatural cause.
          Magic: the art of producing illusions as entertainment by the use of sleight of hand, deceptive devices, etc.; legerdemain; conjuring.

        • Michael Neville

          Thank you for showing the difference between miracles and magic. Of course since your god is a figment of the imagination, in reality there is no difference.

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          “Of course since your god is a figment of the imagination, in reality there is no difference.”
          No, God’s not imaginary. There’s evidence for Him existing that I gave to you which you denied as “claims and assertions”.
          Yeah, there is a difference between magic and miracles. I just said so.

        • Ignorant Amos

          A miracle is an event not explicable by natural or scientific laws. Such an event may be attributed to a supernatural being (a deity), magic, a miracle worker, a saint or a religious leader.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Not the kind of magic we’re talking about. Obviously.

        • adam

          Yes, of course they are:

          Full Definition of magic Merriam Webster
          1 a : the use of means believed to have supernatural power over natural forces

          2 a : an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          The simple definitions disprove your view on those:
          : a power that allows people (such as witches and wizards) to do impossible things by saying special words or performing special actions

          : tricks that seem to be impossible and that are done by a performer to entertain people

          : special power, influence, or skill

        • adam

          No disproof there,

          care to try again.

        • Kodie

          Magic is an illusion and miracles are fictional.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Tell us what you think is the difference, soft boy?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          You’re only now understanding? How hard is this? Yes, obviously I think they’re the same thing. (Just speaking for myself.)

        • Personal Responsibility

          Videos prove zilch? Tell a judge that…… how moronic!

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Tell a judge fossils don’t prove anything …… now that’s moronic! Especially because several trials has shown they totally do.
          Fool.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Videos are an exact replica of the events that are entered into evidence. Bones are the after effects of something that died. You don’t even know how it died or when it died. You are that clueless to not understand the difference?

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          Ask any film editor.
          Fool.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Wow…. I guess you didn’t know video can be authenticated. Nah….. not that far along yet I see…..

        • MNb

          Were you there when the Obama videos were shot and edited?
          I wasn’t and you already have shown to be a liar, so the answer doesn’t even matter.
          According to your own method.

        • Michael Neville

          Explain the scientific method. Remember there are people here who are scientists so you can’t bullshit us with your “historical vs observational” nonsense.

        • Personal Responsibility

          When you want to date a rock and say that it is 6 billion years old, you are exercising discretion using assumptions, which most times are wrought full of errors. This is what I am calling historical and you know it.
          The scientific method is a 4th grade subject, so if you are confused, go back to grade school.

        • Susan

          which most times are wrought full of errors.

          Then, you should be able to give us plenty of examples and demonstrate the errors.

          If the scientific method is a 4th grade subject, you should have no trouble explaining it to us.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          When you want to date a rock and say that it is 6 billion years old

          Huh?? No one dates an earth rock to 6 billion years old. Get a clue.

        • MNb

          BWAHAHAHAHA!
          According to your own definition dating a rock is observational science. It’s done in a lab and it can be repeated.
          You reject science even according to your own irrelevant standard.

        • Michael Neville

          How do you know that my assumptions are “wrought full of errors”? A six billion year old rock (which doesn’t exist on the four billion year old Earth) doesn’t meet your requirements for a six thousand year old Earth and so you dismiss it without any evidence for the dismissal.

        • Personal Responsibility

          There is no evidence. There is only your interpretation of the evidence, which is very wrong. A rock is a rock. That is evidence. Your conclusions about the rock is where you are faulty.

        • Michael Neville

          There’s lots of evidence but you refuse to see it. A rock’s age can be tested using radioisotopes (do you even know what an isotope is). The evidence for evolution is strong but you cannot accept it because it shows the Bible which you worship is wrong.

          And please, don’t lie to me and say you love science. You hate it because it contradicts your precious book. You even hate God because his universe contradicts your Bible.

        • Ignorant Amos

          PR has to be a Poe. There can’t really be people this stupid…even by creationist standards.

        • Michael Neville

          Unfortunately PR is not the first creationist I’ve ever dealt with. They’re not stupid, they’re just so willfully blind that they refuse to acknowledge anything that doesn’t fit their narrow interpretation of their holy book.

        • Ignorant Amos

          PR is stupid though.

          That’s the thing about good Poe, it’s very hard to tell the difference from the real thing.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOLOLOL… silly. Not even worthy of a response. Not one transition fossil…. but the evidence is strong….. LOL!

        • Greg G.

          Many years ago, a new fossil species was discovered. All of the creationists of the day agreed that it was not a transitional species. Half of the creationists said it was just an ape and the other half said it was clearly human.

          You should never believe a creationist. They are biased.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And still evolution is the scientific consensus. After all your bleating, the only people qualified to evaluate the evidence declare that you’ve lost. That must hurt.

        • Personal Responsibility

          They are engaging in what you loathe, taking something on faith. It hurts nothing but their credibility.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Wrong again. Tip: avoid commenting on a discipline you don’t understand.

        • Kodie

          Not among sane, literate people.

        • Greg G.

          You rely on faith and you know it completely undermines credibility.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Let’s see….. if I tell you something and you believe me, you take it on faith that I am telling the truth. That is the faith I’m talking about here. What Jesus said I believe to be true. Everything that is recorded about Him, who He claims to be, and what it means to be His Disciple. How could believing someone undermine credibility? That is where I think there is a disconnect. My faith is in Him and His Word. Either you believe Him or you don’t. What’s the problem?

        • Greg G.

          What Jesus said I believe to be true. Everything that is recorded about Him, who He claims to be, and what it means to be His Disciple.

          Everything recorded about him was written by people who never met him. At best, it is hearsay. So you have faith that he said it, that it was passed down repeatedly, and was written down correctly. You were comparing your type of faith with the study of actual hard evidence. Your type of faith lacks credibility because it is gullibility.

        • Kodie

          There’s something wrong with a lot of you Christians – just invoking stories from a book doesn’t have a magical power. We don’t have Jesus, we have a dope who calls himself “Personal Responsibility,” perhaps ironically, perhaps obliviously. You are like telling us you know how to make a car out of a grapefruit and a paper clip, and think POOF, magical words, they’ll believe or be damned to hell. You are just a nut, a deluded faithful boring person who thinks things that aren’t true, and one of those things you think is that you puny liar over the internet, can magically spread good seeds from a lord who doesn’t exist over non-believers, and we will fall to our knees, and if we don’t, it’s because of “sin” because you are a grown-ass man believing a fucking silly story. Why do you think god sent you, illiterate and fucking ignorant of science, and having no credibility, and no evidence, and deferring giving any because you know we won’t believe it because it sucks and isn’t evidence, think you have something we need.

          You don’t. Nobody here wants to end up like you. A sad shell of a cult worshiper who thinks he has something he hasn’t really got. You have nothing, you have zero, you are not going to heaven or hell when you die, you tell a silly story, you have a superstition. You have a lucky poker chip, and you are gambling it all on making a public fool of yourself for your cult, but you still won’t tell us, generally, what you did for a living.

          You’re not someone to admire, your ways are not ways to admire. Your arrogance is nothing to admire. Your naivete is specifically something we try to avoid. Sin is imaginary, so is god, so is Jesus, so is salvation, so is heaven, so is hell. I’m telling you something and you won’t believe me!!!! What the fuck, man? Am I not clear enough? How much more should I have to say? You’re silly. You’re a grown man with an imaginary friend, you think we should fear and cower over the figment of your imagination. Why? You give us no reason to emulate you, or admire you, want to be like you, want to go where you go. It would be like having an elective lobotomy.

        • MNb

          I disagree on only one minor point.

          “You’re a grown man”
          except mentally. I have met kids of 12 years old who are better at formulating arguments than PR.

        • Kodie

          Trying to appeal to his perception of himself (or herself?) as an adult.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Why would I want you to be like me? God wants you to emulate His Son, Jesus. If you feel that you have enough “science” to determine whatever you determine, then fine. I would suggest you need to really think about what you are reading and do some sanity checks. What “scientists” call science today is silly, and most importantly, derelict.

        • adam

          God wants you to emulate His Son, Jesus”

          Isnt he is own son?

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          Jesus wasn’t white.

        • Michael Neville

          The “whoosh” was the sound of the point of the gif flying over your head.

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          I didn’t hear any “whoosh” sound.

        • Ignorant Amos

          An assertion based on what?

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Don’t lie to me–I’ve seen the photos. He looks like a Beach Boy–tall and so handsome that a real man can be forgiven for having a man-crush on him.

          http://cdn.timesofisrael.com/uploads/2014/02/hr_Son_of_God_12.jpg

        • Kodie

          He didn’t look like a Beach Boy, he looked like Dennis Wilson, the Beach Boy. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ti8DXSkETf4

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Yep, Jesus was pretty cute.

        • Kodie

          But he couldn’t walk on water.

        • Kodie

          I’m sorry that you are so brainwashed that you not only believe this garbage, but you believe we’re in need of it too. You are far far out of touch with reality, it’s no longer even entertaining. Whatever pathetic piece of shit your life was before you met the people who sucked you into their cult, you’ve traded it all to become a puppet who repeats nonsense. I bet you pay them for the privilege, too, sucker. Not a single thing you’ve said so far matches reality, and that’s sad when you think threatening and accusing us should make us think you might have something going for you after all. You don’t have heaven or salvation or Jesus, you have nothing to show for your devotion but empty, shallow inanities.

        • MNb

          “What “scientists” call science today is silly”
          Still you use internet and cars and medicine, which result from that very same silly science.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Not at all. Concern about aliens coming to get us, those “scientists” are silly.

        • MNb

          You have ceased making sense.

        • MR

          You have to keep in mind that PR doesn’t get his/her science from actual scientists.

        • MNb

          Of course, but what aliens coming to get us have to do with anything is beyond my comprehensibility.

        • busterggi

          He probably thinks ‘Ancient Aliens’ is a science based show.

        • Personal Responsibility

          No, you are intentionally being obtuse. I specifically provided a story about what a scientist is saying.

        • Ignorant Amos

          That must hurt.

          Like a bugger.

        • Michael Neville

          Nothing like a strong rebuttal to an argument. And that’s nothing like one.

        • Ignorant Amos

          In theory, every fossil is a transitional fossil unless it has no progeny, ya ignorant cunt.

          A university teacher, my arse.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker
        • Ignorant Amos
        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Great minds think alike?

        • Ignorant Amos

          A wish…

        • Personal Responsibility

          Not any more..

        • Michael Neville

          Someone who doesn’t even know what a theory is should not be sneering about anyone else’s knowledge of science.

        • Personal Responsibility

          LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL……. I’ve been in the Science community for about 35 years…. LOLOLOL. Good one! You guys like to make yourself seem so smart now don’t you……..

        • busterggi

          “I’ve been in the Science community for about 35 years”

          Well someone has to deliver the coffee to working scientists.

        • Kodie

          Your vague claims to be in the Science community are not to be taken seriously. You sound like maybe the janitor, or you are confusing ID with science, and you are confusing being a dork on the internet with having a job in a specific field and whatever degrees you hold in that field. How many times are you going to dodge the actual admission that you don’t know what the fuck science is? You clearly don’t want to tell us what you actually do for a living, and carefully not lying about it.

        • Michael Neville

          Don’t lie to me, asshole. You’ve never done science because if you had then you’d know what a theory is, which you obviously don’t.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Sure I have. You don’t like that fact, so you attack. Nice try. You can’t erase history, just like you can’t erase Jesus. He’s there, and always will be.

        • Michael Neville

          Okay, liar, give me your qualifications. What “science” have you done?

          I thought your holy book said that lying was a sin. Or is Lying For Jesus exempt, especially if you’re lying to non-Christians?

        • Ignorant Amos

          35 years? Ballix.

          You must realise that no one working in the science community for 35 years would be so infantile as to LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL their comments, right?

          You guys like to make yourself seem so smart now don’t you……..

          Well, when creotards like you come along, the bar gets lowered right down to the floor, so even thickets like me can show off. It’s that easy.

          A teacher in a university, my arse.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Not any more.

        • Kodie

          Did you count the votes yourself, or…?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Ok, now you are intentionally being obtuse….

        • Kodie

          That’s a no, then?

        • MNb

          Like you.
          That’s what always happens when we use their very own method against creacrappers like you. Suddenly they reject their own method.
          Of course they never admit it. You won’t either. That’s how we come to the conclusion that you’re a liar. And because you don’t even see what’s happening you’re also stupid.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I can’t even understand what language you are writing in – seems to be demonic.

        • MNb

          “I can’t even understand ….”
          Thanks for admitting that you’re stupid.

        • Rudy R

          How do you know all Scripture is God-breathed? Do you know who wrote the Pentatouch? Most Biblical scholars believe the author(s) is unknown. How do you know the author(s) is telling the truth?

        • epeeist

          How do you know all Scripture is God-breathed?

          Oh come on you daft ha’porth. It says so in the bible.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Jesus authenticated it. Jesus is truth.

        • adam

          ..

        • Personal Responsibility

          You obviously don’t understand the OT ancient culture.

        • adam

          You obviously dont understand me.

        • Dys

          Oh boy…you’re one of those dishonest “slavery was really indentured servitude” liars?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Why is slavery wrong? Where do you get your absolute morals from? Is slavery ever okay in your opinion?

        • Dys

          Absolute morals don’t exist. I suspect a form of objective morality (not absolute) is likely because humans are social animals and there are objective facts about humans that would lead to morality.

          Plus, moral behaviour has been exhibited in other animals besides humans, and the bible is a terrible source of morality.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Who needs absolute morals? We figured out that slavery was wrong with regular morals.

          Too bad God couldn’t.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Funny one that, 1800 years of Christians didn’t seem to understand that OT culture either.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Please illuminate me.

        • Rudy R

          Nothing like making an unverifiable claim to dodge questions.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I answered the question. Jesus authenticated it. Do you want me to cite Scripture?

        • MNb

          Thanks for confirming your circularity.
          Jesus authenticated Scripture, which is your source about Jesus.

        • Rudy R

          Cite scripture from the Gospels? The Gospels that were written by unknown authors no earlier than 30 years after Jesus’ death? The Gospels that we do not have original texts, but copies of copies? How exactly did you authenticate?

        • Personal Responsibility

          Do a little research rather than spewing the same old worn out atheist false claims. I guess you are going to claim Lee Strobel is an idiot. I guess you are saying Dr. Chuck Missler is an idiot too.

        • busterggi

          I didn’t see any false claims – can you detail them/

        • Personal Responsibility

          “The Gospels that were written by unknown authors no earlier than 30 years after Jesus’ death? The Gospels that we do not have original texts, but copies of copies?”

          While they were in the interrogative form, they were false claims.

        • busterggi

          Please prove they existed in that form and exactly what they said.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          While they were in the interrogative form, they were false claims.

          Huh?

        • MNb

          Sure Strobel is an idiot. He doesn’t know what he’s talking about and yet keeps on talking. Missy Chuckie is a new one for me. So I googled him and visited his website. And I found this:

          https://www.khouse.org/enews_article/2013/2047/

          “Biologists like to claim that evolution has been proven absolutely.”
          (I underlined the word absolutely). Yup. A first class stupid liar. No scientist has claimed absolute proof for anything last 200+ years.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Good point–Strobel is pretty idiotic. I’ve written about him in several posts if you’re curious enough to search for them.

        • Personal Responsibility

          That may be your claim. What about Dr. Missler? I see you convenient didn’t respond to him. I presume you aren’t up to the task.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Correct. I’m not “up to the task” of critiquing someone whose work I haven’t read.

        • Personal Responsibility

          How about watching his videos? There are 2 that are really good and scientific for you. Check it here:
          https://youtu[.]be/6NSImLLTM7o { remove [ ] }

        • Kodie

          Another area of knowledge that you lack – that’s the second link you’ve posted that was fucked up somehow. I don’t know, how hard is it to copy and paste from the url?

        • Dys

          I watched the first part of that video…it’s not scientific in the slightest.

          Are you sure you know what science is? Because for someone who claims to have multiple science degrees, you’re making grade school level mistakes.

        • Personal Responsibility

          If you equate me with Missler, I’ll take that any day of the week. The scientific parts start at about 13 minutes and continue. For you to equate it to grade school, I’m going to ask for your credentials. You obviously didn’t watch the full 2 hours of it. He gets very deep, and you probably couldn’t keep up.

        • adam

          “If you equate me with Missler, I’ll take that any day of the week. ”

          so this must be Assclown Monday.

        • Dys

          If you equate me with Missler, I’ll take that any day of the week.

          I didn’t. Although neither one of you appears very qualified to talk much about science.

          For you to equate it to grade school, I’m going to ask for your credentials.

          Since you’ve displayed an amazing ignorance of basic science, I think we need your actual credentials first. I said your understanding is at grade school level. And you’ve done nothing to counter that.

          You obviously didn’t watch the full 2 hours of it.

          I didn’t watch the entire thing, because I don’t have the time to listen to a non-scientist talk about science. I’d rather listen to respected scientists on science topics.

          He gets very deep, and you probably couldn’t keep up.

          In the first 15 minutes, he basically passed by all the actual interesting topics to concentrate on theological nonsense. Further in the video he goes through a bunch of the same old arguments for the existence of god (cosmological, design, etc), all of which have counters. And about an 1:18 in, he starts talking about probability, which is always funny to me. Because he starts talking about how improbable certain features of our universe and world are. Some of the probabilities he’s talking about aren’t real, because they can’t actually be determined. But the funnier part is that he has no competing probability for God doing anything. He can’t – there’s no way to calculate such a thing. So without a competing probability, he’s reduced to an argument from incredulity.

        • Dys

          Missler’s an ex-tech guy, and is one of those bible code nuts as well.

          Why PR is holding him up as some expert is beyond me. Maybe their crazies mesh well together.

        • Ignorant Amos

          Why PR is holding him up as some expert is beyond me. Maybe their crazies mesh well together.

          Indeed. Missler says the sort of bug nutty bat shit crazy nonsense PR wants to hear.

          He’s also as dishonest as Missler…who’d have thought that of a pair of holy rollers…two peas in a pod really.

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Missler#Controversy

        • Rudy R

          Is Lee Strobel and Dr. Chuck Missler claiming the authors of the Gospels are known? What dates are they claiming the Gospels were written? Are they also claiming we have the original Gospel texts?

        • adam

          ” I guess you are saying Dr. Chuck Missler is an idiot too.”

          And an evil dishonest one at that:

          ” A Los Angeles Times article reported that Missler and co-author Hal Lindsey had plagiarized a portion of Miami University Professor Edwin Yamauchi’s 1982 book Foes From the Northern Frontier in their own 1992 book The Magog Factor.[12] After the plagiarism was acknowledged[clarification needed], book shipments to bookstores were discontinued and all of the authors’ proceeds donated to a ministry.[13]

          Missler has also been accused of plagiarism of New Age writer Michael Talbot’s 1992 book The Holographic Universe in his 1999 book Cosmic Codes: Messages from the Edge of Eternity.[14] Missler has also acknowledged this plagiarism and has since publicly apologized. He said a correction would be inserted in all unsold copies and the book itself updated in subsequent printings. Missler has donated all of the author’s proceeds from the book to a ministry.[15] [16]”

          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuck_Missler

          You’re a POE, right?

        • Dys

          The gospels are anonymously authored, but Christians seem to routinely confuse traditional attributed authorship with actual authorship.

          Lee Strobel isn’t a bible scholar or historian, and neither is Chuck Missler. The prevailing understanding of actual experts on the subject agree that the gospels are not independent accounts. And the authorship question is up in the air as well.

        • Personal Responsibility

          “The prevailing understanding of actual experts on the subject agree….”

          That is a bald face lie and you know it! End of conversation.

        • Dys

          That is a bald face lie and you know it! End of conversation.

          No, it’s not. You’re uneducated, and don’t know what you’re talking about.

        • Susan

          That is a bald face lie and you know it!

          You’re bluffing. Show where Dys is lying.

          End of conversation.

          More bluffing. You’ve shot nothing but blanks so far.

        • Kodie

          Jesus is a fictional character.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Then you aren’t even worth having a discussion. Even the overwhelming majority of secular historians believe Jesus existed with a mountain of proof. Good day!

        • Myna A.

          Even the overwhelming majority of secular historians believe Jesus existed with a mountain of proof.

          You just made that one up in your head.

        • MNb

          With creationist fools like you a discussion is impossible anyway.
          Only merciless mockery makes sense. You’re an excellent victim, though admitted not the funniest and most foolish one yet.

        • Kodie

          There’s a huge difference between an actual person, as lots and lots of actual people actually existed, and that actual person being the magical son of a magical fictional character.

          Leave it to the idiot Christian to mix things up like that!

        • Personal Responsibility

          More insults….. you guys are full of them. Typical Atheists.

        • Kodie

          Don’t pretend you didn’t bring it on yourself.

        • adam

          ””

        • MNb

          They are not insults. They are conclusions drawn from empirical evidence – in this case your comments.
          Experiment: will creacrapper Personal R admit that radio dating is observational science? If yes he’s not such an idiot as we think. Will he rather neglect it, aimlessly try to cast some doubt or even better maintain that radio dating, totally repeatable and done in labs, still is historical science? He’s a stupid liar.

        • Kodie

          I only called you an idiot, you threatened us with eternal hell because we don’t take you seriously. You thin-skinned, hypocritical, petty, deluded, arrogant idiot!

        • Personal Responsibility

          I simply paraphrased what Scripture shows in Revelation. John the Baptist was in the desert telling everyone to repent. Obviously, you don’t care and continue in your awful ways.

        • Kodie

          What awful ways?

        • busterggi

          Nothing like an uninhabited desert to find converts.

        • Personal Responsibility

          Yeah, they flocked to him by the hundreds.

        • Greg G.

          How do you know that? It sounds like an assumption. Book, chapter, and verse.

        • adam

          “Obviously, you don’t care and continue in your awful ways.”

        • Greg G.

          Christians revel in the claims of the New Testament about gnashing of teeth, hellfire, and the eternal punishment of others.

        • Personal Responsibility

          I don’t revel at all. That’s what I’m trying to relay to you. You don’t have to endure that. To do so is pure insanity!

        • MNb

          Oh yes, you do revel. We can hear the orgasmic moaning between your lines and see the sperm splashes on your comments every time you threaten us with relish what our afterlife will be like.

        • Greg G.

          We have heard it all before. There is always self-righteous glee when theists tout the punishments they think atheists deserve.

        • Michael Neville

          Threatening us with Hell is like threatening us with Santa Claus not leaving us any presents

        • Greg G.

          I don’t believe in Santa Claus. 1964. He knows why.

        • Michael Neville

          So that 10 speed bike should have gone to you. If it’s any consolation I enjoyed using it.

        • Greg G.

          I hope you polished her fenders and greased her chain with the finest lubricants everyday,

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          Santa doesn’t exist. Hell does. Period.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          Evidence for hell needed.

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          Just because you can’t hear or see Hell doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

        • http://www.patheos.com/blogs/crossexamined Bob Seidensticker

          And how does this argue that hell exists?

          If you have no good evidence for an afterlife, just say so.

        • MR

          Impressive assertion!

          Hell doesn’t exist. Santa does. Period.

          Wow! It’s just as effective both ways!

        • http://the-world-of-james76.0catch.com James Armstrong

          No, that’s bullshit.

        • MR

          That’s my point. What you said is bullshit too.

        • Michael Neville

          What’s your evidence for the existence of Hell?

        • Ignorant Amos

          All the best in demonstrating that assertion with evidence.

        • Greg G.

          Santa doesn’t exist.

          That’s why Santa doesn’t visit your house at Christmas. You have to believe.

        • Kodie

          You just suck at proselytizing. I mean, all you have is assertions. You’re a grown-up (I presume) with an imaginary friend who has nothing to support his argument but calling people insane for not just believing you. I think you don’t understand, you cannot even comprehend, how it is on the other side, but you just sound like a regular Muslim. You wouldn’t just believe what a Muslim says. They’re sincere believers as you are, in their own imaginary friend, and you don’t think