Comments (347)

101. Andrew
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:21

     I’ve heard it all before.

     Was once told by an Evangelist that because I’ve never truly suffered in my life (been to prison, addicted to drugs or otherwise lost in a living hell) and was born again through Jesus Christ I wasn’t a true Christian.

     

102. Not Stupid
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:28

     Just so you know. The real person who was sacrificed in this pagan “ritual sacrifice” was not done on a cross (as in “T”). But was sacrificed on a stake (as in “straight” up pole without ANY arms). The myth is to perpetuate the legend of Tammuz.

     Who is Tammuz? Read up on it.

103. Not Stupid
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:32

     Oh. And I use words like “incompetence” to jar some people into mental “shock”.

104. Redem
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:53

     I’ve heard many a creationist make claims about “scientific evidence for creation” or something similar..

     I’ve yet to see them actually produce any.

     Any of the creationists here care to go so far as to support their claims?
     Or shall we just declare this “debate” a win for real science?

105. Darth Arcon
     November 19th, 2007 | 02:57

     @88
     I am really getting sick of you. Accusing me of having no proof that “my” belief is true. Continue reading, Im going to address you and another person at the same time…

     @98
     Ive got nerve…IVE GOT NERVE! Standing up for what I believe in. You have got to be kidding me! Trying to impress me with shiny titles, yeah…Ya know what, buddy? You use these thinly coated attacks like all Christians are brainwashed, and I have no scientific proof that what I believe is true. It is rather pathetic…

     Ill tell you the truth, your post shook me up a bit at first. It took me a few minutes to see through the thin attack to what the actual issue was. You are pretty good at what you do. I respect that, but Ill be damned before I let you continue the way you have.

     Toward poster 70, your quite amusing. You see my reply and instantly overlook the logic because it doesnt agree with what you believe, which seems to be evolution. The unlimited being isnt limited because it cant limit iself, that doesnt make sense. You think that since such an action is impossible for the unlimited being, that it limits it in some way…By your logic, that is true. But when you look at it in the sense the being is perfect, such a limitation is non-existent. What does this mean? Well, in the sense of Christianity, God is perfect. That alone suggests that God has limits, since God is incapable of doing evil, but that doesnt mean He is limited in that right…You cant be perfect and not have some kind of limitation. When you look at it from a Christian perspective, within the limitations of being perfect, God is limitless. Yet, you seem to miss that point…convenient…You cant just take things out of context and say it must be wrong…Dont take me for a fool.

     Oh, and here we go again with you saying I have no proof…that is hysterical. Why? If I even begin to explain the proof I have, you would hammer me down saying that Im preaching…ironic. I have been forced into a position where it matters not what I say, you refuse to believe it. Therefore, lets turn the attack off of me and put it on you for a moment. Humor me, what proof do you have that your precious evolution is true?

106. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 04:18

     @98 in response to 85

     AFIK, science can only prove something that can be repeatedly tested. Science can prove the existence of comets because it can be repeatedly tested by observing falling comets everyday, thus proving the theory that a comet exists but if there were only one such comet event in all of history then there would be no way for science to confirm or validate the theory that it did happen, only theorize or speculation, but not any undeniable confirmed fact. In light of that, only the reliability of the historical document could be tested by the same criteria that all historical documents are tested by.

     Is there irrefutable proof in the science department? IMO, no. But it looks to me that there are enough geologic evidence that suggests a global flood is certainly within the realm of possibility in the span of thousands of years.

     The filling of the Black Sea by a breach of the Med. through the Bosporus Strait? As far as I know, this has got to be about the worst natural disaster ever witnessed by western man. And at ca. 5500 BC, would have been documented by the Sumerians (whom some claim the story was copied from), and a number of other peoples. There is also physical evidence to back this up, as opposed to the lack of for a global flood. As far as more worldly flood stories are concerned, a few other things were going on. As little as 3000 BC, sea levels were still much lower than today. Florida Bay (as well as a lot more of the gulf coastal plain) was still dry land. There are indian middens off the west coast of Florida in 20-30 ft. of water. Areas such as the Grand Banks and George’s Banks off New England and the Maritime Provinces were islands (if not peninsulas) hosting critters like mastodons (personal obs.). Same goes with the North Sea. Mammoth parts as well as other material is commonly dredged up. Australia was colonized ca. 40,000 ybp. How many may had gone on to islands (that are now guyots) in the Pacific? A sea level drop at over 500 ft. at the last glacial maximum would have caused them to be islands by way of lesser weight on the Pacific Plate, causing it to rise, as the land areas from the weight of ice, are depressed to below sea level, in Antarctica and Greenland. Not to mention breaches in late Wisconsinian ice dams that caused such major devastation such as the Scablands of the Pacific Northwest and areas in Siberia. Local maybe, but in the context of several thousand years of years time, perhaps global too.

     @102 Not Stupid

     I beg to differ.

     Crucifixion is the process where a person is nailed or bound to a cross or a stake. It was first used by the Persians and later by the Egyptians, Carthaginians, and Romans as a form of capital punishment. Alexander the Great introduced it to the Mediterranean area and the Romans perfected it as a means of capital punishment. Normally, there was a permanent stake in the ground. The victim carried the crossbar on his back to the stake. The crossbar usually weighed between 50 and 75 lbs. Sometimes the person was nailed to the crossbar, other times he was tied to it. The crossbar, and victim, were then hoisted into place. One method was to hoist the crossbar into a notch on top of the stake so the whole thing looked like a T. Another method was to place the crossbeam a few feet below the top making a cross. Yet another method was to nail or tie the person to a single stake in the ground. Usually a small sign on a pole with the crime written on it was carried ahead of the victim in front of the procession to the cross. It was then nailed to the cross above the head of the victim. When nails were used, they were driven through the wrists between the radial and ulna bones and not through the palms since the nail would have ripped through the palm because the palm could not withstand all the weight of the body.

     Justus Lipsius, in one of the earliest writings that speak specifically of the shape of the cross on which Jesus died, describe it as shaped like the letter T (the Greek letter tau), or composed of an upright and a transverse beam, together with a small peg in the upright. In them, he describes the form of crucifixion you describe as well as the crucifixion of jesus that everyone is accustomed to know, the T cross. Even though we all know jesus’ death is recorded in all four gospels but for the sake of the discussion, I’ll list some non-Christian writings that record jesus’s death: Josephus, the Talmud, Tacitus, and Pliny/Seneca the Younger.

     I find it ironic how you make a claim that jesus’s death/ressurection if applicalbe, is a myth that perpetuates a legend when 1.) if the crucifixion text passes the history test, then who cares if he died sideways or upside down, he died. 2.) we have more evidence for jesus’s life than tammuz. So, whether Jesus was crucified in a T shape or stake form, the evidences and records showing proof of jesus’s death, even resurrection, surpasses most, if not, all ancient literature, including Tammuz’s. Which leads to one of the most important questions asked by non-Christians as they look into Christianity is whether or not the Bible is trustworthy. Can the Bible be trusted. If it has been corrupted, then we cannot trust what is attributed to Jesus’ words and deeds. So, is the Bible reliable or not?
     Yes, the Bible was reliable, at least in my informed opinion. The original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don’t have the “typos” or by simply reading the context. You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. Nothing affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.
     The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy. If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then it would be necessary to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.
     The Bible was written by those who were inspired to God. When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ.

107. Andrew
     November 19th, 2007 | 04:35

     My understanding is that intelligent design (ID) isn’t a science as it can’t be tested in experiments, produces no predictions or creates any new hypothesis in contrast to the theory of natural selection (NS).

     If you (Darth Arcon) have an experiment that proves the theory correct or can produce a single prediction or a new hypothesis confirming the legitimacy of ID as a science then I would be very interested to hear about it.

     NS isn’t perfect but it’s clearly the best we have at the moment and will be until proven otherwise.

108. Wizard of the Orient
     November 19th, 2007 | 04:44

     All this stems from the fact that humans cannot comprehend the time frame of a million years, much less a billion years!

109. jonnyBoy
     November 19th, 2007 | 04:47

     This is getting too loud… Time for a drink after reading all the comments and the crap I’ve seen today.

     How about everybody do the same? Take a break, collect yourselves, and then see what you think about this then?

     I’ll see you in hell :-}

110. Not Stupid
     November 19th, 2007 | 05:00

     @106 Figured you were a textbook “christian”. Study some more, then you will notice that crucifixions occurred before the time periods YOU stated. Historically, Tammuz was crux’d and this was in Babylon! Oh, and the life and times of Tammuz are retold in your Jesus.

     Your Jesus said for the people NOT to worship him but the Father ONLY. As far as I know, christians worship Jesus, NOT The Creator or Grand Designer. That 3n1 joke you guys call “Trinity” comes from Egyption theology. “Jesus” did not want to be portrayed as a god-type but was merely pointing out how we should live by the manual. YOUR bible says, 1 Faith, 1 Baptism and 1 Father of all. That can not be Jebus now can it? The bible may not contradict itself but the followers sure do. And take it from an X-Christian.

     Guess what? I think we live in Warhammer times now and are starting to see The Horus Heresy.

     So much for what you know.

111. Jingle Jangle
     November 19th, 2007 | 05:25

     @90

     “But you can’t deny that the Christian religion has had a more positive lasting effect on the modern world than if it were to be Islam or Buddhism.”

     Oh, I can deny it and I will. The pursuit of Christianity has resulted in far more deaths than any other religion. What were the Crusaders, a bunch of fun-loving guys on a road trip? The Inquisitions? The war in Iraq led by the Christian fundamentalist president of the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, injuries and untold misery? How about the hundreds and thousands of accusations of pedophilia perpetrated by some of the highest members of the church? This is the lasting contribution of christianity.

     Funny how when muslim nut jobs blow something up, it’s islam that’s the violent religion, but when christian nut jobs kill people, it’s just a few people acting on their own accord. It’s simple, all religions are just crutches for the weak, stupid and intolerant folks among us.

112. Darth Arcon
     November 19th, 2007 | 06:06

     Ah, @107. You bring an excellent point to the table. I reiterate the word excellent. Why? Because it is true. There is absolutely NO WAY to scientifically prove that ID is true. I couldnt agree with you more. On the flip side, however, stands the scientific backing of evolution. If you really think about it, and dont just think of ways to prove me wrong and prove you right, there is really no way to “scientifically” prove any world view or “beginning of time” theory to be true. Think about it, I implore you. When faced with the scientific method, which seems to help define reality with the least amount of effort, remember back to grade school science class. The main step in the scientific method is to “observe”. When faced with ID vs evolution, you cant observe the beginning of time, nor can you prove that there was an actual “beginning”. For all we know, time, and by extension the entire universe, has always existed. There is no way to prove it with science. That is where science falls short, and you need to focus on logical thought to guide you to the truth. And as far as I have “logically” thought, ID seems to be, IMO of course, the most logical choice. Obviously, others disagree with me, for they have come to a different conclusion. They try to use fossil records, carbon dating, and process of elimination to try and back their claims. But, when all is said and done, all the fossils in the world mean nothing without credibility. And who do you get credibility from? Other people? Is that a joke? How can you possibly use other people as credibility when faced with such a controversial subject? Sure, I can honestly tell you that Albert Einstein believed in “a” god. His god was the Jewish god, Jehovah. However, even when such a smart man believes in such a thing, you still cant use his claim for jack! What is Albert Einstein to me? Please, I dont mean to offend, but he is just another person with his own beliefs! Even though many people consider him to be one of the smartest men in history (I am one of those many people), they still believe other things. Im not jewish………The point Im trying to make is a simple one. Use your own brain, and draw your own conclusions from things that you ALONE can prove. Dont base it on any proof from someone else unless you can logically think it through to the same conclusion…

     I can almost guarantee you (I use “almost” to cover myself for future reference) that when the people I challenged come back on here, they will give me links and books and documentaries and the like. But as I said, such things require credibility to be true. After all, I have heard a lot about most of the fossil record. I have heard unbelievable things like these Lucy bones are either one of the first human beings, or just some person somebody dug up. That some bones from the Neanderthals (Im not sure on that, it could be from one of the other pre human…things) were pig bones and teeth. I have heard credible opinions from both sides, and both sides are credible by some person with a shiny degree or whatever. Point being? Only trust yourself. Heh, I think it is rather funny that most of the people on here are challenging me to prove ID to be true when in reality my “original” goal was to have equal representation in our schools. My motives have changed since then, true, but after thinking a lot about it, and your comment 107, I guess I need to return to that original intent. Please, dont base your belief on what I, or anybody else says, base your belief on what conclusion YOU logically come to…

     And for the record, just because I think everybody should use their own logic to find truth, I do personally believe in ID (not necessarily Christianity, though I do believe it is the closest ID theory). Because of this little fact, you will find bias in my writing. I suppose that is just how it works…sorry…

113. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 06:22

     @110 [chuckle] Figured you were an Christian/Myth “believer”. “Study some more, then you will notice that crucifixions occurred before the time periods YOU stated. Historically, Tammuz was crux’d and this was in Babylon!”

     Tammuz crucifixion may have occurred before the time in question, but presumably the stake version, while the cross version followed. But, either way, it really doesn’t matter which one Jesus died on. The issue is whether or not He shed His blood for our sins. The Greek word used in many Bibles which is translated into “cross” is the Greek word “stauros” which means, “an upright stake, esp. a pointed one, a cross.” If a stake were used, instead of a cross, then Jesus’ hands would have been placed above His head with a nail driven through His wrists. Since the wrists would most likely overlap, only one nail is needed through both wrists. However, John 20:25 says, “The other disciples therefore said unto him, We have seen the Lord. But he said unto them, except I shall see in his hands the print of the [b]nails[/b], and put my finger into the print of the [b]nails[/b], and thrust my hand into his side, I will not believe.” Notice the use of the word nails (plural) in reference to hands (plural). It makes far more sense to say that Jesus was crucified on a cross with outstretched hands and one nail in each hand placed above each other on a stake. That is why it says “…in his hands the print of the nails…” So it’s most logical to state that Jesus died on a cross with outstretched arms.

     “Oh, and the life and times of Tammuz are retold in your Jesus.”

     And Tammuz’s name is mentioned only once in the bible, Ezekiel 8:13-15. hardly any manuscripts in support for Tammuz, not that I deny his existence.

     “Your Jesus said for the people NOT to worship him”

     Would you mind pointing out that verse?

     “but the Father ONLY. As far as I know, christians worship Jesus, NOT The Creator or Grand Designer.”

     It may appear to you that way, but it seems to be that you’re right only if Jesus did not claim to be God. If that’s the case, then Christians are worshiping Jesus and not the Father. I could be wrong, but if we can establish that Jesus claimed to be God/the Father/The Creator/Grand Designer, then we can conclude that the early Christians worshiped both Jesus and God the Father as one, which would negate your entire point.

     Did Jesus claim to be God? Considering he was a jew, speaking in jewish terms, he certainly made the point clear that him and the Father are one (in nature). John 10:30-33 quotes “I and the Father are one.” The Jews took up stones again to stone Him. Jesus answered them, “I showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?” The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.” There are about 8 bible verses i can think of that support the claim that show that Jesus is God in flesh, or at least claimed to be one with the Father, like, John 5:18 - “For this cause therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath, but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God.” (John, Colossians, Phillipians, Hebrew and Psalms). I could list more at your if you want.

     I think we can both agree that Jesus is worshipped. In fact, He said to worship God only, yet He receives worship. What does that tell you? Under the premise that Jesus is one with the Father, if he tells his followers to worship God only and they worship Him then they are worshiping both Jesus and God the Father at the same time. It’s impossible for them to worship Jesus and not ‘The Creator’ because Jesus IS one in the same with ‘The Creator’. For example, John 1:1 - “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” John 1:14 - “And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

     “That 3n1 joke you guys call “Trinity” comes from Egyption theology.”

     Please back that up.

     As far as your knowledge of Christianity vs Horus/Egytian religions, these kinds of arguments were popular in so-called “history of religions” circles until several decades ago, but they were generally abandoned. Atheistic fundamentalists and some people who took older religious studies classes still haven’t caught up entirely. The thesis was basically that Christian theology took its primary components from preceding traditions rather than from events which occurred in Jesus’ life. Usually it works this way: Jesus preached an inner kingdom of hippie social justice, but Paul put Jesus in the framework of a “mystery religion” (a category of pagan cult contemporary with early xianity). It turns out that you have to read those pagan cults using the terms of Christian theology in order to make that case, but obviously if you’re using the terms of Christian theology to read pagan cults then the thesis that the terms of Christian theology are basically lifted out of the mystery religions is false.

     Consider the first paragraph on the website
     http://www.pocm.info/getting_started_pocm.html:

     “What the ancient evidence will show you is that ancient western culture had a conceptual model of reality, and ancient Christianity adopted that model. Ancient Pagans believed in various levels of divinity, with miraculous powers, coming down and going up to its home in the sky. Divine beings cared about people, listened to and answered their prayers. Gave them the power to prophesy. Even gave them a better deal in the eternal life that comes after death.”

     So the facts are:
     1. They believed in some sort of non-human beings.
     2. They beleived that non-human beings had non-human powers.
     3. They believed that non-human beings lived in places that humans don’t.
     4. They believed that non-human beings interacted with humans.
     5. They believed that non-human beings could provide humans with non-human knowledge and power.

     Obviously these are so vague that we would only be surprised if there weren’t people all over the world who believed these kinds of things. This is basically on the order of, “Many people believed things fell from the sky in ancient times, so Newton must have gotten his laws of motion from them.” (There exist much better examples than this website, but…)

     Leithart offers the interesting epigram, “The Devil has no stories.” In other words, because only God can create out of nothing, whenever we make anything it will always be derivative in nature, so any story we write will unavoidably reflect the story, God’s story. Hence we get posts like some of those above.

     So, are there similarities? Sure, but not any kind of similarities that show that the fundamentals of Christian theology were derived from the mystery religions as opposed to the life of Jesus.

     C.S. Lewis, who argues along similar lines; that is, that each of these myths in some way foreshadow or give a glimpse of the fullness of the Gospel. Most pre-christian pagan myths contain, at some point or another, a god-man that dies and comes back (in some form or another). Lewis argues that these are prepatory to the actual coming of the true Messiah. This is one of the ways you can understand the bit about whole of creation groaning for a saviour. Even pagan religions are looking for someone to destroy death.

     They get aspects of the story right, use similar images and characters, and they set forth the problems really well; in the end, though, their solution is always skewed in a way.

     Take The Oresteia for example. Aeschylus uses very biblical imagery to describe justice (blood thick in the ground, crying out for vengeance). Yet at the end of the story, the problem is solved with an appeal to Athenian judicial procedures, and Athena is able to use rhetoric to convince the Furies to calm down. What is the message of this story? On one level, yes, that murder requires payment in blood. On another, though, it’s that politics and rhetoric are what saves us from this vicious cycle of death.

     it seems like the details of many of these early myths were a little more explicit than just generalizations - like they believed their god was born of a virgin birth, or specifically crucified, even called the ‘Lamb of God’… I mean those are some pretty exact details - and thats really what gets my interest. but you’re going to find two things the more you study it:

     1) Christ still looks quite a bit different in other ways. He really does come looking like their gods, but completely defying the mold at the same time. He is God descending to become man, and saving His people through a selfless death and resurrection that lifts him up to Lordship over the heavens and the earth. That story is unique.
     2) If we would say that just because two religions have similar images or themes, one must have come from another, then we simply can’t explain the history of religion. These connections and themes are literally global. When we are making this argument against Christianity we would really, eventually, have to argue for one common mother of all religions, but that wouldn’t really work very well with the rest of worldview in question.

     “The Horus Heresy.”

     I remember watching a video doco on comparisons between Jesus and Horus.

     First off, sunset is not a reference to “Set.” I worry about anyone who made it past that part of the video. I’m pretty sure “horizon” doesn’t come from “Horus is risen,” but I’m confident “Sunset” is not a reference to Set. That set off huge bells.

     Horus was not crucified. I think that’s the part where I became livid, not necessarily because I was religiously offended, but intellectually. It’s hard when someone is just spouting lies to me directly.

     Horus was not born to a virgin in the vast majority of the myths I’ve heard. At one point, he was regarded as Isis’ husband. But one of the most established myths is that he was regarded as the son of Osiris and Isis - so he was not born of a virgin. In most stories of this well-regarded paramount of Egyptian storytelling, Osiris was dismembered, then put back together by his wife, who copulated with him, his detached phallus, or a stand-in for his phallus.

     On top of that, I’m not sure “Meri” or “Mary” was ever a name attached to Isis. I’m also fairly sure Horus wasn’t born in what became our December. Other sun-gods may have been, but not Horus. A big bell also went off the video asserted Horus was born in a cave or a manger similar to Christ - he was born in a swamp.

     This video was the first time I heard the assertion (without proper documentation) that Horus had twelve disciples - I doubt this claim greatly. There are tales of an inner circle coming to him for guidance and advice in warfare, etc. but not a specific number twelve, and not ones that followed him around in an earthly ministry.

     I was shocked by how poor the scholarship is - besides many outright lies in it, the narrator/creator shows little to no grasp of the concept of shifting incarnations of divinity that the Egyptian religion had. I can go into further detail if anyone requires, but do yourself a favor and ignore “new age beliefs” from “Zeitgeist” - or use its blatant falsehoods to kindle an interest in Egyptian mythology.

     In fact, here was a list I made myself:

     HORUS (3000bc egypt)
     born dec 25
     born of virgin
     star in east appeared at birth
     adorned by 3 kings
     teacher at 12
     baptised at age 30
     had 12 disciples
     performed miracles
     known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’
     crucified
     dead for 3 days
     resurrected

     Compare the Wikipedia article on Horus with the POTM website’s claims. Notice that they don’t describe Horus as somebody who lost an eye that was then restored, or associated with the Falcon, or that his eyes represented Sun and Moon, or that semen was the weapon of choice in a major battle with Set — even though these are central features to Horus. Notice that his “virgin birth” (say, reproduction by masturbation) and “death and resurrection” (closer to reincarnation, if anything) are nothing like the “virgin birth” or “death and resurrection” of Jesus. Obviously what’s going on is that somebody is looking for little data points that can be given labels that sound like the labels we give to parts of Jesus’ life.

     Even so, let’s see which looks better — that the stories about Jesus came from the Old Testament or from mystery religions.

     born dec 25 — Jesus wasn’t born Dec 25

     born of virgin — unique births commonly appear for special people in OT (e.g., Isaac)

     star in east appeared at birth — Perhaps they’re thinking of Magi (people) from the east who followed a star? East is first prominent at the beginning of Genesis, when Adam & Eve are kicked out of the Garden.

     adorned by 3 kings — There weren’t 3 kings who adorned Jesus

     teacher at 12, baptised at age 30 — This is on the level of, “Started driving at age 16.”

     had 12 disciples — 12 tribes of Israel

     performed miracles — Moses, Elijah, etc.

     known by ‘the lamb of god, the light, good shepard’ — “Light” motif starts in Gen 1. Lamb of God is Passover Lamb. Good shepherd appears in the famous Psalm 23.

     crucified, resurrected — death and resurrection is the hope throughout the Prophets

     And I didn’t even have to take things out of context.

     There are also many ideas out there among Christian circles of why so many of these ancient myths talk about virgin births, sons who die and resurrect, etc and I highly recommend you actually read the stories. To describe these things in terms of “virgin births” and “resurrection” makes it sound like there is a strong similarity, sure, but if you were just reading the stories it would never ever occur to you to use those terms. E.g., somebody goes to the Greeks’ Land of the Dead, does some stuff down there, and then leaves — would you call this “resurrection”? Only if you were trying to make it sound like the story of Jesus. If you read the stories you’ll probably actually start laughing at these claims.

     And that’s not quite much for what I know.

114. britney's flab
     November 19th, 2007 | 06:42

     scientists do not try to re-write the bible. that’s why we don’t allow christians to re-write science. two different subjects that should not try to define each other. either way DEATH TO ALL CHRISTIANS!

115. Darth Arcon
     November 19th, 2007 | 06:56

     @wah
     Wow, I dont think I could ever come up with as much historical backing as you. Im not saying I disagree with you or anything, but dont forget where your posting to. This isnt a forums with a dedicated community. It is a reply section to a documentary. Most people have the attention span of a 12 year old on here (which actually includes me…). I doubt rather much that they would be willing to read such a long explanation…good for you for knowing all this, though. Its a lot more than I will ever know…

116. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 07:13

     @111

     You denial is interesting. lol. and you make an xlnt point. I guess the world would be better with islamic views or buddhist views. Let’s see your worldview:

     world islamic view = bloody wars and conflict is going to happen anyway over religion, except christianity would be on the opposing side, we would not have liberty and free thinkers and woman would be of a lower class, blacks and jews are unequal and none of us would be allowed to speak our mind on this internet against islam or any religion without being criminizled for that. well so much for that worldview

     world buddhist view = everyone is peaceful, but eventually someone’s going to fight and someone will die but hey, be peace and loving and sit idly by while other people are being killed. point is, war will happen either way, and eventually, if you’re a buddhist, you side with neither side, letting it happen instead of defending the oppressed or standing up for what’s/who’s right.

     Between those two views, I’d personally choose a world w/ Christianity. Ever heard of the Elmer Gantry myth? If followers of a religion start being hypotrical doesn’t mean the truth is negated. Truth is truth and salvation is still made available by the grace of God.

     “The pursuit of Christianity has resulted in far more deaths than any other religion. What were the Crusaders, a bunch of fun-loving guys on a road trip? The Inquisitions?”

     And their blood was spilled for your and our freedom to live in a world that believes in alleviating poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty. I’m not trying to give the impression the world is perfect, bloodless, and full of justice, but at least you have the right to speak your mind on this board, if not for the virtues of freedom of speech. Innocent blood was never intended as an aftermath of Christianity, but Christianity arrived to divide people over their beliefs about jesus which would result in conflict, yet, it would have been the exact thing if it was another religion in place of Chrsitianity. Either way, it sucks, get over it.

     “The war in Iraq led by the Christian fundamentalist president of the US, resulting in hundreds of thousands of deaths, injuries and untold misery?”

     Do you even know why the war started in the first place? Instead of getting involved in the communities and fighting off terrorists from oppressing neighborhood, they’ve allowed problems in Iraq to fester until it was too great too ignore that they had to launch a massive invasion. War is never good so the only way to make sure another “Iraq” doesn’t happen is to prevent it. How do you prevent something like Iraq from happening? Easy. Not sit idly by and ignore them. Getting involved with people means sending in reserve troops in to help with everyday life by forming personal relationships. And why should we be involved in other countries? To reiterate, to alleviate poverty, universal education, and the ideals of equality and liberty. Values found in Christian virtues.

     “How about the hundreds and thousands of accusations of pedophilia perpetrated by some of the highest members of the church?”

     That’s a good one. But blame it on Catholicism, not Christianity. Where ever Christianity was, it left when the Protestants left Europe. Roman Catholicism is its own religions separate of that of what we normally call Protestant denominational ‘Christianity’, which resulted in movements like Evangelicals, Fundamentalism, and non-demoninations. and honestly, even if Christianity didn’t exist, you think these ‘would-be-priests’ in the highest elders of ‘church’ wouldn’t be able to find a way to hold themselves unaccountable for their crimes?

117. Charlie_Chap
     November 19th, 2007 | 07:28

     It seems like this is a very hot topic. Let’s see it for yourself.

     http://rapidshare.com/files/69812472/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part01.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70040918/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part02.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70146948/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part03.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70274621/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part04.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70252174/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part05.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70174601/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part06.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70211704/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part07.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70245541/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part08.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70241408/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part09.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70283311/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part10.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70298742/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part11.rar
     http://rapidshare.com/files/70365298/NOVA-ID_On_Trial.part12.rar

118. Andrew
     November 19th, 2007 | 07:55

     I agree that the problem with all observations is that we tend to bring our preconceived biases to the conclusions we make.

     Few would have a problem with a glass that contains 50% water and 50% air being described as either half empty or half full.

     But a majority would have a problem when someone denies the glass existence as a matter of faith.

     My observation of the ID movement leads me to believe that they are trying to undermined/supplant NS science with faith based beliefs in the science curriculum.

     I also believe that this result will be to the detriment of all concerned as it is a obvious attempt to justify a preconceived fallacious religious bias that the glass sitting right in front of them doesn’t exist.

     GOD is in the detail.

119. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 08:00

     @Death Arcon

     Thanks. but you get my overall point, right?

     Besides, I only split it up in 5 simple sections:

     1. Crucifixion
     2. Tammuz
     3. Jesus’s Divinity
     4. Christian/Pagan Myth
     5. Jesus Myth/Horus Heresy

     In regards to ID, it is a theory that ’settles for less’ for each side. It’s an attempt to reconcile two enemies. But in the end, there can be only one, for one will rise, one will fall. Like Matthew 6:24 and Luke 16:13 says: “No one can serve two masters. Either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and Money.”

120. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 08:16

     @119

     disproving 1 of the 2 options at hand would NOT prove other one correct

     heck they could both be wrong and we might aswell be a simulation in a super-computer âla matrix, ran by flying spaghetti monsters and invisible pink unicorns aboard flying emerald turtle on the way to castle of clouds

     now thats a theory id like to be taught in schools, since both evidence used for scientific view and the creationist can be used to back it, and best of all, you cant disprove it!

121. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 08:38

     @120

     that’s far out. But my point is that there’s no use in trying to reconcile both via a hybrid theory. Even if both are wrong, one will be ‘chosen’.

122. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 08:45

     @ Death Arcon

     You seem to be passionate about what you’re talking about. Maybe we should get together for tea and discuss more.

123. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 09:23

     @70

     This is a little too late but you seem to be missing the context of that ‘phrase’. “Can an almighty god create a stone so heavy he/she cant carry it?”

     The question is not measuring the ‘almightiness’ of god. If you want to see how almighty god is read the old testament. the question in mind is measuring the integrity of god. simply put, since god’s nature is perfect he cannot contradict himself/his nature. That’s on the order of, ‘can god kill himself?’ or ‘can god lust?’ god can not contradict his own nature. he is unable to deny himself. so it is not a matter of what god can or cannot do because by definition he can do anything and everything only within his own nature, which is perfection. taht being said, it is a matter of integrity and if god can keep his word/integrity then that means he is perfect in that sense. for instance, it’s like asking a leader to lead an unleadable person. since it’s in the leader’s nature to lead, he will lead those who he can only lead and by doing that he is keeping his integrity. since he can’t lead the unleadable, that doesn’t take anything away from his ability to lead or his leadership skills or his integrity as a leader for that fact. hope that helps.

124. Rekrul
     November 19th, 2007 | 09:29

     I know a woman who is heavily into the catholic religion. She’s always talking about saints, and important figures in the history of the catholic church, how great it is, etc. She didn’t believe me when I told her that the catholic church had spent more than 600 years arresting, torturing and executing every man, woman and child who didn’t agree with them. She accused me of making it up. :/

125. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 09:39

     @Jingle Jangle

     Funny how when muslim nut jobs blow something up, it’s islam that’s the violent religion, but when christian nut jobs kill people, it’s just a few people acting on their own accord.

     Nope. that’s not true at all.

     “It’s simple, all religions are just crutches for the weak, stupid and intolerant folks among us.”

     that’s such an untrue statement totally based on your moronic biased opinion. You’ll be surprised to find out in the real world from your small cave that there are strong, intelligent and liberal people who adhere to a religion. You sir are an idiot for calling millions of people weak, stupid and intolerant, making yourself to be “elite”, which says a lot about your creed, let alone attitude and personality.

126. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 09:55

     @124 Rekrul

     Ouch! did she cry? Well, that’s what happens when you integrate governmental law and religion and give too much power to radical fundamentalist zealots who grossly misinterpret the bible. You should tell her that even if church leaders have done evil things in the name of God, truth is still truth found in the Christian message, not the Catholic message.

127. LucidHarmony
     November 19th, 2007 | 10:09

     Fighting with religious people doesn’t make any sense, its arguing science versus religious dogma.
     Or reality versus imagination, as it were.

128. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 10:22

     @127

     try telling that to the ones who want fairytales to be taught in schools as a science

129. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 10:42

     @126
     “truth is still truth found in the Christian message”
     Truth meaning ‘whatever you impose upon it’?

130. SoniKalien
     November 19th, 2007 | 10:54

     Y’all gotta realise that you can’t use the bible as a source of information let alone facts. It is well known that the current bible is nothing like the original (whatever that was) and you can confirm this by getting hold of a King James version (oldest obtainable) and comparing it.

     The bible has been rewritten by religious zealots to make it work for their own purposes. So when you say stuff like “note plural NAILS” then coincidentally you could be just as wrong.

131. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 11:00

     “Truth meaning ‘whatever you impose upon it’?”

     I’m taking what you mean by that question is that the message is made up by mortal men by picking a card out of magic hat? Certainly not! Truth meaning what God has already divinely revealed to us through Scripture. The canon of the christian bible is considered to be inspired by God as the Word of God.

     simply put, “Salvation is still by grace through faith in our Lord Jesus Christ.” That’s one of the main doctrinal truths that most Christians, and any true Church, do agree on, among other essentials of course.

132. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 11:17

     @131:
     And why is the canon of the christian bible considered to be inspired by God as the Word of God? Because it says so.
     I humbly bow before your logic

133. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 11:18

     @131

     If the faith of the world has already been decided by the christian god, why bother doing anything?
     i mean, really, what about the concept of free will, if our actions cant even change the outcome of our divinely planned lives?

     with blind religious logic i could make the assumption that “it would be OK to kill someone, because god has planned it all out, and if he doesnt want me to do it, i fail in my attempt, and since i believe in and worship god ill get to heaven anyway!”(=AKA mental illness)

     dun dun dun

134. Fridge
     November 19th, 2007 | 11:29

     Just to let you know i had a really good wank while reading all the comments here.

135. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 12:05

     @130

     oh you shouldn’t have trodded down this road man. So you’re doubting the reliability of the bibliography test of the New Testament? My God man you don’t know how to pick your battles. BUT you are right that I could be wrong, since the copying of the original documents could have been maliciously tampered with. So let us look at how well accurate of the original manuscripts are compared to the copies we have today:

     If you’re talking about the NT, I consider the bible to be as historically reliable as how well it has been tested by the same criteria by which all historical documents are tested, which are the bibliography test and the internal/external evidence tests, but for you i’m only going to cover the first test.

     First, for the bibliography tests, when you compare the NT with other ancient literature as Homer’s “Iliad” or Plato’s work, it’s the best attested ancient writing in terms of the time span between events and the document, # of extant manuscripts, and the time gaps between the original dates written and the earliest copies we have. As far as the accuracy of the manuscripts goes, I believe they are supported by Syriac, Latin, Coptic (Egyptian), Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, Ethiopic and Nubian versions, as well as Greek NT lectionaries and early patristic NT quotations like Justin Martyr or Irenaeus. So there you have it. There are at least 8 different languages whose own copy of the NT substantiate its accuracy.

     I’ve already said this earlier in my earlier comment, but I’m going to reiterate to you once again.

     You make an xlnt point that the original writings of the Bible have been lost. But before they were lost, they were copied. These copies were incredibly accurate, very meticulous, and very precise. The people who copied them were extremely dedicated to God and their copying tasks. They took great care when copying the original manuscripts. This copying method is so exact, and so precise, that the New Testament alone is considered to be 99.5% textually pure. This means that of the 6000 Greek copies (the New Testament was written in Greek), and the additional 21,000 copies in other languages, there is only one half of 1% variation. Of this very slight number, the great majority of the variants are easily corrected by comparing them to other copies that don’t have the “typos” or by simply reading the context.

     You should know that copying mistakes occur in such ways as word repetition, spelling, or a single word omission due to the copyist missing something when moving his eyes from one line to another. The variants are very minor. And this is where we get different versions.

     But NOTHING affects doctrinal truth and the words and deeds of Christ are superbly reliably transmitted to us.

     The science of studying ancient literature and its accuracy of transmission to is called historicity. The Bible is so exceedingly accurate in its transmission from the originals to the present copies, that if you compare it to any other ancient writing, the Bible is light years ahead in terms of number of manuscripts and accuracy.

     “You can’t use the bible as a source of information let alone facts”

     If the Bible were to be discredited as being unreliable, then we would have to discard the writings of Homer, Plato, and Aristotle as also unreliable since they are far far less well preserved than the Bible.

     The Bible was written by those who were inspired to God. When we look at the New Testament we realize that it was written by those who either knew Jesus personally, or were under the direction of those who did. They wrote what they saw. They wrote about the resurrection of Christ. They recorded His miracles and His sayings. It comes down to whether or not you believe what it says about Christ. Do you?

     Of course not. Would you give the “benefit of the doubt”? Let me guess: probably not?

     One of the ways to test the internal evidence of ANY historical document, therefore measuring its reliability if in fact all, is to use, what John Warwick Montgomery states, the standard of test that literary critics still follow, Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.”

     One of my favorite sayings of S.H. Horn is directed to 99% of all the Christian skeptics in this comment board:

     “Think for a moment about what needs to be demonstrated concerning a ‘difficulty’ in order to transfer it into the category of a valid argument against doctrine. Certainly much more is required than the mere appearance of a contradiction. First, we must be certain that we have correctly understood the passage, the sense in which it uses words or numbers. Second, that we possess all available knowledge in this matter. Third, that no further light can possibly be thrown on it by advancing knowledge, textual research, archeology, etc…..Difficulties do not constitute objections. Unsolved problems are not of necessity errors. This is not to minimize the area of difficulty; it is to see it in perspective. Difficulties are to be grappled with and problems are to drive us to seek clear light; but until such time as we have total and final light on any issue we are in no position to affirm, ‘Here is a proven error, an unquestionable objection to an infallible Bible.’ It is common knowledge that countless ‘objections’ have been fully resolved since this century began.

     It’s clear that most sincere christian critics and skeptics here on this board aren’t willing to give ‘the benefit of the doubt’ but instead spout out totally ignorant opinions that the bible/christianity is unreliable, myths, imaginations when, in fact, their presumptions really stems from their own procrastination to actually test the reliability of what they are attacking.

     This is the mindset of all of you of whom I’m referring to: “The bible is unreliable/fake/myth/imaginative because of this and that but I’ve never ACTUALLY read the bible or did any type of research, let alone, give the benefit of the doubt, to see if is IN FACT unreliable/fake/myth/imaginative through careful research. I honestly believe it, in fact I’m convinced, but I’ll say it as if I have some sort of authority even though I’ve never actually been on a quest to disprove the bible but only through my ignorance.”

     You all make me sick!

136. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 12:18

     Hmmm…The benefit of doubt. I think it was Albert Camus who called this attitude “intellectual suicide”

137. tugo
     November 19th, 2007 | 12:29

     People always say there no proof o evolution, I got proof. Dogs, how many different breeds of are there ? Hundreds ?. Breeding is evolution on turbo. Back in the caveman days or the Moses days, there was no German Shepards or Bulldogs or Mexican Hairless. They where domesticated wolves and jackals. Then human beings started to breed the fastest with the fastest and we got Greyhounds. We bred the biggest with the biggest and got Great Danes and so on. We are still turbo evolving animals. Have you seen that breed of cats with the short front legs ? or those goats that faint when spooked ? We took animals with a genetic defect that was rare and bred them to bring it out. A fainting goat in nature would not survive, nor would a cat that has short legs. We even did it to other humans, have you heard of a Mandingo ? Google it.

138. velo
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:02

     At least try to give me proof. I’m not out to get you so calm down.

     A gut feeling is not proof, a 2000+ year old text is not proof more then any other holy text, like the hindu ones.

     You claim you have proof, and i assume you know what that means.

     If you give me hard evidence for the christian God´s existence, i will convert here and now within a heartbeat.

     So here is you chance. Go on, do your part, enlighten me.

139. velo
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:16

     oops that was ment @105 Darth Arcon

140. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:42

     @132

     I knew you were gonna say that.

     Inspiration indicates how the bible received its authority, whereas canonization tells how the bible received i ts acceptance. it is one thing for god to give the scriptures their authority, and quite another for men to recognize that authority. Canonization, then, concerns the recognition and collection of the God-inspired, authoritative books of the sacred scriptures. canonicity is determined by god. actually, a canonical book is valuable and true because god inspired it. that is, canonicity is determined of fixed conclusively by authority, and authority was given to the individual books by God through inspiration. the real question is not where a book received its divine authority, for this can only come from God alone, but how did men recognize that authority? Authority is recognized by men of God. Inspiration determines canonicity. if a book was authoritative, it was so because god breathed it and made it so. how a book received authority, then, is determined by God. How men recognize that authority is another matter altogether. Precisely speaking, canonicity is determined by god, IOW, the reason there are only 66 books in the canon is that God inspired only that many. that is, only 66 books were found to have the stamp of divine authority, because God only stamped that many, or invested that number with authority for faith and practice. a book is valuable because it is canonical. a given book is not canonical because it was found to be valuable. rather, it was found to valuable because it was determined to be canonical by God. IOW, a book is not inspired because it is inspired; it is inspiring because it is inspired.

     @133

     That depends if the christian in question is a Calvinist or an Armenian. Calvinists believe in unconditional election where it asserts that God’s choice from eternity of those whom he will bring to himself is not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people. Rather, it is unconditionally grounded in God’s mercy alone. Where as Armenians believe in conditional election where all believers have full assurance of salvation with the condition that they remain in Christ. Salvation is conditioned on faith, therefore perseverance is also conditioned. Apostasy (turning from Christ) is only committed through a deliberate, willful rejection of Jesus and renouncement of belief.

     “with blind religious logic…”

     funny. you only see it that way only because of your IGNORANCE to understand how God forgives people.

     “I’m going to kill someone (just for the hell of it) and then I’ll ask for forgiveness.” God’s forgiveness doesn’t work that way. He wants genuine repentance, not premeditated repentance. With that mindset, you’re playing a very dangerous mindgame with God and He knows the intent of your heart.

     dun dun dun.

     While God will forgive all sins, past, present and future, he will not allow people to take advantage of his forgiveness. SO by saying this in your heart, “it would be OK to kill someone, because god has planned it all out, and if he doesnt want me to do it, i fail in my attempt, and since i believe in and worship god ill get to heaven anyway!”, and applying that concept in real life, your salvation comes into question. God’s salvation and gift of forgiveness are for those who will accept it, not exploit it.

     So your attempt to find a logical loophole has failed once again in your miserable pathetic life.

     @136

     Hmmm… “intellectual suicide”. That’s ironic coming from someone who read the OT three times and attended churches regularly, not to mention, someone who read NT as well in the spirit of asking questions. What does that tell you? He, himself, believing that “benefit of the doubt” was “intellectual suicide” still risked the chance of killing himself intellectually for a chance to fill the spiritual void inside of him?

141. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:53

     @137

     While that is certainly proof for the theory of MICRO EVOLUTION, it does not however, proof the entire theory of evolution, including macro evolution, which theorizes that monkeys turn into humans, or the mutation of one totally different species to another completely different set of mammal/reptilian/amphibian/insect/arachnid species. One of the main ways to scientifically prove that monkeys turn into humans is if we find all the ‘missing links’ fossil records, which we haven’t but would be very interesting to see if we do, OR are able to repeat the event in question to confirm/solidify the theory. But so far we’ve not found or are able to turn a monkey into a human or a monkey to naturally turn into one. So far, most of the evolution theory is pure speculation at best, while some theories can be proven, or in fact, fact.

142. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 13:56

     @139

     oooo you were that close to getting owned…

143. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:00

     So, in a nutshell this means: The holy scripture is considered authoritative because it has been cannonized by god. How do we know it? Because it says so!
     Once again, I humbly bow before your pristine logic.

     Concerning Camus: Of course he read the bible. It’s an interesting perspective on the human condition. However reading it is not intellectual suicide, believing it is.

144. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:01

     @velo

     Trust me on this, but 9 out of 10 times, atheists who are convinced that God exists from out of a discussion/argument will leave convinced only for a short time and go back to where they were before. There’s a name for it, “something theory”.

145. Costa200
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:09

     @105 Darth Arcon

     I’m not trying to impress nobody. Clearly, when the barely literate McDonalds guy believes he is at the same level as me in arguing about evolution i cannot rely on my professional credentials to impress… And i prefer it that way. You see, unlike many i hold to no value the existance of authority.

     What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.

     Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.

     The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?

     Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.

     When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” (i LOL whenever i read this because it is like talking about bees and flowers with little children) wasn’t that a major blunder? Why does the “perfect god” creates mankind just to kill millions in a great flood afterwards? Why does god negotiate with Job? Why does he test Abraham? Did he not knew what the answer would be? Why does he let Job’s daughters do that incest thing? Why does he demand constant proof and test humans? Doesn’t he know the answers already?

     For me it is clear that no such god exist and that all the tests were a moral lesson to make people conform to the religious teaching. Again, why do you say he is “perfect”, and how does that perfectness is only in the eye of the beholder?

     Now for the challenge, proofs on evolution…
     Let’s just start by saying that i could fill your house with books and articles explaining, supporting and using evolution to make ediucated predictions that actually work (contrary to that ID stuff). It would take me months to teach you a full course in evolution (it actually takes months IRL due to the massive volume of information to have a clear picture of why this has been tested for 200 years and is still the biological paradigm today).

     So to sum it up (each of these subjects diserve several books):

     - Fossils (and yes, we do have transitional fossils all over the place, the accusation that we don’t, no matter how many times repeated is false)
     - Embryological data (you may want to check with your god why you had branchial arches in your development)
     - Celular data (Eucaryotic cell organization clearly demonstrates common ancestry)
     - Genetics (next time you go to the zoo search the chimps, because when you look at one you will be looking at a creature that has over 97% of your genes)
     - Compared anatomy (funny god was so unimaginative that gave whales and us the same damn bones…)
     - Population ecology (changing in genetic padrons in populations with reproductive isolation lead to speciation as described in tons of mathematical models)
     - Geology and plate tectonics are compatible with evolution, not ID
     - Geophysics
     - Basically every field of science that studies anything remotely related to the subject.

     And on and on…

     Compared to this you have… What?

     @106

     You are using localized floods as proof? Or phenomena that took thousands of years? I’m sorry mate, but that won’t cut it. If you are gonna argue about a real flood geology you are going to do much better.

     OR

     You just admit that some middle eastern tribe witnessed a local event and then started some fables regarding that episode. And that was probably what happened. I had to take a whole freaking course on Stratigraphy and there was never any chance that a worldwide flood happened. Fossils on top of mountains could not get there in a flood simply because the ecological marks and core samples indicate that the ecosystems established themselves over thousands or millions of years, not in days. You guys not only want to kill modern biology, you want to take geology with it too

146. Costa200
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:09

     @105 Darth Arcon

     I’m not trying to impress nobody. Clearly, when the barely literate McDonalds guy believes he is at the same level as me in arguing about evolution i cannot rely on my professional credentials to impress… And i prefer it that way. You see, unlike many i hold to no value the existance of authority.

     What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.

     Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.

     The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?

     Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.

     When god created Adam and then Eve and they screwed up by “eating the apple” (i LOL whenever i read this because it is like talking about bees and flowers with little children) wasn’t that a major blunder? Why does the “perfect god” creates mankind just to kill millions in a great flood afterwards? Why does god negotiate with Job? Why does he test Abraham? Did he not knew what the answer would be? Why does he let Job’s daughters do that incest thing? Why does he demand constant proof and test humans? Doesn’t he know the answers already?

     For me it is clear that no such god exist and that all the tests were a moral lesson to make people conform to the religious teaching. Again, why do you say he is “perfect”, and how does that perfectness is only in the eye of the beholder?

     Now for the challenge, proofs on evolution…
     Let’s just start by saying that i could fill your house with books and articles explaining, supporting and using evolution to make ediucated predictions that actually work (contrary to that ID stuff). It would take me months to teach you a full course in evolution (it actually takes months IRL due to the massive volume of information to have a clear picture of why this has been tested for 200 years and is still the biological paradigm today).

     So to sum it up (each of these subjects diserve several books):

     - Fossils (and yes, we do have transitional fossils all over the place, the accusation that we don’t, no matter how many times repeated is false)
     - Embryological data (you may want to check with your god why you had branchial arches in your development)
     - Celular data (Eucaryotic cell organization clearly demonstrates common ancestry)
     - Genetics (next time you go to the zoo search the chimps, because when you look at one you will be looking at a creature that has over 97% of your genes)
     - Compared anatomy (funny god was so unimaginative that gave whales and us the same damn bones…)
     - Population ecology (changing in genetic padrons in populations with reproductive isolation lead to speciation as described in tons of mathematical models)
     - Geology and plate tectonics are compatible with evolution, not ID
     - Geophysics
     - Basically every field of science that studies anything remotely related to the subject.

     And on and on…

     Compared to this you have… What?

147. velo
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:29

     @141

     Why would a monkey turn into a human? Its like saying a human would turn into a monkey. (and i bet you mean apes)

     Apes and humans share a common ancestor. (quite different)
     With that being said evolution does not have a goal, it does not automatically make a creature smarter/stronger/less hairy
     if it doesn’t benefit to its survival.

     We find more “missing links” for every year that passes. Just look at the homo-species found over the last 30 years.
     We will never find ALL missing links. Fossils are very rare to start of with, and add to it that 90% of all twigs on the “tree of life” have died out, i.e. leading to nowhere. To find a missing link is truly to find a needle in a haystack.

148. velo
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:45

     @144

     Proof for me is making something a fact. If i thought the world was flat and someone proved to me that it was round.
     Why the hell would i go back to believing it was flat?

     If 9/10 goes back to not believing in god, the proof must have been flawed.

     I’m talking about absolute proof here, evidence. Not “look, it says so here in this book so it must be true” or ” wow look at that tree, amazing isnt it, has to be magic man who done that”.

149. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 14:52

     Theres no diffrence between micro and macro evolution, only creationists or scientists who have spent too much time in same space with creationists even recognize the ‘diffrence’

150. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 15:16

     @143

     :LOL: “how do we know it?
     well, what i said wasn’t certainly in a nutshell. I was just warming you up. There’s more later…. But on top of that, YOU GOT THE TERMS ALL MIXED UP. Again, you failed to distinguish between the two terms. God determines the authority of a book by breathing His Word, speaking His Word. Allow me to repeat myself once again (sigh),

     Inspiration = it is one thing for god to give the scriptures their authority,
     canonization = and quite another for men to recognize that authority.

     In light of that,

     canonization = concerns the recognition and collection of the God-inspired, authoritative books of the sacred scriptures.

     canonicity is determined by god.

     Your question “how do we know if God inspired these books?” well i’ve already told how god inspired the books. what you really want to ask is:

     “How do we recognize, or know, the canonicity (that God canonized the scripture)?”

     Simple: the witness of the Holy Spirit.
     The recognition of canonicity was not a mere mechanical matter settled by a synod or ecclesiastical council. it was a providential process directed by the Spirit of God as He witnessed to the church about the reality of the Word of God. Man of himself could not identify the Word of God, but the Holy Spirit opened the eyes of their understanding so that they could recognize God’s Word. Are you still awake?

     John 10:27
     “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me.”

     John 16:12-13
     “I have much more to say to you, more than you can now bear. But when he, the Spirit of truth, comes, he will guide you into all truth. He will not speak on his own; he will speak only what he hears, and he will tell you what is yet to come.

     Time to get technical. This ain’t no to say that in some mystical way the testimony of the Holy Spirit in the hearts of believers settled the question of canonicity. The witness of the Spirit only established the reality of the canon, not its extent or limits. THE CANON WAS ESTABLISHED BY A TWOFOLD METHOD OF FAITH AND SCIENCE. Objective principles were used, but the subjective testimony of the Holy Spirit was in operation, confirming the reality of God’s Word to His people. in the providence of God, the principles were used to determine the extent of the canon, while the Holy Spirit gave assurance as to the reality of its essential message. The tests for canonicity were not mechanical means for measuring out the amount of inspired literature, nor did the Holy Spirit say, “This book or passage is inspired, that one is not.” This would be a revelation, not an illumination. Get it? The Holy Spirit neither witnessed to the exact extent of the canon nor settled the matters of textual criticism. He did providentially guide the process which gave assent to the limits of the canon as well as give witness to the people of God as to the reality of God’s Word wherever they read or heard it.

     There’s also the testimony of Christ, which is probably one of the most important ways we know it was God-inspired. Jesus taught definitely that God was the Originator of the Hebrew OT. He quoted as authoritative or authentic most of the 22 books of the Hebrew canon.

     Here’s a brief breakdown for ya:

     A. He considered every section, “Law and Prophets” and “Law, Prophets, and Psalms”, to be prophetic of Him.
     B. He believed that inspiration extended from Genesis through Chronicles, which was equivalent to saying “Genesis to Malachi”
     C. He asserted that the OT as a whole was unbreakable Scripture that would never perish, and that it must be fulfilled.
     D. Jesus personally authenticated persons and events of which i’m not at liberty to list, unless you want me to you,you ignorant bastard [J/K. a test to see if you're reading lol].
     E. Jesus not only defined the limits of the canon, that is the 22 books of the Hebrew OT, but He laid down the principle of canonicity, namely, the canon consists of that which is the “word of God.” i’m not at liberty to list His OT references, unless you want me to you

     Basically, the principle that “canonicity is determined by inspiration” was pronounced by Jesus concerning the OT and promised for the NT.

     NOTE: At first, it may appear that a circular argument is used, when it is stated that “Christ is the key to canonicity,” when all that is known about the teachings of Christ comes from that very canon, and the truth of that canon is being assumed in order to prove the underlying principle of the canon. However, such is not the case. What is presently being challenged is that:

     -Canonicity is determined by authority (inspiration).
     -Authority is known by Christ’s testimony.
     -Christ’s testimony is known by the authenticity of the record.

     since there is enough evidence to support the authenticity (and genuineness) of the NT (considering the 3 basic principles of historiography discussed earlier), and since the NT reveals that Christ taught that divine authority is imparted to the Scriptures through the process of inspiration, the authority of Christ becomes the crux of the canonicity of the bible.

     “However reading it is not intellectual suicide, believing it is.”

     wow. i know you didn’t read or understand the context of what i said earlier. John Warwick Montgomery states, the standard of test that literary critics still follow, Aristotle’s dictum that “the benefit of the doubt is to be given to the document itself, not arrogated by the critic to himself.” Therefore, “one must listen to the claims of the document under analysis, and not assume fraud or error unless the author disqualified himself by contradictions or known factual inaccuracies.” S.H. Horn’s text, in a nutshell, said, “to test the reliability of a historical document, one must read it to CRITICALLY analyze it, but not have to believe it.”

     And that is exactly what Camus did, and, to my guess, NOT ONE OF YOU have EVER done: is read the bible under criticism, to see if it is indeed true to what it said. Camus basically “checked out” the bible. Did he believe in the truth of the bible? probably not. But by reading the bible with an open mind, he certainly “gave the benefit of the doubt”. IOW, even though he didn’t believe in the bible, he assumed what the bible said is correct ONLY for the sake of critical analysis (something I doubt any of you are capable of). And that’s what Montgomery and Horn were saying: Once you critically analyze something only then you can make a final decision if it is logical or not. Did Camus not ask many questions about the bible? certainly he is critically analyzing the bible. And he couldn’t critically analyze the bible without first recognizing what the bible is really saying and you can’t recognize it without “giving it the benefit of the doubt” and you can’t “give it the benefit of the doubt” without reading it.

     It’s funny how you used a source that ‘opposes’ the use of a ‘tactic’ yet uses that very same ‘tactic’.

     to put in short, “giving it the benefit of the doubt” means believing, not Believing. Like, “If what this says is true, then this must happen.” Once you willfully block yourself off from opening up your mind to what could be true, whether it is true or false doesn’t matter, then you’ve immediately prevented yourself from knowing if it was true or not. There’s another term for that attitude. Willful ignorance. Camus believed that the quote in question was intellectual suicide because he was afraid what was before him might be true. and if it was true it would shake the foundations of his existence. even if he found what was to be true, he would not Accept or Believe it, if you catch my drift. Why? Pride and ignorance.

151. jurgnn
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:03

     If they allow ID in science class they should allow other creation stories also, hindus believe that lord brahmin split himself in two to create man and woman other creatures were made in same way.
     Other gods mostly snap fingers or say something like ‘be’ to create life, internet says that there is more than 500 different stories.

     I find it funny that some christians get offended by the idea that we evolved from apes, “we are no animals! we have morals etc!”.
     Show me ape that has killed 6m other apes.

152. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:14

     Some mammal species show more human-like emotions than most humans in general

     so-called morals are vastly overrated, especially when with religion or politics they tend to be double-standards too

     me myself, if i have to choose between creation stories i pick the one regionally closest to me, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalevala#The_Storyline

     it has over 22 thousand verses

153. Who cares
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:18

     Thank you for this wonderful example (Inspiration - canonization) of circular reasoning. I have seen a lot of hollow sophistry, but this ranks top. How do you come up with this?

     Say, as someone who believes in talking snakes and giant wooden houseboats…don’t you think you might have the wrong character to appeal to another one’s respect of the benefit of the doubt?

154. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:30

     actually im trying to parodise a generic fundamental christian if youre referring to me

     clearly not working tho

155. wah
     November 19th, 2007 | 16:53

     @133 in regards to free will

     God knows the future of what the free will creatures choose. Free will does not stop becoming free because God knows what will happen. For example, I know that my child will choose to eat chocolate cake over a bowl full of stinking dead mice. If I were to set them both before my child, it is safe to say she will not eat the dead mice. Knowing this is not taking away the freedom of my child since she is freely choosing one over the other. Likewise, for God to know what a person will choose does not mean that the person has no freedom to make the choice. It simply means that God knows what the person will choose. This is necessarily so since God knows all things (1 Joh 3:20). Besides, if a person were to choose A instead of C, then that is what God would have known would happen.

     Furthermore, if God knows all things and knows what we are going to choose, then by definition, we are still making the choice; after all, the argument says that God knows what “we are going to choose.” If we are going to choose” something, then we really are making the choice — otherwise it wouldn’t be logical to assert that God knows what we are going to choose. Choice implies the ability to decide between different options. Again, by definition if God is knowing what we are going to choose, then He knows what we are going to choose between options…otherwise we are not choosing anything and the statement is illogical.

     Back to the bowl of dead mice. The father, however, is not omniscient where God is. But does this difference negate the analogy? Not at all. Knowing what a person will do still does not force them or limit them to doing what is known. The complaint of those who say that if God knows what we are going to do then we don’t have “real” freedom is logically stating that God’s foreknowledge of an event somehow limits the event and the choice of the individual. The complaint implies that there is an action by God upon a person that negates His freedom to choose. It would be up to the complainer to establish some logical connection between what God knows what will happen and the mind of the one who makes a choice so that the mind of the person making the choice no longer is making a choice. It seems that the critics are saying that the choice-maker is affected by God’s knowledge to such an extent that his freedom is lost. If that is the case, then can they prove this logically? If not, then how can they maintain their position?

     God’s knowing what we will choose is a function of His omnipresence since He is in all places all the time. If He were not, He would not know what choices were were freely going to make. To deny that God is all knowing, even of the choices we make, is to deny His omnipresence and reduce God’s nature to something more like ourselves, which would be a mistake.

     Nevertheless, some people try and claim that God does not know what we will freely choose. But, this cannot be since it would violate the biblical teaching that God knows all things.

     @146 in reply to #105
     “What my credentials give me, and that is why i mention them, is to be taken seriously as someone who have studied the subject for over a decade. The reason why i appear good at these type of arguments is practice. I know perfectly well what makes theists choke, like you did when #70 guy pointed out the falacy of an omnipotent being.

     Your response about my logic demonstrates clearly the rational holes you face when confronted with the issue. You could have summed up your answer in “this limitless being cannot do some stuff because…”. Now tell me if, with the most regards to intelectual honesty, a limitless being has limits how is he limitless.

     The long and old argument about God being perfect is based on what? I believe your not gonna say you go bowlling with the guy so i take it you are refering to what you read in the bible correct? And, if so, you uncapable of finding, in the bible, ocasions in which god made a mistake?

     Due to having debated this for years and having studied the “holy book” in detail i believe i would better most bible wavers in quiz about it.”

     Certainly you deserved to be addressed seriously, from another person with a degree in computer science to one with a biology degree.

     CAN GOD MAKE A ROCK SO BIG HE CAN’T PICK IT UP?

     That’s the almighty question, no pun intended.

     I’ve encountered many atheists who use this type of paradoxes in attempts to prove that God cannot exist. It works like this. God is supposed to be omnipotent. If He is omnipotent, then He can create a rock so big that He can’t pick it up. If He cannot make a rock like this, then He is not omnipotent. If He can make a rock so big He can’t pick it up, then He isn’t omnipotent either. Either way demonstrates that God cannot do something. Therefore God is not omnipotent. Therefore God does not exist.

     Is this logical? A little. However, the problem is that this bit of logic omits some crucial information, therefore IMO, it’s conclusion is inaccurate.

     What the above “paradox” lacks is vital information concerning God’s nature. His omnipotence is not something independent of His nature. It is part of His nature. God has a nature and His attributes operate within that nature, as does anything and everything else.

     For example, I have human nature. I can run. But, I cannot outrun a lion. My nature simply does not permit it. My ability to run is connected to my nature and I cannot violate it. So too with God. His omnipotence is connected to His nature since being omnipotent is part of what He is. Omnipotence, then, must be consistent with what He is and not with what He is not since His omnipotence is not an entity to itself. Therefore, God can only do those things that are consistent with His nature. He cannot lie because it is against His nature to do so. Not being able to lie does not mean He is not God or that He is not all powerful. Also, He cannot cease to be God. Since He is in all places at all times, if He stopped existing then He wouldn’t be in all places at all time. Therefore, He cannot cease to exist without violating His own nature.

     The point is that God cannot do something that is a violation of His own existence and nature. Therefore, He cannot make a rock so big he can’t pick up, or make something bigger than Himself, etc. But, not being able to do this does not mean He is not God nor that He is not omnipotent. Omnipotence is not the ability to do anything conceivable, but the ability to do anything consistent with His nature and consistent with His desire within the realm of His unlimited and universal power which we do not possess. This does not mean He can violate His own nature. If He did something inconsistent with His nature, then He would be self contradictory. If God were self contradictory, He would not be true. Likewise, if He did something that violated his nature, like make a rock so big He can’t pick it up, He would also not be true since that would be a self contradiction. Since truth is not self contradictory, as neither is God, if He were not true, then He would not be God. But God is true and not self contradictory, therefore, God cannot do something that violates His own nature.

     Another way to look at it is realize that in order for God to make something so big He couldn’t pick it up, He would have to make a rock bigger than Himself. Since He is infinite in size, He would have to make something that would be bigger than Himself. Since it is His nature to be the biggest thing in existence because He created all things, He cannot violate His own nature by making a rock that is larger than He.

     Also, since a rock, by definition, is not infinitely big, then it isn’t logically possible to make a rock, something that is finite in size, be infinite in size (no longer a rock) since only God is infinite in size. At dictionary.com, a rock is defined as a “Relatively hard, naturally formed mineral or petrified matter; stone. a) A relatively small piece or fragment of such material. b) A relatively large body of such material, as a cliff or peak. c) A naturally formed aggregate of mineral matter constituting a significant part of the earth’s crust.” A rock, by definition is not infinitely large. So, to say that the rock must be so big that God cannot pick it up is to say that the rock is no longer a rock.

     What you are asking is that God become self contradictory as a proof He doesn’t exist. Such assertion is illogical from the start. So what you are doing is trying to get God to be illogical. You want to use illogic to prove God doesn’t exist instead of logic. It doesn’t work and the “paradox” is self-refuting and invalid.

     “You are using localized floods as proof? Or phenomena that took thousands of years? I’m sorry mate, but that won’t cut it. If you are gonna argue about a real flood geology you are going to do much better.”

     Taking this from your perspective, I should mention that stories are wonderful tools for teaching. Sometimes historical events have a tendency to be exaggerated to make a point. If Noah’s flood was not a local flood, then it didn’t happen since no evidence exists for such an event in the geologic record

     Or maybe it’s not that there is no evidence, Costa200, maybe it’s just that there is no evidence you are willing to accept.

     “You just admit that some middle eastern tribe witnessed a local event and then started some fables regarding that episode. And that was probably what happened. I had to take a whole freaking course on Stratigraphy and there was never any chance that a worldwide flood happened. Fossils on top of mountains could not get there in a flood simply because the ecological marks and core samples indicate that the ecosystems established themselves over thousands or millions of years, not in days. You guys not only want to kill modern biology, you want to take geology with it too”

     You mean like the Tigris-Euphrates river valley? To delight myself in the possibility that it has occurred to me that the story was not meant as a straightforward historical account of a real event, but maybe, just maybe, have been dressed up a little to make a point, I’d say that if we believe the story was based upon something that actually happened at one time, then given the physical evidence, it could only have been local (whether or not it was a “borrowed” story I don’t see as a separate issue–I don’t see why it couldn’t have been a borrowed account of a real local event that happened somewhere else–but I ramble). This is not to say that it was not a devastating event to those it happened to–anyone who lives along the great North American river valleys in the past decade can probably affirm that huge (but local) floods are incredibly devastating, both physically and emotionally. The apparent flooding of the Black Sea at about the right time sounds to me like an excellent candidate for the gem of such a story, considering the enormous extent such a flood would cover, and the different cultures it would have affected.

     Yet there’s 2 things that bother me in that scenario.

     1. The point of the flood was to destroy human civilization, rather than to destroy almost all life. If, at the time, all human civilization was in one valley (perhaps the future Black Sea and the surrounding area), it may be possible to flood the entire human world, w/o flooding the globe. Nowadays, the globe would need to be flooded to drown human civilization. Regardless if local, or global, God’s warning to Noah surely indicates the miraculous happening w/ the flood.

     2. Abraham is regarded as a Patriarch because all the Hebrews were his descendants. Abraham was from Ur, which was the capital of Sumer about the time that Abraham left. If the Bible is correct in both the flood narrative and biography of Abraham, the culture whose flood story most closely approximates the Hebrew flood, should be Sumer. For now, that seems to be the case. Though some may imagine they have challenged the credibility of the Bible, they are in fact validating it.

     BUT, on the other hand, if it was local, then the whole account is simply a lie.

     1. No possibility of forewarning. Even in our modern day, we can only warn of flooding being immanent or possible. In neither case do we find people building boats to ride it out. When one is warned, one presumably goes to higher ground!
     2. No time to build a boat. Why build a boat for a localized flood? That does seem a bit silly to me. Move, if you know ahead of time. Get to higher ground!
     3. No reason to save any animals. To entertain the idea of saving local animals? Maybe some livestock — by driving them to (ahem…grin…) higher ground…. Carry a pet with you or loaded in the wagon or something. But all the birds of the air, too?
     4. Since Mesopotamia is located west of the Zagros Range and south of the Turkish Ararat Range, the Mesopotamians knew about those mountains and lied about “all the high mountains everywhere” being covered.

     Yes, localized flooding, such as that which produced the Pacific Northwest scablands and cut the Columbia Gorge can be devastating. We see flooding in China and India and the various monsoon countries that are awful. Flash flooding in dry areas can be deadly. But these are all missing the elements of THE flood story which is found in so many cultures around the world: all men were killed except a family who survived on a boat and saved the animals with them; a family who was forewarned so they could build that boat for that flood.

     The Noah story really has to stand or fall as a worldwide flood due to those elements in it. There is too much “wrong” with it for it to be a story of a local flood, no matter how bad.

     But even so Costa200, your suggestion further intrigues me to critically analyze another question I’ve had for awhile in regards to a local flood.

     Is God a low pressure system?

     The best Biblically-based argument I know of that the Flood in Genesis was not merely some exaggerated local event but a world-wide one is Gen. 9:11. There God promised never to use a flood to destroy all flesh or the earth again. The argument continues by saying that since we still see deaths from localized flooding, God must have been talking about something truly global - or else Genesis is a lie as I suggested earlier.

     Again, trying to take this from your POS, the problem with this argument is that it presupposes that God is a direct causative agent in all storms. I call this the “God is a low pressure system” conjecture.

     Even with this, one can still have a localized flood exaggerated to make a point (mythologized) and still maintain God’s and the Bible’s integrity by claiming that all storms that have caused localized flooding since the time that the Flood myth supposedly took place are due to naturalistic causes rather than by God’s direct intervention - thus leaving God’s hands clean, so to speak, and the covenant unbroken (i.e. Insurance companies are wrong to call them “acts of God.”).

     However, my instincts is telling me that God isn’t a ‘low pressure system’. In regarding to God’s involvement with nature, I think there are a couple of Bible passages that speak to that:

     Colossians 1:16-17 — For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

     Zechariah 10:1 – Ask the LORD for rain in the springtime; it is the LORD who makes the storm clouds. He gives showers of rain to men, and plants of the field to everyone.

     Nevertheless, it seems to me that the causes of natural disasters points back to being the results of man’s rebellion against God. This would take us back to the judgment of the Flood and the changed ecosystem. The word of both comfort and encouragement we are given, though, can be found in Romans 8:28 – We know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose.

     To me, this means God is always in control, no matter what happens, and that He won’t allow anything to happen that will not, in some way, benefit those who love Him.

     I guess what I am trying to say is that I don’t see where the Bible allows for a localized flooding at the time of Noah. Not just the narrative itself, but so many other points in the Bible indicate a one-time disaster which inundated the entire world. You say there is no evidence of this geologically. I say there obviously is. We both seem well-educated and smart, so I guess the answer is in how we interpret the geologic record…..

     In the meantime, about the rainbow. I don’t see it as saying that God is only involved in those storms that result in rainbows. I see the verse as saying that when there is a rainbow it will be a reminder of the covenant.

156. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 17:03

     What about genetic diseases and inbreeding? it would take much more than 1 family to sustain a healthy population after the flood

     and no way they could have procreated fast enough with that child and mother mortality rate they used to have back then

     and there was no global flood, and if there was how the hell did the animals from other continents get there, and if america and australia were supposedly populated after noah’s time(much later after since required population to move), how come knowledge of the continents didnt survive?

     and they say science cant awnser the simpliest questions ^^

157. NettiWelho
     November 19th, 2007 | 17:12

     Aaand what about the apocalypse, theres this very hypothetical question ive been wondering, but n