Scientists says Christians are Hoodwinked

Convergence is not my idea – not by any means. Its many advocates include the man I appropriated the word from – the Nobel winning physicist Charles H. Townes; however the concept also has its detractors.

Amongst them are those who belong to Stephen Jay Gould’s school of thought that science and religion are “non-overlapping magesteria”. Others are even more dismissive – they dispute the right of religion to any claim of authority at all. Convergence, they say, is impossible because there is nothing for science to converge with!

These scientists dismiss religion as an idea born out of superstition or some other fluke of consciousness, and attribute its durability to its success as a meme. While this explanation is an invention borne of intellectual application, it runs counter to the law of parsimony.

The law of parsimony holds that all other things being equal, when there are competing hypotheses we should choose the simpler. Obviously the simplest reason that religion is embraced is because its teachings are profound and its Truth eternal. Instead of accepting this, or even exploring it, brilliant minds appear set on conceiving convoluted alternatives.

Continue reading at communities.washingtontimes.com

« Previous Article

Posting Policy

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

If you find a comment offensive, please flag it as inappropriate by hovering over the down arrow to the right of that comment and clicking on the "Flag as inappropriate" text. Once a comment receives three "flags," it will be hidden from further view.

Jim

When these scientists find themselves cut off from GOD because they will not believe, they will not be able to invent a way out then. Every knee will bow and every tongue will confess that Jesus Christ is Lord. As for hoodwinking, most of the scientists are doing that very thing such as global warming, big bang theory, etc.
- Larry
  
  RITH ON JIM…… I ha ve a "scientific" retired engineer friend who constantly tells me "christians are just
  brainwashed" – I have witnessed to him so much with Christian love – to no avail – He is 82 yrs old… Have had
  everyone praying for him – he is DEPRESSED daily – feels NO HOPE – ( he cannot understand why – says he just
  HATES being old ) I tell him it is because he does not know Christ and has NO HOPE for the eternal life that we
  believe in… He continues to argue that SCIENCEhas PROVED evolution and NOT Jesus – I now tell him if he continues to deny God and Jesus Christ on the cross – one day he will meet him face to face and it will be TOO LATE for him. All those Scientists will have the same fate I am sorry to say…
  - http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11
    
    Your friend needs his brain washed with the blood of Jesus!
    - arich
      
      Your friend needs his brain washed with the blood of Jesus!
      
      >>> Yeah that will cure his fear of getting older and dying. His friend is right. There was/is no savior named Jesus. He is never coming back. He is a creation a jewish fellow named Paul who delivered unto the decaying Roman Empire a new religion of hope: Christianity. The old gods were going out of flavor and favor in comes a new religion granting salvation for all peoples, sinners, rapists, and murderers. One prerequisite; accepting Yeshua as the son of God. So then the empire for a time bans Christianity thereby making it spread like wild fire. Just get over it and yourself already. You are born, you live a good life, and then you die. Lights out. That's all folks.
- Dale
  
  Amen Jim, Let God be true and every man a liar. Romans 1:16-22
  King James Version (KJV)
  16 For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.
  17 For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.
  18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.
  20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
  21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
  22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
- Melody
  
  I look at it this way… the more scientist claim to discover, they still come back to the all important questions… where did we come from, why are we here, what is our purpose, and what happens with us when we die. I am sure a scientist on his death bed, will cry out in desperation and fear hoping that all that he or she is, just doesn't die, but there is a place where God is and we are finally with our maker. I, as a Christian choose to believe in Jesus and all he has promised and to live this life for Him…. if in the end it isn't true, then I will be in the same place as the scientists, unbelievers, atheists…ect….. However…. if I am right and Jesus is who he says he was and I am promised a place in heaven with God my father and all my loved ones in Christ….. then where does that leave the scientist, atheist, and nonbelievers…..??? Would anyone risk their lives to live in darkness seperate from the light and love of God??? That, seems to me, is a no brainer of where I would want to be.
- RAL
  
  What these 'scientists' say or believe, doesn't concern me. When they claim to be Christians and bring immorality, lying, cheating, stealing and fraud into the 'church of God', that concerns me.__The best thing about these statements from 'scientists' is, just like so many avenues of hate and immorality, God will use it for His will.__Saul of Tarsus, was man that loved trapping and watching Christians be stoned to death…and became the connection for all Gentiles to learn about God__Simon Peter swore he would never deny Jesus, to Jesus's face, yet, in a matter of hours did 3 times….and yet, the day after Pentecost, gave the sermon that made him the 'rock' that Jesus said he was, for Christians.__I just know, God is in control.
  
  A lot has been made about the 'God Particle'…yet this was a renaming, by the media (not what scientist call it). Thought others might be interested in this. God Bless. http://www.jewishworldreview.com/0712/prager07101…
- Evermyrtle
  
  I already have been deleted one time, I am going to try again by asking, "WHO IS IT THAT IS HOODWINKING US AS CHRISTIANS, AND WHO IS IT THAT GETS THE RIGHT TO DECIDE WE ARE BEING HOODWINKED, WHO HAS THE WISDOM TO DECIDE THAT. It is through, "THE GRACE OF GOD" THAT WE ARE CHRISTIAN. If whoever this misinformed one I am so sorry that you missed the boat, go home and lick your wounds but it is not too late for you as long as you breathon this eart, GOD will accept you if you want to be accepted, you only have to "BELIEIVE'
- LCD
  
  It is worse than that for the rest of us, as you know our rights were given to us by God, and since they say there is no God, we therefore have no rights. Sound familiar?
  - UF Gator
    
    My precise fear. Thank you.
- Kelly Kafir
  
  In zero gravity, molecules are attracted to each other. It is completly possible that the big bang was the what and how but the devine creator was the why. God and science are not incompatible. Christians who deny scientific fact are as bad as scientists who deny the possibility of a devine intelligent creator.
  - arich
    
    Christians who deny scientific fact are as bad as scientists who deny the possibility of a devine intelligent creator.
    
    Except one thing; proof. Evolution and the big bang have mountains of hard evidence supporting them. "Intelligent design" (reworded creationism) does not.
    - DWoodPC
      
      One other thing: There is a "…. maker" of these perfect big bang constructions which exhibit hard evidence, as sure as there is a … maker of the keyboard upon which you type those words, ARich. Thank you for your comment. : )
    - Evermyrtle
      
      And then there are those who think they have all the answers. We as Christian are like most people in basic ways. We have our home life, we have our jobs, , we take time out to study 'HIS WORD'" because that i the written material that we like to learn more about. We listen to learned ministers, and discuss out religion with others with similar beliefs. We agree to disagree many times. Because we refuse to change and go along with the anti-GOD we are accused of being "hoodwinked" that is because we choose how to believe and refuse to bow to their beliefs.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        It is the Theists who think they have the answers. Atheists freely admit we do not know everything. But given the choice between what science has offered us and what religion has offered us, we will take science every single time. Science provides actual true information. Religion merely tries to scare people with stories of the afterlife.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff, you are not talking about every Theists are you? I NEVER think that. You are so right. I think you should qualify that statement to say "some Theists" because we can't possibly know for example if God the All Mighty is present in hell for heavens sake, that is absurd… we will know when the time comes for us to know them and not a bit sooner, if that makes any sense
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I am not talking about ALL theists, for some are more reasonable and rational than others. But as a group, they do present themselves as the group who know the "real" answers.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I appeal to you to NOT label me please. I relate to No Catholics and only a small % of Protestants, about 50 % Mormons and no other religions of the world…. I truly believe every one is unique and should be treated that way, even the groups I listed.
      - UF Gator
        
        The Puritans left Europe to avoid the Catholic and Protestant savagery. I am an American Christian, UCC
dntmkmecomoverther

The 'hoodwinked' are our children and those to whom this 'scientific' theory of evolution is being masqueraded as 'fact'.

Let science tell us how life began. They can not. And their worldview provides no meaning, no purpose and no will in this life. They can not account for anything which makes life worth living. And yet, they want you to believe what they believe. They are just as religious as I am about 'origins'….how ironic.

Make these 'scientists' live in the uncomfort of their worldview. We will one day see just who the hoodwinked truly are.
- Barb
  
  Public schools are teaching this as fact -so the children are being fed garbage..we as parents should have our children in Christian schools where the truth is told-well worth the $$ spent! The Lord will richly bless you…
  - dntmkmecomoverther
    
    Amen!
  - Paul
    
    Sadly many Christian schools, as many christian churches, and christian families do not believw on literal creation. So sending them to christian schools probably won't do them much good. Teach the Word of God to them yourselves and stand by it everyday
    - msjallen
      
      You are absolutely right. We have been teaching our children God's Word in our home and they are teaching their children and so far we all believe God's Word over anything else. The Bible was not written to be a science book but our guide from God to get to know Him and why we are here.
  - http://conservativebyte.com Michael G.
    
    Remember it is the "Theory" of… Theory…Theory.
    I wonder what part of theory they don't understand?
    First came an idea…
    Then came a "postulate"…
    Then came the Theory…
    And if all that pans out and can be demonstrated, then comes…
    LAW.
    - DWoodPC
      
      "Laws" of the very small do not jive with our "Laws" of the very large… that would be the theory of everything which evaded Einstein
      
      Thus far, only God knows the answer to theory of everything, i.e. LAW
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Theories never become laws. Theory is also used differently in science than in everyday speech. In science, a theory has been tested and confirmed by independent reseach. It does mean merely a guess or idea.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Sorry, it does NOT mean merely a guess or idea.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: iF and when The Father comes up with THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING. which is what we, as mere mortals would call it, it, it won't just be a theory, as we mere mortals would name it, God would skip that part and it would go straight to being a Law,capital L. PERIOD, END OF STORY.
        
        (except for the fact, He already knows it, but wants us to reach for it and find it ourselves… but not by abusing the power of the Holy Spirit, as the scientist who "studied " prayer that you told me about.)
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Wouldbephd knock off your silly meekness already. Do you provide Phenergan for the folks around you when you start on this self righteous stuff? You should. The Theory of Everything. Just what we need. Sort of like the "Big Bang"–extremely useful. You appear to be a mirror image of Jeff–both of you full of self righteousness. We know where that will likely land you, and Jeff.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Hi Joe: What is Phenergan? is it a drug? If so, no, I don't, .. neither alcohol or anything to harm my Temple of the Holy Ghost, Joe … or anyone else's. Et tu?
        I would like to know: What kind of good work do you do?
        What is the doctrine you follow?
        I think it is work to study the scriptures, especially of a different language.
        With repect to Jeff: He will likely be Chosen by God before anyone of us. He works hard to understand creation. He just hasn't proven to himself that God exists. : )
        We seem " to be mirror images"… What do you mean?
        Did you go to the link I gave you to see some real science explained … really I study small quantum effects in atoms rather than large effects like the big bang and the universe.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Joe why don't you signup through Intense Debate?
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Hey Wouldbephd, I think you really do need a job. Again, just like JW.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I agree. There is a new one on the horizon, I am looking at
  - arich
    
    Yeah much better to keep your children ignorant and stupid bogged down with silly, cruel, and ridiculous dogma and superstition.
    - DWoodPC
      
      arich: I teach children to think for themselves. They naturally do anyway, so they just need moral support, i.e., encouragement… Our true God would not want His children (us) to force His younger children into "silly, cruel, and ridiculous dogma and superstition" which reminds, I have to get ready for the five-year-olds to challenge me in the morning at Sunday school. Thank you for your comment. dwood
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Non-existent gods are not forcing people to do anything. People make up religions and people force children to learn about them.
      - DWoodPC
        
        You missed my main point?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        What was it?
      - DWoodPC
        
        … to not "force" children into "silly, cruel, and ridiculous dogma and superstition"
        
        Just suppose there is a good father… of nine kids for example like my dad … the basic tenet of his is to NOT force his child to do anything — the father learned that if he treated his children with respect his children would return in kind — that is the basic tenent of my faith. I call it Christian, but it does not seem like the religion practiced all around me in the so-called Christian community here
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        However, Christians and theists of all religious groups indoctrinate their children starting from a very young age. It takes someone with a very strong personality and mind to counter that.
      - DWoodPC
        
        You know I agree with you Jeff, yet you have to consider a matter of degrees of "indoctrination" which maybe "socialization" instead How do you draw the line? Don't you think a Sunday school class of little humanists are being so indoctrinated with ideas of Darwin and Dawkins, Bertrand Russell, etc, for goodness sake? Tell me, have you ever encountered a group of people together where you think some kind of "indoctrination," in the general sense of the term, is not going on, yet you should call it "socialization?"
        
        It seems to me you can carry this thing too far, where does one stop and the other begin… I get your concern. It is real. I think what I do on Sunday morning for one hour is "socialization" not "indoctrination" — and what is wrong with a great role model like Jesus! Even for a bunch of little humanists. They will develop relationships to fill that void, so what do you propose for them? My concern is they learn how to face adversity! How do you teach a young child to overcome adversity in your little humanist class?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I do not teach a Humanist class, so I cannot answer that. However, I do have two kids. I teach them to rely on family, friends and themselves.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Captain Moroni is a great role model for young children, whatever his validity is as a historical scriptural figure. He is principled, disciplined, well respected by his people… he reminds me of Buzz Lightyear. I guess if you told the story of Captain Moroni you could leave it out that he loves the Lord. The kids might want to know "Who is the Lord, Daddy?" What would you say if they did, Jeff?
        
        Now, now Jeff what will you tell them? : )
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I tell them that some people believe in a god.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Is it a higher order of education? Or is it a higher order of indoctrination? Your response now begs many questions, like "Who is god, Dad?"
        
        Myself? I am painting my nails red because I can see that the slickness of Dawkins will require a battle for my soul since according to Dawkins "the side of nature… exceeds all computation" that ""the only watchmaker in nature is the blind forces of physics, albeit deployed in a very special way." (p. 9) Just as I expect certain authors of the Holy Bible do theirs, the latter will be as reasonable as the former, is my hypothesis, notwithstanding the horrors of idiots in the latter as you so well pointed out in your recent excellent post. I know the intricacies of the God of the bible are intricate as the force of Nature which — let's see if Dawkins has a handle on! notes on The Blind Watchmaker by Richard Dawkins 071912
        
        Remember that quantum mechanics is a great tool for physicists and chemists – and I have employed one of its major results in my work – but quantum mechanics is an approximation that works to a critically small degree on the order described by the uncertainty principal and no one true, honest, humble, good scientist purports otherwise. It is NOT the theory of everything scientifically observable! And so just because a problem "exceeds computation" for humans does not means it "exceeds computation" for a "god" (if you like) or a God (like I like) : )
      - DWoodPC
        
        Who are their role models?
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff, atheists seem to have their own brand of fables
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        It is actually called theories
      - DWoodPC
        
        I am reading The Blind Watchmaker
      - DWoodPC
        
        Like exposing them to reading, writing and arithmetic, art, things like that in the classroom, and baseball, basketball, volleyball, soccer, hide and seek, patty cake, fun songs about sunshine and the planets, games and good healthy snacks and healthy food to take good care of their health, good examples like being polite and loving others, being respectful to everyone, what else, do we have any more time in the day… few of these kids ever get indoctrinated by drug gangs or illicit activities, because there are just not enough time in the day, Jeff. Oh and one more thing… they have a fairy tale perfect role model named Jesus and they (at least members of my five year old class) can tell you about the parables, the good works Jesus did.. what a bad thing… should they instead follow just any old Hollywood character like well who would be a better role model? I really can't think of a one… to hold up as a role model… oh yes, I know some good Hollywood role models,,, toy story characters.. lots of those in the toy boxes… we just do lots of fun things with them and they grow up to just like it or leave it… their choice. I see teenagers out of high school who have left "the fold" to only return when time to raise their newborns. Can't fault them there. Trivial stuff. I hope you are not bored. It's really the way it is at our church. : )
        
        Our motto "Love one another as I have loved you." ~ Jesus Christ … reality of this would be very hard for a hard-hearted person to accept.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        DWood says: Like exposing them to reading, writing and arithmetic, art, things like that in the classroom, and baseball, basketball, volleyball, soccer, hide and seek, patty cake, fun songs about sunshine and the planets, games and good healthy snacks and healthy food to take good care of their health, good examples like being polite and loving others, being respectful to everyone, what else, do we have any more time in the day…
        
        None of that requires a belief in Jesus. Many other religions teach the same concepts. Humanism teaches the same concepts. The difference between Humanism and religions is that while both are based on imparting a good foundation, religion requires a believe that fantasy is actually true.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: Our religion honors the Word of Wisdom regarding the care of our health, inclusive of the lesson that teaches we are temples of the Holy Spirit. I am sure you know the story: the Godhead is the Father, Son and He is the 3rd member of the Godhead. where the three are separate entities with one purpose: to bring to life the eternal life of man.The children learn that choices between good and evil have consequences and if they are healthy and revere the Holy Spirit, He will help them to chose the right, to make the right decision.
        
        Whether it is a fantasy remains to be proven: as I said, things of the heart are not per se, realms of cold scientific interpretation and as such, may seem like a ruse to others, but the children love it and it does not take away their freedom to choose. I believe the latter is your greatest concern,and I promise, that is of the greatest concern for us, considering the alternative. It's a delicate matter. Thank you for your comment. : )
      - DWoodPC
        
        Father, Son. AND Holy Ghost
        
        Nothing is added.
        
        It's in the Holy Bible. Here is an article, not published by the Mormons, which hinges on some general interest about health http://www.tomorrowsworld.org/magazines/2004/mar-… accessed 071712.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        If only Jesus can save mankind, why did not Yahweh tell mankind?
        God's greatest and highest demand in the Bible is the demand for submission to authority. A person may try to please God by his offering of sacrifices. He may try to work for the Lord and in the name of the Lord to honor Him; yet it is only in obedience and submission that there can be an absolute honoring of God and an exaltation of His name, His will and His purpose. But just as submission to authority is the greatest demand of God, it is the greatest problem and failure of God's creatures. Disobedience to authority is the reason for the rebellion of Satan; it is also the cause of the fall of man.
        
        A. Obedience is the first law of heaven.
        1. It was decreed in heaven that all blessings are predicated upon obedience (see D&C 130:20–21 ; Deuteronomy 11:8, 26–27 ).
        2. We came to earth to prove our willingness to obey (see Abraham 3:24–25 ; D&C 98:14 ).
        3. Obedience must be voluntary (see Abraham 3:25–26 ; Helaman 14:30–31 ).
        4. Commandments are given to us because God loves us and wants us to become like Him (see Deuteronomy 6:24–25 ; D&C 25:15 ; 3 Nephi 12:48 ).
        5. Our obedience to God’s commandments is an expression of our love for Him (see John 14:15, 21, 23 ; 1 John 5:3 ; D&C 42:29 ).
        6. It is important to obey God even when we may not fully understand the commandment (see Moses 5:5–6 ; 1 Nephi 3:7 ).
        7. The Lord chastens the Saints because He loves them (see Hebrews 12:6 ; D&C 95:1 ; Helaman 15:3 ; Revelation 3:19 ).
        8. We should obey God rather than man (see Acts 5:29 ).
        B. The Lord promises great blessings to those who obey His commandments.
        1. The Lord promises both temporal and spiritual blessings to those who obey His commandments (see Mosiah 2:41 ; Leviticus 26:3–12 ; Deuteronomy 4:40 ; D&C 58:2 ; 64:34 ; 130:21 ).
        2. Obedience in this life will give us an advantage in the world to come (see D&C 130:19 ).
        3. The Lord will provide a way for us to obey all His commandments (see 1 Nephi 3:7 ; 17:3 ).
        4. Obedience to divine law makes us free (see John 8:31–32 ).
        C. Disobedience is a serious offense in the eyes of the Lord.
        1. We offend God by disobeying His commandments (see D&C 59:21 ; Ephesians 5:6 ).
        2. Disobedience to the commandments will bring serious temporal and spiritual consequences (see Leviticus 26:14–32 ; Jeremiah 11:3 ; D&C 1:14 ; 56:3 ; 2 Nephi 9:27 ).
        
        Yet, even though God demands this submission to his authority, he decides to cede it to his son???
        
        Excuse me? This god which has demanded complete obedience suddenly decides to let his son be in charge? Based on what?
        
        John 14:6
        
        New International Version (NIV)
        Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
        
        Jesus made that arbitrary statement himself.
        
        But how do we know that this claim is true?
        Anyone can make such bizarre and uncorroborated claims. In fact, many other god-men from other religions have made this claim.
        
        For this to have been credible, it should have come from Yahweh direct.
        Why didn't Yahweh EVER say to anyone that he had a son called Jesus and that anyone who wanted to go to heaven would have to accept Jesus as the ONLY possible saviour.
        
        Why did Yahweh demand blind obedience to himself instead of saying to the whole of mankind : if you want to be saved you have to worship my son Jesus?? But Yahweh NEVER mentions that he even has a son. Why?
        The odd thing here is that a statement of such momentous importance for the salvation of mankind, should have come directly by Yahweh himself.
        
        If the Jesus claim is indeed true, Yahweh should have warned mankind that there is no point worshiping or sucking up to Yahweh, but they should direct their prayers to his son Jesus, because no one can have salvation except through the son.
        It is not as if god the father was unaware that Jesus existed. According to the story, Jesus is part of the Trinity, is god, and has been around as long as god the father has been. Which is forever, since they are supposed to be without origin.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: You know that I agree with you on many counts and just as you are, I am always looking for credible evidence for these things. I read scripture with no particular motive in mind then to discover if my faith has grounding. Here is a good read, and more than that, it establishes a connection for me with my forefathers, how they cared about the good that could come to my life, literally speaking to my heart, which I find impossible to deny.
        
        One of the names of Christ in the bible is the Exemplar, so I think the passage addresses at least some of your concerns.
        
        1 Peter 2: Wherefore laying aside all malice, and all guile, and hypocrisies, and envies, and all evil speakings, As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby: If so be ye have tasted that the Lord is gracious. To whom coming, as unto a living stone, disallowed [that's about you, Jeff] indeed of men, but chosen of God [this is too, but refers to His Father choosing Him for the task and sending Him, Jesus], and precious,Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual house [we the people, as living stones, together form His "house" on earth], an holy priesthood [with Melchizedek and Aaronic authority], to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ. Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion [Zion] a chief cornerstone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded [I really like that one]. Unto you therefore which believe he is precious: but unto them which be disobedient, the stone which the builders disallowed, the same is made the head of the corner, And a stone of stumbling, and a crock of offence [we won't mention to whom this refers :)], even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed.
        But ye are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood [Melchizedek and Aaronic], an holy nation, a peculiar people [refers to the Mormons we think, or believe, if you prefer]; that ye should shew forth the praises of him who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light: Which in time past were not a people, but are now the people of God: which had not obtained mercy, but now have obtained mercy. Dearly beloved [all of us], I beseech you as strangers and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts, which war against the soul; Having your conversation honest among the Gentiles: that, whereas they speak against you as evildoers, they may by your good works [the work we do to increase our understanding, e.g. like we are doing now], which they shall behold, glorify God in the day of visitation. Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord’s sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme; Or unto governors, as unto them that are sent by him for the punishment of evildoers, and for the praise of them that do well. For so is the will of God, that with well doing ye may put to silence the ignorance of foolish men: As free, and not using your liberty for a cloke of maliciousness, but as the servants of God. Honour all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honour the king. Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward. For this is thankworthy, if a man for conscience toward God endure grief, suffering wrongfully. For what glory is it, if, when ye be buffeted for your faults, ye shall take it patiently? but if, when ye do well, and suffer for it, ye take it patiently, this is acceptable with God. For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps: Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth: Who, when he was reviled, reviled not again; when he suffered, he threatened not; but committed himself to him that judgeth righteously: Who his own self bare our sins in his own body on the tree, that we, being dead to sins, should live unto righteousness: by whose stripes ye were healed. For ye were as sheep going astray; but are now returned unto the Shepherd and Bishop of your souls.
        
        KJV accessed 071712 http://www.lds.org/scriptures/nt/1-pet/2?lang=eng
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff:
        
        You have so many why's, dear friend. I am sorry, I have only addressed the tip of the iceberg. : )
        
        Mary
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: I really need to address some of your statements individually, so this will take some time. Mary
      - BK5th
        
        Jeff,
        Yahweh did tell us he has a son, Mark 9:7 says, "And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him."
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Which has nothing to do with stating that Jesus is the way to heaven.
      - DWoodPC
        
        How would Yahweh telling you make the difference? My parents told me,Jeff.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Are your parents all knowing?
      - DWoodPC
        
        I thought so as a child, but no, not as an adult
      - DWoodPC
        
        I am studying the matter, Jeff
        I don't want to be a Calvinist like Despe http://www.auburn.edu/~allenkc/openhse/calvinism….
    - DWoodPC
      
      ARich: Didn't you think for yourself as a small child in spite of your parents vain attempts to indoctrinate you?
  - Evermyrtle
    
    First they should be learning the truth at home, so that when they go off and hear untruths they will know that are untruths.Their parents should be sure to do their best to see that the children continue to get the truth. It should not be left to others to teach your children about GOD AND HIS SON, JESUS CHRIST.
- daves
  
  Evolution shows that there were millions of years of life on earth before humans showed up. I have not heard anyone ever offer evidence to the contrary.
  - petroskhan1262
    
    Then you should really either get out more, or try reading a bit more. Seriously.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      There are people who try to offer up information that refutes evolution. It is all easily refuted.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        There are people who try to offer up information that refutes Creation. It is all easily refuted. :D
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Not really.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Yes, really.
      - arich
        
        Yes really. But adult/children want to continue in their little comfort zone because one day they will die. And that's it. No life eternal. No heaven or hell. If we could go back, say, 1,500 years and dumped the poison of religion like Christianity and set those minds to more practical applications we would be heading towards the stars by now and who knows what. Yeah Saul (Paul) thanks for giving us the yoke of Christianity.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Hi ARich: We have records 2500 years before Christ : )
        http://www.ocii.com/~cmeek/images/BoM_TimeLine_3….
        
        I happen to love the yoke of Christ… see SLAVE by John MacArthur (grandson of The WWII General MacArthur — he is a minister in non-denominational church — forgot the name — in Southern California…I guess reading all those war stories of WWII about Grand Dad turned him into a raving evangelist for Christ. He is a good writer also. His name is spelled Mac because when the General joined the forces, they misspelled his name which is Mc and it stuck :) )
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Yep, all those pesky followers of religion holding back science. Annoying people, cavemen, like Roger Bacon, Sylvester II, Hugh of Saint Victor, Hunayn Ibn Ishaq, William of Ockham, Nicole Oresme, Copernicus, Michael Stifel, William Turner, Galileo, Descartes…
        
        Yeah, those darn Christians have just held back science so MUCH over the centuries.
        
        Please, PLEASE do some research before posting comments that are so easily refuted. I like a spirited debate, just don't make it so easy next time, okay?
      - DWoodPC
        
        not to mention, me too
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        It took understanding evolution in order for the biological sciences to explode in information.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Two things.
        
        One, the contention was that Christianity had held back science. That remains to be proven, and I already gave evidence to the contrary.
        
        Two, your pet theory of evolution is still an unproven hypothesis, and widely debated.
        
        My earlier statement on this subject stands, and the post by arich is unfounded and unprovable.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There have been some great contributions of Christian scientists since the Reformation, however, the Christian church for centuries was the bane of science.
        
        At the center of the Christian Dark Ages stood the Bible. This fabricated compendium of garbled history, borrowed mythology, genocidal conflict and pious platitudes was elevated as the font of all wisdom, even as the bonfires set by Christian zealots reduced the science of a millennium to ash.
        
        In the new Christian tyranny all scientific thought which contradicted the Bible was suppressed. If rationality and observation contradicted the "revealed Word of God" then it was rationality and the observer who were in error.
        
        "For the Christian, it is enough to believe that the cause of all things, whether in heaven or on earth, whether visible or invisible, is nothing other than the goodness of the Creator."
        
        – St. Augustine (Enchiridion 3.9)
        
        St Paul himself had instructed his acolytes to "avoid profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called." (1 Timothy 6.20). In the new Christian commonwealth free thought itself was under seige.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The rnd of the Scientific Method
        
        The 'philosophy of the pagans' and secular public education were thus marginalised and eliminated. Lamented Ammianus Marcellinus, Rome's last great historian (who died in 395):
        
        "Those few mansions which were once celebrated for the serious cultivation of liberal studies, now are filled with ridiculous amusements of torpid indolence … The libraries, like tombs, are closed forever."
        .
        
        Initially, rhetoric and grammar remained on the syllabus but knowledge which did not serve the purposes of the Church was suppressed. Mathematics, with its historic link to the 'demonic' philosophy of the Pythagoreans, was especially suspect:
        
        "The good Christian should beware of mathematicians, and all those who make empty prophecies. The danger already exists that the mathematicians have made a covenant with the devil to darken the spirit and to confine man in the bonds of Hell."
        
        – St. Augustine, De Genesi ad Litteram, Book II, xviii, 37.
        http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/science.html
      - petroskhan1262
        
        You know what I find curious? You always use, to criticize Christianity, the damage done by catholics, whose teachings I also oppose, most vehemently. They may call themselves Christians, but then, a housecat can think it's a tiger, too. Doesn't make it the truth, and the evidence says otherwise.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The Catholics also think that the Protestants are not real Christians as well. However, I also use Protestant actions.
        
        The actions of Protesants shown on this link are far too many to list, so i will just give you the link.
        http://www.wayoflife.org/database/protestantperse…
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Interesting. I'll look it over.
        
        Note: I'm not exactly a "Protestant" either.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        How do you refer to your belief system?
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I usually keep it short, and just say I'm a Christian. I try, within my ability and knowledge, to follow the Bible as closely as possible.
      - Theban
        
        :) And that is so much distinct from what Protestants say or even what some Roman Catholics as well. Obviously there is more.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I seriously doubt that any protestant or catholic can pass one of the most simple tests of adherence to the Bible. Ask them what day they worship. 99% of so-called "Christians" out there observe Sunday, with no Biblical basis whatsoever. Pretty easy to show they're NOT sticking to the Bible to the best of their knowledge on that basis, then.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You do realize that Sunday was not established in the bible?
      - petroskhan1262
        
        That would be the reason for my statement, yes.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Let me restate. People created the calender. The day we say is Saturday or Sunday is arbitrary.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        What name is affixed to what day may be considered arbitrary; however, since the Jewish calendar has remained unchanged throughout their history, the seventh day of the week is still the seventh day. THAT has not changed. Call it the Sabbath, Shabbat, Saturday or Day of Twinkies; it's still the seventh day of the week.
      - DWoodPC
        
        These people outlawed the way Christ was baptized and drowned several brilliant men who opposed the re-interpretation of baptism … anabaptists … pre-Southern Baptist Convention. Evidence that the schism from the spin-offs of the Catholics and from the Catholic church must soon occur.
      - DWoodPC
        
        what's you technical discipline, Jeff?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        My profession is mortgage broker.
      - DWoodPC
        
        you really love your avocation!
        did you read my convoluted answer to your question about Martin?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I do enjoy biology.
      - DWoodPC
        
        2 Nephi 2:25 … men are, that they might have joy.
        http://www.lds.org/scriptures/search?lang=eng&amp…
        
        compare to Protestant view: http://www.reproachofmen.org/apologetics/that-men…
        
        accessed 071612
      - UF Gator
        
        One must to get through the exposition on "seeing" in bats versus seeing in humans… very nicely done : )
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I did read your comments about Martin.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Did you find my answer to your questions in my ramblings?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I did not have a question. I merely pointed out that Luther either does not understand bible doctrine or the biblical god was not being fair.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: This was your question: "If Luther is correct, then the bible stories of Miriam and Korah show a great injustice. If Luther is incorrect, on what basis can he be assumed to be a good teacher of biblical faith?"
        
        It is really a dissertation topic. I asked what is your technical field because I was hoping you would say you were a professor of theology and I would have demanded money to answer this question. Just kidding. : )
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It was a rhetorical question. I asked it to make people think about the issue.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        Jeff, you are the one who needs to think, think and then think, some more about the truths that you are missing. We Christian do thing about the ignorance of the anti-GOD people, about how they will be right along with us when we come face to face with our SAVIOR. By this time there will be no more thinking, the fate will be sealed.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Biblical truths are nonsense, Myrtle.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Myrtle, God loves us to search for all the truths, anywhere in the universe.
      - Theban
        
        Anywhere? How about hell?
      - DWoodPC
        
        Okay I stand corrected…and I also get your point : )
        Thank you for your comment.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Hell is an interesting concept in the biblical world. I have heard many say that in Hell you are forever separated from god. However, god is considered omnipresent. If he truly is omnipresent, then he has to be in Hell as well.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Mormons don't quibble over the absurd… I hate to say that but its true. the truth is all the minor details will come out in good time as you would think, in scientific study… man probing the elements and coming up with answers…just as we have done since we had a mind.. we waste time on such questions that are obviously unanswerable
      - DWoodPC
        
        hasten to add however… questions especially of this nature are important though we have small chance to solve them at the present time
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You cannot solve answers about fantasy. I know you want to believe otherwise, but the idea of gods is the realm of fantasy.
      - DWoodPC
        
        the point is, if they are not fantasy, and even you dear friend cannot know that, then the question will be clarified, will be solved in the future
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        So, you believe that after 6,000 years of the gods being hidden or unknown, they will suddenly make themselves known?
      - DWoodPC
        
        Perfect. It did that! Now that I review it though: what do you think I should do ? ShouId I rewrite … you never counter my interpretation… do you 1. not posses one or, 2. think is it completely illegible
      - DWoodPC
        
        I cannot find some of the responses from you that I am alerted to in my email… there are so many messages I am lost in here sometimes… do you have any pointers about navigating in here?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I lose track of comments too. It is a very cumbersome system.
        
        Your writing style is very different from mine. I think in trying to be creative, you lose site of your objective.
      - DWoodPC
        
        true. In my humble opinion, it is evidence of an evidence of an infinite mind. It is busy in there. lol
      - DWoodPC
        
        Here is a comment on Dawkins book, that is, when you gave me the title, I wanted to give this response but couldn't find the thread:
        
        I consider the parallels of design found in the universe are due to good design. That the maker saw his great design was good and deemed it credible in so many ways that he used it in his 'like precious" creatures including us, with the exception of our brain which is far and above any brain ever found, a universe apart, not even close. Koko. as precious as her brain is, Jeff, and I know the maker must love her as much as he does any of his creations, is not even close. There is no missing link to be found of the human brain. And this must confound "evolutionists", of "evolution" theory to no end. I trust you are on a journey as we all are to find truth, and that journey has intention, and that is, we don't know the answers yet, but it is not for naught. The attributes of faith, hope, charity are not inane empty parameters of a world without purpose which include a heaven of family and friends in the future. You won't prove that doesn't exist, ever.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I do not have to prove that heaven or hell does not exist. I merely have to show that the stories about them are absurd.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Hi Jeff: It's difficult to say: I get it! And some of them seem absurd to me. You throw so much information at me at once it boggles my mind. The kind of questions you want answered take time. Please. Re: these horror stories: I don't judge them so harshly as I did because I know there are lessons there. I see the stories as parts of a huge puzzle. An example is the story that I tried to unravel when you asked me that rhetorical question. Remember? You helped me to articulate it, unknowingly perhaps, but I learned from you about the importance of group behavior, Koko s story, and the one about the three new mates for the ape that died of heartbreak (I think he did, anyway) Please try to understand Miriam in that story with her brother Moses and that other guy who challenged Moses and Aaron. And the failing of the young priest Martin Luther to understand real priesthood duties. You never took me seriously. Jeff, it is an important link to the development of the American church, the Mormon church. You simply said it was a rhetorical question. I have been to some of the women s websites you have linked at rational response, and if you take them seriously and not me I am insulted. : (
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There is no reason to be insulted for I have never insulted you. I provide links on my blog so that people can research information on their own. It does not mean I agree with everything they state.
        
        There is a link to Zionica and I would hardly say I agree with their views.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I know, but I thought a tiny bit explicitly … since you didn't critique my Luther piece.
        
        I thought I deserved at least one question to clarify. I am not laying a trap or anything. I told you it is a dissertation topic, so it is far from complete. Please prompt me with a question, if you will, Mr. Dixon.
      - UF Gator
        
        not so. the stories are constructed by humans and therefore have errors galore. ask any biblical apologist in the Reformed "tradition" .. dating back to Calvin most specifically.. why do you think Despeville, who, granted is an elitist snob, doesn't cite scripture… God is way far above these erroneous trappings and the concepts they hold are are not "old" enough to be the "meme", of memory + gene of Dawkins theory. I just realized what meme means. I think he should distinguish it to be in the Armenian tradition… though I am not a biblical scholar
      - UF Gator
        
        I am not "trying to be creative" I thought I explained my spontaneous style in which I was trained, to think through and give context to my answers, example: Martin Luther and his problem with ecclesiastical authority
      - DWoodPC
        
        You need to specify this when you ask a rhetorical question as I can't read your mind, :) and unfortunately, observe you demeanor! It is time consuming to answer questions for which no one wants an answer.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: Please tell me what you think. I also commented on the front page article about the Constitution. Our high school English teacher, a Shakespearean actor, taught us stream of consciousness writing, which I have never gotten over … and have taken a lot of flack from science teachers. The grammarian teacher in the next room also had little effect. But if you will, I would appreciate your critique, as to, is it perceptible? Thank you. Mary
      - eVERMYRTLE
        
        WE offer them the truth, we do not try to teach them lies about OUR SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        No, you offer nonsense and claim it it truth.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
      
      http://www.talkorigins.org/
      
      This would be a good start for you to read.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I've read a couple of pages. Very interesting.
        
        Not to say I agree with anything there, but it IS interesting, and should facilitate conversations on the subject. As Voltaire said, "If you wish to converse with me, define your terms."
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        My terms are that everything in the universe can be explained without a god.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        You know what's funny? I would actually agree with the exact wording of your statement. Everything CAN be explained without a god.
        
        But I just find the explanations don't match with logic and good science, is all. I can explain the rain by saying it's…oh, I don't know, the Flying Spaghetti Monster that Dawkins like to reference, peeing on us all. Doesn't mean it's a GOOD explanation, but it is an explanation.
        
        Same thing with attempting to explain the universe without God.
  - DWoodPC
    
    scientists of that sort do let on that they have all the evidence, i.e., the missing links…no pun intended, stay skeptical… they all need grants of your taxpayer dollars to continue their research… demand accountability
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
      
      No reputable scientist states they have all the evidence.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I know some reputable people… you are sosososo right! : )
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Purpose can come from anywhere. The same object can have different purposes to different people or to the same person at different times. If you or anyone else wants to do something with your life, then your life has purpose. Nothing else is relevant.
  
  Purpose is not determined by origins. Things can have purpose even if their origin is due to chance. The North Star, for example, came to its position by chance, but people still find a purpose for it.
  - dntmkmecomoverther
    
    Clearly you are equivocating on the word ‘purpose’.The purpose of the North Star is not the type of ‘purpose’ with which humans live life.I posit that one’s worldview on origins does form a basis for purpose in the way God defines His purpose for us. Without a creator whose will and purpose is fulfilled through our lives, we have no purpose other than to live, survive by whatever means possible, and then die. If there is no Creator, and we just came from inanimate material (where did that material come from?…) then how can one account for ‘good’ or ‘evil’? If everything is by chance, then our life is just whatever it is. And whoever has the biggest stick can conquer you and that’s reasonable if there is no purpose, no will, no Good and no evil.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      It is in living our life that we find our joys. Friends, family, work and play all make up a person’s life.
      
      Regarding the North Star, I was stating that people found a purpose for it in our lives, which is to act as a way to navigate the world.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        I agree with you Jeff; what I want to hear, is how given your worldview, you can account for the basis of ‘work’. If we are simply evolved beings, with no plan, no creator, just random chance, and we are just like the other animals, then why is there ‘work’? Why don’t the larger ‘accidents’ of life just conquer and take what they want from us? How do you account for this given the atheistic, evolutionary worldview? I know you believe it, I want you to account for it…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Primates are social animals. Humans are primates. You also see primates work as a group for protection, food and shelter. It is a development that helps our species survive.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        So how do you account for morality in a ‘by chance’ evolutionary model?Animals kill each other all the time; are you implying that since we are evolutionary accidents, that it would be OK for us to do that?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Once again, primates are a social animal. We have developed rules for what is considered good or bad based on whether it harms or benefits the society. That is why rape, murder and theft are considered bad or "evil" since it harms the group. Sharing and protecting each other is considered good since it benefits the society.
        
        What is really amusing is that Christians try to pretend that these rules were handed down by a god. In fact, if God sets the standards for morality, he has done a lousy job of it. He commands people not to kill, but then orders people to kill in his name. He wipes out all of humanity in a flood, with the exception of 8 people. I know Christians believe that God can do anything he wants to mankind since he created us, however, that argument does not hold up. We expect authority to be better than the rest of us. God should not only be better, he should be infinitely better. He should not be petty or frustrated or angry. These are human characteristics and God is supposed to be better than humanity. The reason he is not is because humans dreamed him up.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Jeff said: “That is why rape, murder and theft are considered bad or "evil" since it harms the group. Sharing and protecting each other is considered good since it benefits the society.”Hold on, how do you account for ‘Good’ or ‘Evil’ given your atheistic assumptions? If your worldview is correct, those words can not exist in your vocabulary unless you borrow them from Christianity. If everything is just whatever it evolved into; it’s neither good or bad…it just is. Richard Dawkins in his writings and lectures will tell you that; isn’t he the high priest of Atheism today?If evolution is true, the words “Good, Evil, Murder, Rape, can not exist in your vocabulary. Rape occurs in the animal kingdom all the time. What basis do you have to account for ‘murder’ given your evolutionary assumptions? I know you believe Murder is wrong, I am asking you to account for that morality which tells you that.‘Theft’ does not exist in your worldview vocabulary. In the animal kingdom ‘theft’ is a part of survival….ask any squirrel or magpie.Your atheistic, evolutionary worldview has simply ‘borrowed’ these terms from the Christian worldview. You can’t have those terms to play with unless or until you show me how you account for them given the assumptions of your worldview.What is ‘amusing’ to me about atheists is that when I pose this dilemma, they can NOT account for these things. They are left with no answer other than, ‘indeed, we have to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to prop up ours’…but I only hear that admission when atheists are being honest. Frankly I don’t hear or see that very often.Jeff said: “What is really amusing is that Christians try to pretend that these rules were handed down by a god”Christian do not pretend, they believe. We are given faith by the Holy Spirit to believe and trust in God. God’s standard of perfection is sinlessness. In his eyes sin is a death sentence. God’s Holy Scripture confirms that. What else then would we expect to occur in a heathen society of Noah’s day besides a wiping out of sin? From your worldview, that seems awful because if evolution is true, and you and I are just inanimate matter evolved by random chance, without a creator, then we own ourselves, we have no responsibility to any higher power. From the Christian worldview’s perspective, God has every right to mete out justice since he is God and he created us. By His grace and mercy shown to us in His Son, we have forgiveness of our sins.Perhaps you would be interested to know that the Hebrew has many terms for ‘ending life’. In Exodus 20:13 where the command is sometimes translated as ‘You shall not kill’, the proper translation is ‘murder’, not ‘kill’. The Hebrew word is רצחratsach and is provided in the Qal imperfect which means ‘Do not murder, and continue to not do this’. Murder in the context of this word’s definition is the premeditated slaying of a person or can also mean assassination. Even accidental or as vengeance could be included here. In all this, the context is of a ‘people’ or group, not so much individually. So contextually I would translate that commandment: ‘You my people (plural in Hebrew), shall not murder’.In Genesis 4:15 God’s people are warned not to ‘slay’ Cain. The Hebrew here is הרגharag. The context is similar, but indicates a private event or action done by one person (private homicide), but in context can also mean one who is killing enemies of war.(Is. 10:4, 14:20, etal)Gen. 37:21 נכהnakah The context of use is given as Reubin keeps Joseph from being smited by his brothers out of envy or spite.Genesis 2:17 מותmuwth ‘die’ or ‘death’ is used in the context of punishment; execution; spoken of individuals or of a nation of people; to be put to death as a sentence.Exodus 12:6 speaks of killing as sacrifice. Here the Hebrew word used is שחטshachat and is used whenever a sacrificial killing is to be carried out especially of animals, but can apply to people (Gen. 22:10 Isaac, etal)Keep in mind that God knows we can not keep these commandments; these are listed as His virtues which He would see in us if we had the power to do so; and by our history it’s obvious we do not; however we DO know that its wrong to murder since God created us ‘in His image’…this is the very basis of murder.In an evolutionary worldview, the word murder therefore can not exist. ‘Killing’ in the evolutionary model ‘works’. Look at all the animals that kill each other for food; it works. Killing in ‘natural law’ works…it gets rid of problems. Only in the Christian faith is murder called out as ‘wrong’. So how do you account for this morality given your atheistic, evolutionary assumptions?You may want to see what some friends of atheism say about rape; they actually published that it’s normal given the evolutionary worldview: Randy Thornhill and Craig T. Palmer wrote ‘A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases of Sexual Coercion (MIT Press, 2000). Since its publication these two have had fits fighting off the obvious implications of their worldview to their published study. The backpeddling is frantic.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Christianity borrowed them from other cultures. The concept of good and bad go back tens of thousands of years.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        That was not my question: My question to you is, how do you as an atheist, account for Good and Evil given your evolutionary assumptions? What foundational truth is the basis for this given that your worldview accounts randomness and chance as your guiding light?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You said it was borrowed from Christianity. I replied that it was the other way around.
        
        Concepts of good and bad developed from what helped or harmed the group.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Jeff, I ASKED you to ACCOUNT for it; regardless of where it comes from; how is that out of nothing, comes morality? Given your assumptions, how can there be such a thing as Good or Evil? Once again where ever these moral codes originate, how do YOU as an atheist with an evolutionary worldview account for them?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I did account for it. The group uses it to survive.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        That is not what I asked you: I asked you to account for how it is, that Good and Evil can exist in a moral abyss of an evolutionary worldview. I know you use it; I want you to tell me where it comes from, how do you account for its existence in a random chance, atheistic, evolutionary model of life?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It is merely your opinion that there is a no way to account for good and bad in a naturalist worldview. There is nothing that prevents it from developing.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        I have not exerted an opinion, I am asking you to account for a moral code that you define as Good and Evil, given the parameters of your worldview. So far you have failed to account for it and that is why you avoid the debate of origin. If everything just ‘is’ (and that IS the atheistic, evolutionary claim), then where did a reference for Good or Evil originate?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        From people. I am not avoiding the debate. You are merely unwilling to accept my answers.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        So your answer is that, ‘Good and Evil comes from people’…? Where did that ability to know the difference come from? How does the atheist define Good or Evil? On what basis is something Good or Evil, given your assumptions on origins? If what you believe about origins is true, your worldview then assumes that everything which has life ‘just is what it is’. That’s precisely what Richard Dawkins says…do you agree with him?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It is based on what helps or harms the group.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Given that definition, then why do we save people with Down Syndrome, Cancers, or defects? Given your worldview, it would be ‘Good’ to let these people die and thereby increase the quality of the gene pool for the ‘group’.If my ‘group’ is bigger and stronger than your ‘group’, then we get to own your group, take your food and housing…and that would be good for ‘our group’. If we all came about by random chance, with no creator, no will or purpose other than to survive, then why would it be wrong with doing the above? Hitler attempted genocide/genetic experiments…but given his atheistic and evolutionary belief, his people called his work ‘good’. And it appears by your answer that you would agree.You sure you want to stick with your answer?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        People with those illnesses can still benefit the group. Just because one has cancer, it does not mean they cannot teach or discover new things. You have a very limited view on what constitutes helping a group.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Limited view? I gave you just two possible examples out of hundreds which exist…how many more would you like?We abort Down Syndrome children before birth.We starve people to death in nursing homes because it’s considered ‘good’ (Terry Schiavo, etal)In Early America, it was ‘good’ to take land from the native Americans; we fought wars to prove itI could go on and on, but history is replete with such examples of definitions of ‘good’. Once again my question to you is, how do you account for anything being either ‘good’ or ‘bad’ given your assumption on origins? You are evading addressing the ability to account for knowing ‘good’ or ‘evil’. I know why; do you?
      - JWDixon66
        
        You want to think you know why, by attributing it to your god. However, that is not accurate. In fact, if God sets the standards for morality, he has done a lousy job of it. He commands people not to kill, but then orders people to kill in his name. He wipes out all of humanity in a flood, with the exception of 8 people. I know Christians believe that God can do anything he wants to mankind since he created us, however, that argument does not hold up. We expect authority to be better than the rest of us. God should not only be better, he should be infinitely better. He should not be petty or frustrated or angry. These are human characteristics and God is supposed to be better than humanity.
        
        The fact that we have the concepts "good" and "evil" does not necessarily prove that there is a God making such definitions. For example, there is no absolute definition of "hot." And yet, from our biological perspective, we can judge what is "hot" and what is not "hot." It is the same for "pain"; if there is no God, then there is no ultimate meaning as to whether "pain" is "good" or "bad." Yet we are biologically wired to interpret "pain" as "bad." This is one of the mechanisms that we have for the preservation of the self and the species.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Hold one here; I asked you to account for the ability to call something Good or Evil; instead of doing that, you attack my worldview. That’s not the question here Jeff. I am asking you as nicely and boldly as I can: How do YOU account for being able to call anything Good or Evil given the presuppositions of your belief of origins? Leave my God out of it, unless you can’t…!
      - JWDixon66
        
        You stated you knew what the reason was. I showed why you would be wrong in thinking that your god is the reason.
        
        I have also stated several times that the concept of good and bad developed based on what was good or bad for the group.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        You are patently wrong on both of your assertions.1) “That ‘my god’ is the reason…” The actual truth is, that you can not account for being able to know right from wrong unless there is a will and a purpose behind life FROM THE BEGINNING. If the atheist admits that ‘will’ and ‘purpose’ exist, then they give way to the truth that they are a created being. Atheists don’t like that, I assure you.2) You speak of ‘concepts of Good and Bad’ and I have asked you now numerous times to account for the human ability to know the difference given your view on origins. I know you believe in Good and Evil, I am asking you to account for that ability. By your answers, you yourself have revealed an inability to do so outside of allowing for a creator who brings those morals to life. So far, given your own answers, ‘stealing’ would be ‘good’ for the group if the group got fed and didn’t starve. It would be ‘bad’ for those who were stolen from; unless survival of the fittest is ‘good’ in which case the weaker group dies out. So, is theft OK in your worldview? This is but ONE example of the inconsistency of the way your worldview is lived out.
      - JWDixon66
        
        Stealing from other group might benefit the group in the short term, but if the other group attacks to retaliate, that short term benefit can be a downfall.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. So who gets to decide whether that action was Good or Bad? In the worldview of ‘natural law’ its whoever is the biggest, strongest, etc. What do you say?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I am going to reply in a new position to give us more space.
      - DWoodPC
        
        A notion of good and bad/evil. To promote this idea Jeff, mustn't one go back before the time when animals were evolved [if indeed that happens] into humans to capture the exact case you describe, i.e. the pre-missing-link-period, because once they become human "religion" is established to keep people accountable, their Gods and demons matriculate, and good/evil/bad exists in the human sense. It is a similar scenario especially outside the garden the Garden with Adam, Eve and their children, btw. People really complicated things.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There would certainly be aspects of this that occurred then, but the early humans must have expanded upon these concepts as their societies progressed.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff, you find this "really amusing … that Christians try to pretend that these rules were handed down by a god."?
        
        Have you looked up Wikers book?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I do find it amusing. And yes, I did look at your link. I also responded to it. I still found it amusing after looking at your link.
      - DWoodPC
        
        This is a subject close to your heart, are you going to read it?
        What was so amusing?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Tha author was attacking Darwin's motives and research. But that does not mean Darwin was wrong. Biologists have greatly expanded upon the theory of evolution since it was first developed. Darwin was unaware of DNA and that explains much of evolution.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: the "attacks" by such authors could point to reason of invalidity. Did you ever explore them. Jeff, we live in USA. Our mantra is "Power to the people" ~Laura Ingraham. If Wiker is right, and there is a chance you have an infinitude of possibilities of finding a truer path. Don't scientists look for these, where you are? I know my project is like no other, even though there are elements of this that and the other truths I reluctantly accept, but always question. And I ask the Father for inspiration. There is NO ONE else to go to when you are on such a path. You know it was once said by a great theoretician that "Einstein doesn't know beans"… perhaps the same can be said for Darwin.
        
        Yes, It is fearful to step out on your own unless He is holding your hand. This is an absolute. It works. I am an American. I like things that work.
        
        You said Darwin did not know DNA. Well, we do not know DNA, Jeff. If you don't believe me attend a conference on the subject. Our "knowledge" is conjecture when it begins to look at the infinities in both directions.
        
        Blaze your own path and forget Darwin. Just try a prayer to The Father, Jeff. How can it hurt?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Not when the information is confirmed by other independent reseachers.
        
        Prayer does not work. For prayer to work, that implies that god is willing to change events for a specific person. However, if god is willing to change events, then he cannot be all knowing. If he was all knowing, then he already knows how everything will turn out. Therefore, the prayer is pointless. It either coincides with what god always has planned or it does not. If it does coincide, then there was no need to pray because the outcome was already what you needed before you prayed for it. If it does not coincide, then praying is pointless because it never had a chance to change anything.
        If prayer actually does change events, then god cannot be all knowing. If god is not all knowing, then he is not all powerful. Since the standard model of god says that he is all knowing and all powerful, then he cannot be answering prayer and changing events to something he did not already plan for.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Prayer does work, Jeff.
        
        No, the Father is not willing to change events for a specific person. The Father is JUST. He will testify in your heart by the power of the Holy Spirit which is the right path, OF AN INFINITY OF PATHS, to take. And you still have the individual choice to make the wrong decision if you wish. He is all-mighty! But one of the reasons He allows us to make our own decisions is that He doesn’t want a bunch of “yes-men” or "yes-women" to inhabit His Kingdom when the time comes. He wants us to STAND FOR SOMETHING and we can’t stand for something if He keeps “moving the goal posts.”
        
        That makes all the "ifs" that follow your first sentence incorrect.
        
        I addressed this on another thread: “Not when the information is confirmed by other independent researchers.” — many wrongs don’t make a right…etc etc
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        ScienceDaily (Apr. 3, 2006) — Many — if not most people — believe that prayer will help you through a medical crisis such as heart bypass surgery. If a large group of people outside yourself, your family, and your friends joined in intercessory prayer, that should be even more helpful, so such reasoning goes.
        Researchers have been trying to prove this and even to measure the effect. So far, two studies found that third-party prayers bestow benefits, but two others concluded that there are no benefits. Now, the largest study to date, covering 1,800 people who underwent coronary bypass surgery at six different hospitals, supported the latter research.
        Not only that, but patients who knew that others were praying for them fared worse than those who did not receive such spiritual support, or who did but were not aware of it.
        http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/04/0604…
      - DWoodPC
        
        LOL Jeff … this is ridiculous farce
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        So, you only accept results if they reinforce your views?
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: No! It has every thing to do with cold hard science poking their noses into a sacred practice… do you study those ?… I know you do. I wasn't being a smarty pants like you imply!!! Tribes (groups) or whatever Darwinists call it, need their privacy for sacred (okay: what they, the groups, deem to be their sacred) rites!! Prayer is a sacred rite! Does that make more sense. I do not mean to trivialize science.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        But science is not private. It is open to anyone.
      - DWoodPC
        
        note the comment on the observer effect below (definition from Wikipedia) … the problem is that observing a sacred rite changes its outcome… regardless of whether science is private
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: The Holy Spirit is not a creation of the Father. So He is not subject to scientific study.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Yet prayer can be, for it is not from a god, but is only a belief that people cling to.
      - DWoodPC
        
        "only"!!! But Jeff, you are not thinking of it as a trivial thing are you? I mean, yes, it is a deep-seated tradition as I have tried to explain in the tribal customs biblical back to Adam, Moses, Aaron… in the "fairy tales" of the Melchizedek and Aaronic priesthoods, the passing down of authority, etc. to generations, recognized by Jesus (if, as you say, if indeed he existed) but totally ignored by the Catholic church, or its spin-off sects, until Luther's recognition that something was wrong … the prayers were wrong, they were rote-memorized like pagan chants, instead of deep and heartfelt, and indulgences for sale … even though it is to a God you think is not there, the point is, they think one is … these priesthoods did not get restored to the earth until later. There's more to this "fairy tale"
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I accept that many people consider it important, but since it has been shown to not work, yes, it is trivial.
      - DWoodPC
        
        There is a principle in quantum mechanics that may apply inthe case of observing prayer …
        
        "called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems."
        
        somewhat related to the uncertainty principle
        071712 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principl…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        But you claim your god is all powerful. How would observing prayer change that?
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: When the mate of an ape is murdered, does it feel "hurt"?
        
        You never answered my question of why the apes are still here since you say we evolved from them.
        
        Also, I have an explanation why they have similar things about them to humans.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The reaction was a very human one. The three females sat apart, making no eye contact, sometimes staring at the ground for minutes on end.
        
        During breaks in the rain, they got up and mooched around forlornly, mourning their lost mate.
        
        They had known Yeboah for only a few weeks. But the sudden death of the western lowland gorilla has clearly had a great impact on his 'wives'.
        http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1262967/G…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Do animals experience emotions? Of course they do, and solid science, combined with countless stories, show this to be so. It is bad science to rob animals of their feelings. When someone tells me they are not sure if dogs, for example, experience joy or grief, I say I'm glad I'm not your dog.
        
        This week's picture of Gana, the 11-year-old gorilla shown grieving the loss of her infant, was one of the most poignant images I have ever seen of an animal in distress.
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Among the different emotions that animals display clearly and unambiguously is grief. Many animals display profound grief at the loss or absence of a close friend or loved one. Nobel laureate ethologist Konrad Lorenz writes: "A greylag goose that has lost its partner shows all the symptoms that [developmental psychologist] John Bowlby has described in young human children in his famous book Infant Grief . . . the eyes sink deep into their sockets, and the individual has an overall drooping experience, literally letting the head hang . . ." Sea lion mothers, watching their babies being eaten by killer whales, wail pitifully, anguishing their loss. Dolphins have been seen struggling to save a dead infant and mourn afterward. Stories about grief stricken companion animals abound; see also).
        http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotio…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        We did not evolve from apes. Both apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor. But even if we had, that would not mean that apes should disappear. One way that a new species can occur is when one group gets separated into two groups. One group changes over time from the other group. That does not mean the other group had to change as well.
      - DWoodPC
        
        "common ancestor" like exactly what, Jeff?
        
        You are increasing my testimony of my infinitely wise Father in heaven, not the other way around, because Jeff, there is an infinity of information out there and there IS a logical mind out there, who is gracious enough to put up with the likes of us
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/…
        
        This link provides a good explanation.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Really Jeff I agree. I grew up on a farm and observed animals in all kinds of situations. I don't need to be convinced that they do have feeling, more than just feeling hurt from physical trauma, but also mental trauma like suffered by the females when their "mate" expired in your example !!!
        
        'He had settled so incredibly well …. ' the zookeeper said.
        I say "Not so, obviously not."
        
        I just wanted to confirm that you know they do as you have implied already by your conversations above about the group behavior.
        
        The reason I asked is I want to know where you think feelings for others come from, that's all? But another occurred after reading your posts: How do zookeepers justify separating animals from their original groups and arranging new ones, if indeed, they are aware that animals have feelings?
        
        Your article points out its "arrogant to think we're the only animals who morn"… it seems to me it is arrogant to force males to mate with just any other three females… as a matter of fact… and declare that 'He had settled so incredibly well …. '
        
        Sounds like some ethics may be involved, like I said.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Humans have long forced animals to do numerous activities that are not beneficial to them. That does not make it right, but it is doubtful it will stop anytime soon. It is also a more recent development that we understand that animals experience similar feelings to humans.
      - DWoodPC
        
        " It is also a more recent development that we understand that animals experience similar feelings to humans."
        
        Jeff, I knew that before I heard of science.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff, where you think feelings for others come from?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Once the brain and consciousness have evolved, emotions and personality may be unavoidable. They certainly have selective advantage. Emotions serve to motivate us.
      - DWoodPC
        
        "… emotions and personality may be unavoidable… " you are avoiding the question
        
        Jeff, where you think feelings for others come from?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I provided you my answer.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I think death is the separation of our spirit from our body. What do you think death is, Jeff?
        http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I believe it is the cessation of life.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I agree. And that is the cessation of dynamics in the chemicals of the human form, due to trauma of some kind. But Jeff, that is not an explanation of what happens to our spirit at the time of death of the body. What happens to our spirit? It is NOT composed of those same things.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There is no spirit, therefore, there is nothing occurring with said spirit. What you call our spirit is simply our brain activity. When it ceases, we cease.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: You know this is the crux of the matter and I will have to ponder this some. Mary
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Hey Wouldbephd, who is "Mary"? Care to clarify?
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        So who is Mary?
      - DWoodPC
        
        Why should I answer any of your questions Joe?
        You just ignore the ones I ask. Convince me that you are a gentleman and answrer my questions if you want any more answers from me.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You will find that Joe ignores what he cannot answer and pretends to actual offer an answer when he only mumbles nonsense. He hates technology and that is why he is king of the Luddites.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: You can't prove that and you know you can't. It is that simple. So the most you can be is an agnostic. Is that fair to say? You are a scientist and you know there are lots of things you can't prove. Is that fair to say?
      - JWDixon66
        
        In stating I do not believe there to be a god, it is because there is no evidence that any exist.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I am trying to understand how you can possibly ignore evidence that I know so clearly. I know it as strongly as I know I am here pounding these words out.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        What evidence are you referring to?
      - DWoodPC
        
        The evidence of knowing in my heart that it is true. It is evidence to me, I know it is not to you, so no response is needed or expected.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        One response is needed. You stated you are trying to understand how I ignore evidence. Something you believe in your heart is hardly evidence available for everyone to review.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: Please sign up through Intense Debate so I can keep track of your arguments. All I get when I click your name is a stack of books, hmmm also a post. I am reading your post about Martin. I tried to comment on his idea about priests but the site would not publish it, though it was trying
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I am not sure why you could not post there. Others have. Despeville did, in fact.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I am trying again…note I did a test run and it worked but that was far shorter than my actual message. I will stop typing for a while and see if it loads, though my system is a fair size and should handle it.
      - DWoodPC
        
        the first one finally did, two others have not
        where did Despe post.. my compter takes forever on the site… difficult to navigate..will have to run clean up likely : ) Do you respond to comments on the site?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/2012/03/jes…
        
        He posted on the topic of Jesus and the fig tree.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        You simply do not have any proof of this absurd statement Jeff.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Hi Joe: Are you addressing me or Jeff. I know you think I am absurd but just checking.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Didn't you see "Jeff" in there?
        BTW both you and Jeff are absurd.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        The king of the Luddites thinks something is absurd? How surprising.
      - UF Gator
        
        None of what you said proves the non existence of god
      - arich
        
        Spot on, Jeff. The "God" of the OT is a miserable bastard whose name is pi** and sh** as far as I am concerned. But then again the ancient Hebrews were a nasty, barbaric, and ethnocentric lot. Their "god" whom they created was just an existential projection of their psyche.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        dntmkmecomoverther100p · 56 minutes ago
        Ok, now we’re getting somewhere. So who gets to decide whether that action was Good or Bad? In the worldview of ‘natural law’ its whoever is the biggest, strongest, etc. What do you say?
        
        People decided what was good or bad. This was a process that was established over thousands of years. Groups noticed what helped their society and what was bad for it. Over time, they learned to avoid what caused them problems and encouraged what benefited them. Behaviors, like biology and language, evolve over time.
      - DWoodPC
        
        ARich:
        The Lord our Leader expects us to learn to be civil by this "nasty and barbaric and ethnocentric lot" Don't you get it? Even the apes have a civil structure in their groups.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: So what if "humans dreamed him up…" do you think this fits into your theses? :
        
        from Captain Moroni, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nZzbwaoy708 :
        
        General Moroni recounts the wonders and marvels done by faith, recorded by Ether:
        
        Ether 12: 27 And if men come unto me I will show them their weakness. I give unto men weakness that they may be humble; and my grace is sufficient for all men that humble themselves before me; for if they humble themselves before me, and have faith in me, then will I make weak things become strong unto them.
        
        God does expect some results, just like any tough-love parent. I don't see that God is not infinitely good or gracious. I don't feel tied down to dogma, as I felt before.
        
        Aside: Did you know that the Catholic Church has a job position called the devil's advocate?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I am not sure what your attempting to ask me with your question of " do you think this fits into your theses? :
      - DWoodPC
        
        You said " "humans dreamed him up…" that's your "thesis" I am talking about : )
        
        Given the video of scholars talking about Capt. Moroni and an excerpt of an address he gave to his people, I wonder if you think he, Captain Moroni, fits into your scenario of being "dreamed… up"
      - DWoodPC
        
        He wasn't a general. He was a captain.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Moroni never existed Wormwood/Mary
      - DWoodPC
        
        Hi Joe. I already know what you think of my beliefs. Thank you for your comment.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I believe many of the characters written about in religious texts are fictional or their exploits are enhanced far beyond what they actually did.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I know without a shadow of a doubt that is what you believe….
        But wait, you would believe they existed if you saw the archaeological evidence, wouldn't you Jeff?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        The fact they may have existed does not mean their exploits are accurate. Religion has a bad tenacity to create fiction even of real events.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Let me reverse the question. Is is possible that characters written about in religious texts did not exist or had their exploits enhanced beyond what they actually did? Is that possible?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I am still waiting on an answer. Is it possible?
      - DWoodPC
        
        I am having a time navigating in here…. I receive a notice in my email that I have received a comment. there is a button to click to go to it, but the desired comment is rarely found.. and so I must hunt for it … if I reply from my email all those little question marks appear… besides I like to go to the comment to review the thread of the conversation. : ) any suggestions are welcome
      - DWoodPC
        
        Of course Jeff Yes
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        So, if the stories are not accurate or if the stories have been enhanced, what does that imply about the story?
      - DWoodPC
        
        Evidently not true, but important enough to the group and upon closer scrutiny, merits further investigation?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Why, if the story is not true?
      - DWoodPC
        
        If it were absolute of course it could be exposed as a lie, absolutely, but can we say it is absolute, that is my dilemma. We see the next generation or two overturn everything time and time again with reasonable assertions.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I cast my reply in the form of a question, if you didn't notice. : )
      - DWoodPC
        
        Is this another rhetorical question, Mr. Dixon?
    - DWoodPC
      
      If there is "no evil" then no one will come after you with a big stick, shouldn't you edit that part out of your last sentence, DNT?
      
      I wish there was no evil, but I think it will always exist in the form of tyrants who want to take over our USA. I just want US to be strong enough to resist the tyrants of the world already in power who have no interest in establishing a similar constitution like ours. "Power to the People" ~ Laura Ingraham
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        My point of accounting for both ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’ is something the atheist and evolutionist can not do. So I really don’t want to edit my terms list.So both are important terms in the debate. For those of faith in Christ, we can know that both exist. We see evil every day and can define its attributes based on the comparisons to the definitions supplied by Holy Scripture. The atheist, if they are honest and consistent in living within their worldview, can NOT account for anything being either good or evil…everything in their worldview can only be ‘whatever it evolved to’.For Christians, evil will exist until Jesus returns on the Great Last Day. Then evil is forever overcome; but it never goes away…. Interestingly, where will those outside of faith be?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Yet, I have repeatedly shown you that it can be accounted for.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Welcome back Jeffrey…I thought you gave up.Now as to ‘where we were’…you were going to tell me how you, given your worldview of ‘out of nothing came everything’ by ‘random chance’, no purpose and no will and no creator, can account for knowing either ‘good’ or ‘evil’. For anyone just tuning in, the answer Jeff keeps giving is that he knows ‘good’ and ‘evil’ as it is understood by ‘the group’…what ever is ‘good’ for the group is ‘good’.That does not answer the question of how the atheist can account for good. Jeff’s answer is an application of his belief. I know he believes in ‘good’ and utilizes it in his everyday life. I want HIM to ACCOUNT for it. Where did the ability to reason something as being ‘good’ come from if all we are is just sludge to pudge living matter? Perhaps I must define the term account for us? ‘An explanation of how something occurred.’ In the context of my question, how can one come to the knowledge that something is always ‘good’ or always ‘bad’ if their very existence is just material accidents in nature?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I never went anywhere. You never replied to my last post to you. But in any event. You continue to beat this dead horse strawman idea of life being random in my view. Life is not random. It is based on chemistry and chemistry is not random at all.
        
        Therefore, my comment has been and will continue to be the following: Good and bad are concepts developed by primates that are determined by what is good or bad for the group.
        
        For example, stealing from others results in many bad occurances. People get upset and kick you out of the tribe or kill you outright. Over time, the concept of stealing being bad becomes reinforced and this idea is taught.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Sorry if I missed one of your posts, but I assure you I responded to all that I saw. BTW, where did chemistry come from? How do you account for that coming into existence? Where did those elements come from; why do they obey the laws of Chemistry?Here is the last volley Sunday, July 15, 2012 9:29 PM which you evidently did not see/receive:###Ok. Slavery was considered ‘good’ at one time…why? Now it’s not….why not? (I’m not advocating for slavery I am simply wanting to know how you account for morality in a naturalistic worldview)Killing babies has been considered by some groups to be ‘good’ and some ‘groups’ to be ‘bad’ over the time period you mention. Who is correct? Why?If we evolved from nothing, to what we are now; how do you account for being able to differentiate between Good or Bad, moral or immoral given that survival was the key to success in the evolutionary model? Whatever the ‘group’ must do to survive is by our statement considered ‘good’…does that preclude any actions? Many animals steal, hurt, kill and eat each other in the struggle to survive…what would be wrong with us doing that given your belief of origins? What makes us any different than the animals given your worldview? (other than we can type and use the internet?)From: IntenseDebate Notifications [mailto:notifications@intensedebatemail.com] Sent: Sunday, July 15, 2012 9:29 PMTo: dntmkmecomovertherSubject: JWDixon66 replied to your comment on Do atheists have a sexual harassment problem?JWDixon66 replied to your comment on Do atheists have a sexual harassment problem? / ZIONICA.com: Good actions benefit the group. Bad actions hurt the group. It is not a specific group. It is activities that impacted human societies over ten of thousands of years. Go to comment
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Why do you assume there was a period when chemistry did not exist? We have no evidence of such a period. You start with an assumption that at one point there was nothing. The naturalistic view does not state this. When the Big bang occurred, all the energy and matter of the universe was compressed into a singularity.
        
        Why was slavery considered good? Human interactions are not a black and white situation. However, if the government sanctions it, many people will accept it. Not everyone or in all societies in the past considered it good. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations, as slavery is a system of social stratification. Mass slavery also requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Due to these factors, the practice of slavery would have only proliferated after the invention of agriculture.
        
        What group considers killing babies to be good?
        
        I have stated many different times how the concepts of good and bad developed. Asking me the same question over and over is boring.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        … “What group considers killing babies to be good?”Answer: our current ‘group’ or generation. In the US alone, an entire generation of people have aborted since 1972. Is this is ‘good’ or ‘bad’? How do you know a ‘big bang’ occurred? Do you heave empirical evidences for this? Also, where did that energy originate from? Are you actually having us to believe that you have no concept of a beginning? A period when there was nothing? If so, then how did we get here? What process? What means? …and why?From: IntenseDebate Notifications [mailto:notifications@intensedebatemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 2:38 PMTo: dntmkmecomovertherSubject: Jeff Dixon replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are HoodwinkedJeff Dixon replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are Hoodwinked / ZIONICA.com: Why do you assume there was a period when chemistry did not exist? We have no evidence of such a period. You start with an assumption that at one point there was nothing. The naturalistic view does not state this. When the Big bang occurred, all the energy and matter of the universe was compressed into a singularity. Why was slavery considered good? Human interactions are not a black and white situation. However, if the government sanctions it, many people will accept it. Not everyone or in all societies in the past considered it good. Slavery is rare among hunter-gatherer populations, as slavery is a system of social stratification. Mass slavery also requires economic surpluses and a high population density to be viable. Due to these factors, the practice of slavery would have only proliferated after the invention of agriculture. What group considers killing babies to be good? I have stated many different times how the concepts of good and bad developed. Asking me the same question over and over is boring. Go to comment In reply to your comment:Sorry if I missed one of your posts, but I assure you I responded to all that I saw. BTW, where did chemistry come from? How do you account for that coming into existence? Where did those elements come from; why do they obey the laws of Chemistry?Here is the last volley Sunday, July 15, 2012 9:29 PM which you evidently did not see/receive:###Ok. Slavery was considered ‘good’ at one time…why? Now it’s not….why not? (I’m not advocating for slavery I am simply wanting to know how you account for morality in a naturalistic worldview)Killing babies has been considered by some groups to be ‘good’ and some ‘groups’ to be ‘bad’ over the time period you mention. Who is correct? Why?If we evolved from nothing, to what we are now; how do you account for being able to differentiate between Good or Bad, moral or immoral given that survival was the key to success in the evolutionary model? Whatever the ‘group ’ must do to survive is by our statement considered ‘good’…does that preclude any actions? Many animals steal, hurt, kill and eat each other in the struggle to survive…what would be wrong with us doing that given your belief of origins? What makes us any different than the animals given your worldview? (other than we can type and use the internet?)
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        People who are in favor of abortion rights do not consider it to be a good thing. They consider it to be a necessary thing. They believe the mother has the right to determine what happens with her body. More access to birth control and birth control information would go a long way to resolving this.
        
        The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html
        
        I am of the opinion that the universe is eternal and goes through infinite occurrences of a big bang, expansion, contraction and a new big bang.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Jeff said: “They believe the mother has the right to determine what happens with her body.” But where do ‘rights’ come from? Specifically ones which allow for a life being killed/murdered…we as a culture, have killed off an entire generation of people via abortion…that’s over 50, 000,000 lives. Can you say that is ‘good’ or ‘necessary’? If that is the case, then was Hitler and Stalin just slightly ahead of their times?Jeff said: “The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence”…but that ‘evidence’ does not account for life out of the ‘blast’…nor does it account for a will or a purpose if all that came of that ‘bang’ is just randomness over long periods of time. Dawkins has plenty to say on the wanton blandness and randomness of life…do you stand with him on that?Jeff said: “I am of the opinion that the universe is eternal and goes through infinite occurrences of a big bang, expansion, contraction and a new big bang.” I am glad to hear that this is a ‘belief’/opinion of yours. You see, you are just as religious about origins as I am.I had asked in one of my other posts, how you would account for the existence of the North Alaskan Oil Fields. I am on a portable device and don’t have the question at hand; but in essence I was asking how you account for oil wells 2 miles under the earth’s surface located 250 miles north of the arctic circle. My point is that a radically different environment existed on earth at some point. We can take the discussion from there after you answer.From: IntenseDebate Notifications [mailto:notifications@intensedebatemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 3:12 PMTo: dntmkmecomovertherSubject: Jeff Dixon replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are HoodwinkedJeff Dixon replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are Hoodwinked / ZIONICA.com: People who are in favor of abortion rights do not consider it to be a good thing. They consider it to be a necessary thing. They believe the mother has the right to determine what happens with her body. More access to birth control and birth control information would go a long way to resolving this. The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html I am of the opinion that the universe is eternal and goes through infinite occurrences of a big bang, expansion, contraction and a new big bang. Go to comment In reply to your comment:… “What group considers killing babies to be good?”Answer: our current ‘group’ or generation. In the US alone, an entire generation of people have aborted since 1972. Is this is ‘good’ or ‘bad’? How do you know a ‘big bang’ occurred? Do you heave empirical evidences for this? Also, where did that energy originate from? Are you actually having us to believe that you have no concept of a beginning? A period when there was nothing? If so, then how did we get here? What process? What means? …and why?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        So you have gone from asking me if there was evidence for the big bang, which I showed you, to stating that it cannot account for life.
        
        Actually, the Miller and Urey experiment tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life.
        
        After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life
        
        Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions.
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_…
        
        Why would the fact that the Earth has had different environments over its life be an issue that puzzles you? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It has changed many times over its existence. The oil fields are from period when that landmass was not covered in ice and had animals living and plants growing on it.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        “So you have gone from asking me if there was evidence for the big bang, which I showed you, to stating that it cannot account for life”. Jeff, you didn’t provide ANY evidence, you intimated that evidence exists but you didn’t show any. I am still not clear on what evidences you claim, since no one was there, and the beginning is not able to be replicated, whatever evidences you claim will be subject to interpretation. So in essence, it’s a faith issue for you; you believe this to be so (which clearly you can not prove empirically). My point is that you are just as religious about origins as I am. You and I are simply interpreting the evidence based on our worldviews.Actually, the Miller and Urey experiment tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. There’s the admission: there WAS a beginning of life… Miller and Urey use that pesky word ‘origins’. DAMN! What do you say Jeffrey? Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. Well if that is the beginning of ‘life’ and all life today evolved, then my holding you to account for the development of morality and reason are back into the discussion: HOW do YOU as an atheist who believes that evolution from sludge to us is what got us here ACCOUNT for the ability to know right from wrong? IF you are correct and we are nothing more than material cells, with synapse firing at random, then how is it that you can account for ‘love’, morality or reason? WHERE did these attributes originate?After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life You must admit that an amino acid is a far cry from a double helix DNA structure heh? Where did the complexity of living organisms originate? (and please don’t use that line that they might have formed on the backs of crystals…)Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions. This is a FAR cry from ‘life’. If ‘life’ is just compounds and/or chemicals provided the ‘just right’ environment, then tell me what the chemical difference is between a dead person and a living one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_… Why would the fact that the Earth has had different environments over its life be an issue that puzzles you? Because you said that the decay rates are uniform; given that the earth must have undergone a mighty big change, can you say that it is possible that decay rates and the atmospheric content has changed? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It has changed many times over its existence. But if it changes even a little, life as we know it fails to be able to exist…listen to all the global warming hype…The oil fields are from period when that landmass was not covered in ice and had animals living and plants growing on it. Well that’s pretty interesting given that forests of the extent it takes to create these oil fields obviously couldn’t grow on a glacial icepack…and the glaciers sure didn’t go south, uproot entire geographical areas and suck them back the those latitudes…so how did the raw material get there at 9000 ft below ground level in order to become the crude we find today?From: IntenseDebate Notifications [mailto:notifications@intensedebatemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 6:30 PMTo: dntmkmecomovertherSubject: JWDixon66 replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are HoodwinkedJWDixon66 replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are Hoodwinked / ZIONICA.com: “So you have gone from asking me if there was evidence for the big bang, which I showed you, to stating that it cannot account for life”. You didn’t show ANY evidence, you intimated that evidence exists. I am still not clear on what evidences you claim, since no one was there, and the beginning is not able to be replicated, whatever evidences you claim will be subject to interpretation. So in essence, it’s a faith issue for you; you believe this to be so (which clearly you can not prove empirically). My point is that you are just as religious about origins as I am. You and I are simply interpreting the evidence based on our worldviews.Actually, the Miller and Urey experiment tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. There’s the admission: there WAS a beginning of life… Miller and Urey use that pesky word ‘origins’. DAMN! What do you say Jeffrey? Specifically, the experiment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. Well if that is the beginning of ‘life’ and all life today evolved, then my holding you to account for the development of morality and reason are back into the discussion: HOW do YOU as an atheist who believes that evolution from sludge to us is what got us here ACCOUNT for the ability to know right from wrong? IF you are correct and we are nothing more than material cells, with synapse firing at random, then how is it that you can account for ‘love’, morality or reason? WHERE did these attributes originate?After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life You must admit that an amino acid is a far cry from a double helix DNA structure heh? Where did the complexity of living organisms originate? (and please don’t use that line that they might have formed on the backs of crystals…)Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions. This is a FAR cry from ‘life’. If ‘life’ is just compounds and/or chemicals provided the ‘just right’ environment, then tell me what the chemical difference is between a dead person and a living one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_… Why would the fact that the Earth has had different environments over its life be an issue that puzzles you? Because you said that the decay rates are uniform; given that the earth must have undergone a mighty big change, can you say that it is possible that decay rates and the atmospheric content has changed? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It has changed many times over its existence. But if it changes even a little, life as we know it fails to be able to exist…listen to all the global warming hype…The oil fields are from period when that landmass was not covered in ice and had animals living and plants growing on it. Well that’s pretty interesting given that forests of the extent it takes to create these oil fields obviously couldn’t grow on a glacial icepack…and the glaciers sure didn’t go south, uproot entire geographical areas and suck them back the those latitudes…so how did the raw material get there at 9000 ft below ground level in order to become the crude we find today?Go to comment In reply to your comment:Jeff said: “They believe the mother has the right to determine what happens with her body.” But where do ‘rights’ come from? Specifically ones which allow for a life being killed/murdered…we as a culture, have killed off an entire generation of people via abortion…that’s over 50, 000,000 lives. Can you say that is ‘good’ or ‘necessary’? If that is the case, then was Hitler and Stalin just slightly ahead of their times?Jeff said: “The big bang is supported by a great deal of evidence”…but that ‘evidence’ does not account for life out of the ‘blast’…nor does it account for a will or a purpose if all that came of that ‘bang’ is just randomness over long periods of time. Dawkins has plenty to say on the wanton blandness and randomness of life…do you stand with him on that?Jeff said: “I am of the opinion that the universe is eternal and goes through infinite occurrences of a big bang, expan sion, contraction and a new big bang.” I am glad to hear that this is a ‘belief’/opinion of yours. You see, you are just as religious about origins as I am.I had asked in one of my other posts, how you would account for the existence of the North Alaskan Oil Fields. I am on a portable device and don’t have the question at hand; but in essence I was asking how you account for oil wells 2 miles under the earth’s surface located 250 miles north of the arctic circle. My point is that a radically different environment existed on earth at some point. We can take the discussion from there after you answer.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Of course I provided evidence. You do not have to accept it, agree with it and can discount it. But it is evidence.
        
        The chemical origins of life are far different than stating the universe once did not exist. No life would survive the Big Bang. Life would start to occur afterwards, which is what I offered. Amino acids are not life, but it shows the formation of the building blocks of life.
        
        Right and wrong developed over time as factors that either helped or hurt primate societies.
        
        The environment does not change decay rates.
        
        The landmasses have moved around the word and continue to do so. The North Alaskan Oil Fields used to be in temperate zones. You should read up on plate tectonics and continental drift.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        dntmkmecomoverther stated this "You see, you are just as religious about origins as I am"
        
        I am willing to change my mind given new information. Is there anything that would change your mind?
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        You keep saying you have provided evidence. To date, that is not true; you have provide NONE other than your opinion. Anyone watching this dialogue can see that.Jeff says: “The chemical origins of life are far different than stating the universe once did not exist. No life would survive the Big Bang. Life would start to occur afterwards, which is what I offered. Amino acids are not life, but it shows the formation of the building blocks of life.”Ok. The Miller Urey experiment created left- and right-handed amino acids even though life as we know it only uses left-handed amino acids. Where would this preference comes from?The big picture of this experiment is to explain how you get the molecules that make cells. How can you make a fully functional cell, with all of its complexity, from parts made at random?From: IntenseDebate Notifications [mailto:notifications@intensedebatemail.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 8:23 PMTo: dntmkmecomovertherSubject: JWDixon66 replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are HoodwinkedJWDixon66 replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are Hoodwinked / ZIONICA.com: Of course I provided evidence. You do not have to accept it, agree with it and can discount it. But it is evidence. The chemical origins of life are far different than stating the universe once did not exist. No life would survive the Big Bang. Life would start to occur afterwards, which is what I offered. Amino acids are not life, but it shows the formation of the building blocks of life. Right and wrong developed over time as factors that either helped or hurt primate societies. The environment does not change decay rates. The landmasses have moved around the word and continue to do so. The North Alaskan Oil Fields used to be in temperate zones. You should read up on plate tectonics and continental drift. Go to comment In reply to your comment:“So you have gone from asking me if there was evidence for the big bang, which I showed you, to stating that it cannot account for life”. Jeff, you didn’t provide ANY evidence, you intimated that evidence exists but you didn’t show any. I am still not clear on what evidences you claim, since no one was there, and the beginning is not able to be replicated, whatever evidences you claim will be subject to interpretation. So in essence, it’s a faith issue for you; you believe this to be so (which clearly you can not prove empirically). My point is that you are just as religious about origins as I am. You and I are simply interpreting the evidence based on our worldviews.Actually, the Miller and Urey experiment tested for the occurrence of chemical origins of life. There’s the admission: there WAS a beginning of life… Miller and Urey use that pesky word ‘origins’. DAMN! What do you say Jeffrey? Specifically, the experi ment tested Alexander Oparin's and J. B. S. Haldane's hypothesis that conditions on the primitive Earth favored chemical reactions that synthesized organic compounds from inorganic precursors. Considered to be the classic experiment on the origin of life. Well if that is the beginning of ‘life’ and all life today evolved, then my holding you to account for the development of morality and reason are back into the discussion: HOW do YOU as an atheist who believes that evolution from sludge to us is what got us here ACCOUNT for the ability to know right from wrong? IF you are correct and we are nothing more than material cells, with synapse firing at random, then how is it that you can account for ‘love’, morality or reason? WHERE did these attributes originate?After Miller's death in 2007, scientists examining sealed vials preserved from the original experiments were able to show that there were actually well over 20 different amino acids produced in Miller's original experiments. That is considerably more than what Miller originally reported, and more than the 20 that naturally occur in life You must admit that an amino acid is a far cry from a double helix DNA structure heh? Where did the complexity of living organisms originate? (and please don’t use that line that they might have formed on the backs of crystals…)Since his first experiment, Miller and others have experimented with other atmospheric compositions, too (Chang et al. 1983; Miller 1987; Schlesinger and Miller 1983; Stribling and Miller 1987). Complex organic molecules form under a wide range of prebiotic conditions. This is a FAR cry from ‘life’. If ‘life’ is just compounds and/or chemicals provided the ‘just right’ environment, then tell me what the chemical difference is between a dead person and a living one.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller%E2%80%93Urey_… Why would the fact that the Earth has had different environments over its life be an issue that puzzles you? Because you said that the decay rates are uniform; given that the earth must have undergone a mighty big change, can you say that it is possible that decay rates and the atmospheric content has changed? The Earth is 4.5 billion years old. It has changed many times over its existence. But if it changes even a little, life as we know it fails to be able to exist…listen to all the global warming hype…The oil fields are from period when that landmass was not covered in ice and had animals living and plants growing on it. Well that’s pretty interesting given that forests of the extent it takes to create these oil fields obviously couldn’t grow on a glacial icepack…and the glaciers sure didn’t go south, uproot entire geographical areas and suck them back the those latitudes…so how did the raw material get there at 9000 ft below ground level in order to become the crude we find today?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I provided this link to evidence of the Big Bang. It is not my issue if you are unwilling to review it. But I have provided it.
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html
        
        You keep repeating that chemistry is random, even though it is the complete opposite of that. Chemistry is not a random occurrence and your question is meaningless when you ask about it.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        For taking such a long time to reply, I figured you were putting together a interesting answer. I know of the ‘big bang’ theory. That’s all it is; a theory… as there is no empirical evidence for it. One must have presuppositions they believe in order to interpret what you call ‘evidence’. That is not evidence, but conjecture. If you believe the big bang, then you are just as much a person ‘of faith’ as I am…we just worship a different deity.You left two questions unaddressed:1) The Miller Urey experiment created left- and right-handed amino acids even though life as we know it only uses left-handed amino acids. Where would this preference comes from?2) The big picture of this experiment is to explain how you get the molecules that make cells. How can you make a fully functional cell, with all of its complexity, from parts made at random?From: IntenseDebate Notifications [mailto:notifications@intensedebatemail.com] Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2012 10:27 PMTo: dntmkmecomovertherSubject: JWDixon66 replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are HoodwinkedJWDixon66 replied to your comment on Scientists says Christians are Hoodwinked / ZIONICA.com: I provided this link to evidence of the Big Bang. It is not my issue if you are unwilling to review it. But I have provided it. http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CE/CE420.html You keep repeating that chemistry is random, even though it is the complete opposite of that. Chemistry is not a random occurrence and your question is meaningless when you ask about it. Go to comment In reply to your comment:You keep saying you have provided evidence. To date, that is not true; you have provide NONE other than your opinion. Anyone watching this dialogue can see that.Jeff says: “The chemical origins of life are far different than stating the universe once did not exist. No life would survive the Big Bang. Life would start to occur afterwards, which is what I offered. Amino acids are not life, but it shows the formation of the building blocks of life.”Ok. The Miller Urey experiment created left- and right-handed amino acids even though life as we know it only uses left-handed amino acids. Where would this preference comes from?The big picture of this experiment is to explain how you get the molecules that make cells. How can you make a fully functional cell, with all of its complexity, from parts made at random?
  - DWoodPC
    
    Jeff, you said above "purpose can come from anywhere" … do you mean to imply an infinity of sources, 360 degrees, full circle from every direction positive and negative infinity …anywhere…? this whole statement can be used against you, you know, in your use the limited dogma of [the fraudulent] Darwin and agnosticism to ground your arguments. Apropos, you haven't answered my question about who or what is the "common" ancestor of apes and us. Frightening thought Jeff. I hope you realize how frightening this is to people who know different. In short, Jeff, there must be an infinity of ways to look at this without bringing in apes as our relatives, you must admit that much. yawn. go ahead I'm listening.
    - JWDixon66
      
      Yes I did. Here is a copy of that response.
      
      Jeff Dixon · 20 hours ago http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/…
      
      This link provides a good explanation.
      - DWoodPC
        
        The Berkeley article says "humans ARE apes!" No. Dear Jeff: How did I miss this before. You sent me this before? Nevertheless, this is science. You know… where ideas need to be formulated and grown to appease the great government agencies like NIH, because they need to account to the GSA. It is no simple small enterprise. I ask you: Can an ape be that "creative"?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Yes, apes can be very creative.
        
        The Gorilla Foundation conducts research in interspecies communication (language), cultural development, and intellectual and emotional awareness
        
        Koko has learned over 1000 signs.
        • She invents her own new compound signs, eg, "finger-bracelet" for ring.
        • Koko understands spoken English.
        • Koko is not unique: gorilla Michael was very articulate in ASL too.
        •Koko's use of grammatical aspects of sign language in complex phrases is evident.
        •This teaches us much about human language development/origns.
        
        Koko paints representationally and impressionistically.
        • She's painted many self-named works.
        • Gorilla Michael painted even more!
        • Their work has appeared in galleries and artists and critics are impressed with their use of color and technique.
        
        Koko (and other gorillas) appear to have the same emotions we have.
        • She can be happy, sad, jealous, frustrated, angry, willful, funny …
        • Koko loves kittens and she still grieves for her first kitten, All Ball.
        • Her empathy for others has changed our perception of gorillas forever.
        • Gorillas clearly deserve basic personal rights such as protection
        
        http://www.koko.org/friends/research.koko.html
      - DWoodPC
        
        : ) I get the feeling you are reading my mind
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I am a man. You know we never read a woman's mind correctly.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I plead impasse, mainly, since you do not recognize and I cannot "prove" the existence of either the personal or Holy Spirit,
        
        Am I to understand your analysis that dynamics and all motivation of every kind in life, including the human form, is but due to chemical thermodynamics which ceases upon death, that without tangible proof you recognize and give no credibility to the presence of any "spirit" to provide any kind of knowing.
        
        It absolutely ties me up in knots to think what it must be like inside you, Jeff.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I am from German-English ancestors. That is why I am always fighting myself.
      - UF Gator
        
        You have a case of German angst, an existential dread that the English part of you who believes that Dawkins could be right, is right, and the German part of you wants to believe the Pilgrims were right, and that now an exceptional point of view is in order, being you are an exceptional American. : )
      - DWoodPC
        
        I meant it took you less than five minutes to come up with the story on Koko as though you anticipated my question. I don't agree that you can't "read" my mind. I am not falling for that. No!
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        It is from a posting on my blog. I have given thought to many different issues on this topic. It is handy to be able to refer to it quickly.
      - DWoodPC
        
        : ) I meant creative in the sense: Can they formulate
        "… ideas … grown to appease the great government agencies like NIH, because they need to account to the GSA" ? … that maybe should be GAO … government accountability office
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Gorillas do not have the same intelligence as humans. I never said they did. You asked abut creativity. They are creative. Humans are also more creative.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        They are definitely more creative than you Mr. Dixon.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You would never know that Joe. That would require looking up information on a topic. We both know that is anathema to you.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I didn't look anything up this time Jeff. I merely checked on the list you plagiarized up above. We both know that you are unable to do about 1/2 the items on that list alone. It really wasn't hard work Jeffrey. Gorillas are more creative than you are. I know that the truth is painful at times.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Joe, for you to use the internet must be like pulling your own teeth out.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Joe, You can hardly imagine just how creative he is. Of course, I know you are, but when have you had a conversation with Mr. Dixon? Mary
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        The conversations on Comic Book Classes offered by Colleges in England were quite civil, generally speaking. Ask Jeff about those. Something about how society really benefits from those. I can't wait to see those offered here in our country.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I never stated society that benefited from it. I merely stated that some colleges use comic books. I am glad to see you are willing to lie to try to advance your position once again.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Jeff: I'm sorry. I should explain my use of the word. Yes I asked about creativity. I am referring to the fact that some of the most creative literature I have seen in my life are the grant proposals that go out, quote from above: " You know… where ideas need to be formulated and grown to appease the great government agencies like NIH, because they need to account to the GSA [edit: GAO.] It is no simple small enterprise. I ask you: Can an ape be that "creative"?"
        
        I meant could Koko write grants! It was meant to be a joke. I am sorry. Of course I know better.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        i do not know you well enough to know when you are joking. You might add an lol afterwards.
      - DWoodPC
        
        okay : )
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        JW if you cannot see the infinite difference between a man and any animal you care to mention, including a Gorilla, you are beyond help. Keep playing with google and other things.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        There is little difference between you and a braying ass.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Calumniate when in the corner is your trademark Jeff. As well as of all so called Atheists. Again, as you know, you are not 100% certain God does not exist–therefore, you are not a true Atheist. In fact they do not exist. You are at best an Agnostic. You don't have to calumniate me again Jeff. As a matter of fact, you don't have to attempt an answer. There is none. I am correct.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I agree with you Joe that he is more an agnostic. He is constantly searching for proof and not at all trying to hide that fact. He is telling you the absolute truth. Please be a gentleman about it. It wouldn't hurt. In fact it would help your argument to take a deep breath. Please don't be mad at me, I have three brothers and I know that it is hard to make peace with someone who is insulting you but we are all guilty of that. We can learn a lot from others, that is why I am here.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        I am soooo glad you are here wouldbephd! But at any rate, we can agree on the following: there are in truth to true Atheists. At best they are true Agnostics. Don't worry though, I am used to all the calumniation that Jeff can come up with. It is his trademark. I see you want me to take a deep breath before I type. Thanks for the advice, I will try it. I think though, that taking a deep breath would make it unfair for Jeff; he already does not have any answers for me when I type without taking deep breaths.
      - DWoodPC
        
        why don't you answer my questions
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You are a legend in your own mind, Joe.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        According to you Jeff, we do not have a mind (incidentally true about "Atheists.") Thus, I am taking it, that you are going against your Humanist beliefs.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        There is nothing I believe or stated that says we do not have a mind. Thanks for showing once again you have no idea of what you sputter about.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Incidentally Jeffrey, if one is a legend in his own mind, like you, should I start a "blog" or "website" like you? Just a question. "Please don't get angry" as wouldbephd would say.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I have never gotten angry with you Joe. I have laughed at you, teased you, attempted to make you offer more reasonable responses and pitied you. But I have never gotten angry.
        
        I started a blog because I wanted to share my thoughts. No one is required to look at it or agree with it. So, what problem do you have with blogs? I realize it uses technology which you despise, but is there a reason other than that?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        No response. What a shock.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Joe, now that is humorous. You have constantly lied about me.
      - DWoodPC
        
        He means it literally Joe. BTW, Mary is my English middle name. I have a French one too. Deadwood does not represent my first name, and I do have a Ph. D. not just want one. (Ever go for one, its a challenge like you wouldn't believe!)
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        WOW, you also have a French name? Good deal!
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
      
      It is rather hard to quantify infinity. My point is that purpose need not not be only from one source.
  - DWoodPC
    
    Here is your statement on purpose that I had recalled but couldn't find before. It's true what you say. But I am not considering the purpose that inanimate objects hold for different folk at different times. I think that you and DNT hit on a fundamental issue… my point is this whole argument is aside from THAT particular aspect of purpose which you put forth. I think it's important but as I said, science is the study of the "watchmaker's" handiwork so to speak and is out there…. It's out there, it's not in the mind… it is the study of someTHING… So the argument is not about science: the study of the "watch"… instead, the argument is about the watchmaker and whether he even exists and what are his characteristics.
    
    I found Dawkins book and will delve into it if I can possibly focus away from the arguments here that come fast and furious. :) Also I found a book you might want to read:
    
    bn.com
    click nook (look for the free app for Nook for computers: PC or apple (if you don't have an e-reader))
    find The Dawson Delusion by Reeves (last name)
    
    it is only available as an ebook, download for 3.90$
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      Sadly, I do not have an e-book.
      - UF Gator
        
        Not necessary to be sad : )
        Go to Barnes & Noble
        bn.com
        click nook (look for the free app for Nook for computers: PC or Apple (if you don't have an e-reader))
        find The Dawson Delusion by Reeves (last name)
        
        : ) Mary
KnowTheTruthToday

And Christians say scientist are hoodwinked – guess it is just a matter of opinion – their mouth is not a prayer book and neither is ours.

I guess the bottom line is: Who cares what they say?
- dntmkmecomoverther
  
  I care because I have kids who will one day have to listen to their lies which get purported as 'facts'. It's a disgusting education when one is not 'taught' but 'indoctrinated with a worldview' contrary to the scientific method and totally antithetical to MY worldview…and the topping on the whole mess is that our tax dollars are used to carry out this stupidity.
  
  THAT is why you should care…as well as everyone else who has a backbone still intact.
  - KnowTheTruthToday
    
    Good point – we should all care – when I say who cares, it means their point has no validity – maybe I chose the wrong words to convey that.
- Paul
  
  Not a matter of opinion. God declares in His Word that it all was created through, in, and for Him; that all creation stands as witness of the creator; that having given up the worship of God thry have become foolish in their speculations…
  - daves
    
    I have read that in the old testament but God never declared it to me.
    
    Jesus on the other hand has made it very clear to me that the most important thing in the world is how we treat others.
    - keyboardshark
      
      daves says: "I have read that in the old testament but God never declared it to me. "
      
      You were expecting, perhaps, a booming voice coming from the clouds? How do you think God tells us anything He wants us to know? The Bible, of course, both Old and New Testaments. If you read it in the Old Testament, God most assuredly HAS declared it to you. The Bible alone and in its entirety is the Word of God, and now that it has been completed, we are not to expect additional divine revelation.
- DWoodPC
  
  There are some things scientists cannot study, e.g. prayer, and its effects and it irks them to no end.
- JWDixon66
  
  It is not just a matter of opinion. It is based on seeing the evidence leads us.
- DWoodPC
  
  I don't care what fraudulent science says. There is a lot of that sort out there. I do care about what the real, humble, diligent, focused scientists have to say. The latter solve problems, the former misguide us.
joeee

Misery loves company.
- UF Gator
  
  lol scientists have been known to sign this petition cornwallalliance.org
Michael E. Hughes

Scientists limit themselves to things that they can see and "experiments" that they can replicate. Things that they cannot force into a vise so that only ONE variable is allowed to vary cannot be studied by them, because they cannot graph and predict how things will react to having more than one "degree of freedom". Many have embraced the scientific way as an alternative to God as the relativism of Einstein's universe has been adopted by the immoral to justify their actions. However, replacing the discussions of medieval times about how many angels could fit on the head of a pin with the modern discussion about how many quiffs can fit on that same pin is NOT all that much in the way of intellectual progress.
- Pail
  
  Scientific theory of relativity has nothing to do with moral relativism. It is the replacement of God's word by men's limited understanding that renders the concept of "origins" by "natural process" foolishness
  - UF Gator
    
    cornwallalliance.org please sign the petition
- Jojo
  
  You're giving scientists too much credit. The so-called scientists that claim global warming is real say so based on experiments that have yet to be replicated anywhere in the world, and many of them on flawed models.
  
  And they say WE are the brainwashed.
  - UF Gator
    
    No. There are as many classes of scientists as there are people. In the realm of work, the scientist should be apolitical, ethical and humble as having a part in the stewardship of creation, as nature is his/her subject. cornwallalliance.org Please sign the petition
- UF Gator
  
  See cornwallalliance.org Science is the study of God's handiwork. There are "false prophets" in every field of expertise, bar none. Satan has his hand in everything, and therefore none of us can afford to point fingers, nor forget the importance of the Father, Son and Holy Ghost.
Sharon

What will mans opinion matter when we stand before Him and give an account for what we've done wheather good or evil we should not care what our opinion is about what God has to say about life and what is required of us but we better care about HIS what a sad day that will be when He says depart from me I never knew you!!
- Paul
  
  Amen
Betz

I know evangelical Christians who believe in evolution. I'm curious to know what is at the core of this fear of scientific study.
- dntmkmecomoverther
  
  At the core of evolutionary belief, is that death occurred for 'millions of years' before man ever showed up. For the Christian, that implies that death occurs before the fall of man in the garden. Therefore the implication becomes, that death is natural and not a result of sin. The implications of that worldview would then have a reader of the Bible consider all that comes after Genesis3 to be fiction.
  
  The question to ask these scientists is 'how do you account for good and evil?'. If we are simply random beings, come out of inanimate matter (btw, where did the matter come from?…) then how can anything be either good or bad?…everything is just 'what it is' by the implications of their worldview. Make them live in their worldview for a while and they will have to come to the conclusion that things like Good and Evil can not exist…Yet we know they do.
  
  The Christian can account for this; the atheistic evolutionist if they are honest, can not.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    If Adam and Eve were truly created immortal when they lived in the Garden there would have no reason for there to be the tree of eternal life. It would have been redundant.
    - dntmkmecomoverther
      
      Hello Jeff, long time no hear.In your reply, you reveal the terms of man’s thoughts, not God’s. God’s ways and thoughts are not ours. We are a rebellious people. Also, the Scriptures never refer to ‘tree of eternal life’, but rather the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:9). In God’s creation, Adam and Eve as created would not have tasted death except due to their fall into sin.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Now the Lord God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 The Lord God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
        
        You might want to brush up on Genesis.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        With all due respect, the adjective ‘eternal’ is not in the text. You may want to brush up on your theology before demeaning mine.The Tree of Life is a Hebraic phrase that is best understood as a sign unto Adam of God’s gift of life.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You did not even know about the tree of life 30 minutes ago and now you want to try and explain how it is best understood? lol
        
        "And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever." So the LORD God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life."
        
        Notice the key words here "and eat, and live forever."
      - Craig Williams
        
        Hi Jeff, I sincerely enjoy your posts. Let me take a shot at this. Adam and Eve were indeed immortal both spiritually and physically–that is, their bodies were not subject to death (physical) and their communion with God was constant (spiritual).
        
        However, God stated that they were forbidden to partake of the tree of knowledge of good/evil and if they did so, they would die. They did and their bodies became mortal (physical death) and their direct communion in the presence of God ended (spiritual death).
        
        To have them then partake of the Tree of Life would allow them to "live forever in their sins." Which is why God removed their access to it.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        But that takes us back to my first comment.
        
        If Adam and Eve were truly created immortal when they lived in the Garden there would have no reason for there to be the tree of eternal life. It would have been redundant.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "If Adam and Eve were truly created immortal when they lived in the Garden there would have no reason for there to be the tree of eternal life. It would have been redundant."
        
        Maybe I can help. Adam and Eve were designed for eternal life, but did not fully possess it. Remember, eternal life means that there is nothing that could cause it to cease. But Adam and Eve were clearly told by God that if they ate from the forbidden tree, they would surely die. In other words, their eternal life was conditional.
        
        Contrast that with the eternal life that believers receive when they have been born again and then experience physical death. They pass from death to life, receive an indestructible body, and live forever with the Lord. There is nothing that can cause that life to cease. It is entirely unconditional.
        
        So to summarize:
        Adam & Eve = Conditional eternal life
        Born-again believers = Unconditional eternal life
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Sorry, an all powerful god can remove eternal life. If he cannot remove it, he is not all powerful. Care to try again?
      - keyboardshark
        
        Of course He could remove eternal life, but He has promised in His Word that the saved believers are eternally secure. He tells us it is everlasting. God does not lie:
        
        "And this is the will of him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day."
        John 6:40
        
        "Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me hath everlasting life."
        John 6:47
        
        "Howbeit for this cause I obtained mercy, that in me first Jesus Christ might shew forth all longsuffering, for a pattern to them which should hereafter believe on him to life everlasting."
        I Timothy 1:16
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Key says: Remember, eternal life means that there is nothing that could cause it to cease.
        
        If there is nothing that could cause it to cease, then your god cannot cause it to cease.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        That is The God to you Jeff.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        No, it is your god.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        god is a figment of your limited imagination–Jeff
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        By definition, Jeff, God is One. There are no others. For example, google is not a god.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        If you cannot see such an obvious conclusion, there is nothing we can discuss further.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Then we never need to chat again, Joey.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        If this is the best you can say to all I have written–I am honored by another unable to think atheist. : )
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You are the one who stated we should not discuss anything further. If that was not your real point, then blame yourself for your stupidity.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Furthermore, God will do exactly what He wishes Jeff. You know that in your heart.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        No, that is merely your desire of what should occur.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        What I desire should occur Jeff, is one thing and what God desires should occur is another thing altogether. This also applies to you–although you are living under false pretenses.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There is no god. What you think he desires is meaningless.
      - Despeville
        
        There is no dodo in rational world.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, grown-ups are talking. We do not have time for your childish interruptions. Shh!
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo stop patronizing yourself and stop your inane jabbering.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Useless gibberish from the mouth of a delusional loon is what we get from you, Humpty.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        That includes using you as an example, a bad example.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Get a grip Jeff. God is a fact, deal with it Jeff.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        No, it is not a fact. A fact is something that can be demonstrated repeatedly. Your "god" does not fit that concept.
      - Despeville
        
        dodo not all facts can be demonstrated by lab like repetitious processes as every rational person knows. Demonstrate repeatedly that your grandfather was born when he was born and when he was born. Go ahead and do that twaddle brain.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        My great grandmother can attest to that. My great grandfather can attest to that. What else do you have moron?
      - Despeville
        
        Stupid can she attest to that repeatedly as to the time and place? Really unless she is 15 or more years older than your grandfather and was there where and when he was born then you have no case and even with that you have no repetitious case blabber of hooey.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Since they were his parents, yes they can moron.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        BTW Jeff, name me one culture or ethnic group in the world that does not believe in God, or as you would like to distract, in gods (inappropriate concept of the Almighty). Name me one–since God made time and space. I am waiting.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Humanists.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        ?????? Is that merely another joke Jeff?
      - Despeville
        
        Nope, that is a snapshot of his delirious and demented mind Joe.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        "Humanists" as a culture or Ethnic group. That is good. Like all of the Humanists in New York City or in Topeka? Good joke there Jeff. Are they altogether in some commune?
      - Despeville
        
        :)
        Uninformed, unschooled, ignorant and deficient nature of Dodo's worldview once more bubbled up to the surface and with full impetus. The more he tries to cover up his deep sciolism the more it is visible. A classic really Joe.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        A pompous loon who is delusional, brain dead and a grammar moron is your description, Humpty.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Let me try this again, Jeff: name me one ethnic group anywhere on our planet, or a culture (e.g. American Native, Nordic, Asiatic people group, any one group in Africa etc. . .) which have not some type of a belief in a Supreme Being (some call god–incorrectly). Specifically and by force of reason it is One Supreme Being–which fits our definition of God (such as the Hebrew God, the One God of the Universe, which you do not understand Jeff, I might add).
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo the banal peddler of inanity cannot deliver on that Joe.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Noticed that he apparently went in for his beauty sleep. You are probably correct Despe. He decided to call it a day and get recharged on his ability to merely irritate.
      - Despeville
        
        He needs to do few Google searches before he can come up with a pretense and a cover for his obtuseness.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You initially asked for a culture or ethnic group. Humanists would qualify as a culture.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Hey JW I don't consider a "Humanist" or Humanists a culture. Nice try though. Furthermore, you cannot ever say that all Humanists are so called Atheists. Additionally, it is a simple lie to say that you are certain that God does not exist. Of course "gods" do not exist–I would agree with you there. Go back to your googling.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Not surprisingly, you would be wrong.
        
        Humanism And the Culture of Renaissance Europe
        
        Charles Garfield Nauert
        1 Review
        Cambridge University Press, May 4, 2006 – History – 253 pages
        In this updated edition of his classic account, Charles Nauert charts the rise of humanism as the distinctive culture of the social, political and intellectual elites in Renaissance Europe. He traces humanism's emergence in the unique social and cultural conditions of fourteenth-century Italy and its gradual diffusion throughout the rest of Europe. He shows how, despite its elitist origins, humanism became a major force in the popular culture and fine arts of the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries, and the powerful impact it had on both the Protestant and Catholic Reformations. He uses art and biographical sketches of key figures to illuminate the narrative and concludes with an account of the limitations of humanism at the end of the Renaissance. The revised edition includes a new section dealing with the place of women in humanistic culture and an updated bibliography. It will be essential reading for all students of Renaissance Europe.
        More »
        http://books.google.com/books/about/Humanism_And_…
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        JW just because something is in a text, does not mean it is correct! I believe you understand this simple concept.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        That is true. For example, your inane comments are in text and very little of the drivel you post is correct.
      - DWoodPC
        
        well done, Jeff : )
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Different religions have very different ideas of what 'God' is like; they even disagree about basic issues such as how many gods there are, whether they're male or female, and so on.
        
        People have believed many incorrect things about gods. That they hurl lightening down at people, that they drive the sun across the sky.
        
        However, we have learned that these are simply natural event, not supernatural events. Science peels back the mysteries of universe more each year. That is one reason why you see the number of disbelievers growing.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Again, I would like to remind you Jeff–you do not know what you are talking about. No knowledge. Sorry. Call someone who cares on Twitter.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Joe, as king of Luddites, your opinions mean nothing.
      - Despeville
        
        What a trite balderdash Dodo Oedipus. Your mind is gone as evidenced by your progressive, irrational neurosis
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Humpty, my father still is alive and lives with me. You need to brush up on the Oedipus complex.
      - Despeville
        
        Nitwit the complex is more refined than what you have read on Wikipedia two days ago you banal peddler of inanity.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Moron, I read about Oedipus 30 years ago when I read the Iliad and the Odyssey. But nothing new about you being a pompous windbag.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "If there is nothing that could cause it to cease, then your god cannot cause it to cease."
        
        He cannot cause it to cease because He has promised He would not do so. God keeps His promises.
      - Joe Anzilotti
        
        Just what in the hay does Jeff know about causing to cease, when he does not even know what caused a meaningful life to exist in the first place? For that matter he does not know how space and time came to exist in the first place.
      - UF Gator
        
        Rather symbolic, in some way, of the more realistic meaning
      - arich
        
        What race were Adam and Eve?
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Human
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Fictional
    - aceituna
      
      The tree of life was there to feed their life forces. When God expelled them from the garden He put an angel with a sward at the gate so that they would not be able to return to the garden and eat from the tree of life. Read Gensis 3.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        "He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."
        
        What part of not being allowed to live forever is so puzzling to you?
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Does it say they were created immortal?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        it says the tree would allow them eternal life. It does not say they were created immortal.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I was curious, you understand, since your comment was:
        
        "If Adam and Eve were truly created immortal when they lived in the Garden there would have no reason for there to be the tree of eternal life. It would have been redundant."
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        The standard Christian view is that Adam and Eve would not die before they sinned. That would make them immortal.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Not to be rude, but the "standard Christian view" is of no interest to me. What the Bible says is of interest. Nowhere does it say that they were immortal; if they were, there would have been no reason or use for the Tree of Life.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        So, you do not believe they brought death into the world when they sinned?
      - petroskhan1262
        
        They would have lived forever, eating from the Tree of Life. Part of their punishment was expulsion from the Garden of Eden, which denied them access to the Tree. Ergo, death was brought into the world through their sin.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        So all the animals were also eating from this tree of life as well?
      - petroskhan1262
        
        The Bible doesn't say, and I will not presume to make an assumption without knowledge. I leave that to evolutionists.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        But if there was no death before Adam and Eve sinned, you believe no animals dies before then and would not be capable of dying? Is that an accurate representation of your view?
        
        And btw, your entire worldview is based on an assumption. You assume, without a shred of evidence, that the bible was written or inspired by a god merely because people claimed he did.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        The bible also never says Adam and Eve ate from the tree of life. That is another assumption on your part.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        It never says that they brushed their hair, bathed, urinated or perspired. Should we discount those, as well?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        This is what you said: The Bible doesn't say, and I will not presume to make an assumption without knowledge. So based on your comment, it would seem you should discount those things. Otherwise, you are being arbitrary in what you accept.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Not arbitrary at all. I am being logical and consistent.
        
        I DO have knowledge, sufficient to make certain determinations. They were living beings, with physical bodies. It would be illogical to assume that they did nothing but what was written, nor would logic dictate that they had no bodily functions, since they did, in fact, possess bodies.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The reality that they urinated does not mean they HAD to have eaten from the Tree of Life.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I do believe that Adam and Eve sinning was the cause of the introduction of sin and death. As for animals dying, as I stated, there is insufficient Scripture for me to have an opinion. Also, as the Bible is a guide for our behavior, I fail to see the relevance, and therefore honestly have no interest.
        
        As for my "worldview" being based on an assumption, every world view is based on assumptions. The best we can do is make sure the assumptions are logical and consistent with evidence and logic. The Bible has proven itself to be accurate and reliable over the centuries, and logically consistent. Ergo, I base my worldview on its words. Evolutionists, on the other hand, are illogical, inconsistent, and wrong far too often to be a reliable basis for a worldview.
- gladdrial
  
  Have no problem with Science but they should not constantly tell me I'm stupid because do not see everything there way.
  In the end we won't care who is right or wrong, just live and let live!
- Jim
  
  Remember that it was God who created science. And least we forget even Darwin admitted that he was WRONG!
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    It is very important to remember fictional stories. Especially when lying for Christ about Darwin is so very popular.
- KnowTheTruthToday
  
  Disagreeing with something is not fear – you could turn that question around and say – why does the scientific community fear the Bible?
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    No one fears the bible. Now the crazy Christian zealots who follow it? They are very scary.
    - DWoodPC
      
      Am I scary Jeff?
      True followers of Christ are not scary to me.
      Scary people can come from any religion.
      Remember tolerance and pastor leland
      Are you just being glib here?
      - DWoodPC
        
        I enjoy sparring with you Jeff.
        I hope its not true.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        There are people who believe and then there are crazy zealots. You do not seem crazy. And yes, they can also be from other religious. There are many Muslims nutcases running around right now. To be candid, I would say the Muslims are a bigger concern than the Christians right now.
- Wendell Fountain
  
  I don't see where there is a contradiction with science and religion. Though I find it hard to believe that we decended from primates, I can certainly see how God could have used evolution as a tool to allow for the final product (man/woman) to be created. I am a Christian, and I believe God can do anything, including allowing man/woman to evolve into what we are.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
    
    Is in in part from verses like Genesis 30:37-39
    
    This head-scratcher from Genesis, with its utterly bemusing explanation of the genetic code. Basically, Laban is taking all of Jacob’s beloved striped and spotted cattle. Jacob is left with boring old, plain-coloured cattle, which he doesn’t seem to like at all. So Jacob concocts a cunning plan: he gets some sticks and begins painting stripes on them. He then plants them next to his cattle. What Jacob thinks is that if he gets his cattle to look at the striped sticks while copulating, then they will give birth to striped young. Now, we’d all expect this idiotic plan to fail and Jacob to learn a lesson about something or other, but no it actually works. The cattle give birth to striped young, and Jacob is happy. What on earth is going on here? Anyone with the most basic understanding of genetics knows that this is bunk.
    - DWoodPC
      
      ; )
      meaning: the writer has a sense of humor
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Or the more likely explanation that they merely made up a story.
      - UF Gator
        
        I was kidding, but really, this must be symbolic in some way, otherwise it wouldn't be scripture… I am no biblical scholar, but I am learning.
- Paul
  
  It's not fear. It's that without the ability to go back and 'do it again', and in light of the fact that no one but God was there at the moments of creation, why should we doubt the one that was ther and responsible for it and instead believe those who don't know, keep guessing, and whose guesses have changed so muvh over time as to be mutually exclusive with other guesses they have and have had.
- Evermyrtle
  
  Not a real Christian, that would deny all of GOD'S WORD. Evolution is a type of insanity.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Insanity is denying the reality of what is around you Myrtle.
- keyboardshark
  
  Betz says: "I know evangelical Christians who believe in evolution. I'm curious to know what is at the core of this fear of scientific study."
  
  Do you mean operational science, which can be observed and tested in the present? There is certainly nothing in the Bible that would conflict with operational science, and therefore, Christians assuredly would have no reason to "fear scientific study", as you put it. In fact, most branches of modern science were founded by Bible-believing scientists.
  
  However, if you are talking about historical (origins) science, which is NOT observable nor testable, then that is a different story. Evolutionists base their theories on numerous assumptions, including dating methods that purport to show that the universe is billions of years old. However, when these dating methods are used on a sample of known age, such as those formed in the 1980 St. Helen's eruption, they have been clearly shown to be inaccurate.
  
  If we cannot trust these methods to accurately date a sample of known age, why would we trust it to accurately date a sample of unknown age? This is just one of the many problems that secular scientists face when they try to postulate a Godless origin of the universe or of life.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Independent measurements, using different and independent radiometric techniques, give consistent results (Dalrymple 2000; Lindsay 1999; Meert 2000). Such results cannot be explained either by chance or by a systematic error in decay rate assumptions.
    
    Radiometric dates are consistent with several nonradiometric dating methods. For example:
    
    The Hawaiian archipelago was formed by the Pacific ocean plate moving over a hot spot at a slow but observable rate. Radiometric dates of the islands are consistent with the order and rate of their being positioned over the hot spot (Rubin 2001).
    
    Radiometric dating is consistent with Milankovitch cycles, which depend only on astronomical factors such as precession of the earth's tilt and orbital eccentricity (Hilgen et al. 1997).
    
    Radiometric dating is consistent with the luminescence dating method (Thompson n.d.; Thorne et al. 1999).
    
    Radiometric dating gives results consistent with relative dating methods such as "deeper is older" (Lindsay 2000).
    
    The creationist claim that radiometric dates are inconsistent rest on a relatively few examples. Creationists ignore the vast majority of radiometric dates showing consistent results (e.g., Harland et al. 1990).
    http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD010.html
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Consider Carbon-14 dating
      
      Any tool will give bad results when misused. Radiocarbon dating has some known limitations. Any measurement that exceeds these limitations will probably be invalid. In particular, radiocarbon dating works to find ages as old as 50,000 years but not much older. Using it to date older items will give bad results. Samples can be contaminated with younger or older carbon, again invalidating the results. Because of excess 12C released into the atmosphere from the Industrial Revolution and excess 14C produced by atmospheric nuclear testing during the 1950s, materials less than 150 years old cannot be dated with radiocarbon (Faure 1998, 294).
      
      In their claims of errors, creationists do not consider misuse of the technique. It is not uncommon for them to misuse radiocarbon dating by attempting to date samples that are millions of years old (for example, Triassic "wood") or that have been treated with organic substances. In such cases, the errors belong to the creationists, not the carbon-14 dating method.
      
      Radiocarbon dating has been repeatedly tested, demonstrating its accuracy. It is calibrated by tree-ring data, which gives a nearly exact calendar for more than 11,000 years back. It has also been tested on items for which the age is known through historical records, such as parts of the Dead Sea scrolls and some wood from an Egyptian tomb (MNSU n.d.; Watson 2001). Multiple samples from a single object have been dated independently, yielding consistent results. Radiocarbon dating is also concordant with other dating techniques (e.g., Bard et al. 1990).
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CD/CD011.html
    - keyboardshark
      
      So the radiometric dates, which are based on assumptions, are declared to be accurate when compared to other dating methods which are also based on assumptions. Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Isochron methods do not assume that the initial parent or daughter concentrations are known. In basic radiometric dating, a parent isotope (call it P) decays to a daughter isotope (D) at a predictable rate. The age can be calculated from the ratio daughter isotope to parent isotope in a sample. However, this assumes that we know how much of the daughter isotope was in the sample initially. (It also assumes that neither isotope entered or left the sample.)
        
        With isochron dating, we also measure a different isotope of the same element as the daughter (call it D2), and we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials. Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples. Plotting P/D2 on the x axis and D/D2 on the y axis for several different samples gives a line that is initially horizontal. Over time, as P decays to D, the line remains straight, but its slope increases. The age of the sample can be calculated from the slope, and the initial concentration of the daughter element D is given by where the line meets the y axis. If D/D2 is not initially the same in all samples, the data points tend to scatter on the isochron diagram, rather than falling on a straight line.
        
        For some radiometric dating techniques, the assumed initial conditions are reasonable. For example:
        K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them. Since argon is an inert gas, it will usually be excluded from forming crystals. This assumption can be tested by looking for argon in low-potassium minerals (such as quartz), which would not contain substantial argon daughter products. 40Ar/39Ar dating and K-Ar isochron dating can also identify the presence of initial excess argon.
        The concordia method is used on minerals, mostly zircon, that reject lead as they crystalize.
        Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived. This varies somewhat, but calibration with other techniques (such as dendrochronology) allows the variations to be corrected.
        Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them.
      - keyboardshark
        
        There are assumptions built into that explanation as well.
        
        "…we take measurements of several different minerals that formed at the same time from the same pool of materials." How do we know they formed at the same time? That is an assumption.
        
        " Instead of assuming a known amount of daughter isotope, we only assume that D/D2 is initially the same in all of the samples." It's still an assumption.
        
        "For example: K-Ar (potassium-argon) dating assumes that minerals form with no argon in them." Another assumption.
        
        "Radiocarbon dating is based on the relative abundance of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when a plant or animal lived"
        It is assumed that we know the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere when it lived.
        
        "Fission-track dating assumes that newly solidified minerals will not have fission tracks in them."
        Yet another assumption.
        
        The point is, there is no direct way to measure the age of a rock unless we have a reliable written record that would establish the date. Otherwise, everything is based on one assumption or another.
    - dntmkmecomoverther
      
      But we do not know if the decay rate has been uniform since the beginning. This is an 'assumption'. Even evolutionist will admit that this is uniformitarianism…and it's highly unlikely to be true by their admission. No one can prove it one way or the other so the evolutionist uses uniformity as a 'given'…but not as proven.
      
      Example: we find absolutely HUGE specimens of vegetation buried miles below the earth's surface. Two questions must arise: 1) How did it get there. 2) Why are these specimens so incredibly large by the standards we see today?
      Answer to 1: Massive flood which uprooted and then buried them (Noahic flood account fits this evidence)
      Answer to 2: Pre flood earth was a VERY different environment; therefore, assuming uniform decay rate is irrational and improbable.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Let's say the Earth really formed in 4004 BC, making it ~6000 years old
        instead of ~4,570,000,000 years old. Now, when a nucleus decays, it
        releases energy (which is why it decays in the first place). This energy
        is converted to heat (radioactive decay is why the interior of the earth is
        hot). If we have to compress all the decays that have occurred in the
        4.57b.y. history of the earth into 6000 years, then on average, the heat
        generation rate would have been 4,57×10^9/6×10^3 = 7.6×10^5 times what it
        is today. There is simply no way that this much heat could have been lost
        from the planet in that short a time; the earth would still be largely
        molten underneath a thin solid crust….unless, of course, you change the
        fundamental physics of heat transfer, which a die-hard Biblical creationist
        would probably have no qualms about proposing, because increasing the
        decay rate requires changing the fundamental physics of the electro-weak
        interactions, strong interactions…in short, most of modern physics.
        http://skeptictank.org/files/atheist2/radiomet.ht…
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        2 questions:1) Where did the energy come from in the first place?2) All your figures which I am sure you view as quite impressive, don’t explain why the earth went through a cataclysmic alternation which changed the environment radically. As I previously stated, the fossil record and the fact that we find coal and oil in the very northern extremes of latitudes indicates a VERY different environment in the past. How do you account for that?BTW, it’s called circular reasoning to utilize assumptions of your own worldview, to support the assumptions and claims of that worldview (http://skeptictank.org/files/atheist2/radiomet.ht... )
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Why would you assume the energy has not always existed? There has never been a period where we have observed no energy in the universe. The Big Bang did not create all the energy. I was contained in the singularity.
        
        You will have to be more specific with your question. I do not follow what you consider to be the issue with the environment changing.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        1) I assume there was a time when nothing existed. Unless you can show me based on some empirical evidence that this is not the case, my presupposition is just as valid as yours. I want to know where energy came from…I want you to tell me where you believe it came from; I know you believe it exists (that’s not the question); I want you to account for it2) Ok let’s try this for specifics: In Prudhoe Bay Alaska are some of the largest crude oil reserves on earth. As the fall of 2006, there are 20 oil fields in production. As of fall of 2008 there are a total of 24 separate oil fields in production. This area is 250 miles North of the Arctic Circle. These facts are easily observable and verifiable (http://www.alaskapipelinejobinfo.com/prudhoebayoilfield.html )Given your assumption on everything decaying at the same rate, I am asking if the environment in which we live has always been the same as it is today. The evidence suggests that it is not the same; in fact our current environment appears by the evidence to be quite different. Oil found north of the Arctic Circle suggests that lush rain forests with extremely large amounts of very large vegetation existed at one time: Oil, condensate and gas are produced from the Triassic, Ivishak sandstone. This reservoir was deposited as a complex amalgamation of fan deltas and alluvial fans. The oil is trapped in the Sadlerochit formation, a gravel and sandstone structure nearly 9,000 feet (2,700m) under the surface. During the field’s early life the oilbearing sandstone in some locations was 600 feet (180m) thick. Today, the oil bearing zone's average thickness is about 60 feet (18m). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prudhoe_Bay_Oil_Fiel… Since we know that crude oil is the decay of vegetation, buried miles below the earth’s surface, I have two questions:1) How is it that lush vegetation could exist at this latitude (250 mi North of the Arctic Circle) given the uniformitarianism of evolutionary belief?2) Since it’s a given that the vegetation is the source of the crude, how did that vegetation get buried 9000 feet under the earth?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The empirical evidence shows that energy has always existed. Therefore, there would be no creation event. So, once again, why do you assume there was one?
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        Since it appear you know some scientific decay information, what is the rate of decay of the Sun? And has it always been the same?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        There have been some recent findings which seem to show that the sun can cause changes in the decay rate. It has not been confirmed that it occurring and is still being investigated. . That is what actual scientists do, they investigate the universe. Creation "Scientists" do nothing of the sort. Even if it is true, it is hardly going to change the age of the universe from 12-14 billion years to 6000 years.
      - dntmkmecomoverther
        
        I didn’t ask what Creation Scientists’ views were I ask what your position is based on the evidences. I was asking a simple question: what is the decay rate of the sun? You pontificated on something I never brought up. I simply want to know if the sun is in a progression of decay…YES or NO. and if it is, what is the rate currently, and has it always been the same. If you are so scientific, this should be a relatively easy set of questions. I am asking for answers that bear empirical evidence by the way…
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        It would seem to be in a constant state.
      - UF Gator
        
        based on what Mr Dixon? I really have no idea.
Texantothecore

The correct title for this article should be "Atheist and agnostic scientists say Christians are hoodwinked". There are many men and women of faith who are credentialed and credible "scientists" who do not accept or support the Atheist Agenda. Thank God.
JAS

History is replete with men impressed with their own intelligence, self-importance and "wisdom". They are all dead and all have learned the truth.
And God still remains, and He still rules.

When it comes to choosing between the wisdom of man and the foolishness of God, I'll take God every time.
- Chris
  
  You are wasting your time. Your god does not exist. If your god "rules" – tell him to get lost – killing thousands of innocent people, destroying the planet, vengeful and nasty. No defined test to get to heaven. Can't get people to agree on even how to write one silly book.
  
  Just a bunch of stupid nonsense.
  - aceituna
    
    Man is just reaping the consequences of his sin. Sinful men who think only of themselves have brought all this evil on this planet.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      If that is true, then your god is simply reaping the consequences of his inability to comprehend what he knew had to occur. (He is supposedly all knowing)
  - Evermyrtle
    
    I hope you can remember these insane remarks when you come face to face with GOD. Repenting must come before that day. There will be no more chances when you get that far.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      He will not remember anything after he is dead. That is part and parcel of being dead.
      - Evermyrtle
        
        You too will also, stand before GOD, face to face ashHE separates the lost sinners from HIS own people, denying it will not prevent it.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Asserting it does not make it accurate, Myrtle.
  - keyboardshark
    
    Chris says: "Your god does not exist."
    
    Then perhaps you'd care to explain where the universe came from? If it could have been done without God, surely you should be able to offer us an explanation. No, just the fact that the universe exists, and that complex life forms exist on earth, is quite compelling evidence for the existence of God.
    
    Chris also says: "… killing thousands of innocent people…"
    
    If you are referring to the flood, those people were not innocent. They were extremely wicked. It was man's fault, not God's:
    
    "5 And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually.
    
    6 And it repented the Lord that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.
    
    7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."
    Genesis 6
    
    Chris also says: "…destroying the planet…"
    
    That is a future event, and will also have occurred as a result of man's wickedness. But it will also be (and has already been) preceded by millions being saved by God's unmerited grace.
    
    "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up."
    II Peter 3:10
    
    Chris also says: "No defined test to get to heaven."
    
    Which would you prefer, written or oral? No, but seriously, there IS a defined test to get to heaven, which is to keep God's Law perfectly your entire life. Since we know this is a non-starter, because everyone sins, God in His grace and mercy sent His Son to die in our place as punishment for those sins. No one 'deserves' to go to heaven. What we DO deserve is eternal death for flagrantly violating God's Laws time and time again, but God in His mercy has offered us an escape clause.
    
    Finally, Chris says: "Can't get people to agree on even how to write one silly book. "
    
    The original Hebrew and Greek in which the Bible was written is not the problem. The problem is faulty translations where translators have taken too much liberty with the text. The ancient manuscripts themselves have proven to be very reliable, much more reliable than any ancient text by far.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Key says: "If you are referring to the flood, those people were not innocent. They were extremely wicked. It was man's fault, not God's".
      
      Yep, those wicked one week old infants certainly deserved to be drowned. Probably getting into knife fights and cussing out their parents. And let us not forget the 3-6 month old infants. By that age, they were probably roaming in groups, molesting women and knocking off the local merchants.
      
      I am certain you are correct that ALL of mankind was wicked and needed to be killed in the most terrifying way possible.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The flood story is absurd. Actually, the entire bible is absurd, but I shall focus on this one aspect. God kills all of mankind for sin. However, he allows Noah's family to survive, even thought they would have been doing the same sin. How do we know that? According to the bible ALL of mankind was corrupt. So, how is that justified? If the sin that he killed all mankind for was so terrible, then Noah's family deserved to die as well.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "If the sin that he killed all mankind for was so terrible, then Noah's family deserved to die as well."
        
        You are correct. Noah and his family deserved to die as well. In fact, every person alive today also deserves to die for our sins against God. But fortunately for Noah, and for us, God is a merciful God, and can show us unmerited grace when He so chooses to whomever He chooses:
        
        "7 And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them.
        
        8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the Lord.
        Genesis 6
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Allowing 8 people to survive out of the entire world population is not showing mercy.
      - keyboardshark
        
        I suppose you would have rather had the entire population perishing. Then we would not be here having this discussion. God is under no obligation to save anyone. He can save as few or as many as He pleases. Allowing 8 to survive sounds like mercy and grace to me.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Yes we would for the event never occurred.
      - Despeville
        
        Only according to your sinful, corrupted, banal, bromidic and vapid nitwit mind Dodo Dixon.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The inherent inbreeding of such an event would describe how we ended up with you, Humpty.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "Yep, those wicked one week old infants certainly deserved to be drowned."
        
        The Bible says: "The wicked are estranged from the womb: they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies."
        Psalm 58:3
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Which is why we can know the bible is nonsense. Do you have any children? I have two. When they were infants, they were incapable of being wicked. To claim otherwise is absurd.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Yes, I have children. Ever hear of selfishness, thinking of only our own needs? This sin can be exhibited from a very young age. But the real issue is, what is going on in the heart of an individual, rather than what do we see externally. I can sin without moving a muscle by having a sinful thought. We do not know what is going through an infant's mind because they are not yet able to tell us, but the Bible assures us that we are all born in sin:
        
        "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."
        Psalm 51:5
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I am so glad my children did not have to deal with your delusions. I also feel sorry your children did.
        
        Selfishness does not relate to a one week old infant or even a six month old infant. It might apply to the parent, but it cannot apply to the infant.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Key, it does not matter what the bible says.
        
        It is nonsense created by people. You need to snap out of your delusional mindset and start helping your children learn about reality.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Jeff says: "You need to snap out of your delusional mindset and start helping your children learn about reality."
        
        I am teaching them about reality. The reality is, they will only be alive on this planet a few short years, and then they will die. Then eternity will be stretched out before them. God commands us to teach our children His Word, and if we faithfully do so, there is a good chance that God will have mercy on them. Then, they will be able to spend eternity in heaven with the God who saved them by His grace. The alternative? Not good. That is reality.
      - keyboardshark
        
        That is your opinion, but the Bible does not agree with that opinion.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You are right. The bible does not agree with me. The world also does not agree with the bible. Otherwise, we would be killing non-virgins on the their wedding night and killing false prophets.
      - Despeville
        
        Sure jejune joke of a mind.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        More inane comments from the inbreed moron.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Why are YOU not killing non-virgins on their wedding night? The bible says to do that very thing. And you just stated you believe the bible.
      - Despeville
        
        Dixon you are a raving moron meager shallow cliches gnawing on your fatuous and drivel mind.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        What glass of Canard are you on now, Humpty?
      - Despeville
        
        Dodo I am actually having a glass of cold pilsner. It is a hot night here in BVI.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        What a shock. You are having a beverage with alcohol.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Sin never agrees with the Bible.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The bible never agrees with anything that people actually do in their day to day lives.
      - keyboardshark
        
        If you mean the ways of the world as opposed to the ways of God you are correct. The world hates Jesus and His followers because sinful mankind does not want anyone exposing or interfering with their sinful lives.
        
        "18 If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
        
        19 If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
        
        20 Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
        
        21 But all these things will they do unto you for my name's sake, because they know not him that sent me.
        
        22 If I had not come and spoken unto them, they had not had sin: but now they have no cloak for their sin.
        
        23 He that hateth me hateth my Father also.
        
        24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.
        
        25 But this cometh to pass, that the word might be fulfilled that is written in their law, They hated me without a cause."
        John 15
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        People do not hate Jesus. People disagree that Jesus was god. Disagreeing is not the same as hatred.
      - keyboardshark
        
        People most certainly do hate Jesus, now and in the past. The scribes and Pharisees of Jesus day hated Him so much that they became incensed and plotted against Him because He healed a man on the Sabbath:
        
        "6 And it came to pass also on another sabbath, that he entered into the synagogue and taught: and there was a man whose right hand was withered.
        
        7 And the scribes and Pharisees watched him, whether he would heal on the sabbath day; that they might find an accusation against him.
        
        8 But he knew their thoughts, and said to the man which had the withered hand, Rise up, and stand forth in the midst. And he arose and stood forth.
        
        9 Then said Jesus unto them, I will ask you one thing; Is it lawful on the sabbath days to do good, or to do evil? to save life, or to destroy it?
        
        10 And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, Stretch forth thy hand. And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.
        
        11 And they were filled with madness; and communed one with another what they might do to Jesus."
        
        Luke 6
        
        Since Jesus Himself is no longer physically present on earth, the hatred is now directed against His followers. It goes far beyond a simple disagreement.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        No it does not. People argue with Christians because they do not believe that Jesus was a god or that he even existed. It is the persecution mindset of Christians who see hatred.
        
        I am not saying that some people do not hate, but it is not the primary issue.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Except that people do not usually kill someone with whom they disagree. Christians are getting murdered simply because of their beliefs, mainly by Muslims, so I would certainly call that blind hatred. If it were a simple disagreement, then the opponents of Christianity would not become incensed by a discussion of its doctrines and would not resort to violence to silence the message of Christ.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Some Muslims are killing Christians, but some Christians also kill people who disagree with them. It is not just Christians who are persecuted in this world.
        
        The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), a rebel group operating in Tripura, North-East India, has been described as engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs.[13] It is classified by the National Memorial Institute for the Prevention of Terrorism as one of the ten most active terrorist groups in the world, and has been accused of forcefully converting people to Christianity.[14][15] The insurgency in Nagaland was originally led by the National Socialist Council of Nagaland (NSCN), and it is continued today by a faction named "NSCN–Isaac Muivah", which explicitly calls for a "Nagalim for Christ".[16] The state government reports that the Baptist Church of Tripura supplies arms and gives financial support to the NLFT.[14][15][17]
        
        The Lord's Resistance Army, a cult guerrilla army engaged in an armed rebellion against the Ugandan government, has been accused of using child soldiers and committing numerous crimes against humanity; including massacres, abductions, mutilation, torture, rape, and forced child labour as soldiers, porters, and sex slaves.[49] A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[50][51] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the "Holy Spirit" which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations.[page needed][52][52][53][54] LRA fighters wear rosary beads and recite passages from the Bible before battle.
        
        During the twentieth century, members of extremist groups such as the Army of God began executing attacks against abortion clinics and doctors across the United States.[64][65][66] A number of terrorist attacks were attributed to individuals and groups with ties to the Christian Identity and Christian Patriot movements, including the Lambs of Christ.[67] A group called Concerned Christians were deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999, believing that their deaths would "lead them to heaven."
        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism
      - keyboardshark
        
        "If you had any doubt about the ultimate goal of Islam, I pray this lays those doubts to rest. According to a leading Muslim cleric, their goal is to wipe Christianity off the face of the earth.
        
        The Global Islamic Civilization: The Power of a Nation Revived is a 23 page declaration recently produced by Sheik Farook al-Mohammedi of the United Muslim Nations International. The booklet spells out their goal to Islamize western civilization and set up the Islamic Caliphate as the global religion and government.
        
        Al-Mohammedi states in his booklet and other statements:
        
        “Christianity should be destroyed and wiped from the face of the earth. It is an evil demonic and Anti-Christ system, all Christians are in complete Ignorance.”
        
        “Islamic Power has returned upon the face of the earth and the Revived Global Caliphate has set eyes on the West to once and for all rid the world of Christianity and there is nothing you can do about it. I have pledged and made a firm promise to the Caliphate of the United Muslim Nations International organization that I will do my utmost to Islamize all of the West within a short period of time…”
        
        “Firstly we will deal with the matter of the Global Islamic Civilization, its honored status, the unrivaled Universal Brotherhood and Sisterhood of the Muslim Ummah. Islam the only true religion enjoins upon mankind Total Submission to the will of Allah, which means that you are to live a life that is Totally Devoted to the Almighty Allah by serving Him in the manner which He has prescribed for us through the example of the Holy Prophet Mohammed Sallallahu ‘Alaihi Wasallam…”
        
        “Today as I breathe the air of our newly found Islamic State of America before my trip this week to Eurabia I leave behind me an Internationalist Islamic Ideology which will be the future of America and Europe Inshallah.”
        
        “None will resist, you will submit! Islam will conquer the hearts of all christiandom, this is a definite reality. Every government has surrendered to the Revived Global Caliphate and those nations who resist will be placed under a police state within their realm.”
        
        The Islamization of America is well on its way with them taking over whole towns like Dearborn, Michigan. It’s influencing public schools and judicial rulings.
        
        Islam is not a religion of peace as they so often claim. Rather it is a religion of absolute power and domination based upon a false prophet and a confused belief in God. It reminds me of Matthew 7:15-16a which quotes Jesus Christ as saying:
        “Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits.”
        
        Like ravenous wolves, they will devour Christians and America if we let them. Christians across this nation need to stand up and fight for their Christian faith and for our country before it’s too late.
        
        We need to stop them from getting elected to public office by voting for Christian leaders as we were instructed to do by John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who said:
        “Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”
        
        <a href="http://godfatherpolitics.com/6068/islam-religion-of-peace-wants-to-wipe-christianity-from-face-of-the-earth/#ixzz20kTMs1ij" target="_blank">http://godfatherpolitics.com/6068/islam-religion-of-peace-wants-to-wipe-christianity-from-face-of-the-earth/#ixzz20kTMs1ij
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        So, you show that Muslims want to kill people. I have never said differently.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Just trying to counter your anti-Christian propaganda whereby you offer examples of quasi-Christian fringe groups using violence that are obviously not representative of Christians in general, and whom I can be certain are not born-again believers.
        
        You then use these examples to 'prove' that Christians are violent when it is nothing more than a bait-and-switch, apples-to-oranges comparison. I am showing that you have Christians confused with Muslims, who are the real perpetrators of violence, usually against Christians.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You claim they are quasi-Christian fringe groups, but you have nothing to support that. Christians have been killing others for centuries.
      - keyboardshark
        
        No, it was your source that called them quasi-Christian:
        
        "A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs with its own brand of spiritualism,[50][51] it is led by Joseph Kony, who proclaims himself the spokesperson of God and a spirit medium, primarily of the "Holy Spirit" which the Acholi believe can represent itself in many manifestations."
        
        The descriptions of the other groups clearly indicates they do not represent orthodox Christianity, but rather are fringe groups that claim a loose connection to Christ.
        
        Plus the description of the first group only appears to be an opinion, not a declaration by the group itself:
        "The National Liberation Front of Tripura (NLFT), a rebel group operating in Tripura, North-East India, has been described as engaging in terrorist violence motivated by their Christian beliefs."
        
        "Has been described as"? By whom?
        
        The group mentioned in the last paragraph is specifically identified as "an extremist group", so it would certainly not qualify as an orthodox Christian organization either:
        
        "During the twentieth century, members of extremist groups such as the Army of God began executing attacks against abortion clinics and doctors across the United States."
        
        And the last group was only supposedly "suspected" of "planning" attacks. That is pretty flimsy evidence to prove they are violent.
        
        "A group called Concerned Christians were deported from Israel on suspicion of planning to attack holy sites in Jerusalem at the end of 1999, believing that their deaths would "lead them to heaven.""
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        keyboardshark96p · 10 hours ago
        Just trying to counter your anti-Christian propaganda whereby you offer examples of quasi-Christian fringe—
        
        You are calling them quasi-Christian right here.
        
        What I posted called one of the groups "A quasi-religious movement" It did not refer to all or any of them as quasi-Christian.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Now you are simply arguing semantics. There is very little difference between "A quasi-religious movement that mixes some aspects of Christian beliefs" and just "quasi-Christian". And if your argument is simply that they are "quasi-religious" instead of "quasi-Christian", then why did you use them as an example of 'Christian violence'? You are grasping at straws, my friend.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Nonsense. First, as I already pointed out, my information did not call all the groups either quasi-religious or quasi-Christian. It only used quasi-religious to describe one group. So, for you to then call ALL the groups quasi-Christian means YOU are the one using the term to describe them, which is what I stated.
        
        Second, a quasi-religious group is not the same as a quasi-Christian group. One mixes religion with its politics. The other only uses or believes parts of Christianity.
      - keyboardshark
        
        However, none of what you have been saying proves your phantom premise that Christians are violent in general. Atheist regimes, like Nazi Germany and the USSR, have been responsible for millions of deaths of their citizens, so it appears you are merely trying to deflect criticism of those inescapable facts by creating the diversion that claims it is actually Christians that are violent and murderous. Sorry, I'm not buying it.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Nazi Germany was a Christian society.
        
        The Communists killed many, but none in the name of Atheism.
        
        It is also a nice try at diversion since you cannot support your comments about quasi-Christian.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Nazi Germany was atheist. Hitler only claimed to be a Roman Catholic (or Christian at other times) for political gain. Communism is most definitely an atheistic philosophy.
        
        I do not need to defend nor refute the 'quasi" remark because it was your source that used the terminology. Not sure why you are making it such an issue. Your original premise that Christians are generally violent is not supported in either case.
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        The Christian community has been killing people for over a thousand years. It is just in the past 200 years that they have tempered themselves.
      - http://www.answersingenesis.org/ keyboardshark
        
        You are confusing Roman Catholics with Christians. What you should have said is that it is just in the past 200 years that the RCC has tempered themselves. Christians have never had a history of violence, other than a history of being the victims of violence because of their beliefs. And the violence and persecution against Christians continues to this very day.
        
        If you want to talk about a history of violence, look no further than Muslims and national governments run by atheistic dictators.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
  
  JAS says: "History is replete with men impressed with their own intelligence, self-importance and "wisdom".
  
  And far too many of them wrote the bible verses.
  - UF Gator
    
    excellent point
    still not evidence for the non-existence of God
God Loving Patriot

Jim you are correct in your assertion. Would not want to be one of these so called scientist that when standing before Christ they hear "depart from me I never knew you." As to hoodwinking, these people are hoodwinking themselves with their nonsensical thinking. The truth of God the Father is absolute truth, that can not be refuted or debunked in any manner.(These so called scientist have been trying for thousands of years to do so and to this day have failed to do so) Faith in Jesus Christ really is all any person has, as he (Jesus) will stick by one closer than a brother. The Bible tells all that God is not capable of lying or deceiving anyone, unlike those that call themselves brilliant minded scientist. Again God's truth is absolute truth whether one chooses to believe that truth or not. Just because one chooses not to believe the truth of God the Father does not make his (God) truth any less true. God holds all the keys and if not for God the Father these so called brilliant minded scientist would not have their so called brilliant minds.
- Chris
  
  how can you possibly "Stand before Christ" – what a totally ludicrous idea. All the contents of your brain are gone and you are flat dead- YOU CANNOT STAND. You people are so childish in your thoughts.
  
  You cannot write down what it takes to get to your magic heaven. If you cannot write it down then it is a worthless goal,
  - Evermyrtle
    
    When you stand before HIM I sincerely hope you can remember your anti-GOD, anti-JESUS CHRIST remarks. HE will be separating HIS people from the ones who didn't want anything to do with HIM That will be too late to change your mind.
http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

Sometime ago, a professor of physics told me that belief in God is the utmost exercise in futility, as no one can prove the existence of a one Supreme Being. My answer was, "no one can prove the non-existence either, not even science." He replied: "One day, if there is to be a god, that god will be science." He went on to say: "that study of the sciences will be able to prove and or disprove any believer's claim." He continued to pelt me with scientific facts: "Science has discovered the molecule, the atom and even the quark." He then asked: " What I thought about those discoveries?" My answer was simple and to the point: "But, professor can science create a quark, an atom or even a molecule from nothing?" He gave me a blank stare, turned and walked away. It is my conclusion, and perhaps only mine: When a scientist can come to me and show that he has created a living being, or even a single cell of any living thing, out of nothingness, then perhaps he will get my attention.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  You have no way of knowing that a god did that either. You merely want to believe that it occurred that way. .
  - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman
    
    You have no way of knowing that God didn't do it. You merely believe he didn't…ironic, isn't it?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Which is why we investigate the issue. Every year science peels back more of the mysteries of the universe. What was claimed to be acts of god for centuries have been determined to be natural events.
- Mistertea
  
  He gave you a blank stare and turned away because you are insane.
  - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman
    
    Good come back! I wouldn't expect anything more from someone of your obvious imbecilic calibre. Please keep up the good work Mistertea, your asinine is showing through.
http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman

I will not entertain the thought that "cloning" a cell, or an animal is even remotely akin to the creation of "life".
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  No one is saying that it is, Watchman.
  - http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman
    
    Very well then, you are in agreement with me?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      I agree that cloning is not the same as creating new life.
gary

I keep wondering why non Chnristians are afraid of Christianity. They aren't afraid of the other religions. Scienctist hasn't proved anything. Science is a theory on how man arrived on this planet. If man did evolve how the can they explain where the different types of trees and other animals came from. God is the creator and they are afraid to except that fact.
- Paul
  
  Right! They have to "make their own dirt" before they can claim that they have, like God, "created life from the earth (and the earth brought forth)"
- Chris
  
  Proof yet again that Christians are clueless about biology. We are not AFRAID of Christianity we just don't want your stupidity and lack of knowledge to be used to write ridiculous rules for the rest of us. If you don't like gays – don't become one. If you don't like conventional medicine – don't use it.
  
  "Science hasn't proved anything". Well we really are an ignorant wacko aren't we. Where have you proved ANYTHING about your god.?
  - Evermyrtle
    
    Ignorance and non-acceptance of our SAVIOR means "LOST"
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      A refusal to accept reality is what makes so many Christians lost to delusion.
    - UF Gator
      
      Evermyrtle, the Lord gave us intelligence to utilize it to the absolute maximum OR as best we can. That is a lot of work because that means we are stewards of His creation. That means we have to find out a lot of truths about our world He gave us and not just make up things about global warming, carbon footprints, human degradation by tyrants, etc etc, The Lord expects us to do more than pray, He expects us to Feed His sheep, visit the sick, teach others about life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, (He did inspire the Founders of our country), etc etc Please see this website cornwallalliance.org and sign the petition
  - UF Gator
    
    Here you go Chris:
    http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  It is a mystery why non Christians are afraid of Christians.
  
  "1000 Years of Carnage & Barbarity in the name of Christ " http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/1000years.htm
  
  Imagine a world run by the "Taliban" for a thousand years. Imagine every civic amenity, every theatre, every stadium and every leisure centre either destroyed or consecrated to God.
  
  Imagine women confined to domestic slavery, imagine unbelievers tortured to death, imagine education and science dismissed as an irrelevance and the only approved learning study of the Holy Book.
  
  Imagine the only cure for sickness is prayer and imagine men dying in almost continuous Holy War.
  
  Stop imagining. You are thinking of Christian Europe. It's not a dream. It's history. http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/lost-world1.html
  - aceituna
    
    Perfect description of the Muslim religion which is from the devil.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      It does describe the Muslims of today. It is also a description of Christians in the past.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        No, it describes a bunch of immature, self-important egotists who wrapped their poor behavior in the cloak of Christianity. You won't find such behavior confirmed and approved in the Bible.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Really?
        
        This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)
        
        Cursed be he who does the Lords work remissly, cursed he who holds back his sword from blood. (Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
        
        But the territory of the Danites was too small for them; so the Danites marched up and attacked Leshem, which they captured and put to the sword. Once they had taken possession of Lesham, they renamed the settlement after their ancestor Dan. (Joshua 19:47 NAB)
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)
        
        My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out. (Exodus 23:23 NAB)
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Here your god kills an extended family just because:
        
        "You have done more evil than all who lived before you. You have made other gods and have made me furious with your gold calves. And since you have turned your back on me, I will bring disaster on your dynasty and kill all your sons, slave or free alike. I will burn up your royal dynasty as one burns up trash until it is all gone. I, the LORD, vow that the members of your family who die in the city will be eaten by dogs, and those who die in the field will be eaten by vultures.'" Then Ahijah said to Jeroboam's wife, "Go on home, and when you enter the city, the child will die. All Israel will mourn for him and bury him. He is the only member of your family who will have a proper burial, for this child is the only good thing that the LORD, the God of Israel, sees in the entire family of Jeroboam. And the LORD will raise up a king over Israel who will destroy the family of Jeroboam. This will happen today, even now! Then the LORD will shake Israel like a reed whipped about in a stream. He will uproot the people of Israel from this good land that he gave their ancestors and will scatter them beyond the Euphrates River, for they have angered the LORD by worshiping Asherah poles. He will abandon Israel because Jeroboam sinned and made all of Israel sin along with him." (1 Kings 14:9-16 NLT)
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        While the Israelites were camped at Acacia, some of the men defiled themselves by sleeping with the local Moabite women. These women invited them to attend sacrifices to their gods, and soon the Israelites were feasting with them and worshiping the gods of Moab. Before long Israel was joining in the worship of Baal of Peor, causing the LORD's anger to blaze against his people. The LORD issued the following command to Moses: "Seize all the ringleaders and execute them before the LORD in broad daylight, so his fierce anger will turn away from the people of Israel." So Moses ordered Israel's judges to execute everyone who had joined in worshiping Baal of Peor. Just then one of the Israelite men brought a Midianite woman into the camp, right before the eyes of Moses and all the people, as they were weeping at the entrance of the Tabernacle. When Phinehas son of Eleazar and grandson of Aaron the priest saw this, he jumped up and left the assembly. Then he took a spear and rushed after the man into his tent. Phinehas thrust the spear all the way through the man's body and into the woman's stomach. So the plague against the Israelites was stopped, but not before 24,000 people had died. (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I'm sure you are trying very hard to make a point, honestly, I am. But all you've shown so far is that God has laws that He expects His people to obey. When they fail in their obedience, or stand in the way of His people, they are punished.
        
        "Imagine women confined to domestic slavery, imagine unbelievers tortured to death, imagine education and science dismissed as an irrelevance and the only approved learning study of the Holy Book. "
        
        You've given no examples of women "confined to domestic slavery", anyone being "tortured to death" or anything even hinting at a dismissal of science and/or education.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        You truly are going thru life with your eyes closed.
      - Despeville
        
        HAhahahahah nothing beats that diagnosis from a purblind, unsighted, mum moron like you Dodo Dixon.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Humprty, I will give you credit for being able to butcher English like nobody else.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        You are naturally entitled to your opinion, Jeff. As I am sure you will agree, I am also entitled to mine.
        
        My opinion of your viewpoint, not as sarcastically offensive as yours, is that you have some sort of bitterness and resentment towards religion that you either do not wish to discuss, or of which you are simply unaware.
        
        You spend a great deal of effort to belittle and combat something that you claim means nothing to you. Your anger and hostility drips from every post, and your insulting demeanor speaks volumes.
        
        Anyway, you seem to me to be dedicated ignoring that which is all around you, the handiwork of a Creator.
        
        It's as if you came home, found a name painted on your door, and marveled at how the paint molecules had randomly formed into some new color, and arranged themselves into letters, coincidentally spelling out a name.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Chemistry is not random.
      - DWoodPC
        
        True, Jeff… the chemistry of those molecules are not random, but Petros could have just as well said
        " … marveled at how the paint molecules had formed into some new color…"
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        But once again, inert substances do not change.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Out of all that, you address a single word? Okay, assume the word "random" stricken from the post, as DWoodPC stated.
        
        "It's as if you came home, found a name painted on your door, and marveled at how the paint molecules had formed into some new color, and arranged themselves into letters, coincidentally spelling out a name. "
        
        Also, I agree that chemistry is not random, but MUST follow laws, which state that forming into the requisite building blocks of life, let alone life itself, is, for all practical purposes, mathematically impossible.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It was the key word.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Paint is inert. It does not have the capacity to change.
        
        Chemical reactions have been shown to form new molecules and change existing ones. You are trying to argue apples and oranges.
        
        It is not mathematically impossible.
        
        The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule formed by chance. However, biochemistry is not chance, making the calculated odds meaningless. Biochemistry produces complex products, and the products themselves interact in complex ways. For example, complex organic molecules are observed to form in the conditions that exist in space, and it is possible that they played a role in the formation of the first life (Spotts 2001).
        
        The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form. However, there are innumerable possible proteins that promote biological activity. Any calculation of odds must take into account all possible molecules (not just proteins) that might function to promote life.
        
        The calculation of odds assumes the creation of life in its present form. The first life would have been very much simpler.
        
        The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously.
        http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB010.html
      - petroskhan1262
        
        "The calculation of odds assumes that the protein molecule must take one certain form."
        
        No, the calculations for the odds I quoted some time ago were for a single protein to form, given the presence of the requisite building blocks. The flaw in your argument is that if factor in ALL the proteins required, the chances decrease, not increase. The more factors (proteins) you try to account for, the larger the number gets, and the less likely things become.
        
        "The first life would have been very much simpler. "
        
        Yet it would still require the same building blocks, and the odds would be the same.
        
        "The calculation of odds ignores the fact that innumerable trials would have been occurring simultaneously."
        
        Of course they ignore this fact. The odds are being calculated to indicate how likely something is to occur. Even if you attempt to state that in a million different part of the earth, "trials" were going on at the same time, the odds are not appreciably affected.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Once again, you assume that the protein must be assembled in one way only. That is not a valid assumption.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        You seem to be either missing what I am repeating, or deliberately attempting to change the topic, I'm not sure which.
        
        Once again, I am not assuming it must be one way, the odds are for the calculation of it happening in one way, for a single protein, out of the hundreds required. If you want the odds for ALL of the proteins needed, just say so, and I will give you the rather astronomical figures.
        
        But, as stated, the odds are for the formation of a single protein. Not for "one way only", but just for ONE to form.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Then your source is misinformed about the topic.
      - DWoodPC
        
        lol
      - aceituna
        
        Muslims haven't changed their plan to force the Muslim religion on everyone ( or they die). In the past Christians defended themselves against this false religion, but their defense has been exaggerated and lies abound about them. It just goes to show that we have a continuing battle against this terrible religion.
  - Esteban Cafe
    
    Sir, recall that the proliferation of 20th Century death that has been visited upon mankind by confirmed atheists such as Pol Pot, Mao, Stalin, etc. This was not a dream. It's history.
    
    Some suggest that Science will go through its own Reformation and another Enlightenment? The history of Eugenics, for example, stemming directly from Darwin and Malthus, argues against such, but we can hope. Think for a moment of all the 'cooked' data currently driving the overarching and under girding costs of saving "Gaia", Science's ultimate Goddess. An example? Sure: the Global Winter, uh, Warming scandals. So which is it—today?
    
    False ideas have informed the actions of many Atheists through time…and continues to argue against chance of man bettering himself through his own ideas. Still, there might be hope. The greatest three words Science ever muttered have been stifled and replaced with arrogance; they are: "I. Don't. Know." THIS underlies the Faith on both sides and guides us all in our search for Truth. Best that Science returns to their former mantra. And in doing so, some respect may be tendered to those who also operate on faith. I enjoy our conversations, Jeff.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      They did not kill anyone in the name of Atheism. They killed in the name of their state totalitarianism.
      
      It is the religious zealots who kill in the name of their belief system.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        "They killed in the name of their state totalitarianism."
        
        Which was founded in part on a denial of God.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It was not founded on that anymore than it was founded on math being accurate.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I'm afraid you're going to have prove that one.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        They did not kill people in the name of Atheism. You cannot show anything that states they did kill because they were atheists. It is not my issue to prove. It is yours.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I wasn't saying they killed in the name of atheism. I stated that killing was done, and part of the foundation of the state totalitarianism was a denial of God. You replied that it was not, and I asked for you to prove that it wasn't.
        
        Stick to the issue, it will progress better that way.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You and I were arguing different issues. I do agree they founded their state on a belief that there was no god. My mistake in reading what you had posted. I was arguing that they did not kill anyone in the name of Atheism.
  - keyboardshark
    
    jeff says: "Stop imagining. You are thinking of Christian Europe."
    
    No, you are thinking of Roman Catholicism, which is not Christian, and has indeed had a bloody history, particularly in persecuting the true Christians who dared to stand up to the RCC on the principle of Sola scriptura. This infuriated Rome, who had added hundreds of doctrines not found in the Bible in an effort to gain a monopoly and financial gain. The last thing they wanted was for the populace to possess and understand the Bible.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      The RCC does have a bloody past, but the Protestant Churches do as well.
      
      In Switzerland, John Calvin created a vicious theocracy in which morality police were employed to control people's behavior. Citizens were harshly punished for a wide variety of moral infractions, including dancing, drinking, and generally being entertained. Theological dissidents were summarily executed, like Michael Servetus who was burned for doubting the Trinity. It isn't surprising that some of the nastiest Christians in America today, like Christian Reconstructionists, are unabashed Calvinists. (Hmmm, can we say Humpty?)
      
      During the many Huguenot wars ravaging France, Huguenot soldiers hunted priests like animals and one captain is reported to have worn a necklace of priests' ears. In England, after King Henry VIII created the Anglican Church, he went after both Catholics and Protestants. Catholic loyalists like Sir Thomas More were quickly executed, but Lutherans who doubted retained doctrines like transubstantiation were also not spared.
      
      And let us not forget witch burning. The Protestants were more than happy to light the fire and burn witches (mostly women) in great numbers.
      - keyboardshark
        
        Of course you can always find isolated cases of Christians behaving poorly. No one is saying all Christians are perfect. Nor can we know with any certainty that a person who claims to be a Christian actually is a born-again Christian.
        
        In the case of Calvin, I would hardly place punishment for moral infractions on the same level as mass murder by Muslims, but obviously it was wrong to put a dissident to death. However, it was Catholic authorities who sentenced him in absentia to death by slow burning.[54] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Calvin
        
        I'm not sure I understand your claim that "some of the nastiest Christians in America today, like Christian Reconstructionists, are unabashed Calvinists." First, what do you mean by "nasty"? That's a pretty subjective word.
        
        And secondly, it seems like you are stereotyping all members of a group that adhere to Calvin's understanding of salvation and other doctrines when there is nothing I know of in those doctrines that would foment hatred. For example, In Calvin's view, sin began with the fall of Adam and propagated to all of humanity. The domination of sin is complete to the point that people are driven to evil. I would concur that the Bible does indeed teach that, and I cannot see how belief in that doctrine would foment hatred.
        
        Plus I doubt that there is a large group that agrees with every single position Calvin held on the Scriptures. There is probably at least one doctrinal understanding of Calvin's that virtually any Christian would agree with. But all of this just goes to show that Christians should trust what the Bible says rather than what one man's interpretation says it means.
        
        As for the Huguenots, it is not as one-sided as you portray.
        "As the Huguenots gained influence and displayed their faith more openly, Roman Catholic hostility to them grew, even though the French crown offered increasingly liberal political concessions and edicts of toleration. Following the accidental death of Henry II in 1559, his son succeeded as King Francis II along with his wife, the Queen Consort also known as Mary Queen of Scots. During the eighteen months of the reign of Francis II, Mary encouraged a policy of rounding up French Huguenots on charges of heresy, in front of Catholic judges, and employing torture and burning as punishments for dissenters. Mary returned to Scotland a widow, in the summer of 1561.[19]
        
        In 1561, the Edict of Orléans declared an end to the persecution, and the Edict of Saint-Germain of January 1562 formally recognized the Huguenots for the first time. However, these measures disguised the growing tensions between Protestants and Catholics.
        
        These tensions spurred eight civil wars, interrupted by periods of relative calm, between 1562 and 1598. With each break in peace, the Huguenots' trust in the Catholic throne diminished, and the violence became more severe, and Protestant demands became grander, until a lasting cessation of open hostility finally occurred in 1598.
        
        The French Wars of Religion began with a massacre at Wassy on 1 March 1562, when dozens[4] (some sources say hundreds[20]) of Huguenots were killed, and about 200 were wounded.
        
        In what became known as the St. Bartholomew's Day Massacre of 24 August – 3 October 1572, Catholics killed thousands of Huguenots in Paris. Similar massacres took place in other towns in the weeks following. The main provincial towns and cities experiencing the Massacre were Aix, Bordeaux, Bourges, Lyon, Meaux, Orleans, Rouen, Toulouse, and Troyes.[21] Nearly 3,000 Protestants were slaughtered in Toulouse alone.[22] The exact number of fatalities throughout the country is not known.
        
        On the 23–24 August, between about 2,000[23] and 3,000[24][25] Protestants were killed in Paris and between 3,000[26] and 7,000 more[27] in the French provinces. By 17 September, almost 25,000 Protestants had been massacred in Paris alone.[28][29] Outside of Paris, the killings continued until the 3 October.[28] An amnesty granted in 1573 pardoned the perpetrators." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huguenot
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        It is not that there are isolated cases of Protestant Christians behaving badly. It was something that happened repeatedly.
        
        So, the terrible Catholics were to blame for killing Michael Servetus even thou Calvin had him arrested and Protestants stated he was a heretic? ? That is pretty amusing.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Since he apparently wants to keep score, ask Jeff for a number of people killed by those he would call Christians. Of course, the number of people killed by actual Christians would be zero, but give him some leeway, and limit it to those who were demonstrably Christian in their lives. Then ask him how many have been killed by atheists. That should add some entertainment value to the conversation.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Based on your views of what a true Christian is, why would there be any people that were killed by Christians?
        
        Who kills more people, Atheists or Theists?
        
        What an absolutely depressing question. In a world where most everyone agrees it would be a better place if people stopped killing other people, we are debating who kills more often.
        
        However, since the point gets brought up often that evil communists, i.e. atheists, are responsible for killing hundreds of millions of people in the 20th Century, I wanted to look into that figure.
        Here is a breakdown from one source. The author calculates that 262 million were killed in the 20th Century.
        Of that figure, here is the breakdown of the 262 million killed. As you can note, it is not just the communists that killed people, it is also theist groups that added to the carnage. Now I maintain that communists did not kill people in the name of atheistism. They accepted atheistism, there is no doubt of that. However, they also accepted math. I am sure no one believes they killed in the name of math. They also did not kill in the name of atheism. Communists killed in the name of their state totalitarianism. Any government that takes total control of a society is bad. That is true whether it is atheists or theists who take control. But why would theist governments also kill people if they are so morally superior?
        
        The Deka-Megamurderers … 219.634 million:
        
        China (PRC) 1949-87 …. 76.702 million
        U.S.S.R. 1917-87 …….. 61.911 million
        Colonialism ………….. 50.000 million
        Germany 1933-45 ……. 20.946 million (including 5.291 million Jews)
        China (KMT) 1928-49 … 10.075 million
        
        The Megamurderers …. 19.180 million
        Japan 1936-45 ………… 5.964 million
        China (Mao Soviets) 1923-48 … 3.468 million
        Cambodia 1975-79 …….. 2.035 million
        Turkey 1909-18 ……….. 1.883 million
        Vietnam 1945-87 ………. 1.647 million
        Poland 1945-48 ……….. 1.585 million
        Pakistan 1958-87 ……… 1.503 million
        Yugoslavia (Tito) 1944-87 … 1.072 million
        Fatal regimes. Add the mega-massacres with the other genocides, purges and mass killings, and Rummel comes up with a 20th century death toll by abusive governments of 262 million.
        http://frankwarner.typepad.com/free_frank_warner/…
        
        However, the question that gets glossed over by Christians is simple. They believe that communists killed people because they do not believe in god. Why, then, did theists (Christians) kill people in mass numbers as well? I am sure someone will say, they were not real Christians. That is simply a dodge. If a belief in Jesus changes someone, then we should rarely see Christians kill people. And that is just not the case.
        
        And since it is only in the 20th Century that there have been countries with atheist governments, then all the killing that has been happening for the past 5,000 years has been the responsibility of theist governments. How many people were killed before the 20th Century? Since there were not any groups keeping specific numbers, we shall never really know. (But we all know it is alot.)
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Let's make this simple.
        
        What's a Christian?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        That s hardly a simple question. People have been arguing over this issue and killing each other over this issue for centuries.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I agree. Let me clarify my question. For the purposes of this, and any future discussion, there needs to be a clear definition. I would propose that the definition be limited to any person (or organization, if need be) that has proclaimed a belief in the Bible, and acted as close as humanly possible to the dictates of Scripture, never in direct opposition to clear dictates of Scripture.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        But it still begs the question of whether that is the best definition. In addition, and what I think fuels so much of the fighting is what the scriptures actually mean.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I've proposed a definition for a Christian which I feel is workable and accurate. If you have a different definition, I'm willing to entertain it. As for what the Scriptures mean, I would be of the opinion that they mean what they say. But that is a slightly different, and separate, topic. The definition of a Christian is much simpler.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I will accept your view for the basis of moving forward. I still maintain it is not as black and white as you want to believe or present it as.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Understood. But I would just like to say that it IS black and white, and far easier than you might think. To start with an extreme example, I don't think anyone would state that, say…Pol Pot was a Christian. He never claimed to be, and massacred millions. Then we have others, for example, any of a plethora of Mafiosi throughout many decades, giving money to churches, attending mass on Sundays, etc, all the while running drugs, prostitution and ordering people killed. This is obviously not the behavior of one who is attempting to follow the teachings of Christ. Claiming to believe something for the sake of appearances, and actually practicing that in life are two very different things.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You offer extreme examples of people who claim to be Christian. How about JW, or the Amish, or Catholics or even Protestants? I can provide examples of groups who claim any of those groups are not Christian. I know you would disagree but what makes your opinion better than the others?
      - petroskhan1262
        
        I will grant that they might seem to be extreme examples, but then, according to the Bible, so are the ones you gave.
        
        JW's hold many un-Biblical viewpoints, which either cannot be confirmed by Scripture, or directly contradict Scripture. This is information easily gleaned from a multitude of websites.
        
        The Amish in general (I don't know a lot about them, so I am referencing only what I know), are devout, but they stray as well from the path laid out in the Bible. Worship on Sunday, celebrating christmas and easter, and other un-Biblical practices detract from the otherwise devout position they proclaim.
        
        Catholics? Don't even get me started. They are so far from being Christian even an atheist such as yourself must laugh at their claims to Biblical devotion.
        
        Protestants? They say they "protest" catholicism, yet follow in their footsteps a bit too close to honestly claim any status too far removed from the catholic church.
        
        And as to your question, "…what makes your opinion better than the others?", the answer is simple. I have no opinion. I read and study the Bible, and simply compare the actions of those claiming to be Christian (including myself, yes) to what is written therein. Opinions are a dangerous thing, especially on something as important as religion. It means you are operating in the absence of information, and are now judging religious matters on your own, not basing them on the tenets of your faith. While thinking for yourself is generally a good thing, and thinking outside the box is commendable in the right circumstances, I am sure even you would agree that if you are claiming to follow a book, you either follow it (as best you can), or you're a liar. I don't see a middle ground.
  - DWoodPC
    
    Excellent Mr. Dixon
victorbarney

Just wanted to add that HEBREW, NOT EVEN GREEK, is the ONLY SPIRITUALLY INSPIRED LANGUAGE(Zeph. 3:9, Acts 26:14, 2 Cor. 4:6). Also, "Jesus" invented in like 1326AD by Roman Catholic Church Philiosopher, Petrus Galatinus, was asked by Pope Leo the 10 to CHANGE the JEWISH SAVIOR'S NAME INTO A NAME THAT HONORED "ZEUS," because it always was the CUSTOM of "ROME"(Roman Empire) to GIVE HONOR to the HIGHEST DIETY of the nations that they had conguered, the last being Greece, who worshipped "Zeus" as their HIGHEST DIETY! That is FORBIDDEN BY THE 3rd COMMANDMENT by the way! Our SAVIOR, YAHSHUA, meaning in Hebrew, that "Yahweh(YHWH) means salvation!" is coming back to Yerushalayim(Jerusalem), NOT ROME! Just saying…
- Paul
  
  There are no "inspired languages". The Word of God was written by men of different times, using the common language of their day and place, the CONTENT and TEXT and MESSAGE/MEANING of which was inspired by God.
  - victorbarney
    
    I'll get back with you Paul, I promise. Watch!
  - msjallen
    
    God’s own complete and coherent message to man was recorded in perfect accuracy in the original languages of scripture: Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. They are the languages carrying Divine Authorship.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Of course, we have no original recorded documents. But that will not concern the true believers.
- Paul
  
  …and "JESUS" is not a form of "Zeus", but a transliteration of YESHUA. You have some strange, non-Biblical ideas there that you are trying to pass off as "Christian". Better check your Bible before you post again. Just saying…
  - jeep jockey
    
    There are no vowels in the Hebrew . How do you pronounce YHWH?
    - Rev. B. R. Jones
      
      It is an expression of Infinity. Those letters in Hebrew (יְהו)are the three weakest in the Hebrew alphabet. They require no tongue or lips or teeth to pronounce, and the root word boils down to "breath." They are the Supernal Power by which YOU exist! Even the earth is sitting on nothing but His Breath! They are used to express the Ineffable Name of God in BOTH TESTAMENTS. (I read Hebrew.) When John expressed in the Book of Revelation that Jesus "was, and is, and is to come," those are translations of three different forms of the letters יְהו. (Some argue that the Name is not in the New Testament, but that is not true. Unfortunately, when the Bible when from Greek to English, some things were lost in the translations. However, by God's grace, I have the Bible in Hebrew and the Pershitto text in Aramaic.) It could read: I breathed, I breathe, and I will breathe.
- Rev. B. R. Jones
  
  You're right. Hebrew is the Heavenly Language. And in the Perfect Age, we'll all be speaking Hebrew, the "pure language."
  
  Zephaniah 3:9
  For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.
am2sweet

Odd that scientists will refer to something tested or done by someone else years ago as part of their scientific fact but yet not believe something else that has come to light by what anthropologists have found over the years. Things that cannot be explained other than by what the Bible says are found and the scientists won't comment on them at all. That's because something solid and touchable that can't be explained are ignored. Anything pretaining to religion that is found isn't said to be valid if the scientists can't explain it. Yet many things have been discovered showing us that life hundreds of years ago was just as the Bible said. But then the scientists tried brainwashing us to believe there was global warming. In reality the earth has had cycles the whole time it's been in existance and will continue to do as it was made to and the scientists can't change it.
- Chris
  
  How ridiculous can you be. We use scientific facts to design and thence fly aircraft. You have nothing solid or evidential about your religion – no proofs no facts no fossil record.
  - am2sweet
    
    The shroud of Christ, the ark and new books to the Bible of course are discounted since they were not only found but written about in the Bible. Scientists don't care to comment on those though.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      What are you talking about? The Shroud has been tested and is a fake. The ark has never been found and will never be found for the entire Flood myth is absurd. People have been analyzing the NT books and much is completely fake.
hdfisher

I would like any Scientist to tell me exactly when did a brain decide it needed a skull to protect it or when did and eye decide it needed a brain so it could see or the other way around? I could go on and on but I think that you all get my point, it's a circular argument that can never be answered.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  The organism does not know anything. It is all just the "blind watchmaker" at work. All sorts of mutations happen all the time. Most of them are useless or even detrimental in the environment they find themselves in, and those are mostly eliminated. The occasional mutation that increases its bearer's reproductive success is preserved and spreads throughout the population in future generations.
  - Despeville
    
    How about a blind man irrationally screaming to everyone else what time it truly is? Well that is your Dodo Oedipus.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      How about a pompous blowhard pontificating on topics he knows nothing about. That is your entire life, Humpty.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        http://www.assistech.com/low_vision/clocks-and-wa…
        
        This is a website that sells watches for blind people. You know, those blind people who are telling others what time it is. Of course, these people do not exist in Humpty's world.
  - petroskhan1262
    
    And of course we have proof of that today. Many new species, with greater genetic information than their forebears have been observed.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Yes, greater genetic information has been observed
      
      New features have evolved from older different features. There are several examples of microorganisms evolving the ability to degrade or metabolize novel manmade compounds:
      arsenobetaine degradation (Jenkins et al. 2003)
      naphthalene and related compound degradation (Annweiler et al. 2002)
      chlorocatechol degradation (Moiseeva et al. 2002)
      2,4-dinitrotolule degradation (Johnson et al. 2002)
      Also, a unicellular organism has been evolved to form mulicellular colonies (Boraas et al. 1998); see also mutations producing new features.
      
      An arbitrary genetic sequence can evolve to acquire functionality (Hayashi et al. 2003).
      http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB904.html
      - petroskhan1262
        
        From the exact same source you cite, just before the part you copied/pasted:
        
        "Most, if not all, "entirely new features" are modifications of previously existing features."
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Which does not change the fact that they are new.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Dogs come from dogs, and only dogs will come from dogs.
        
        Evolution attempts to claim the opposite. This has never occurred, nor has been shown to even be possible.
        
        Modification of that which exists is not the creation of something new.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Macro evolution and micro evolution are the same thing. One just takes longer than the other. There is nothing that prevents large scale changes from occurring.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        "Macro evolution and micro evolution are the same thing."
        
        Well, on that we can agree. They are both implausible fairy tales told to, and believed by, the incredibly gullible.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Micro evolution is even accepted by the lunatic creationists. You should read up on what your groups says is acceptable.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        First off, I don't belong to any group.
        
        Secondly, variation within a species, I accept. Dogs, cats, birds, etc. all show variation within their respective kinds. But you are never going to breed anything from a dog that is not a dog, no matter how much time you have.
        
        Evolution is a feeble attempt by the ignorant to sound intellectual, to explain what they don't know to those who don't know better than to listen to them in the first place. And believing you can get something other than a dog from a dog is a prime example of that sort of foolishness.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Then you accept micro-evolution which you just claimed was a fairy tale.
        
        My other point is that micro and macro are the same thing. One just takes longer than the other.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        From Wikipedia:
        "Macroevolution can be seen as the sum of long periods of microevolution, and thus the two are qualitatively identical while being quantitatively different."
        
        I still maintain, and regard as unproven, both. Variation within a species is not evolution; it shows no introduction of new genetic material through any "process"; all the genetic information for a Great Dane is present in a Chihuahua, it is simply breeding which has produced the dominant traits for one over the other.
        
        Micro or Macro, evolution claims that one breed or species can give rise to another, with greater genetic information than existed before. This is a fairy tale, and unproven. As is the contention that life came from lifelessness, the very foundation of evolution's nonsensical claims.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        In experiments with bacteria, variation (including beneficial mutations) arises in populations that are grown from a single individual (Lederberg and Lederberg 1952). Since the population started with just one chromosome, there was no variation in the original population; all variation must have come from mutations.
        
        Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        "Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides…" Wrong. They didn't "develop" anything. If some number of them were not resistant to start with, all would have died. A small number of those already resistant passed along the trait, since they survived to do so. What you are suggesting with that statement is that an organism with no resistance somehow manipulated its own genetic structure in order to survive something beyond its own comprehension.
        
        "It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides." Agreed. It is improbable that ALL insects posses a resistance to ALL pesticides. Yet, a small number of any insect population WILL have a resistance, and pass that trait along.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Yes they did. Since some populations started with one chromosome and ended up with more than one, they developed more.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Are you actually aware of how ludicrous that sounds?
        
        Here's what you're saying:
        You have a population of, say, insects. Not one is resistant to Pesticide X. They simply don't have the gene for resistance to it. The whole group is sprayed with Pesticide X. Before this poison can kill them all, some number of them alter their genetic structure to become resistant, and survive, to perpetuate their species with this new immunity.
        
        I'm sorry, I'm going to have to stick with my scenario. It's biologically plausible, it's logical, and most importantly, does NOT require that bugs possess either psychic powers or genetic manipulation skills.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        It is not ludicrous at all. It is what the evidence shows. You can dismiss it, but that does not change the reality of it.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        So, just to be sure we're talking about the same thing, in brief, your opinion on the subject is as follows:
        
        A bug, with no resistance to a poison, will, when introduced to this poison, alter it's own genetic structure to become resistant.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        No, i stated this:
        Furthermore, disease organisms and insect pests have developed resistance to a variety of antibiotics and pesticides, many of them artificial and unlike anything in nature. It is highly improbable that all insects were created with resistance to all pesticides.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        LOL…now you're backpedaling.
        
        I said "Are you actually aware of how ludicrous that sounds?
        
        Here's what you're saying:
        You have a population of, say, insects. Not one is resistant to Pesticide X. They simply don't have the gene for resistance to it. The whole group is sprayed with Pesticide X. Before this poison can kill them all, some number of them alter their genetic structure to become resistant, and survive, to perpetuate their species with this new immunity. "
        
        Your replay, verbatim: "It is not ludicrous at all."
        
        I reduce the position down to its essentials, and then you say that's NOT your position?
        
        You're claiming that some members of a population "develop" an immunity to something to which no member was immune before. This would require that some member of the population alter its genetic structure, which in turn requires that the organism be cognizant of the threat, and possess the ability to alter its genetic structure to combat this threat.
        
        That is the essence of what you're saying.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        I am not back pedaling. I re-posted what I initially stated.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You see that in every species some of them survive and some of them die when they are exposed to a potentially life threatening disease or poison. The Native Americans were not equipped to handle smallpox when the Europeans came over to the America's. Many died but not all of the did.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        And the survivors (bugs or Native Americans) survived how? On-the-spot genetic alteration? Or did they already possess the resistance?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Some individuals just survive, acquiring antibodies and immunities which they passed on to the next generation.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Well, I'll give that answer an "A" for vagueness…
        
        "…acquiring antibodies and immunities…"? From where? The local Acme Antibody & Immunity Outlet? Ikea?
        
        They already had the ability to resist the infestation, and passed that along.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Acquired from where?
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Biology is not math. There will always be unknowns with biology.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        That was my question to you, if you will recall. It was your position that an organism with NO resistance would "acquire" the resistance. I proposed two alternatives, the only two as I see it. They either already had the resistance, or they altered their own genetic structure on the fly. You were the one asserting that the resistance was "acquired", not me.
  - DWoodPC
    
    the blind watchmaker?
    Jeff, what have we here?
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
      
      The Blind Watchmaker: Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design is a 1986 book by Richard Dawkins in which he presents an explanation of, and argument for, the theory of evolution by means of natural selection.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I thought it might be something like that. Well, he did admit there is a watchmaker. I assert that yes there is and he is an unimaginable genius enough so he does not have to be blind – although I get the point – because he is disciplined that he is good enough he doesn't need to be tyrannical and he is aware enough of his creations and if he wants to have any children smart enough to converse with him he will only encourage not only ours but unrestricted everything — I resist calling it natural selection. There is also the implication that he made everything? I am so glad you mentioned this, Jeff. Thank you.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        That is not what he means by the blind watchmaker.
      - DWoodPC
        
        I am a Christian interpreting an Atheist concept; I need to know what he means. Please Jeff give me a link on the topic, if you have one. I want to understand.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        Misinterpreting.
        
        It was not a link. I was simply stating what it refers to.
      - DWoodPC
        
        okay
        but he refers to a "… maker", which piques my interest in light of your philosophy
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        You should read his book to get a better idea of what he means.
      - DWoodPC
        
        on my list : )
- http://www.sargee5.blogspot.com The Watchman
  
  hdfisher, unfortunately you are arguing with people who wallow in their own idiocy. You will never get a straight answer, because they do not have any.
  - JWDixon66
    
    Science books are filled with straight answers.
- DWoodPC
  
  Scientists, as with any of the academic disciplines, have to ground themselves in Our Lord Jesus Christ, to realize boundaries of what they can and can't know. .
  - JWDixon66
    
    No, that is not a factual statement. That is a wishful statement.
    - DWoodPC
      
      and a deeply felt, comforting one, at that
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        On one hand you have talked about man completing TOE and on the other hand you state there are things we cannot know. That is an odd position to hold if you believe we will figure out TOE.
      - DWoodPC
        
        The TOE I speak of would replace the knowable (everything quantum mechanics and thermodynamics, that is) in terms of real, I mean tangible, elemental, science.
        
        The human psyche is a universe in itself and in my opinion intangible, is knowable, only by the heart.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        So man can figure out the universe but not a woman's heart? I do not know whether to laugh or cry.
      - DWoodPC
        
        'does seem absurd when you put it that way… but I said the human psyche… and did you know the heart has neurons like the brain?
        http://madurasinghe.blogspot.com/2008/06/neurocar…
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
        
        It seemed more poetic that way.
      - DWoodPC
        
        indeed it is
- UF Gator
  
  You impose upon a naked brain the ability to decide when it needs a skull, and upon the eye an ability to decide when it needs a brain and vice versa? I don't think any scientist looks at it this way.
  
  I have studied embryology and I know that within an organism these things develop, in a human baby for example, over a period of months through chemical signals. The signals are there at the right time for each and every part of the baby all synchronous. That's for one human child. Is that what you meant?
  If you meant in terms of evolution … Ask Jeff, he has pointed out time and time again we need factual evidence to answer these kinds of questions
Ken

Interesting that men like Newton, Pascal and Keppler were evidently "hoodwinked" by Christianity even as they were coming up with things like calculus, laws of planetary motion and such.
- Evermyrtle
  
  Hood winked a new dirty dart used by the anti-GOD liberals when they can make any sane remark.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  Biology was not nearly as advanced when they lived. The church was also in firm control of society and people who protested the church had a bad habit of ending up dead.
  - DWoodPC
    
    so succinct you are, Jeff
- Joe Anzilotti
  
  Ken, that is an excellent point. Even though JW seems to be stuck on "biology" like it has anything to do with your conclusion.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
    
    It has everything to do with his comment.
Harold

If these scientists? are correct, what makes the difference? Then we will all die and thats it. BUT if they are wrong then guess who will come out as the winners. The Christian wins either way. By the way the Christian is correct and they are as smart or smarter than a bunch of hoodwinked make believe scientists.
- Mistertea
  
  Harold, you had better hope that G-d hasn't set all this as a test, and that he isn't going to reward the people who think like us.
Gordon

People like Richard Dawkins, like all of us, are only a short time away from an obituary column. How do we explain extreme cold winter weather to someone who has lived life exclusively in Barbados, where there is no such thing! Dawkins has enjoyed the ego gratification of his celebrity status as a "scientist" and "atheist"(if there really are any), and he loves the worship and adulation (remind you of someone?). Only God can open the eyes of the blind, so I think Dawkins need s a dog, a cane and dark glasses!
Galen Robison

Scientists are right in a few cases, but Christians have been and are still in the dark.
- LouiseCA
  
  No, I'm afraid not. It's the Christians that have the Light.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    No you have lite.
http://twitter.com/lambsev11 @lambsev11

One great problem atheistic scientists have is there refusal to review the work of creation and Intelligent Design scientists. They will not accept them as "peers." Their minds are closed off the any possibility of truth outside their own presuppositions. Science operates from the POV that what is known also be true. Atheists have no basis for truth, their theory of evolution shows that is so, and therefore they are really not qualified to be scientists! Their refusal to work with believers also shows rejoice and bigotry unworthy of truth and of the scientific method.
- Mistertea
  
  There's no such thing as a creation/ID scientist. They just say rubbish like "..this must be so.." with no attempt at proof except for the stuff they steal from fortune cookies.
- DWoodPC
  
  Dear Lambserv: I think what you say may apply to our resident scientist who shall remain un-named, but I guarantee you this that if you convince him you have the proof, he will believe, … he is not one the jaded atheists who is strictly an atheist revelling to destroy Christianity, but has a unique perception of behavior that so far, in my queries, have rendered me only hopeful that eventually, convinced of that proof, he will admit to the existence first of a Higher Intelligence then eventually to Our God. Please don't hesitate to take his questions to heart and discover new ways as I know only you can to fellowship him into the fold. Thank you for your comment.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
  
  Creationism is a total failure as a science. Even religious scientists don't bother trying to create actual formal scientific theories of creationism, because they know there is no such thing. You could not even express the idea of creationism in the form of a scientific theory; what would you describe as the controlling mechanism? God? How would you define the behaviour of this controlling mechanism? Despite what some creationists may tell you, creationism has zero credibility in science.
  
  You can read many creationist websites, you can purchase creationist books, and you can attend creationist seminars. But in all of those places, surprisingly enough, you will not find a single argument for creationism; instead, you will find countless arguments against evolution. This is the first thing you need to know about creationist arguments: they do not argue for creationism; they argue against evolution. And they do so by quite literally demanding that it explain everything in the universe.
  
  In other words, you can summarize 100% of creationist arguments with the following template:
  
  "The science of [evolution/geology/astrophysics/etc] doesn't make any sense. If it's true, then we should see [insert made-up prediction here], and we don't. And how do scientists explain [insert random science question here]? It takes more faith not to believe in God than to believe in Him."
  
  This is not a joke. Look at even the most carefully written creationist argument and you will see that it can be distilled down into that basic formula. Even well-regarded books such as Dr. Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" intelligent design treatise fit that formula, by identifying questions which we cannot yet answer and assuming that God is the answer to all these questions. Nowhere do any of them explain how creationism or "intelligent design" can explain any of the mysteries they're challenging science to explain; they simply assume that it must be able to, because it's so vague that it can predict anything.
  
  Creationism relies on a double-standard. While science is expected to explain and predict everything, creationism is expected to explain and predict nothing. It need only say that God did it, and we're not supposed to point out that this merely passes the buck, "solving" a mystery by blaming it on a deity who is himself a mystery. If science does not understand something, it is perfectly logical and acceptable to say "we don't know". The fact that there are gaps in our scientific knowledge does not invalidate what we do know, or as the old saying goes, the fact that scientists don't know everything does not mean they know nothing. You can't disprove a scientific theory simply by showing that scientists don't know everything, and you can't disprove a biology theory simply by showing that scientists don't know the complete family history of all the millions of species on this Earth.
  http://www.creationtheory.org/
msjallen

Is 45:18 For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste (tohu) place, but formed it to be inhabited), “I am the LORD, and there is none else. (The earth was not originally created a desolation. There is a time period between Gen 1:1 and 1:2)
Is 14:17 Who made the world like a wilderness and overthrew its cities, who (Satan) did not allow his prisoners to go home?’
Gen 1:3 Then God said, "Let there be light"; and there was light.
(The same way that the Holy Spirit shines Bible Doctrine into our souls in the Church Age. “Light shines out of darkness”)
Col 1:16-17 For by Him (Jesus Christ) all things were created, both in the heavens and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities–all things have been created through Him and for Him. He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together.
Continued…
msjallen

Continued…Even in the cradle and through all of His life on earth and all during the Church Age through all the ages and eternity. We don’t have to be afraid of any evil nation – when it is time for us to go, we will go.
John 1:3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.
Hebrews 1:10 And, "YOU, LORD, IN THE BEGINNING LAID THE FOUNDATION OF THE EARTH, AND THE HEAVENS ARE THE WORKS OF YOUR HANDS;
I would rather believe what God says than what finite man has to say. We owe our every breathe to infinite God.
wesley

the man considered to have contributed most to science Sir Isaac Newton was first a theologian and second a scientists. he spent more time studying the scriptures than he did nature. Nicolais Copernicus who first placed the sun in the center of our solar system was a pietistic person. we was put in charge of making calenders for the church and discovered that having the earth revolving around the sun made it easier to make more accurate predictions for eclipses, moon cycles, and seasons. many of the greatest discoveries in medicine was made by Syriac Christians. the golden age of Islam occurred in the early years of conquest while there was large number of Christians found in the conquered regions. it was not until Charles Darwin wrote his Origins of Species did scientist reject God. there are many scientists who study the universe to learn more about the God who made it.
ChrisN

A scientist is a person who collects data and tries to find a correlation between them and then tries to prdedict an outcome using the same data as a basis for the experiment. The scientist is involved with dicovering the HOW and WHEN of things. A believer is involved with discovering the WHY and WHO is involved. The two take identical data, ask different questions, and, therefore, receive different answers. Both have insufficient data to work with as not ALL DATA is known. Circular reasoning is unbecoming a member of either camp when trying to be accurate.
- DWoodPC
  
  And then there is ethics ChrisN. That aspect changes everything.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    It does not change the results of the information.
    - DWoodPC
      
      It will change the parameters and thus the report, because the world-view of the scientist will be changed as well. Human error, prejudice, choice is involved in either realm. You might think that mathematics would be the one exempt discipline, it is NOT by any means, in fact, they are so close to "exactness" their favorite topics when you perchance to challenge them is not strictly logic, but logic and ethics. There are infinite avenues one can take in any discipline including "exact" sciences of chemistry and physics. For example, can you picture your discipline without [the fraudulent] Darwin at your helm? Just even consider that for a moment, Jeff. I know you don't think that way about Darwin, but I think a lot of people do for good reason.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The views of one person can be biased. However, science is not based on the views of one person. It is based on research that is duplicated by many doing independent research. That removes the bias that can be inherent.
      - DWoodPC
        
        "science is not based on the views of one person" true, but notice that only ONE person is accountable to altogether form a conclusion? And as you say, "the views of one person can be biased" Many wrongs don't make a right any more than one wrong makes a right… and I have rarely seen true independence as you suggest in "… duplicated by many doing independent research…" in order to "remove the [inherent] bias" We may be precise, but are we accurate, is the question. I say we are a long ways from it.
        
        And feelings, Jeff. They are there for a reason. I think they tell us if we are on the right path. And where do they come from? They come from a gracious Father, same as our heart did, which is infected when we feel loss. I know this the same way I know 1 + 1 = 2. When I feel a loss, my Lord steps in to impute my spirit with His, so I can feel whole again. The animals unfortunately do not have the capacity to draw the Lord unto them, but humans are the stewards of animals and the earth. http://www.cornwallalliance.org/
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        One person can form a conclusion, but unless the information can be confirmed, it is not accepted as valid.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Such a case happens, that spurious information goes unconfirmed… at levels of expertise that no one can verify… happens all the time… and from there, is added new information time and time again — as a house built on sand, it will come tumbling down… scientists miss out all the time on questioning their own assumptions and conclusions
Bell

How ignorant they are. Science is one thing that proves there is a God. They apparently don't want to believe there is a God [ they may have to do something about it...like obey him ], so of course they will say there isn't and come up with a pile of so called scientific proof that only comes from a human mind. The one thing these people don't seem to get in their little pea brain…is that they are dealing with a spiritual world, not a human. one.
Don L

Rejection of evolution is not rejection of science. It is a rejection of a materialistic/religious philosophy which drives the interpretation of the facts. Scientific facts have not driven you the the condlusion of evolution but your materialistic philosophy has.
It is not the scientific facts that Christians object to. Evolution not being a science but a religion, Christians object to the falseness of the religion.
The Bible says that death is a result of sin (disobedience to God's law). Such disobedience has introduced destruction into God's perfect and eternal creation resunting in death. Satan in the garden of Eden told Adam and Eve that they would not die if they ate of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He essentially denied that there was a relationship between sin and death. continued
Don L

You, as an evolutionist, would say that death is a result of natural causes. In other words, you also deny that that is a relationship between sin and death.
This is a religious issue. You cannot say that death is a result of natural causes from an intelligent well infomed view point because you only consider the material and the natural. Since you reject the spiritual you have left out the possibility of there being a spriitual cause and therefore have not considered all the facts.
I'll stay with God since He was there in the beginning (you were not) and He cannot lie (you can) and He has given us His unbiased, true statement of the beginning in the Bible.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  There are no known "facts" about an unknown spiritual world.
  - DWoodPC
    
    then, there is just the simple belief in miracles, for lack of a better explanation for now.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      There is a belief in miracles, but no actual miracles.
      - Mary Wood
        
        I didn't say there were
DWoodPC

To the question posed by this article: The answer is yes. It is just bad science! I find it stunning!

I know the study of science is a construct of the human mind, but the subjects which scientists study are simply God's creations. Why everyone can't see this is a mystery to me. I remember my first course in pre-med: comparative anatomy. Awesome. I remember the incredible design of blood vessels in the creatures we had to dissect, a cat, a dogfish shark, a necturus. What struck me the most was the construction of the minute blood vessels in each of the three and as the vessels coursed their way through, it was amazing to see the vessels had their very own little paths, like Providence had carved them out individually. Little holes in bone or muscle were just where they were supposed to be, where a little bifurcation had occurred in the vessel to shoot off into the cavity, the hole there for the little vessels to go through. So conservative in structure! The fact that so much of life is perfect like that is just a continuous source of wonder, a miracle and that just evades the minds of these people who have no concept of even "intelligent design" much less of a gracious God! Ignorance knows no bounds. Absurdity knows no bounds. One hopes that it is ignorance from which one can wake up, but absurdity defined by these heartless "scientists", it is definitely the work of the adversary.

"Thomas Aquinas made this argument in the 13th century, "If a thing can be done adequately by means of one, it is superfluous to do it by means of several; for we observe that nature does not employ two instruments [if] one suffices."[ref 21] accessed 7/10/2012, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parsimony. Parsimony is definitely a good path to take in any aspects of life. Teach the children what it means. They will need it after these politics.
Fredda Shutes

How can things such as science even exist without someone designing them? All things seem to work together and that is no accident! There is a Master Planner and that Planner is GOD.
Rev. B. R. Jones

It is unfortunate that many Christians have derogatory opinions about scientists, just as many scientists think "Christians are hoodwinked." What is sad is that on both sides of the fence there is such diseased perception of reality. What bothers me about "Christians" is the lack of the "Christ" part, i.e., the Living Word of God. Most Christians have not applied themselves enough to have a concrete argument for what they believe; and it appears that those who study and know the least are those who are the most vocal. And these are the ones making the noise for the scientists to hear, and they surmise these Christians represent the sentiments of Christendom. Those whom they hear do indeed appear to be hoodwinked. It's because their belief system is so unfounded. They remind me of the Pharisees who were so blind and diseased in their perception of reality that when the Living Torah stood in their midst, "they knew Him not."
- LouiseCA
  
  I do think that many Christians are unprepared to give a reason for the faith that is in them but I think it's unfair to compare them to Pharisees. And while I also agree that many Christians have a derogatory opinion on some scientists, I don't necessarily think we disrespect all of them, perhaps those such as Dawkins who are the loudest and most insulting.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    In other words, you disrespect the more popular ones since they have the capacity to create problems for you.
http://AOL Whatchman

The problem here is. Is religion! Jesus Christ did not teach religion. He taught against it. Actually and in reality. Science backs up and confirms there is a God a creator. That dimensionally speaking heaven is a reality awaiting all. That Jesus Christ dose exist and that much in the bible is a fact. Jesus Christ taught a relationship with Our God as a father to a son. It has been recorded in the Holy Bible this relationship. Science also confirms there is a undefined force so powerful yet so subtle its existence is known but cannot be proven. That which holds every thing together. All mass and energy is glued so to speak together. Of course none of this is politically correct.
I believe that God controls this force. Einstein tried to prove its existence mathematically and others are still trying. Every time we come to what we believe to be a solid answer. We find it is only a workable solution with many more questions attached. Electronics or the energy so called electricity. Is not an absolute fact. It is though a working theory. We know of its existence. By experiencing it. We know through trial and error how to control it and make it work for us. But know one has actually witnessed an electron shell around an atom. Scientist have a grasp of the concept merely through more theory using a atom smasher. Like the one in the news in Geneva. But there are so many questions on just one test?
I believe the reason Jesus Christ taught against religion is because it is repetitious in nature and is mesmerizing. It can be indoctrinated into any practice. Becoming a obsession. Political correctness and Communism are such. They are unnatural to the creation of God almighty! Much of the education in most parts of the world and here in the United States of America, Including religion, science, the arts, higher education, law, medicine the list goes on. Are being indoctrinated into the obsession of Political correctness and the philosophical religion of communism. It is the work of lucifer. Humankind is falling for the lie! Beware you do not! There will never be a materialistic utopia! If you can believe in electricity a partially proven fact. Than you can believe In God! God has created for all his children a unique and special place individually for each and every one in his kingdom! It is real so just believe.
http://zionica.com/2012/07/09/the-best-argument-against-christianity/ Tom

I have written this before and will likely write it again. For those who seem obsessed with the perceived battle between science and faith, this supposed rivalry is simple folly. The actual truth of the matter is that faith accepts the premise and (for those who are willing to actually look) the truth, that some greater authority had to have initiated, and to some degree, guided the development and expansion of the cosmos and all that exists within the same and still does so.

(Part 01 of 04)
http://zionica.com/2012/07/09/the-best-argument-against-christianity/ Tom

Be it God or whatever name you wish to recognize for this central grand intelligence. Anyone who wishes to look, as I have can readily see the hand of God in this work and thus view the face of God and his eternal love. At the same time, science is mankind's attempt to explain and to understand the profound mysteries of God's handiwork. Simply put, God accomplishes everything and demonstrates possibilities like a sage and patient teacher (faith) and man, as the eternal student tries to understand the often difficult to grasp and the impossible to discern in the how and why of the vast array of God's divine majesty.

(Part 02 of 04)
http://zionica.com/2012/07/09/the-best-argument-against-christianity/ Tom

Perhaps some would say that it is arrogant or folly to try to discern the truth and to understand God's work. That we should simply accept and enjoy what is. But by the same token, as God's creations and in a way his children, it is only natural for humanity to have the courage to conquer the fear of the unknown and to turn to the imperfect understanding of cool calculating reason within the limitations of the minds that God gave us in his infinite wisdom with which to learn and to view and try to understand his great design (science).

(Part 03 of 04)
http://zionica.com/2012/07/09/the-best-argument-against-christianity/ Tom

It is important we understand these two different, but solidly bound aspects of human nature, rather that waste time and energy fighting over semantics so that we can properly enjoy God's work of love and love God through our deep and unbridled appreciation of the beauty, perfection and mastery his work, even when on the rare occasiion that we find imperfection only to learn that it is this very imperfection that creates balance and further dmonstrates this very perfection in the truth and nature of this very same balance.

(Part 04 of 04)
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Because the child of the raped woman is considered tainted and often is not accepted.

Theft hurts the society because the people in the society lose something of value.

Murder makes people lose the most valuable thing they own: their lives.

Are you really that obtuse? It would seem so.
- petroskhan1262
  
  Again with the insults? …sigh…
  
  Okay, to address your points. The issue at hand is not sociological influences or values, but to determine that which is best for the species, and its survival.
  
  The child of a raped woman would have, in some cultures, a social stigma attached, but not in all cultures. In any case, he would carry the genes for an aggression and dominance, both valuable traits.
  
  How does theft deprive the people of a society of anything? Person A owned it. Now person B owns it. It's a matter of geography. And the dominant, stronger man is now better equipped to deal with and survive life. For the good of the species, those genes should be passed along.
  
  As for murder, sure, it sucks to be the one murdered, but there could be many positive benefits to the group, as I pointed out, and you failed to address.
  
  See how I did all that without even one sarcastic or insulting comment? That was cool, wasn't it?
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    You are asking how it impacts the society, but your arguments are for the individual. Humans (primates) are a social animal. It is not just what benefits one individual, it is what benefits the group.
    
    Passing on the genes of someone who violates other people does not benefit the group. Someone who is raping, killing and stealing from others will not be able to generate trust from the group. Without trust, a group breaks down.
    - petroskhan1262
      
      Wrong, there is no detriment to the group, since the group would benefit from such strong genes being passed along, to form even more individuals who are aggressive, dominant and probably more intelligent.
      
      How is the group NOT benefited by having strong members within, and FORMING the group? A pecking order would result, with the strongest at the top, and the weaker at the bottom, more than likely serving the strong.
      
      Trust is NOT essential to the vital functioning of a group. A variety of motive forces can be used to produce order and social cohesion. Love, respect, and fear are all potent motivators.
      
      Given the scenario I've outlined, fear would be a powerful and useful motive force for the cohesion of such a society. A privileged and powerful upper level of the strongest in the society, served by the strong, who are in turn served by the weak. If you're strong enough to take and hold, it's yours. If you're not, you lose it. Those with the most power have the most, and pass those genes along to their offspring, who would be more numerous than the progeny of the weaker. This would be of enormous benefit to a primitive society, as such strong aggressors would be much more suited to surviving among competing species. As the society advanced, such traits would still be of use, as this type of individual would be more suited to dominating any field of endeavor, be it science, business or military.
      
      So, these rules, or standards, of "good" and "bad", or social approval obviously serve no one but the weak, putting them on a level playing field with the strong, against whom they cannot compete.
      
      So again, back to the main points at the start, which are still unanswered. How are such things as rape, murder, and theft "bad" for the group, when they are, viewed with objectivity, only bad for the victims, and either harmless or beneficial to the group as a whole? You're viewing it through the lens of a modern man, bound by societal conventions and values. But, if the weak are forced to serve the strong, and exist only to benefit the strong, then strength of the group is the only possible outcome. Especially when you add in the factor of the weak being culled, so as to limit the passing on of inferior genetic material.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Nonsense.
        
        Without trust, there is no group cohesion. It is completely necessary for a group to survive.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Yes, of course. That is how all totalitarian regimes have stayed in power. It's that trust that the people have in the leaders, not paralyzing fear of the reprisals for those who object. I'm sure all those who were under Pol Pot's leadership were filled with trust for his wisdom and benevolence. Likewise, for Idi Amin. They were true leaders, an inspiration to those under them, relying on the great trust placed in them by others.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There is no trust in totalitarian regimes either. Sorry, try again.
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Apparently I wasn't clear enough that I was being humorous/sarcastic towards such regimes. The point I was trying to get across was that there have existed many regimes which were NOT based on trust, but thrived.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        Thrived? In what way have they thrived?
      - petroskhan1262
        
        Germany under Hitler thrived, until military mistakes led to his demise.
        
        China is a stellar example of an oppressive government which has survived for some time.
      - JWDixon66
        
        China has only finally achieved some economic success in the last 20 years. At the same time, this rapid change has brought with it different kinds of stresses. China faces serious natural resource scarcity and environmental degradation. Whether they can sustain it or not remains to be seen.
        
        Despite the rapid growth of the Chinese economy in the last decade, more than 482 million people in China – 36% of the population – live on less than $2 a day. In total 85% of China’s poor live in rural areas and extreme poverty forces many of them to leave the countryside in search of employment in urban areas.
        
        Hitler also had several years of growth, but short term success is not necessarily a model of long term success.
Joe Anzilotti

"Scientists says Christians are Hoodwinked"
"Scientists" is certainly a most misused term in our society. Do they mean "Scientists" like wouldbephd or Jeff? Can anyone with a smart phone with googling capabilities be considered a scientist? What we really have is a large assortment of mad scientists.
- DWoodPC
  
  get involved Joe, here we have some local results: http://msacad.org/journal/jan05journal/mas05a.pdf
  find out for yourself about real scientists in the real trenches… not just the Hollywood types
  - DWoodPC
    
    page 48
http://www.facebook.com/kamaut.longbabilon?ref=tn_tnmn robert koomans

it is true that scence has its limitations in humans beings. that is because humans are onlu using about 10% of their brain at best, but when they get too smart for themselves, they lose connection with reality. So it has been also inside the 95% of churches in public: they want to teach only a small part of what Jesus taught, and change the rest to suit themselves, but not to what God wants. Thus they are "cursed" by refusing to acknowledge God, pay due respect to only Him 1st, and obey another human instead on his own ideas and laws. So, in a way, yes, most people are definitely led astray by organised quasi-Christian religions… but science cannot lead either, as they cannot tell the truth for one second…. which is why they are helping the Multi-National-Pharmaceuticals to urder billions of humans with fake fixes for disorders that they knew 30 years ago could cure them, but hid the facts because God's medicines were too cheap to make $trillions out of. And… remember that Politicians also hail the god of defective science, and have murdered 45 Million babies since 1970 in USA alone!
- DWoodPC
  
  Robert: To make amends for the fact one has only used 10% of one's brains, then, if I am understanding your point, accept the knowledge of God, accept His will, and learn 100% of Him from directly from the lessons of Jesus Christ… without organized religion of any kind. Is that your recipe for salvation intended for the human spirit? … if so, then where is the commandment for fellowship… satisfied? your plan seems very simple, but I can imagine complications arising. people are basically social creatures and we do have the need for gathering, it seems. we have to gather for just about every human activity. that complicates this nice simple recipe for personal salvation. yet, it is easy, almost too easy to retreat when things get confusing
  
  re: billions of human "fixes", I know you understand big-Pharma… I agree. see efforts of co-founder of life extension foundation, William Faloon, http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2010/mar2010_Drug-… )
msjallen

An Atheist’s View on Life
I will live my life according to these beliefs
God does not exist
It is just foolish to think
That there is a God with a cosmic plan
That an all-powerful God brings purpose to the pain
and suffering in the world
Is a comforting thought, however
It
Is only wishful thinking
People can do as they please without eternal consequences
The idea that
I am deserving of Hell
Because of sin
Is a lie meant to make me a slave to those in power
“The more you have, the happier you will be”
Our existence has no grand meaning or purpose
In a world with no God
There is freedom to be who I want to be
But with God
Everything is fine
It is ridiculous to think
I am lost and in need of saving
A Christian’s View on Life
(Read from bottom to top to see the difference)
- MontieR
  
  I hope you don't mind if I pass this on.
  - msjallen
    
    No problem, I am glad you want to. I do not know who the author is.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      No one would want to say they are the author of such absurdity.
      - msjallen
        
        I got a good laugh at your reply because I thought of you specifically when I posted the prose. I knew I would get a reaction and you know it is not absurd.
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        I know it it is completely absurd.
        
        The text does not even accomplish its goal.
        
        Here is part of the atheist section.
        
        But with God
        Everything is fine
        
        An atheist would not say that.
- DWoodPC
  
  thank you msjallen. neat
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    Yes, made up nonsense is neat to a Christian.
tod

The Only thing Christians are Hoodwink about is Sunday Worship,going up to every high hill and under every green tree like the Bible taLKS ABOUT MOST GENERATIONS through History .The Bible Warns you about worshipping Christmas and blending Pagism and Christianity and yet here you are doing it again and Now God's going to have us destroyed killed and enslaved for worshipping Baal all over again.For What the Bible really tells us by Every Word Of God Go To lcg.org Living Church of God .
JPW

I know THREE things for certain: 1. I did NOT come here on my own. 2. I will NOT leave here on my own. 3. There IS a HIGHER power calling the 'shots' on me – for sure! Let us not decieve ourselves, nor be decieved by the 'great deciever' aka satan; scientist or any other researcher, who is ' ever searching, but never coming to the knowledge of the truth'. That leaves me nooo choice, 'cept to go w/tradition, i.e. 'the way, truth and the life' – Jesus Christ. Amen.
- http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
  
  So, in other words, you do not know anything for certain.
Mistertea

My friends on Facebook have been having a good laugh about this story today, especially the writer's complete ignorance of the logic he thinks he is using.

"The law of parsimony holds that all other things being equal, when there are competing hypotheses we should choose the simpler. Obviously the simplest reason that religion is embraced is because its teachings are profound and its Truth eternal."

But all other things are not equal here. We are talking about science (stumbling its way to truth through careful measurements, repeated tests and hypothesis) and religion (stumbling its way to oblivion through violence, bigotry and deliberate ignorance).

Youn think those things are equal? Don't make me laugh.
- MontieR
  
  Proof thru repeated tests, Ok repeat the evolution of man. Oh that's right you CANT.
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
    
    There are other ways of showing that evolution is true than this straw man argument.
    - DWoodPC
      
      Here is an ethics violation the kind of which I can't ignore,Jeff. How can anyone ignore the evidence put forward by Wiker? You tell me. Pls look it up.
      http://www.conservativebookclub.com/
      
      search "darwin wiker" and "description" on the page
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        The book is attacking Darwin personally which has nothing to do with whether his theory is valid or not.
        
        Biologists have taken Darwin's ideas and expanded the theory of evolution immensely. For example, Darwin was unaware of DNA. However, DNA has demonstrated the truth of evolution as well. We can construct a hierarchy of life very similar to the tree designed by Linnaeus using mitochondrial DNA. This tree demonstrates the interconnectedness–the shared ancestry of life.
        
        Perhaps Darwin was a terrible person. I doubt it, but even if he was, it means nothing about the theory of evolution.
      - UF Gator
        
        I am beginning to see through Dawkins the depth to which the evolutionists have used the Darwin premise and taken your argument Mr. Dixon, so really my argument with this is on hold at least while I absorb the principles through Dawkins eyes in The Blind Watchmaker. So far he hasn't told me anything new I already didn't know of the wonders of "design," for lack of a better term, but I do enjoy reading good writing on such topics. : )
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Of course there are answers. My point is that people in miracles even though there are not any actual miracles occurring.
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  My point is that people believe in miracles even though there are not any actual miracles occurring.
  - DWoodPC
    
    In other words they are mysteries, not miracles, is that right?
    
    If so, that is all the more reason why we need a theory of everything…. because at this time we are using mere approximations.
    
    Because I know the Father is perfectly logical… which is what we get when we understand his Word… pure beautiful logic, like the perfectly struck notes in a chord of a song or musical instrument.
    - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
      
      Most of the supposed miracles are nothing of the kind. There are a few that are unexplained. But just as the mystery of the sun eluded people for centuries, they will also get explained.
      - DWoodPC
        
        You mean they are not mysteries awaiting to be solved… that's all I said Jeff. that goes for every mystery down to the beauty we feel when we hear the best song we like. Jeff, did I disagree with you? You just don't believe in God. But everything else I said is not a contradiction of what you said.
      - DWoodPC
        
        Please let me rewrite that first sentence: Do you mean there are no mysteries awaiting to be solved? All I meant to say, Jeff, is that I think "these are mysteries waiting to be solved."
      - DWoodPC
        
        time for gym : )
      - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
        
        There are things we do not yet know. That does not mean there is a god hovering in the wings.
Zack

"The Originator of the Heavens and the Earth: when He (1 God) decrees a matter, He (only) says to it "Be", and it is. (2:117)

"And remember: We gave Moses the Scripture and the Criterion (between right and wrong), there was a chance for you to be guided aright" (2:53).

"And remember ye said: O'Moses! we shall never believe in thee until we see Allah (1 God) manifestly (publically), "thereupon thunderbolt seized you". (2:55). ""Then We raised you up after your death: ye had the chance to be grateful". (2:56). "And we gave you the shade of clouds and sent down to you Manna and quails", saying "eat of the good things ——————–" (2:57).
Faith in your Creator is believing in 1 God just like as Jesus believed in his Creator. (Reference: Gospel of John, 5:37)
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  There is also no evidence that Moses existed. One made up religion giving birth to two more made up religions.
- UF Gator
  
  I don't understand yours. Please provide your source? This is the John 5:37 I like:
  
  http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+5%3A37&version=KJV
  
  John 5:37 (KJV) And the Father himself, which hath sent me, hath borne witness of me. Ye have neither heard his voice at any time, nor seen his shape.
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    Zack is a Muslim.
    - UF Gator
      
      That explains why I didn't understand and what he is getting at, I think. Thank you, Mr. Dixon
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Then you do not know anything for certain.
- UF Gator
  
  I know my small area expertise for certain
  - Jeff Dixon
    
    You are of the opinion that there is nothing in that area you could be mistaken about?
    - UF Gator
      
      Within the certainty possible of the discipline, yes, …but you know my thoughts on that topic. You know there are limits to what we can "observe." I certify each theoretical result with a frequency of light, which we cannot "see" with our eyes…, using instruments… The match is at best, limited, so no perfect account of the real, un-compromised data with all its nuance, at this time, is possible, unfortunately. But it's good for human purposes. We are taking about an infinity into the depths of matter here, Mr. Dixon. So taken all into consideration the answer is no. Is it the latter you are talking about? [you know you have to give me the latitude to explain context. Somehow I think my tendency to do that unnerves you and of course all this does not prove anything about God, : ) one way or another.]
      - UF Gator
        
        Interesting link on Creationism vs Science
        
        http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Quote:
        
        Introduction: Welcome to the Creationism vs Science page! To your right [go to link], you will see an image of a 3.5 million year old skull excavated from Kenya in 1999. This one is named Kenyanthropus platyops, and it is being proposed as another possible distant ancestor of mankind. Its features are somewhat different than those of "Lucy", also known as Australopithecus afarensis (discovered in Ethiopia in 1974), with smaller teeth and a flatter face. It is also possible that it is related to the australopithecus family, and that its initial classification as a separate genus may have been premature.
        Researchers are hopeful that more such remains may be found as excavations continue. This specimen is being added to the growing list of species which existed 2 to 3.5 million years ago and are clearly neither modern primate or modern human, one of which may have been our ancestors.
        However, creationists reject all of this. According to creationism, humans sprouted fully-formed in our current state, as did all animal "kinds" (a term which creationists use instead of "species", but which is curiously undefined). In an attempt to co-opt the language of science (if not its methods), they even call it "Creation Theory", even though a scientific theory should allow one to derive specific predictions from a defined mechanism: something which is impossible for "Creation Theory".
        Of course, none of this is a problem for creationism because it is not (despite its claims to the contrary) a scientific movement. It is a religiously motivated political movement, which is why they publish all of their "research" directly to the general public rather than letting other scientists subject it to peer review. Unfortunately, there are many kinds of arguments which are far more convincing to someone who struggled with grade 11 chemistry than someone who actually studied science at the university level, which is why creationism enjoys more than 50% support from the American public while languishing at less than 1% among scientists… End of Quote.
        
        READ MORE [GO TO LINK]
      - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
        
        It is a very interesting quote.
      - UF Gator
        
        It is illuminating about the debate about which I am sadly deficient. Thank you for posting it, Jeffrey.
    - UF Gator
      
      My lesson to the five-year-olds today was sharing.
    - DWoodPhD
      
      did I answer you question?
- UF Gator
  
  Jeff if you think I am being evasive… well I am just hesitant to speak publicly about my research, does that make sense?
Robert

if they don't accept wisdom can the "brilliant" minds truly be brilliant? indeed not. professing themselves to be wise, they became fools…
- UF Gator
  
  You have to be careful with insults… the wise explore ideas where ever they may be on the vast spectrum of knowledge… that is a characteristic of man… not just of a particular religious sect
Bob

SCIENCE is a thory to find a fact and isn't always 100% right. GODS LAWS have been in place since the begining of time and science is just begining to find out they are right on. For asample the Food Laws of not mixing some foods together. THE BIBLE even tell us how We should handle those foods and prepare them.
DeanC

God made the science. So don't tell me God isn't the Greatest Science of all.
- JWDixon66
  
  You want to believe your god did it. But there is no proof your god exists.
  - UF Gator
    
    God may want you to not have the proof, Mr. Dixon.
    - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
      
      Then he cannot be upset with me for not believing in him.
      - UF Gator
        
        astute as ever
      - Mary Wood
        
        V Points vs 13 Articles
        Steve Jones, on your Rational Response website. Quote:
        
        For those unfamiliar with the five points, I will here briefly
        define them:
        
        I. Total Inability. Man has
        sunk so far through the Fall that he is no longer capable of believing the
        gospel. He can no more repent and believe than a dead man can rise up and walk.
        This is all the result of the sin of Adam, who communicated th is absolute
        inability, this loss of free will, to all his posterity.
        
        II. Unconditional
        Election. God has,
        before the creation of the world, selected a portion of humanity to be saved.
        This election is irrespective of any foreseen merits or faith. It is only
        according to the good pleasure of His will.
        
        III. Particular Redemption. Jesus on Calvary bore the full punishment due
        his elect, ensuring their final salvation. He did not die for the non-elect,
        who are excluded and hopelessly reprobated.
        
        IV. Efficacious Grace. God moves upon the helpless sinner before he
        has a single thought of responding to the good news. Grace renews the
        spiritually dead will, imparts a new nature and infallibly draws the sinner to
        Christ. Regeneration, or the new birth, occurs before belief in Christ. Faith, in fact, is a
        gift imparted to the sinner, who is entirely passive in this act.
        
        V. Final
        Perseverance. Everyone
        regenerated by God's grace will persevere and be finally saved. No one who
        truly begins the life of faith will ever fall away and perish.
        
        This, I believe, is an accurate
        portrayal of the system, free of caricature. Throughout this paper, many quotes
        from Calvinist authors should bear this out.
        
        13 Articles of faith History
        of the Church, Vol. 4, pp. 535–41
        
        1 We believe in God, the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost.
        
        2 We believe that men will be punished for their own sins, and not for Adam’s transgression.
        
        3 We believe that through the Atonement of Christ, all mankind may be saved, by obedience to the laws and
        ordinances of the Gospel.
        
        4 We believe that the first principles and ordinances of the Gospel are:
        first, Faith in the Lord Jesus
        Christ; second,Repentance; third, Baptism by immersion for the remission of sins; fourth,
        Laying on of hands for the gift of the Holy Ghost.
        
        5 We believe that a man must be called of God, by prophecy, and by the laying on of hands by those who are in authority, to preach the Gospel and
        administer in the ordinances thereof.
        
        6 We believe in the same organization that existed in
        the Primitive Church, namely, apostles, prophets, pastors, teachers, evangelists, and so forth.
        
        7 We believe in the gift of tongues, prophecy, revelation, visions, healing, interpretation of tongues, and
        so forth.
        
        8 We believe the Bible to be the word of God as far as it is
        translated correctly; we also believe the Book of Mormon to be the word
        of God.
        
        9 We believe all that God has revealed, all that He does now
        reveal, and we believe that He will yet reveal many great and
        important things pertaining to the Kingdom of God.
        
        10 We believe in the literal gathering of Israel and in the
        restoration of the Ten Tribes; that Zion (the New Jerusalem) will
        be built upon the American continent; that Christ will reign personally upon the earth;
        and, that the earth will be renewed and receive its paradisiacal glory.
        
        11 We claim the privilege of worshiping
        Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the
        same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what
        they may.
        
        12 We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and
        magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining
        the law.
        
        13 We believe in being honest, true, chaste, benevolent, virtuous, and in doing good to all men; indeed, we
        may say that we follow the admonition of Paul—We believe all things, we hope all things, we have
        endured many things, and hope to be able to endure all things. If there is
        anything virtuous, lovely, or of good report or
        praiseworthy, we seek after these things.
- UF Gator
  
  of course
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66

You will find there is no "deal" with Joe. He merely pontificates.
- DWoodPC
  
  : ) I suspected as much. Thanks, Jeff!.
DWoodPC

For Jeff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fAZIQ-vpdw&fe…
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
  
  It is a wonderful video. Thank you. But I have to wonder why you offered it to me? Do you think I cannot appreciate music? Or how do I explain how people create such music without a god in the universe?
  - DWoodPC
    
    b/c its my favorite (thepianoguys.com) and I like to share my favorite stuff. I know you appreciate music because you appreciate science, and science like music is all about resonance, Mr. Dixon.
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      They are new favorites of mine.
      - UF Gator
        
        totally not surprising : )
  - UF Gator
    
    http://www.youtube.com/watchannotation_id=annotation_151987&feature=iv&src_vid=lUjWJSnGVB0&v=FGyIBnzJiyU v. good
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

Christians are of the opinion that god provides the purpose in life, that without a god, life has no purpose. I am stating that purpose can come from a number of different sources.
- DWoodPC
  
  'searching for a Dawkins today
  Here is a "Brainey Quote"
  "I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world."
  ~ Richard Dawkins
  - http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66
    
    That is sadly a true statement.
    - UF Gator
      
      not converted yet
    - UF Gator
      
      Do you pray at all, Mr. Dixon?
      - Jeff Dixon
        
        I never pray.
      - UF Gator
        
        Do you ever doubt your path?
      - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
        
        I doubt many things. And I do not flat out refuse to accept there may be a god. I merely have seen no evidence of one yet. But the religions of the world I am convinced are completely wrong.
      - UF Gator
        
        It's why I consider you as an agnostic… since you search for truth, regardless; I have investigated many and agree. My path though is from the opposite end of the spectrum it seems from yours with the same central objective: to find the truth. My belief is based on my testimony of His hand in my life, and if He does exist, I know He accepts my searching. A just God would. It is interesting the summary of what I read about the meaning of the word meme Dawkins coined. I see his logic and I can't deny it. Yet meme doesn't fit my faith, which is a fairly new addition to the lists of world religions. What is the predominate characteristic that one interested outsider would notice: no rote memorization of prayers.
      - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
        
        I really like this answer you give here in the second sentence, are you sure about that.
      - Mary Wood
        
        You never answered this Jeff.
      - Mary Wood
        
        You never answered this Jeff: This answer you give here in the second sentence, are you sure about that?
- UF Gator
  
  definitely not for eternal things
- UF Gator
  
  your name doesn't link to rational responses
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    All the changes on this site has made my link to my blog disappear.
    - UF Gator
      
      the zionica team is responsive…
      zionica@libertyalliance.com
      they sent me instructions
- UF Gator
  
  Jeff, here is a favorite quote from a military general:
  I know that which the Lord hath commanded me, and I glory in it. I do not glory of myself, but I glory in that which the Lord hath commanded me; yea, and this is my glory, that perhaps I may be an instrument in the hands of God to bring some soul to repentance; and this is my joy
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ JWDixon66

How long does a god need to be hidden before you no longer accept it?
- UF Gator
  
  I never expected to see him.
DWoodPC

On the subject of hookwinking: Does this include what Political Scientists would think of the following:

Yes, he told us in advance what he planned to do. Few were listening.
The following is a narrative taken from a 2008 Sunday morning televised "Meet The Press'.

From Sunday's 07 Sept. 2008 11:48:04 EST, Televised "Meet the Press" THE THEN Senator Obama was asked about his stance on the American Flag.

General Bill Gann' USAF (ret.) asked Obama to explain WHY he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.

The General stated to Obama that according to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171…

During rendition of the national anthem, when the flag is displayed, all present (except those in uniform) are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart. Or, at the very least, "Stand and Face It".

NOW GET THIS !!

'Senator ËœObama replied:

"As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides". "There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.." "The anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all that sort of thing."

(ARE YOU READY FOR THIS???)

Obama continued: "The National Anthem should be 'swapped' for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like To Teach the World To Sing'. If that were our anthem, then, I might salute it. In my opinion, we should consider reinventing our National Anthem as well as 'redesign' our Flag to better offer our enemies hope and love.It's my intention, if elected, to disarm America to the level of acceptance to our Middle East Brethren. If we, as a Nation of warring people, conduct ourselves like the nations of Islam, where peace prevails – - – perhaps a state or period of mutual accord could exist between our governments ……"

When I become President, I will seek a pact of agreement to end hostilities between those who have been at war or in a state of enmity, and a freedom from disquieting oppressive thoughts. We as a Nation, have placed upon the nations ofIslam, an unfair injustice which is WHY my wife disrespects the Flag and she and I have attended several flag burning ceremonies in the past".

"Of course now, I have found myself about to become the President of the United States and I have put my hatred aside. I will use my power to bring CHANGE to this Nation, and offer the people a new path. My wife and I look forward to becoming our Country's First black Family. Indeed,CHANGE is about to overwhelm the United States of America "

Yes, you read it right.

I, for one, am speechless!!!

Dale Lindsborg , Washington Post
- http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon
  
  http://snopes.com/politics/obama/stance.asp
  
  While I am no Obama fan, spreading urban rumors is unnecessary. He makes real gaffes without having to create fake ones.
  - DWoodPC
    
    this is made up?
    - Jeff Dixon
      
      I gave you the link that shows it is made up.
  - DWoodPC
    
    if this is made up, sir, please send me any that are not, if you will please
  - UF Gator
    
    Although, given your opinion which I deeply respect, as if you don't know it, I have flagged the statement as "inappropriate"
http://rationalresponses.blogspot.com/ Jeff Dixon

I have taught my kids to confirm facts for themselves, including information they get from me. No one has all the answers, and parents make mistakes.
- DWoodPC
  
  My parents have encouraged my scholarship without any censorship whatsoever.
  
  We have never had any discussion about facts and confirmation thereof.
  
  Possibly because they were Catholic. I have never thought my parents could make mistakes.
  - UF Gator
    
    moved to Jeff's thread
- UF Gator
  
  I concur Jeff. My children are little scientists as well.
- UF Gator
  
  My parents were French. I always forget that one might not realize the effect, but it is behind the fact that my parents communicated very little with us by speaking. Where I lived it was against the law to speak French in schools, so they spoke broken English to us, though both were fluent in French and they had long conversations when we weren't around. We would listen from the next room. Church was all Latin. My upbringing probably seems like the dark ages : ) though life was fun.
- http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
  
  Jeff, who built the pyramids?
  - http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
    
    Which ones? There are pyramids all over the world. But if you are referring to the ones in Egypt, I am pretty sure Egyptians did.
    - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
      
      The Egyptian ones. I discovered that scientists have been studying this over many years and really don't exactly know
      http://harvardmagazine.com/2003/07/who-built-the-pyramids-html 080112
    - http://www.facebook.com/dorothy.m.wood Mary Wood
      
      The bright, practical side of the evolution point of view:
      
      http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/060301_crime
UF Gator

http://www.london2012.com/spectators/ceremonies/ the olympics
UF Gator

Do you think scientists and/or Christians are hoodwinked?
- http://www.facebook.com/jeffrey.dixon.509 Jeffrey Dixon
  
  As an Atheist, I am of the opinion that theists are willing to accept information with no factual basis as true.
  - DWoodPhD
    
    isn't there anything at all that you accept with no factual basis Mr. Dixon?