• Help Spread the Fire
  • Click here to read Dr. Brown's latest article
  • Biblical Principles to Preserve Sanity in the Midst of Moral Chaos and a Response to a Baptist Pastor in North Carolina

    May 2, 2012 | 283 Comments

    Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

    [Download MP3]

    Dr. Brown offers seven principles to help you keep your spiritual focus and your faith strong while living in the midst of moral chaos and then responds to an opinion piece against the marriage amendment written by a Baptist pastor in Lexington, NC.

     

    Hour 1:

     

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: Whatever situation you are facing, and no matter how Hellish things are that surround you, Jesus is Lord! Our God continues to rule and reign, and He will bring light out of darkness, order out of chaos, and triumph out of defeat! Focus on Him and things will turn!

    Hour 2:

     

    Dr. Brown’s Bottom Line: There is a call on the people of North Carolina to stand up and do what is right. There is a call for us to say we will do what is right regardless of cost, consequence, or backlash because we love people and we love God; therefore we will stand strong for righteousness in North Carolina and send a message to the Nation!

     

    SPECIAL OFFER! THIS WEEK ONLY!

    Angels, Demons, and Deliverance (12 hours of teaching on CD)
    For Only $10 Postage Paid! 
    A Savings of More Than 50%!
     Call 1-800-278-9978 or order online!
    Other Resources:

    How to Be Led by The Spirit

    Deepening Our Prayer Lives

    Foundations of Prayer [mp3 CD]

    Foundations of Intercession [mp3 CD]

    Spiritual Warfare [MP3 CD]

     

    Giants of the Faith [mp3 CD] with Dr. Brown:  Experience the ministry and message of men and women of God who shook their world! Charles Finney, George Whitfield, John (Praying) Hyde, Smith Wigglesworth, John G. Lake, Maria Woodworth-Etter, John Alexander Dowie, and Adoniram Judson.

     

    Spread the Word:
    • E-mail this story to a friend!
    • Facebook
    • Digg
    • del.icio.us
    • Mixx
    • MySpace
    • Technorati
    • Sphinn
    • StumbleUpon
    • TwitThis

    Comments

    283 Responses to “Biblical Principles to Preserve Sanity in the Midst of Moral Chaos and a Response to a Baptist Pastor in North Carolina”

    1. Jenn
      May 2nd, 2012 @ 7:31 pm

      I am a devout committed Christian. My issue with ammendment one is that it removes the option of civil unions as being recognized by the state. I would be fine with it if it said that the only marriage to be recognized by the state is between a man and a woman, but that is not what it says. It says the only legal union period. I have three friends who are in committed same-sex partnerships. One of them adopted 2 boys out of the foster care system that literally no one else wanted. The other two have committed their lives to non-profit work in health and human services. I am not sure that I am ok with them losing benefits and the kids losing benefits over this ammendment. Again, if it were worded to say that the only marriage relationship to be recognized by the state is between a man and a woman, that is one thing. But I don’t know how we can expect an unbelieving world to behave like a believing one. You can protect marriage AND allow for civil unions and that would be my vote. After all, if the majority were muslim, I would not be very happy with Sharia law being implemented.

    2. R. Kneubuhl
      May 2nd, 2012 @ 10:50 pm

      There are so many deep issues that we have to deal with in this world.  It’s very hard to keep a sound mind in the midst of everything and there are so many things that we face.  I do believe and I am trying to keep the faith in hope of a better future.  I notice nowadays that a small misunderstanding can really affect one’s life in a very big way.  Thank God for sending Jesus because without him, I don’t see how I can go on.  I think that’s why I have been seeking more than ever before in my life to find out if the Christian faith is true.  I think that Christians have good reasons to believe in God, but of course, there are plenty of questions that need answers.  I thank God for Dr. Brown.  We need people in this world who can show that Jesus truly is Lord.  I also think that as Christians, we need to be aware of the great importance of moral issues because righteousness will reign.  The question that follows is:  Who’s right?

    3. Jenn
      May 3rd, 2012 @ 1:00 pm
    4. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 3rd, 2012 @ 1:19 pm

      Jenn, why in the world would the state want to recognize unions that God doesn’t recognize? Or, more importantly, why is the state responsible to recognize every sexual and romantic union? I oppose civil unions because I oppose the redefinition of marriage, and it’s essential for followers of Jesus to stand for marriage by voting Yes on May 8th.

    5. Kathy Baldock
      May 3rd, 2012 @ 1:55 pm

      The State, meaning the federal government, is guided by the Constitution. The progression of rulings under the Fourteenth Amendment and the Equal Protection Clause are what constitute the rights of citizens. In 1967, marriage was deemed a civil right. We are in the process of understanding who that right is extended towards. The State IS responsible to extend equal rights unless the State finds “compelling State interest” to NOT extend equality. The State also does not legislate according to moral disapproval or religious convictions of a group against another group (2003).
      The State is very responsible to ensure equality towards its citizens and being gay, lesbian, bisexual or transgender is not a choice or behavior (settled in 1973 for glb), they are a class (2010). It does not matter that some Christians want to legislate their beliefs, the Constitution, THANK GOD, will prevail.
      In the history of the US, racial and gender-based discrimination, although defended by Biblical and moral arguments, did not shield those discriminations from the scrutiny of the Constitution and its amendments.
      I hope Christians in NC with vote as both responsible citizens honoring equality and responsible Christians honoring justice.
      I wanted to directly answer why the State would recognize unions that you say God does not.
      I am aware that we do not agree and that is fine.

    6. Judy Davis
      May 3rd, 2012 @ 10:37 pm

      I wholehearedly agree with Dr. Brown. I am so tired of spiritual and intellectual compromise on this subject in order to support personal belief systems. What would Jesus do? Where does He stand? Read the book of Revelation. Jesus is coming back to rule and reign as King. And in his hand will NOT BE a piece of candy or pacifier. It will be a sword. He is not a namby pamby Lord of our own creation. And standing on street corners handing out food is another subject altogether. To the one who wrote the article: what would Jesus do? I say, Jesus would address this subject head on and His answer would align itself with His Father God’s clear directive. I say, don’t cherry pick parts of the Bible to appease those who are in rebellion and will not receive truth.

    7. Jenn
      May 5th, 2012 @ 7:26 am

      I am not comfortable with heterosexual atheists raising children either. But forcing through laws that prevent that doesn’t fix the heart issue. Living as Christ commanded, serving the least of these and being the light in a dark world might.

    8. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 5th, 2012 @ 9:29 am

      Jenn, no one is forcing through a law. We are assuring that an activist judge can not redefine marriage in our state — and that is what we should as salt and light. Can’t you see that?

    9. Dave
      May 5th, 2012 @ 10:31 am

      What would Jesus do? Well, Jesus really didn’t address the political concerns his disciples had and they were under Roman rule and bondage waiting to be delivered! They thought Jesus would rescue them from their political climate. Instead he gave them his spirit and access to the kingdom. He didn’t rule and reign in an earthly way so why do we try to? He just basically told them how they were to be persecuted for his name sake.

      “The weapons of our warfare are not carnal.” Carnality doesn’t necessarily equal sin but rather our human ways, thinking, etc…which in itself isn’t “bad” but it will not bring true change or produce the righteousness God is looking for.

      Is it worthy to fight for our freedoms as christians in this country? I really don’t know. But my desire is to see transformation and throughout the Word this was demonstrated by acts of the Spirit IN SPITE of political conditions of the day.

      I sure don’t want a theocracy, even in “Jesus name”…just a brief overview of christian history will show the evils and compromise that will bring.

    10. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 5th, 2012 @ 10:46 am

      Dave,

      Of course, I totally agree with the spiritual approach to impacting the world, but based on your logic, Christians should NOT have gotten involved in the abolition movement? They should NOT be involved in trying to save the lives of the innocent babies in the womb? They should NOT be involved in feeding the poor and clothing the naked?

    11. Dave
      May 5th, 2012 @ 11:19 am

      Well, I don’t think it’s that black and white. Of course I believe in the involvement of christians in those movements you mentioned but they were all ills that were intricately tied into the treatment of others who were needy, outcast and unable to help themselves. We are instructed throughout the word to adhere to these things. Concerning abolition, if the christians in the south would have refused anymore to have slaves that in and of itself would have probably turned the tide without need fora civil rights movement.

      But I feel this issue of homosexuality veers away from these standards. I don’t personally agree with that lifestyle, but I don’t think the government should have any power over marriage choices, period.

      BUT ALL THAT ASIDE: Remember the class you taught using the God’s Generals book? How the spirit of conviction was on some of those men that they need to just show up and men for miles fell to their knees in true repentance? How God displayed himself? What if we had just a few dozen of those men and women in each of our states? We haven’t seen that in our generation on that level. It just makes all of this back and forth mere ideas and perceptions lacking any true power to transform.

    12. Dave
      May 5th, 2012 @ 11:25 am

      **”It just makes all of this back and forth mere ideas and perceptions lacking any true power to transform.”

      Meaning this conversation, both perspectives, in light of what you taught in the class.

    13. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 5th, 2012 @ 11:29 am

      Dave,

      First, I absolutely long to see the same spirit of conviction and repentance fall, and I can pursue that while I stand for righteousness.

      Second, the issue is homosexual activism, which, if unchecked, will absolutely affect children and families and, ultimately, religious freedoms.

      Third, this is part of our prophetic role in society. God charged me to “reach out (to the people with compassion) and resist (the agenda with courage,” and I will continue to sound the alarm, by God’s grace. Have you at least read A Queer Thing Happened to America? Have you listened to the alarm I have sounded?

      Fourth, if the state has no role in marriage, then the sky is the limit in terms of what happens to families. Are we as salt and light to stand by idly while families fall apart — which then destroys children and others?

    14. Dave
      May 5th, 2012 @ 11:57 am

      Dr. Brown,

      To clarify i wasn’t intending to question your desire concerning God moving. I know you have it as you passed it onto us!

      Secondly, you make good points. I don’t question God’s charge to you nor do I question the outcome of sin that remains unchecked and not repented of. This is true for all sin, of course.

      I do believe God has put certain people in political arenas as this is obviously a huge part of how a society is run. It’s not for me though. I’m not interested in arguing effectiveness, I’m interested in fruit…as I know you are.

    15. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 5th, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

      Dave,

      All clear, and we share these common goals and vision. I would only say that if you live in NC now, it’s important to take a stand for marriage.

      On with it!

    16. Boris
      May 6th, 2012 @ 12:43 pm

      Jenn

      “I am not comfortable with heterosexual atheists raising children either. But forcing through laws that prevent that doesn’t fix the heart issue. Living as Christ commanded, serving the least of these and being the light in a dark world might.”

      What makes you uncomfortable about atheists raising children? Many people would be appalled at your statement about atheists raising children but I’m never surprised at the bigotry and narrow mindedness of fundamentalist Christians. I doubt even your cult leader is quite that narrow-minded but let’s see. How do you feel about atheists raising children Dr. Brown? Every study that has been done on the subject has shown conclusively that fundamentalist indoctrination and belief makes domestic violence a more likely occurrence.

      Atheism is not a heart issue. The natural position to take on any subject is unbelief until something has been proved. The existence of God has certainly not been proved. In fact there is not a shred of evidence that such a being even might exist. Therefore the natural position to take on the existence of God is unbelief or atheism. Any parent who tells their child there is a mind reading bogey that will punish them for their thoughts or the supposed crime of unbelief is a child abuser. Religious indoctrination of innocent children is a crime against humanity.

      Dr, Brown,
      You are not taking a stand for marriage; you are taking a stand against human rights. This is certainly nothing new for the Christian community. You people really need to get a grip. The majority does not dictate rights, they are guaranteed by the Constitution. If the majority ruled on such issues slavery would still be legal in your backwards state. As soon as someone brings a case to the Supreme Court all of your marriage amendments will be deemed illegal.

    17. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 6th, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

      Boris,

      Hey, if you’re wrong on God, salvation through Jesus, and the truth of the Bible, it’s only to be expected that you would be wrong about sexual morality and marriage. That’s why we pray for you!

    18. Boris
      May 6th, 2012 @ 1:46 pm

      If you had some actual evidence that I am in fact wrong on God, salvation through Jesus, and the truth of the Bible I might be concerned. What should concern you however is the mountain of evidence that points to the fact that you are in fact quite wrong about God, salvation through Jesus, and the truth of the Bible. You said on the air that the worst thing that could ever happen to you would be to find out there is no God. So you’ll do everything you can to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts that prove you wrong.

    19. Ken
      May 6th, 2012 @ 8:01 pm

      Boris, Why do you have a huge problem with a G-d you say doesn’t exist? isn’t the fact that you argue against there being a G-d ..prove that there is? ..I’m still praying for your eye’s and heart to be opened to the truth. peace,and joy to you

    20. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 6th, 2012 @ 9:48 pm

      Boris, I am more sure that God exists than I am that you exist. I know Him personally and He has radically changed my life, whereas you are merely someone posting endless, repetitive attacks and hiding behind a pseudonym. May He still grant you repentance and mercy.

    21. Boris
      May 7th, 2012 @ 2:24 am

      Ken,
      I don’t have a problem with God because I don’t think there is a God. I have several problems with people who use whatever God/holy book they claim to follow to support their own ideology and agendas.

      Dr. Brown,
      You’ve heard my voice. Does God speak to you in an audible voice? How do you know God personally exactly, by reading the Bible? People of all religions make the same claims you have about how they KNOW their God is real and how He (or She) has radically changed their lives. So I can’t accept evidence from you for your God that you would not accept from adherents of other religions as evidence for their God.

    22. Konstantin
      May 7th, 2012 @ 2:43 am

      Dave,

      “What would Jesus do? Well, Jesus really didn’t address the political concerns…”

      Well, you either (a) naive, (b) think that we are naive, or (c) you cannot see the intrinsic naivete of your statement.
      Just because some phenomena “A” (in this case pathological sexual attraction) was driven into realm of politics, and it IS now a political question (to certain extent) it is in no way means that it is simply a political question.
      In fact, ANY question may become a political question. So what?
      I cannot with wholehearted honesty comprehend this your position (and I heard this before from others too). Just because some time ago in Netherlands some party of pedophiles desired to lower an age of consent, was that by your criteria, a intrinsically and exclusively political question? It seems ludicrous to say so. Just because some perverted, or otherwise wicked, or dishonest, or alike group somehow manages to drag ANY question at hand INTO politics, somehow then, it become silly political question and power play… I’m inclined to believe you guys either pretty naive yourselves, or think we are naive enough to buy this not-so-clever move.

      Boris,
      I suspect you’re a teenager. Tell me if I am wrong.
      When in the American constitution there was a definition of perverted sexually pathological activity as “human right”? I mean, can’t you see how laughable this statement is? If you resurrect any person living before queer activists brainwashed gullible masses into submission… in fact, if you resurrect any person who signed the constitution (Deist, Theist, or free mason alike) and ask him if he considered deviant, perverted sexual attraction as “human right” you would be (properly) laughed at. Now… I know you have temptation to ‘well, what were their view of slavery? isn’t that alike?’. Well, of course my answer is this: what is the closest in analogy to two men desiring sexual attraction? (a) slavery, (b) sexual perversion, the correct answer should be “b”. Comparing slavery to pathological sexually perverted attraction is insult to my intelligence. You can certainly believe that, as many people believe in mythology of naturalism and self-organization of biological information, personhood, and indeed everything existing. BUT, by way of introspecting and thinking about this, it is not with any honestly possible to compare slavery to two (or more?) males or two (or more?) females having sexual attraction to each other. What are the things that correspond in your analogy? Here I can easily show you interrelationship and similarity in ALL sexually pathological and perverted conditions, so that if you want to compare homosexuality to anything, be my guest, and be logical there. As you suspect, ALL sexual pathologies (i.e. perversions) have two things in common: (a) have to do with sexual attraction, and (b) have to do with it being wrong directed. Very easy indeed.
      So, then a pedophile is a person who has sexual desires to a wrong non-corresponding subject.
      Same of a person who is attracted to goats.
      Same is of person who is attracted to corpses.
      Same is of person who is attracted to own sister.
      Same is of a person who is attracted to same gender.
      And on and on.
      All are sexually pathological.
      There is such a thing as reproductive system, similarly to digestive system, or nervous system, etc etc. A proper functioning of digestive system is pretty much presupposes you using your mouth to eat food. And there is no such thing as Constitutional right to eat food with the very body part that excretes what is left of food after it was digested, or Constitutional right to eat food with eyes. Everyone knows when a person displays behavioral pathological condition and attempts to violate basic requirement of physiological system.
      Now, same is true of reproductive system. If two, three, four or whatever number of people come together and desire to have a sexual intercourse with an animal, this is pretty obvious violation of expected healthy behavior. If two males or two females have self-perception that it is healthy and normal and fine to be sexually attracted to each other – this is clearly pathological and obviously wrong, non-corresponding to reality view of themselves.
      How in the world you manage to view sexually pathological conditions and self-perceptions of subjects who adhere to those views and call their views “rights”, and somehow compare that to slavery is beyond me, and frankly to suggest that I would somehow buy that analogy is insulting to my intelligence as I can see close to zero correspondence between the two. Of course you’re very much tempted to say that my views are “religiously” motivated, and that I would perceive as yet another thought impregnated into your head by pro-queer activists, since everything of what I wrote above is nothing more than honest and logical view on the subject, be it religious or secular… doesn’t matter.

    23. Matt B
      May 7th, 2012 @ 8:10 am

      Konstantin- thank you for the very well reasoned post. Point well made that faith in the naturalist or humnanist (neo-Darwinist) story of life and existence is a dramatic leap, supported poorly by the evidence. Too bad Darwin didn’t have the chance to study the ministrations of a single cell on a molecular level. He could not have maintained this theory.

      Boris, from your earlier post:
      “Every study that has been done on the subject has shown conclusively that fundamentalist indoctrination and belief makes domestic violence a more likely occurrence.”

      Could you please name a few of these studies- interesting! I’d like to see how the study group was chosen, and how “fundamentalist” was defined.

      Flip side- faith in Christ transforms the violent, the thief, the murderer, the corrupt. Many personal and corporate examples available. Many posting here. Yes, there are those who, naming themselves in the body of Christ, carry out and persist in perversions, violence, wrong-doings. However this in opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and his disciples, not consistent with it.

      Lastly, Boris, if you refer to Dr. Brown as “your cult leader”, you are brining the discussion down several notches. In any case, how do you define cult? I’d say that the “theology” and hence action of someone like Hitler is cultish.

      One more, Boris- “People of all religions make the same claims you have about how they KNOW their God is real and how He (or She) has radically changed their lives.” Not true- most religions teach that one must make their own changes to be accepted or be “enlightened”. The Gospel shows the way to be changed by the one who created life- a free gift of His grace.

    24. Matt B
      May 7th, 2012 @ 8:25 am

      Okay, I couldn’t wait, so a quick Google search finds this study:

      http://courses.ttu.edu/jkoch/Research/Koch%20Ramirez%20Religion%20and%20Partner%20Violence%20Final%20Feb%2009.pdf

      Which states “Regular church attendance is inversely associated with domestic violence for both men and women (Ellison and Anderson, 2001).”

      The general finding of this one study is that belief in God and practice of regular worship and prayer makes one less likely to approve of or commit violent acts against those in intimate relationship. They do find some possible evidence that “fundamentalist” belief may make one more prone to approve or not openly oppose domestic violence- defined in one case as spanking children for disciplinary purposes. Most would not consider that to be violent behavior in and of itself.

      That is just one study, of course, that generally does not support Boris’ claim made in his post above.

    25. Bo
      May 7th, 2012 @ 10:19 am

      Boris,

      You wrote:
      “If you had some actual evidence that I am in fact wrong on God, salvation through Jesus, and the truth of the Bible I might be concerned.”

      What to you would be evidence? Why is not the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of testimonies of peoples lives that were changed from self-destructive, socially destructive, evil and selfish lives not evidence to you? Why are not the abundance of organizations that have been invented and supported by those that believe in a Creator and Redeemer that help the hungry, the poor, the sick and the desperate not evidence to you? Your statement that there is no God is self-contradictory and self-defeating and illogical. Why is this not evidence to you?

      You wrote:
      “What should concern you however is the mountain of evidence that points to the fact that you are in fact quite wrong about God, salvation through Jesus, and the truth of the Bible.”

      Where is this mountain of evidence? History does not contain it. Society does not contain it. Science does not contain it. Philosophy and political agendas proclaim it, but do not contain it.

      You Wrote:
      “So you’ll do everything you can to bury your head in the sand and ignore the facts that prove you wrong.”

      I have finally found the mountain to which you refer. It is made of sand. Imaginary sand at that. The removal of a blindfold is all that is necessary to see that there is no mountain that proves the the idea of the existence of a Creator/Redeemer to be in error.

      That you have not experienced this relationship with your maker and the lover of your soul, does not constitute a mountain. It constitutes a very sad human condition called rebellion.

      You can continue to shake your tiny fists in the air and squeak out insults at the top of your little lungs at the Maker of the universe, but you would do better to simply ask Him to prove Himself real to you. If you really want to know the truth instead of wanting to invent your own reality, you may find that the sand pile was in your yard and not ours all along.

      Though I use a little sarcasm and am being a bit rough with you, please remember that you started this wrestling match. I and the others on this forum are concerned for you and your eternal welfare. Try to put the same energy into finding out if there is a Savior as you have in being outspoken against someone that your advisers and teachers say does not exist and you may be surprised…quite pleasantly surprised at that.

      Shalom

    26. Dave
      May 7th, 2012 @ 2:21 pm

      Konstantin,

      I disagree. And it neither requires me to think you are naive nor myself.

      I never relegated it solely to the realm of politics. In fact, quite the opposite. The point is I believe the SOLUTION is not found there, in the political arena. The interaction that followed between Dr. Brown and myself after I made the comment sums that up pretty well I think.

      In fact I admitted that some are called to the political arena, not so for myself.

    27. Dave
      May 7th, 2012 @ 2:33 pm

      Konstantin,

      Just read some of your comments to Boris. How are you representing Christ in your attitudes and words? Who do we “wrestle with”? Powers and principalities? According to your post it would seem not. You have laid out blame to “queer activists who brainwashed gullible masses into submission”. Really? Man, no wonder they calls us bigots, self-righteous and hateful! Who are YOU without Christ and his grace?

      Who cares how “right” you are if you’re “not walking in love you are nothing more than a clanging cymbal”.

    28. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 7th, 2012 @ 3:04 pm

      Boris, the “cult leader” comments not only undercut your positions even more, but they violate our policies. So, avoid those personal attacks, and feel free to continue to post.

    29. Boris
      May 8th, 2012 @ 2:18 am

      Konstantin
      Boris,
      I suspect you’re a teenager. Tell me if I am wrong.

      Response: I’m always aware of the double standard on this and other Christian blogs. If I made a rude comment implying that you or someone else lacks education or intelligence by asking if you’re a teenager I would get another warning from Dr. Brown telling me personal attacks are against the rules. I’m fine with that. I’m not offended by your insinuation. I’m used to a certain level of hostility from religious people who read my comments. In the rest of your post you stated your opinions on the people who signed the Constitution, homosexuality, modern science, slavery, bestiality, digestive systems and a lot of other stuff that as far as I can tell doesn’t have anything to do with the topic of the thread. I didn’t compare homosexuality to slavery, or anyone’s stances on those things, you did. Or tried to, I don’t get the analogy at all. Finally you accused me of insulting your intelligence. When did I post any comments addressed to you?

      Matt B
      Konstantin- thank you for the very well reasoned post. Point well made that faith in the naturalist or humnanist (neo-Darwinist) story of life and existence is a dramatic leap, supported poorly by the evidence. Too bad Darwin didn’t have the chance to study the ministrations of a single cell on a molecular level. He could not have maintained this theory.

      Response: Excuse me for butting in here but that’s really funny considering the fact that every Christian college and university in the world that has an accredited science department teaches Darwinian Evolution by Natural Selection. What’s your explanation for that may I ask? Modern scientists have no problem maintaining the Theory of Evolution and neither would Charles Darwin especially after he saw all the advances in medicine and agriculture made possible only after scientists understood how natural selection works. You are making the common mistake all creationists make by assuming that modern cells look just like they did 4 billion years ago. The first cells had no DNA and reproduced by division, by falling apart. The complexity we find in modern cells is the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution. Of course you might be one of the many Christians who believes the universe is only 6000 years old in which case none of this means anything to you.

      Boris, from your earlier post:
      “Every study that has been done on the subject has shown conclusively that fundamentalist indoctrination and belief makes domestic violence a more likely occurrence.”
      Could you please name a few of these studies- interesting! I’d like to see how the study group was chosen, and how “fundamentalist” was defined.
      Flip side- faith in Christ transforms the violent, the thief, the murderer, the corrupt. Many personal and corporate examples available. Many posting here.

      Response: Yes I’ve read countless conversion stories and some de-conversion stories as well. They’re mildly interesting to me since I have neither of my own to tell. Most people are not violent or thieves, murderers or corrupt because they learn at an early age there are real world consequences to their actions. In fact most people are good people for their own selfish reasons because they’ve learned that being a good person gets them rewards such as more and better friends, unbounded love from their family, gains them respect in their society and helps them advance at work or in business among other things. It seems to me that the only people who turn to religion when they get into trouble are those who haven’t learned about real world consequences and rewards and so they settle for the artificial and imaginary rewards and consequences offered by Christianity.

      Yes, there are those who, naming themselves in the body of Christ, carry out and persist in perversions, violence, wrong-doings. However this in opposition to the teachings of Jesus Christ, and his disciples, not consistent with it.

      Response: Would you agree that religions and ideologies should not be blamed for perversions of their teachings?

      Lastly, Boris, if you refer to Dr. Brown as “your cult leader”, you are brining the discussion down several notches. In any case, how do you define cult? I’d say that the “theology” and hence action of someone like Hitler is cultish.

      Response: I think the field of Christian apologetics has what could be referred to as a cult following. Most of the people I’ve known personally who attend church don’t even know such a field exists nor would they see the need for such a thing.

      One more, Boris- “People of all religions…” Not true- most religions teach that one must make their own changes to be accepted or be “enlightened”. The Gospel shows the way to be changed by the one who created life- a free gift of His grace.

      Response: Oh and Christianity doesn’t require a person to make their own changes? That’s pretty funny if you think about it for a minute. So no one needs to admit they are a helpless sinner, repent of their sins, accept Jesus as the Lord of their life, in many cases be baptized, and then belong (no Lone Ranger Christians) to a church? If that isn’t making changes proving that the initiate can now be accepted and has recently been enlightened then what is it may I ask? All religions use the same tactics to indoctrinate, command obedience and discourage doubt.

      Matt B

      You said: Okay, I couldn’t wait, so a quick Google search finds this study:
      …Which states “Regular church attendance is inversely associated with domestic violence for both men and women (Ellison and Anderson, 2001).”
      The general finding of this one study is that belief in God and practice of regular worship and prayer makes one less likely to approve of or commit violent acts against those in intimate relationship. They do find some possible evidence that “fundamentalist” belief may make one more prone to approve or not openly oppose domestic violence- defined in one case as spanking children for disciplinary purposes. Most would not consider that to be violent behavior in and of itself.
      That is just one study, of course, that generally does not support Boris’ claim made in his post above.

      Let’s look carefully at this study by Ellison and Anderson, 2001 shall we? It says: “Table 4 reposts results testing hypothesis 5 and 6 and examines the relationships between religiosity, Christian fundamentalism, and physical violence. The analysis again indicates that fundamentalism is positively associated with physical violence while religiosity is not. For each one point increase in the fundamentalism scale, the odds of physically assaulting a partner increase by 5%.” Matt, you didn’t mention anything about spousal violence did you? How come? Didn’t you read the entire study you appealed to in order to make your case? Well I did. Why didn’t you mention this disturbing statistic regarding spousal abuse in fundamentalist households? You mentioned spanking. Did you look at the questions they asked to determine the level of a subject’s fundamentalist beliefs? Would you like to answer some of those questions for me?

      Bo:
      Boris,
      What to you would be evidence? Why is not the thousands upon thousands upon thousands of testimonies of peoples lives that were changed from self-destructive, socially destructive, evil and selfish lives not evidence to you? Why are not the abundance of organizations that have been invented and supported by those that believe in a Creator and Redeemer that help the hungry, the poor, the sick and the desperate not evidence to you? Your statement that there is no God is self-contradictory and self-defeating and illogical. Why is this not evidence to you?

      Response: You don’t seem to know the difference between arguments and evidence. What you presented is an argument, NOT evidence. Are not the thousands upon thousands of testimonies of Muslims, Hindus and Mormons whose lives were changed from self-destructive, socially destructive, evil and selfish lives evidence to you that Islam, Hinduism and Mormonism are true? Why are not the abundance of organizations that have been invented and supported by those that believe in a different Creator and Redeemer than you do that help the hungry, the poor, the sick and the desperate not evidence to you that these other religions are true? The “evidence” you have presented could be used to prove any religion is true. Not only isn’t it evidence, it isn’t even a good argument.

      Where is this mountain of evidence? History does not contain it. Society does not contain it. Science does not contain it. Philosophy and political agendas proclaim it, but do not contain it.

      Response History does not contain any evidence that any of the major figures described in the Bible actually existed, that any of the events described in the Bible really occurred or that the mythical kingdoms of Israel and Judah or their 40 kings ever existed. History knows nothing of Jesus Christ or any of the disciples. Science does indeed give plenty of evidence that there is no God. You know the science you insist isn’t valid such as Evolution by Natural Selection and Big Bang cosmology.

      I have finally found the mountain to which you refer. It is made of sand. Imaginary sand at that. The removal of a blindfold is all that is necessary to see that there is no mountain that proves the the idea of the existence of a Creator/Redeemer to be in error.

      Response: You believe in angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, heaven, hell, all without a shred of evidence and you accuse me of believing in something imaginary! The removal of a blindfold is all that is necessary to see that there is no evidence that proves the existence of a Creator/Redeemer.

      That you have not experienced this relationship with your maker and the lover of your soul, does not constitute a mountain. It constitutes a very sad human condition called rebellion.

      Response: That’s what you’ve been taught is the reason people don’t believe: rebellion. However that is simply not true. Doubt and skepticism are not the same as rebellion. There have always been people who have noticed the absence and needlessness of God or a First Cause in the natural order of things. If you could be so wrong about why people do not believe in God then you could also be wrong about why people do believe in God as well. Perhaps you’ll give that some thought.

      You can continue to shake your tiny fists in the air and squeak out insults at the top of your little lungs at the Maker of the universe, but you would do better to simply ask Him to prove Himself real to you. If you really want to know the truth instead of wanting to invent your own reality, you may find that the sand pile was in your yard and not ours all along.

      Response: I don’t believe there is a God so why would I shake my fists at or insult something that isn’t even there? Do you shake your fists and hurl insults at the God of Islam? Or do you simply believe that God doesn’t exist in the same way I don’t believe your God exists?

      Though I use a little sarcasm and am being a bit rough with you, please remember that you started this wrestling match. I and the others on this forum are concerned for you and your eternal welfare. Try to put the same energy into finding out if there is a Savior as you have in being outspoken against someone that your advisers and teachers say does not exist and you may be surprised…quite pleasantly surprised at that.

      Response: I could say the same thing to you. Try putting the same time and energy into finding out if there really is a Savior. If you ever actually sit down and take an honest, unbiased review of your religion I am quite sure you will end up rejecting it the way many others do every day. Why don’t you visit a few ex-Christian websites or read some of their books? You may be surprised…quite pleasantly surprised at that. Look, I’m not trying to get anyone to de-convert or become an atheist. I’m just turning your arguments around so you can see why other people won’t accept them. The reason I post and read comments on this blog, is the same reason everybody else does: I listen to the show and have for years.

      Dr. Brown,
      People making assertions without evidence to back them up can hardly undercut any position. I apologize for the comment. We unbelievers can’t blame a fallen creation or the devil when we mess up. We have to own it.

    30. Ken
      May 8th, 2012 @ 7:31 am

      Boris,We here that read your post know full well where you stand. you’ve been beating that dead horse for sometime now..but do you honestly think your ever going to convince anyone who has truly met the Lord Jesus Christ who saved are souls form death and destruction and change us from with in that it’s a fairy tale? really..brother just keep beating that horse of yours and see where it gets you.. your playing on a rock that wont be moved..peace and joy to you

    31. Matt B
      May 8th, 2012 @ 7:54 am

      Boris,
      I apologize as I don’t have enough time to research and compose posts as I’d wish to have. The quote I posted was from the study I linked. I’ll take the time to read the actual Ellison and Anderson 2001 study. In any case, the linked study concludes that religous people are less likely to be violent toward those in close relationship- agree?

      I think we do agree that violent behavior towards spouses, children, or parents is evil. I am thankful that the Bible gives clear instruction on how we should love, holding up the interest and well being of others before ourselves, and that husbands should give their lives for their wives just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for it.

      As far as cellular development, natural selection, etc- could you state what evidence there is to say that early cells had no DNA? Where does the information to instruct the activity of the “cell” come from in such a case? And for their division by “falling apart”? Science knows no life form that does not contain DNA- perhaps its been postulated to be possible, but is there fossilized or current life evidence? Fossil evidence points to life showing up on the record as very complex and diverse.

      Natural selection has not and does not introduce NEW genetic information into the pool. It removes it. Natural selection has limited application and is not the mechanism by which new traits are formed. The mutation of DNA has been found time and time again to result in less well adapted individuals and is nearly completely (or completely) a negative. Universities may teach many things- Christ-centered Universities or otherwise- but being popular is not the same as being correct. Also, while Darwinism may be taught as a theory, in order to place the student’s studies within the context within the various science disciplines, many accredited universities also correctly teach that there are many problems with Darwinistic theories about the origins of the species.

    32. Matt B
      May 8th, 2012 @ 10:50 am

      In response to Boris (at risk of moving further off-topic, but I’ll try to bring it around)
      RE: studies of religious involvement and domestic violence, the Ellison and Anderson 2001 report is linked here:

      http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/0021-8294.00055/pdf

      They conclusively find religious involvement makes one less likely to perpetrate or be victim of domestic violence. They refer to several other studies that conclude likewise. In other words, many scientific studies find religious belief and practice reduces the likelihood of bad behavior within intimate relationships.

      The study I originally linked is of college students. I pulled it up very quickly, and should have delved in more deeply- but still worth considering. The preponderance of responders were in dating, not spousal relationships. Sorry for the confusion. The study group was mainly non-married students, about half in dating realtionships. There is a small reported correlation between fundamental Christian belief and acceptance or carrying out of physical “violence” in the “intimate” dating relationships within the students surveyed. There is a much large correlation to all types of physical and psychological abuse in the students who were in a sexual relationship. Overall point if this one study is that it is narrowly focused on students- theirs is a singular result that does not line up with studies of larger populations, as far as I can tell. The study does not say anything about violence within households, and little about spousal violence- sorry Boris.

      Still, its troubling and all the more reason for Christians to pray for young people, and encourage them to be submitted to the Lord in all aspects of their lives. The study shows that a small percentage of the students are not living by what they report to believe.

      My main point is still that the Bible and Christian community is the source of strength against moral decay within our society and in the life of the individual. Let those who thirst, come to Christ.

    33. Bo
      May 8th, 2012 @ 11:16 am

      Boris,

      You wrote:
      “Response History does not contain any evidence that any of the major figures described in the Bible actually existed, that any of the events described in the Bible really occurred or that the mythical kingdoms of Israel and Judah or their 40 kings ever existed. History knows nothing of Jesus Christ or any of the disciples. Science does indeed give plenty of evidence that there is no God. You know the science you insist isn’t valid such as Evolution by Natural Selection and Big Bang cosmology. ”

      I am wondering who washes your brain. Really? No evidence? There is corresponding Babylonian and Egyptian history that mentions battles with Israel and some of their kings by name. There are many ancient writings attesting to the Apostles existence. There are so many archeological finds proving the historical accuracy of the Bible that it is laughable for you to state that there is no historical evidence.

      I’ve been to Israel. Walked through Hezekiah’s tunnel that was dug to bring water into Jerusalem because of a war with the Assyrians led by Sennacherib. I’ve been to Shiloh and seen the millions of potsherds on the hill next to the tabernacle site. These potsherds are a testimony to almost four hundred years of Israelites bringing their offerings in clay pots and the pots being destroyed because once they were presented at the tabernacle they could not be used for any common use. There were too many pots to keep. They were broken and thrown over the hill. I was digging with an archaeological team when one of my sons unearthed a carved stone (not clay) pot from the era of the tabernacle standing there.

      I have not, and neither has any scientist, seen proof that our Creator does not exist. You cannot see proof of that nature. What of all the scientists that believe in a creator? Why is it that the mathmeticians, physicists and microbiologists are more likely to be Christians, or at least believe in a creator, than the psychiatrists, sociologists and historians? I think that it is because the solid facts are too daunting for the intellectually honest person to remain an unbeliever. The sciences that are involved in social engineering and brainwashing are generally not believers…at least the ones in secular universities. I am guessing that you have been listening to these sorts of psuedo-scientists.

      I bet that you think that an explosion in a watch factory could produce a perfectly functioning Rolex. This would be far more likely to happen than a big bang producing the order of the universe. And where did the stuff come from that exploded? Did it create itself? (Maybe someone designed that bang.) It cannot have just always existed…the matter that is. If you think that it did, then you believe in an eternal, all powerful god. It’s name is matter. I believe in the eternal, all powerful YHWH. We both believe. We both are very unscientific about our beliefs.

      My belief in the veracity of the Bible and it’s teachings have been a huge blessing to me. They have bettered almost every culture and society on earth where they have been believed by those people. As a matter of fact the father of modern science was a believer in YHWH and His son the Redeemer. So is the inventor of the Gene Gun.

      Why do you think that these two and the millions of other scientists that believe in a Creator didn’t get the memo on there being no “God”. Funny thing is that John Sanford was an atheist until he had marriage problems. It was the truth in the Bible, and Redeemer that it proclaims, that helped him when the rubber hit the road. His materialistic science didn’t have the answers. Materialist science does not have the answers for the human condition because matter is not our creator. YHWH, His Son, and His book do have the answers because we were created by His word.

      When you have a crisis in your life and realize that drugs and sex and gambling and video games and suicide (these are some of the best that matter can offer) do not have the answer, maybe you will be a little more willing to open your mind…when your heart has been opened up and softened by real life. Hypothetical materialistic science, lying revisionist history and philosophical optimism and skepticism will fall flat in that day.

      Do a little reading in the mean time. Try looking honestly at the other side of argument. You’ll find that Evolution is still a theory and so is the big bang. Theory is not proof…either of these things being true or that there is no Creator/Redeemer. Surely you are smart enough to realize that. Even if these two theories are correct, they would not negate the possibility of a creator putting them into motion and His designing them and guiding them. And what if this Creator is not made of matter or energy? What scientific instrument could measure or perceive Him. What if He does consist of matter and energy and he occupies another dimension of space time? How would our science recognize Him.

      Use your heart. That is the correct instrument to perceive and experience our Creator and Redeemer. But it will take an open heart, a soft heart, and a courageous one…a very courageous one.

      Shalom

    34. Konstantin
      May 9th, 2012 @ 1:13 am

      First and foremost, I want to express my apology to Dave and Boris. I was kind of hot tempered.

      Saying that, Dave,
      regarding my prior statement – “queer activists who brainwashed gullible masses into submission”, I think you didn’t get my point across, nor my attitude. I am not saying I am the best and brightest and the most exemplary person around. It has nothing to do with that.
      let me explain:
      (a) “queer activists” – are the activists who promoted and advocated legitimacy and normalcy of same gender sexual attraction. Those are people who either funded, or for personal or ideological reasons themselves act or seek to influence opinions of masses of people (i.e. as much as possible) to support their causes. When I speak of activists, I don’t only speak of those loud and proud bloggers on the web. I am talking about those who send generous donations, who collect signatures, who participate in various campaigns, etc etc.
      (b) “gullible masses” – despite sounding derogatory, my intention to express myself like that was more out of (1) sadness, and (2) anger at laziness or naivete to see that they are being manipulated. I understand, that not all people have time or desire to familiarize themselves with those issues, and I actually don’t expect that 100% from all people. But it is sad that many people simply allow themselves to be easily manipulated. And this is empirical fact… If this were no so, corporations would not invest millions and millions in commercials which in turn exists for the simple purpose to make us buy their product. They are not about informing us about this or that. On the contrary, often they are selectively hide important information, and present that which is more presentable. In the similar manner, they tie products to positive emotions and experiences which in themselves not even related to the products… So, in the similar manner activists for homosexuality manipulated lots and lots of people who naively open themselves to the process of alternation of their views by media and TV in particular.
      (c) “into submission” – needless to say, some Christian denominations and Churches not only submitted to the queer agenda, but actually advocate it themselves.

      Regarding (Ephesians 6:10-20) [waging war against "spiritual forces"]. I am not in any way dispute that. I simply see statistical correlation between those who get to control of media, educational institutions, and their influence on thinking of an average person. I live in California, and maybe it is different from the place where you live.

      I wanted to remind you (and myself alike) that historically, even though war is against spiritual forces, early Christian writers (aka Apologists in 2-3 centuries) wrote extensively to address intellectual objections to Christianity, and refute pagan superstition. They not just prayed. Many of Christians of that period were martyred. Some protestants were martyred by Roman Catholic Inquisition, and many more are martyred and suffering for Christ today around the world. Many Christians won’t consider many issues simply because they are preoccupied with eschatological hopes of near future.
      The point I am trying to convey is that (and it is hard to disagree with) as expressed by Augustine “Pray as though everything depended on God. Work as though everything depended on you.”

    35. Konstantin
      May 9th, 2012 @ 1:19 am

      regarding my last post toward the end, I meant many Western Christians are preoccupied with the hope of pre-tribulation, and it happening pretty soon.
      Well, I am all for it but despite when and how it happens, Church has to do what it has to do. ;)

    36. Boris
      May 10th, 2012 @ 2:37 am

      >As far as cellular development, natural selection, etc- ….Natural selection has not and does not introduce NEW genetic information into the pool. It removes it. Natural selection has limited application and is not the mechanism by which new traits are formed. The mutation of DNA has been found time and time again to result in less well adapted individuals and is nearly completely (or completely) a negative.

      It is hard to believe creationists still make this claim, since anything mutations can do they can undo. Increases in information have been observed to evolve. The evolution of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, novel genetic material, novel genetically regulated abilities have all been observed. How does that not qualify as information may I ask? You’re not going to find the answer on any Creationist websites. Creationists try to get away with their claim about information by not telling us exactly what they think information is.

      >Universities may teach many things- Christ-centered Universities or otherwise- but being popular is not the same as being correct. Also, while Darwinism may be taught as a theory, in order to place the student’s studies within the context within the various science disciplines, many accredited universities also correctly teach that there are many problems with Darwinistic theories about the origins of the species.

      Response: Christian colleges and universities don’t teach evolution because it’s popular. They do not teach that there are many problems with evolutionary theory. And there is no such thing as Darwinism in science. The theory of evolution has proved itself in practice. Christian schools teach it because it has useful applications in epidemiology, pest control, drug discovery, among many other areas. The DON’T teach creationism or Intelligent Design because those things don’t produce viable and useful results such as advances in medicine and agriculture. In science a theory is an explanation of the facts. Evolution is based on facts such as the fact that life forms have changed and diversified over life’s history, the fact that species are related via common descent from one or a few common ancestors, the fact that Natural selection is a significant factor affecting how species change among many other facts.

      >Still, its troubling and all the more reason for Christians to pray for young people, and encourage them to be submitted to the Lord in all aspects of their lives. The study shows that a small percentage of the students are not living by what they report to believe.
      My main point is still that the Bible and Christian community is the source of strength against moral decay within our society and in the life of the individual. Let those who thirst, come to Christ.

      Response: My main point is still that secular humanism is a source of strength against the non-rational authoritarianism of the Bible and the Christian community. Let those who think come to their own conclusions.

      >I am wondering who washes your brain. Really? No evidence? There is corresponding Babylonian and Egyptian history that mentions battles with Israel and some of their kings by name. There are many ancient writings attesting to the Apostles existence. There are so many archeological finds proving the historical accuracy of the Bible that it is laughable for you to state that there is no historical evidence.

      Response: What are these archeological finds proving the historical accuracy of the Bible exactly? Name ‘em and claim ‘em and prove they prove nothing at all. What ancient writings attest to the existence of the apostles or Jesus for that matter? Historical fiction is placed in a real historical setting and mentions real people and places. However that doesn’t mean that the major figures or kingdoms described in the stories actually existed or that the events they describe really occurred. Real historical narratives do not contain dialog, conversations with people all speaking in complete sentences. Only fictive narratives contain this kind of writing.

      >I’ve been to Israel. Walked through Hezekiah’s tunnel that was dug to bring water into Jerusalem because of a war with the Assyrians led by Sennacherib. I’ve been to Shiloh and seen the millions of potsherds on the hill next to the tabernacle site. These potsherds are a testimony to almost four hundred years of Israelites bringing their offerings in clay pots and the pots being destroyed because once they were presented at the tabernacle they could not be used for any common use. There were too many pots to keep. They were broken and thrown over the hill. I was digging with an archaeological team when one of my sons unearthed a carved stone (not clay) pot from the era of the tabernacle standing there.

      Response: That proves what exactly? You just proved people used to live in Palestine. Big deal. That may be all the proof you need that David killed a 9 foot-tall giant with a slingshot, that Joshua stopped the sun from moving and all the rest of the tales of the supernatural in the Bible are true but I need a lot more evidence than that.

      >I have not, and neither has any scientist, seen proof that our Creator does not exist. You cannot see proof of that nature.

      Response: You cannot see evidence for a Creator in nature.

      >What of all the scientists that believe in a creator?

      Response: What of all the scientists that DON’T believe in a creator?

      >Why is it that the mathmeticians, physicists and microbiologists are more likely to be Christians, or at least believe in a creator, than the psychiatrists, sociologists and historians? I think that it is because the solid facts are too daunting for the intellectually honest person to remain an unbeliever.

      Response: What “solid facts” prove there is a Creator? If I said that I don’t see any way an intellectually honest person can remain a believer, some people might think that’s insulting. Dr. Brown might call that an attack. Yet when a Christian attacks unbelievers by suggesting they are intellectually dishonest that’s perfectly okay. Christians have no idea how offensive the things they say really are. People don’t reject your religion because they are intellectually dishonest or rebellious or because they hate God. They reject it because there isn’t any evidence that the Bible even might be what you say it is or that any God exists. If you claim to have the truth then you better learn to accept the truth about why so many people don’t think you do.

      >The sciences that are involved in social engineering and brainwashing are generally not believers…at least the ones in secular universities. I am guessing that you have been listening to these sorts of psuedo-scientists.

      Response: What sciences are involved in social engineering and brainwashing? Those are religion’s specialties.

      >I bet that you think that an explosion in a watch factory could produce a perfectly functioning Rolex. This would be far more likely to happen than a big bang producing the order of the universe.

      Response: This is another prediction of the creator hypothesis that fails to be confirmed by the data. If the universe were created, then it should have some had some degree of order at the creation. Where is the design from the Intelligent Designer? We can see stars like our sun in all stages of development, spinning into existence and burning out and all points in between. There is no reason to believe our sun and planet came into existence any other way. The Bible says they did. Not a good reason.

      And where did the stuff come from that exploded? Did it create itself? (Maybe someone designed that bang.) It cannot have just always existed…the matter that is.If you think that it did, then you believe in an eternal, all powerful god. It’s name is matter. I believe in the eternal, all powerful YHWH. We both believe. We both are very unscientific about our beliefs.

      Response: Not at all, my beliefs are based on scientific method and yours on blind faith. Thanks for admitting that, most Christians are not nearly so brave. The notion that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has always existed is based on empirical observation that tells us that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed. You have no evidence that it can which is why scientists believe that the material that comprises the universe has always existed in one form or another. If God could have always existed so could mass-energy. We know mass-energy exists. We have no evidence that God exists. Only arguments and they’re all fatally flawed.

      >My belief in the veracity of the Bible and it’s teachings have been a huge blessing to me. They have bettered almost every culture and society on earth where they have been believed by those people. As a matter of fact the father of modern science was a believer in YHWH and His son the Redeemer. So is the inventor of the Gene Gun.

      Response: Other holy books have been a blessing to people of other religions. That says nothing about whether the stories in the holy books are actually true. Some of the sayings are true and the stories are edifying but that doesn’t make them literally true.

      >When you have a crisis in your life and realize that drugs and sex and gambling and video games and suicide (these are some of the best that matter can offer) do not have the answer, maybe you will be a little more willing to open your mind…when your heart has been opened up and softened by real life. Hypothetical materialistic science, lying revisionist history and philosophical optimism and skepticism will fall flat in that day.

      Response: Why would you insinuate that I indulge in drug use, sex outside of marriage, gambling or waste my time playing video games? I don’t do any of those things nor do I want to. Is that what you did before you became a Christian? Perhaps you’ll have a crisis in your life and realize Jesus and the Bible do not have the answer and will be a little more willing to open your mind, when your mind has been opened up to reality. What is the “answer” that you think I am looking for? What’s the question?

      >Do a little reading in the mean time. Try looking honestly at the other side of argument. You’ll find that Evolution is still a theory and so is the big bang. Theory is not proof…either of these things being true or that there is no Creator/Redeemer. Surely you are smart enough to realize that. Even if these two theories are correct, they would not negate the possibility of a creator putting them into motion and His designing them and guiding them. And what if this Creator is not made of matter or energy? What scientific instrument could measure or perceive Him. What if He does consist of matter and energy and he occupies another dimension of space time? How would our science recognize Him.

      Response: Why don’t YOU do a little reading? Try looking at the other side of the argument. You’ll find that a theory is an explanation of the facts and facts are indeed proof. Surely you are smart enough to realize that. In light of modern science a Creator could still exist but the God of the Bible could not. So either the scientific explanations are correct or the religious ones are. I don’t care which ones you believe. I’m just telling you I’ll pick science over religion every time.

      >Use your heart. That is the correct instrument to perceive and experience our Creator and Redeemer. But it will take an open heart, a soft heart, and a courageous one…a very courageous one.

      “The devout are always urged to seek the absolute truth with their hearts and not their minds.” – Eric Hoffer

      Perhaps you can work up the courage to question your religious faith some day. Again, I don’t care what you believe. I’m just turning your arguments around so that you can see why they always get rejected. Now let’s drop all the talk about science and stick to the subject of the thread. Whatever it is.

    37. Matt B
      May 10th, 2012 @ 7:57 am

      Boris, I’ve read quite a bit, (but not an expert by any means) about DNA, mutations, and the stipulation that development of new information (DNA data) is necessary for new characteristics within the various species. Yes I’ve read from creationists, but also many non-creationists work. I have see that there are transformations within species, such as bacteria acquiring resistence to drugs. Geneticists have found that those changes occur by coding within existing DNA that “scramble” or re-arrange themselves. No new information is introduced in that case, but yes there are genetic changes. They occur wheather or not the stimulus (antibiotic drug in this case) is present. Still, the bacteria remains a bacteria. No new features such as multi-cell organization, new body parts, or unique functions outside of the current populations develop. The bacteria is just one example, of course, and this subject is extensive. I would like to continue to learn more.

      Can you please give examples/references of studies or experiments that show new, additional genetic information introduced?

      What of the “cells without DNA, replicate by falling apart” you mentioned in an earlier post? I could not find any reference at all to such discoveries. I don’t think they exist.

      By the way, many diests, theists, and Christians are actively involved in the sciences and contributing to advances in biology and molecular/genetic/cellular biology for the good. Dr. John Sanford was on the team that invented the gene gun- a vital development in genetic engineering work. He is a believer in Christ Jesus. Other examples abound. It is clearly not necessary to believe in evolutionary theory (per Darwin or more specifically modern evolutionary synthesis) in order to successfully appreciate and utilize the workings of cellular and genetic biological phenomena.

      Universities teach Darwinian evolution as a theory, not fact, because that is what it is. More advanced departments teach courses on modern evolutionary snynthesis. My daughter’s university biology text (secular school) had some outdated references to evolution evidence that had been already proven false, as agreed by the evolution-believing scientific community (I pointed these out with the professor).

      I will make myself clear that evolutionary theory has many, many gaps and problems, and that creation is a much better explanation for the evidence scientific inquiry has brought thus far. The data does not support well the speciation through evolutionary changes in the genetic make-up of populations. In fact several experts in genetics have made a very strong case that life is de-evolving rather than evolving (degredation of the genome). That is in fact consistent with what the Bible would indicate, and consistent with the evidence. If this viewpoint discredits me in the eyes of some, I’m not worried. I am also not scared of the truth, nor of more discoveries and more research. The world that God has created is wonderful, complex, deep, and nothing in creation could disprove the creator (by definition).

      Boris, tell me- what evidence that there is a God would be enough to convince you? When we embark on any scientific study or experiment, we have objectives and typically expectations for the kind of data that will be generated and what the various outcomes could indicate.

      While science may not be able to “measure” or “detect” God in the traditional way, what would you be looking for?

    38. Bo
      May 10th, 2012 @ 9:54 am

      Boris,

      Hezekiah and his tunnel. You didn’t comment. You said none of the kings of Israel have any historical proof.

      There is a difference between historical fiction and written eye witness testimony. Conversations were recorded by eye witnesses. Archeology supports the veracity of the Biblical narrative.

      Did you ever hear of the Moabite stone/Mesha Stele? Extra-Biblical record of more Kings of Isreal…don’t you think? Check this out if you dare:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

      Shalom

    39. Bo
      May 10th, 2012 @ 10:01 am

      Boris,

      More kings of Israel mentioned here:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

      Read um and weep :)

      Shalom

    40. Matt B
      May 10th, 2012 @ 10:44 am

      On the original topic-
      I was reading in Luke 8:26-39 the account of the man delivered by Jesus from the long opression of many demons. It is simply amazing- the minions of spiritual darkness had no choice but to submit to the Lord Jesus. He brought great help, healing, restoration to a man whose life was destroyed (verse 35- “…sitting at the feet of Jesus, clothed and in his right mind.”) That’s where I want to be, at His feet- I am thankful for His grace and power to deliver! I am not ashamed to say, my God has delivered me. May we have boldness, and also pray, that the Spirit of God may continue to work in greater power, delivering from opression, from fallenness, from death! Really, meditating on the reality of this brings me so much joy, and renewed desire to serve Him who can deliver, the King of Kings.

    41. Bo
      May 10th, 2012 @ 12:02 pm

      Boris,

      Science can demonstrate that you are alive. It cannot prove when you were born. That takes eye witness testimony or historical records based on eye witness testimony. It cannot prove what flavor of cake you ate at your last birthday party, if you even at cake. That takes eye witness testimony. Science cannot prove that Julius Caesar lived. That takes historical testimony. Any words that He spoke would take eye witness testimony coupled with historical records to prove it. And eye witness testimony does not prove something scientifically. A jury or a judge can chose to believe or disbelieve testimony. We all judge what things we think happened historically. There is no way to scientifically prove historical events.

      Observational science can be used, to varying degrees, to validate testimony. Theoretical science can give us approximate probability percentages as to the possibility of something having happened. It cannot test something that happened in the past. It can tell us the percentage of alcohol is in someones system. It cannot tell how many drinks a person has had in the past or when they were consumed or if alcohol was injected into their bloodstream. If we had eye witness testimony we could know these things.

      Science can study bones that have been fossilized. It cannot tell us for sure that the animal ever lived in the spot that the fossil was found…or even if it died there. Only that it is there now. It can guess how long it has been since the animal died, but it would take historical and eye witness testimony to know the exact date of death.

      There is ample eye witness and historical testimony to the existence of a Creator/Redeemer. You can choose to believe the testimony and the historical records or not. Science has little to do with anyone’s, including your, decision on this matter. Do not hide behind science.

      Please check your references concerning the kings of Israel. Your denial of history does not make it not true…whether it be about earthly kings or the King of kings that is seated in heaven as we speak. That you have not seen enough evidence, or that you have received false testimony from bad history teachers, does not mean that there is not enough evidence for you to make the correct decision or believe the truth.

      Shalom

    42. Boris
      May 10th, 2012 @ 1:35 pm

      Matt B
      Boris, I’ve read quite a bit, (but not an expert by any means) about DNA, mutations, and the stipulation that development of new information (DNA data) is necessary for new characteristics within the various species. Yes I’ve read from creationists, but also many non-creationists work. I have see that there are transformations within species, such as bacteria acquiring resistence to drugs. Geneticists have found that those changes occur by coding within existing DNA that “scramble” or re-arrange themselves. No new information is introduced in that case, but yes there are genetic changes. They occur wheather or not the stimulus (antibiotic drug in this case) is present. Still, the bacteria remains a bacteria. No new features such as multi-cell organization, new body parts, or unique functions outside of the current populations develop. The bacteria is just one example, of course, and this subject is extensive. I would like to continue to learn more.
      Can you please give examples/references of studies or experiments that show new, additional genetic information introduced?

      Response: I already gave four examples of new information: The evolution of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, novel genetic material, novel genetically regulated abilities have all been observed. How does that not qualify as information may I ask? You did what all creationists do when they see their arguments obliterated: you simply ignored my objections to your claim and went right on making the same bogus claim as if I made no objections at all. First you have to show how the evolution of increased genetic variety in a population, increased genetic material, novel genetic material, novel genetically regulated abilities which have all been observed, are not information for some reason. Until you do that your argument that there is no new information added by natural selection mutations is debunked. Take any further objections down to your local Christian college or university and they will be happy to explain to you why evolution is the only explanation there is for the diversity of life on Earth and the only explanation there will ever be. Get over it man.

      What of the “cells without DNA, replicate by falling apart” you mentioned in an earlier post? I could not find any reference at all to such discoveries. I don’t think they exist.

      Response: Prove it.

      By the way, many diests, theists, and Christians are actively involved in the sciences and contributing to advances in biology and molecular/genetic/cellular biology for the good. Dr. John Sanford was on the team that invented the gene gun- a vital development in genetic engineering work. He is a believer in Christ Jesus. Other examples abound. It is clearly not necessary to believe in evolutionary theory (per Darwin or more specifically modern evolutionary synthesis) in order to successfully appreciate and utilize the workings of cellular and genetic biological phenomena.

      Response: That is not true. There is only one kind of biology and that is evolutionary biology.

      Universities teach Darwinian evolution as a theory, not fact, because that is what it is. More advanced departments teach courses on modern evolutionary snynthesis. My daughter’s university biology text (secular school) had some outdated references to evolution evidence that had been already proven false, as agreed by the evolution-believing scientific community (I pointed these out with the professor).

      Response: Your ignorance of science is just off the charts! A theory is an explanation of the facts and I explained what the facts of evolution are. Once again you went right on with another one of your completely false claims as if I hadn’t made any objections at all. You Christian fundamentalists all use the same unethical debating tactics, which gives us a real good insight into your moral compass. Don’t look now but it’s pointing the wrong way. The fact that you refuse to address my objections demonstrates conclusively the weakness of your arguments.

      I will make myself clear that evolutionary theory has many, many gaps and problems, and that creation is a much better explanation for the evidence scientific inquiry has brought thus far.

      Response: Of course that is utterly ridiculous. Your posts are absolutely hilarious. What does creationism explain may I ask? FYI “God did it” explains exactly nothing. Unless the creationists can tell us exactly how God did things such as create the universe or life then creationism has no explanatory powers whatsoever. Creationism is nothing but completely useless religious dogma unless you consider brainwashing to be a use. The universe from a word or a man from dirt explains nothing at all other than just how gullible the creationists really are.

      The data does not support well the speciation through evolutionary changes in the genetic make-up of populations. In fact several experts in genetics have made a very strong case that life is de-evolving rather than evolving (degredation of the genome). That is in fact consistent with what the Bible would indicate, and consistent with the evidence.

      Response: Not only do you creationists not study science which would be bad enough but then you read purposeful distortions of science made by the Discovery Institute, a religious organization that isn’t even allowed to study science according to their tax exemption with the IRS. Really man, get a grip will you? We have been able to reverse evolution such as survival of the fittest by understanding how it works. For example lets say you had really bad eyesight and lived say 10,000 years ago. You would likely have been killed by a wild animal or in an accident well before you grew enough to reproduce. So you couldn’t have passed your bad eyesight gene onto your progeny. This is how Nature selects out the unfit. However we humans do not adhere to the survival of the fittest dogma of nature. We have glasses, which means that people with bad eyesight can now live long enough to pass that defective gene onto their children. We have medical advances that make it so nature can no longer select out the unfit before they breed. So it may seem that humans are devolving because we have reversed the effects of evolution by understanding how it works. So you see science has done more for the advancement of civilization in the last 100 years than religion has done in the last 2000, all do to our discovery of Evolution by Natural Selection.

      If this viewpoint discredits me in the eyes of some, I’m not worried. I am also not scared of the truth, nor of more discoveries and more research. The world that God has created is wonderful, complex, deep, and nothing in creation could disprove the creator (by definition).

      Response: You are extremely afraid of the truth. The way you ignore my objections to your claims is positive proof of that. The only person you are fooling is yourself. If you are wrong then you have wasted a lot of time, energy and money on your trivial pursuit of religion. That frightens you immensely.

      Boris, tell me- what evidence that there is a God would be enough to convince you? When we embark on any scientific study or experiment, we have objectives and typically expectations for the kind of data that will be generated and what the various outcomes could indicate.
      While science may not be able to “measure” or “detect” God in the traditional way, what would you be looking for?

      Response: Empirical observation. I need to see something to believe it. Atheists like me believe what they see, not what they think. You creationists believe what you think not what you see.

      Bo

      Boris,
      Hezekiah and his tunnel. You didn’t comment. You said none of the kings of Israel have any historical proof.

      Response: Oh you don’t like it when your comments are ignored do you? Yet it’s perfectly okay for you to ignore my comments isn’t it? The Hezekiah that built that tunnel is not the same figure described in the Bible. Besides there was an Egyptian military presence in Palestine for 400 years that is never mentioned in the Bible. The Egyptians probably built that tunnel.

      There is a difference between historical fiction and written eye witness testimony. Conversations were recorded by eye witnesses. Archeology supports the veracity of the Biblical narrative.
      Did you ever hear of the Moabite stone/Mesha Stele? Extra-Biblical record of more Kings of Isreal…don’t you think? Check this out if you dare:

      Response: You are wasting your time telling me to read this or that. I’ve read way more than you have. My degree is in Ancient Near Eastern History and I received it from a private Christian college. I also have a Minor in Religion.

      Boris,
      Science can demonstrate that you are alive. It cannot prove when you were born. That takes eye witness testimony or historical records based on eye witness testimony. It cannot prove what flavor of cake you ate at your last birthday party, if you even at cake. That takes eye witness testimony. Science cannot prove that Julius Caesar lived. That takes historical testimony. Any words that He spoke would take eye witness testimony coupled with historical records to prove it. And eye witness testimony does not prove something scientifically. A jury or a judge can chose to believe or disbelieve testimony. We all judge what things we think happened historically. There is no way to scientifically prove historical events.

      Response: Exactly. The first thing one learns as a history student is that the past no longer exists for us and history belongs to those who wrote it. However we have overwhelming evidence that Julius Caesar did exist. We have no evidence at all that Jesus Christ actually existed. Because he didn’t.

      Observational science can be used, to varying degrees, to validate testimony. Theoretical science can give us approximate probability percentages as to the possibility of something having happened. It cannot test something that happened in the past. It can tell us the percentage of alcohol is in someones system. It cannot tell how many drinks a person has had in the past or when they were consumed or if alcohol was injected into their bloodstream. If we had eye witness testimony we could know these things.
      Science can study bones that have been fossilized. It cannot tell us for sure that the animal ever lived in the spot that the fossil was found…or even if it died there. Only that it is there now. It can guess how long it has been since the animal died, but it would take historical and eye witness testimony to know the exact date of death.
      There is ample eye witness and historical testimony to the existence of a Creator/Redeemer. You can choose to believe the testimony and the historical records or not. Science has little to do with anyone’s, including your, decision on this matter. Do not hide behind science.

      Response: You believe on no evidence whatsoever that mythology is really a bunch of eyewitness accounts. I see no evidence that any of these supposed accounts are anything but fiction.

      Please check your references concerning the kings of Israel. Your denial of history does not make it not true…whether it be about earthly kings or the King of kings that is seated in heaven as we speak. That you have not seen enough evidence, or that you have received false testimony from bad history teachers, does not mean that there is not enough evidence for you to make the correct decision or believe the truth.

      In “Mythic Past, Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel” the author Thomas Thompson demonstrates that the kingdoms of Israel and Judah described in the Bible are mythical kingdoms ruled by mythical kings. I suggest you put down the religious propaganda and pick up a dose of reality and common sense by reading this book very carefully.

    43. Matt B
      May 10th, 2012 @ 2:22 pm

      Boris, where to jump in…

      “You did what all creationists do when they see their arguments obliterated: you simply ignored my objections to your claim and went right on making the same bogus claim as if I made no objections at all.”

      I have been continuing the conversation, not ignoring your objections. And I don’t see where my arguments have been obliterated. If you have specific articles or books showing addition of genetic information due to mutations, I’d like to look into them. As in I’m actually interested. The things I’ve read thus far indicate variation of genetic makeup within a “kind” of life (perhaps species or sub-species) but not the type of addition that would lead to new body types or functions.

      In any case, you had asserted that early or primitive cells had no DNA. I could find nothing at all written that outlines such observations or findings. So again, I asked if you could point us to where such a type of life has been discovered. So can you do so?

      I think that the invention of eyeglasses by natural selection is funny. Did you mean it to be? Eyeglasses were created. In any case the argument does neither prove nor disprove that the genome is degrading.

      I have not been ignoring your “positive proofs” but have been offering counter-evidence, and asking you to back up your assertations.

      Historical evidences for the historical veracity of the scriptures- you choose not to accept them.

      The reality that evolutionary theories to explain how we humans have come to exist are just that- theories with large gaps in the evidence- you choose not to accept that. I have and continue to look at the evidence, and the conclusion I and many come to (based on the evidence) is that the complexity of life and the fuctioning of living things is FAR TOO INTRICATE and IMPROBABLE to happen by chance. It is most reasonable to believe that there is an intelligent designer.

      It cannot be proven that you exist, or that Emelia Erhart existed, or that Jesus lives, or that complex life evolved from molecules, in the way you have asked for. But the evidence for the first three is great enough that it is most reasonable to believe.

    44. Matt B
      May 10th, 2012 @ 3:24 pm

      Boris, I took a moment to look into the book you recommended above, “Mythic Past, Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel.” Amazon has many reviews- some favorable, some not so much. The following is from a non-favorable review, which points out serious omission from Thompson’s work:

      “The Mythic Past, by Thomas Thompson, is certainly a work, but the scholarship conatained within it is lacking. First and foremost, Dr. Thompson either forgot, chose not to, or simply saw himself above a bibliography, citations of works alluded to or used … this is problematical for the theme and nature of Thompson’s book. Who is he refuting? Who is he agreeing with? Where is Thompson getting his material? This omission in and of itself casts a shadow of doubt upon Thompson as a serious scholar.”

      Several other reviewers also point out the omission of cited works or bibliography.

      It does seem that this book could be more un-substantiated opinion than accepted scholarship. If so, how valuable is it as a source of demonstration that the nation of Isreal, Judah and their kings are myths?

    45. Bo
      May 10th, 2012 @ 8:31 pm

      Boris,

      The Wikipedia articles that I linked to show that other concurrent civilizations mention the kings of Israel. This is not disputable. You have either been brainwashed or you are not a careful student of history. Here is a quote, since you will not read the articles:

      “List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia…

      These are Biblical figures unambiguously identified in contemporary sources according to scholarly consensus.

      Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

      The main sources for identifying people from the Hebrew Bible are Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions as well as seals and bullae (seal impressions) from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. These date from the 9th century through the late 5th century BCE.”

      The above is the beginning of the article from:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

      Here is more from:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

      “The Mesha Stele (popularized in the 19th century as the “Moabite Stone”) is a black basalt stone bearing an inscription by the 9th century BC ruler Mesha of Moab in Jordan.

      The inscription was set up about 840 BC as a memorial of Mesha’s victories over “Omri king of Israel” and his son, who had been oppressing Moab. It is the most extensive inscription ever recovered that refers to ancient Israel (the “House of Omri”). It bears what is generally thought to be the earliest extra-biblical Semitic reference to the name Yahweh (YHWH), whose temple goods were plundered by Mesha and brought before his own god Kemosh. French scholar André Lemaire has reconstructed a portion of line 31 of the stele as mentioning the “House of David”.[1]”

      Deal with it.

      Shalom

    46. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 10th, 2012 @ 11:36 pm

      Thompson and others are refuted by Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world’s premier Egytpologists, here: http://www.amazon.com/On-Reliability-Old-Testament-Kitchen/dp/0802803962/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1336710987&sr=8-1

    47. Bo
      May 11th, 2012 @ 9:04 am

      Boris,

      “What do they teach the children in school these days?” C.S Lewis, The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

      You wrote:
      “The Hezekiah that built that tunnel is not the same figure described in the Bible. Besides there was an Egyptian military presence in Palestine for 400 years that is never mentioned in the Bible. The Egyptians probably built that tunnel.”

      How do you know if there was another Hezekiah? The history in the Bible is not about the Egyptians. There is no need for it to relate if there was or wasn’t 400 years of Egyptian presence in the land. And on what basis do you know about this Egyptian presence? So you think that you can “trot out” that PROBABLY some nondescript Egyptians built a tunnel on speculation and no evidence? The inscription found in the tunnel was in ancient Hebrew not Hieroglyphics.

      Please read this short article:

      http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2010/07/top-ten-biblical-discoveries-in-archaeology-10-assyrian-lachish-reliefs/

      How do we know that you are not just believing what you want to believe or what you want to be true? Or that you are not just piling up as many excuses and hopeful explanations as you can find in print or from your own imagination to solidify your hopes? Yes I do ask myself these questions. We must all answer them carefully, for we will all have to give an answer for what we hoped was true. Our hopes, even our unconscious ones, betray our our hearts.

      You might like this:

      “I do not think there is a demonstrative proof (like Euclid) of Christianity, nor of the existence of matter, nor of the good will and honesty of my best and oldest friends. I think all three are (except perhaps the second) far more probable than the alternatives. The case for Christianity in general is well given by Chesterton…As to why God doesn’t make it demonstratively clear; are we sure that He is even interested in the kind of Theism which would be a compelled logical assent to a conclusive argument? Are we interested in it in personal matters? I demand from my friend trust in my good faith which is certain without demonstrative proof. It wouldn’t be confidence at all if he waited for rigorous proof. Hang it all, the very fairy-tales embody the truth. Othello believed in Desdemona’s innocence when it was proved: but that was too late. Lear believed in Cordelia’s love when it was proved: but that was too late. ‘His praise is lost who stays till all commend.’ The magnanimity, the generosity which will trust on a reasonable probability, is required of us. But supposing one believed and was wrong after all? Why, then you would have paid the universe a compliment it doesn’t deserve. Your error would even so be more interesting and important than the reality. And yet how could that be? How could an idiotic universe have produced creatures whose mere dreams are so much stronger, better, subtler than itself?”
      ― C.S. Lewis

      Don’t wait until it is too late.

      Shalom

    48. Boris
      May 12th, 2012 @ 9:06 am

      >I have been continuing the conversation, not ignoring your objections. And I don’t see where my arguments have been obliterated. If you have specific articles or books showing addition of genetic information due to mutations, I’d like to look into them. As in I’m actually interested. The things I’ve read thus far indicate variation of genetic makeup within a “kind” of life (perhaps species or sub-species) but not the type of addition that would lead to new body types or functions.

      Response: That’s only because you can’t grasp the concept of gradual change over long periods of time. That’s a you problem, not a problem with evolutionary theory.

      >I think that the invention of eyeglasses by natural selection is funny. Did you mean it to be?

      Response: Did you really not grasp the point of what I said? I used glasses as an example of how humans have reversed the effects of natural selection. How you got glasses being invented by natural selection is beyond me.

      >Eyeglasses were created. In any case the argument does neither prove nor disprove that the genome is degrading.

      Response: There is a large body of work that refutes the absurd pseudo-scientific claims of John Sanford.

      >The reality that evolutionary theories to explain how we humans have come to exist are just that- theories with large gaps in the evidence- you choose not to accept that. I have and continue to look at the evidence, and the conclusion I and many come to (based on the evidence) is that the complexity of life and the fuctioning of living things is FAR TOO INTRICATE and IMPROBABLE to happen by chance. It is most reasonable to believe that there is an intelligent designer.

      Response: 99 percent of the species that have ever lived on Earth have gone extinct. What kind of intelligent design is that may I ask? Are you going to tell me sin killed the dinosaurs? Really man, what’s your explanation for the fact that everything your perfect designer makes goes extinct? Again this is a you problem. You can’t grasp the concept of design from the bottom up. All you know is what you have experienced which is human top-down design. There are computer programs that design themselves from the bottom up now. Check that out, perhaps it will help you visualize the way life is really designed.

      Matt B

      >Boris, I took a moment to look into the book you recommended above, “Mythic Past, Biblical Archaeology and the Myth of Israel.” Amazon has many reviews- some favorable, some not so much. The following is from a non-favorable review, which points out serious omission from Thompson’s work:
      It does seem that this book could be more un-substantiated opinion than accepted scholarship. If so, how valuable is it as a source of demonstration that the nation of Isreal, Judah and their kings are myths?

      Response: You’ll never know if you don’t read it yourself. Look how quickly Dr. Brown posted a comment claiming there was a book that could refute Thompson’s book. Obviously he doesn’t want you to read “Mythic Past.” Why is that do you think? I highly doubt Dr. Brown has read it. Yet he’s sure Kitchen’s book refutes everything in it.

      Bo

      The Wikipedia articles that I linked to show that other concurrent civilizations mention the kings of Israel. This is not disputable. You have either been brainwashed or you are not a careful student of history. Here is a quote, since you will not read the articles:
      “List of biblical figures identified in extra-biblical sources From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia…
      These are Biblical figures unambiguously identified in contemporary sources according to scholarly consensus.
      Hebrew Bible (Old Testament)

      Response: As I said before historical fiction mentions real people and places. Let’s look at who ISN’T on this list shall we? Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Moses, Joshua, Gideon, David, Solomon, Jesus, Paul, none of the major figures, the people the stories in the Bible are on this list. You don’t find that just a little bit suspicious?

      “The Mesha Stele (popularized in the 19th century as the “Moabite Stone”) is a black basalt stone bearing an inscription by the 9th century BC ruler Mesha of Moab in Jordan.
      The inscription was set up about 840 BC as a memorial of Mesha’s victories over “Omri king of Israel” and his son, who had been oppressing Moab. It is the most extensive inscription ever recovered that refers to ancient Israel (the “House of Omri”). It bears what is generally thought to be the earliest extra-biblical Semitic reference to the name Yahweh (YHWH), whose temple goods were plundered by Mesha and brought before his own god Kemosh. French scholar André Lemaire has reconstructed a portion of line 31 of the stele as mentioning the “House of David”.[1]”
      Deal with it.

      Response: What is this supposed to prove exactly? There’s no reference to this occurrence in the Bible. All of these ancient Near Eastern inscriptions reflect comparable parallels in the biblical stories. Moab suffered because Chemosh, like Yahweh was angry with his people. The Moabites are defeated because Chemosh used the enemy to punish them the way Yahweh used the Babylonians and Assyrians to punish the Israelites. Then the land is cleansed of foreigners and their gods just like in the biblical holy wars. These are stereotypical elements of holy war stories throughout the ancient Near East. What you have proved is that all these ancient people wrote the same stories about themselves and each other. The Bible is no different than any other ancient Near Eastern mythology.

      Dr Brown said: Thompson and others are refuted by Kenneth Kitchen, one of the world’s premier Egytpologists, here:

      Response: Have you read ‘Mythic Past’ Dr. Brown? If so what are some of the things in it Kitchen’s book refutes exactly? If you haven’t read it how do you know Kitchen’s book refutes any of it?

      Bo

      How do you know if there was another Hezekiah? The history in the Bible is not about the Egyptians. There is no need for it to relate if there was or wasn’t 400 years of Egyptian presence in the land. And on what basis do you know about this Egyptian presence? So you think that you can “trot out” that PROBABLY some nondescript Egyptians built a tunnel on speculation and no evidence? The inscription found in the tunnel was in ancient Hebrew not Hieroglyphics.

      Response: Whether there was a historical Hezekiah is beside the point. The Hezekiah described in the Bible is a figure in story. 2Kings 18:19 – 19:37 is obviously a piece of fiction, especially this word from God in 19:21 –28 and the claim that 185,000 Assyrian troops all died on one night. A claim like that needs some pretty good corroborating evidence. An event such as that would leave a large footprint, as any student of archaeology or history would know.

      How do we know that you are not just believing what you want to believe or what you want to be true? Or that you are not just piling up as many excuses and hopeful explanations as you can find in print or from your own imagination to solidify your hopes? Yes I do ask myself these questions. We must all answer them carefully, for we will all have to give an answer for what we hoped was true. Our hopes, even our unconscious ones, betray our our hearts.

      Response: That comment is very revealing. You admit that you are trying to believe what you hope is true. I’m not the least bit interested in trying to believe what I want to. Science is our best defense against believing what we want to. All I want to know are the facts. What do you think I hope for? That your God isn’t going to follow me to my grave and keep me alive in some disembodied state for the sole purpose of punishing me because I didn’t believe people like you who claim he really exists? Nothing could concern me less.

      You might like this:
      ― C.S. Lewis

      Response: Ah Mr. Dreary and Absurd.

      Don’t wait until it is too late.

      Response: Another very revealing comment. This clearly illustrates that you believe because you are afraid not to, that you have been frightened into adopting Christianity. I’ve rarely if ever met a Christian who wasn’t. Fear is not a good reason to believe something. You are wasting your time with your veiled threats of eternal damnation. How frightened you must be to believe in something for which there is no evidence.

    49. MattB
      May 12th, 2012 @ 11:56 am

      Hi Boris,
      Still waiting on a substantial scientific work stating that early cells had no DNA- this was one of your arguments earlier pertaining to how live originated. I think this claim is patently false.

      Other points I will address later when I get a chance.

      Quickly though- you are quite correct that many more species have become extinct than survived to this day. Look at the great diversity within the fossil record, particularly within the “Cambrian explosion”. Evidence not of their sin, but SIN entering and DEATH the world through man’s disobedience. The world is winding down (not progressing forward to become BETTER- as evolution would predict)it is wearing out- until the day when Christ is revealed in His glory- and soon a NEW heaven and a NEW Earth (I don’t claim to fully understand all details of this future- but I believe in the Living God who has promised). Yes, I know you’ve heard that all before, and it is truth. Jesus is Lord of all, of life, over death, and Lord of His creation.

    50. Boris
      May 12th, 2012 @ 7:06 pm

      So man’s sin from about 6000 years ago killed the dinosaurs 65 million years ago? The things you people believe are just too funny for words. There is a very good reason that no one takes the creationists seriously. When have scientists ever had to revise any of their theories in the face of claims from Bible believers? Bible believers have been fighting advancing science even before Copernicus and Galileo. Christians have been on the wrong side of every scientific discovery, advancement, and theory, ever since there have been Christians. Eventually it is always the Christians who have to back off their claims. Up until the middle of the 19th century every Protestant denomination held to a flat immovable earth just the way it is described in the Bible. To this day we still have The Association For Biblical Astronomy, Fixed Earth.com and the Flat Earth Society, all Christian organizations telling us that the sun orbits the earth. The Bible has led these people astray in much the same way as it has led you astray. Your belief in the Bible has you believing all sorts of things that are simply not true. Good luck with that.

      As far as the first cells having no DNA, known evidence and measurement support this account. No known evidence or measurement disputes it.

    51. Matt B
      May 12th, 2012 @ 9:06 pm

      Boris, I am still waiting for EVIDENCE about that false claim that early living cells had no DNA. Anything we have found or studied that is living has DNA- even pseudo-life (viruses for example) require DNA from their host to replicate. Multiplying by “falling apart”, indeed…

      “Christians have been on the wrong side of every scientific discovery, advancement, and theory, ever since there have been Christians.”

      Not true, as you well know.

      Athiests believed that geneocide and torture for the purpose of advancing a political ideology was perfectly right (Lenin, Mao, others…). They were wrong and acted wrongly- does that show that their beliefs about the existence of God were wrong? If not, then your “arguments” in that last post about Christians and scientific progress are also wrong.

      On the subject of Thompson’s book about the Old Testament being myth; that book is an opinion book, not scholarship. Experts on both sides of the fence of Bible minimalism have said so. Dr. Brown suggested a more scholarly work for those interest in facts. You claim to be basing your ideology solely on facts. Yet you hold up a book of opinion, with no citations, footnotes, no comparative scholarship, in fact NO UNIQUE RESEARCH- and you claim it hold the truth. Thompson lost his position and could not even get a professorship in the states after publishing it- because it was such a poor piece of work. No, I will probably not waste my time on that book by Thompson, but further study in the subject does interest me.

    52. Matt B
      May 12th, 2012 @ 9:13 pm

      On the subject of sin:
      Its a very sad thing- yes sin resulted in death. Do you deny that vast numbers of species have gone extinct? Do you deny that people suffer? Do you deny that death, and the bitterness of it are real? Have you ever held your dying child in your arms, and see her breath her last? (I have.) Have you watched as your mother breathed her last? (I have). You know that this world is in agony- greater decay, greater moral decent, greater unrest, increasing drug, alcohol abuse, greater sense of dismay and longing throughout all peoples. SIN- SIN! Man has been separated from GOD, and “dying you will die” is the result. It’s my fault, its your fault- all have fallen short. Not sin 6000 years ago- sin today!

      Praise the merciful, loving Creator- He has paid the price, He has made the way- and His promise is Eternal Life- Born from Above. He is the healer, the redeemer, the justifier, the righteous judge. He will do right.

    53. Ken
      May 13th, 2012 @ 9:42 am

      Amen,Amen,Amen ,,,The word said let the truth be established by two or three witnesses.I affirm Matt b. statement!

    54. Bo
      May 13th, 2012 @ 10:33 am

      Boris,

      Both the Bible and the Assyrian records describe the siege of Jerusalem. Why did the mighty Assyrians not sack Jerusalem? They had everything going for them. The Bible says that Hezekiah built a tunnel to keep water flowing into the city, that 185000 Assyrians died in the siege (cholera or another plague could have easily accomplished this), and that the rest of the Assyrians went home. The Assyrian records affirm the Biblical record except for the death of all those soldiers and they didn’t know about the tunnel. (Of course Assyrian kings do not say much about their foibles and failures and illfate.) Why did they go home?

      The main archaeological findings are thus: 1) Hezekiah’s Tunnel, 2) Sennacherib’s Prism. What kind of archaeological evidence would there be for 185000 soldiers dying 3700 years ago outside a large city that continued to exist for over a hundred years? What would be left to uncover? Surely all the bodies would have deteriorated to dust. Surely all the weapons that were left behind would have been collected and used up. Surely any useful object would have been scavenged.

      The chronology, history and archaeology of this event demonstrate that Hezekiah was not a fictitious king, as you assert. He is mentioned by name on Sennacherib’s Prism. There is no scientific evidence that shows the account in the Bible to be untrue. But you will believe who you want to believe.

      You have great faith. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in the Creator/Redeemer described in the Bible. You have sources and authorities that you trust. I have mine. Neither of us saw the beginning of the universe. Neither of us saw the siege of Jerusalem. Neither of us has seen much. We both place faith in what we have read and heard.

      Almost everything we “know” is based upon our believing our sources of information. Once again, you and I are in the judge’s seat, judging what evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth. The problem is that our judging of the evidence will not bring a ruling or judgment to bear upon anyone but ourselves. We are the ones that suffer the punishment of our judgment.

      Judge wisely my friend. What you subconsciously or secretly want to be true, might not be true at all.

      Shalom

    55. Bo
      May 13th, 2012 @ 11:08 am

      Boris,

      You wrote:
      “Up until the middle of the 19th century every Protestant denomination held to a flat immovable earth just the way it is described in the Bible.”

      Me thinks you do not know real history.

      Form Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

      “Early Christian Church

      From Late Antiquity, and from the beginnings of Christian theology, knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth had become widespread.”

      “Some historians consider that the early advocates who projected flat Earth upon Christians of the Middle Ages were highly influential (19th century view typified by Andrew Dickson White); current historians (late 20th century view typified by historian and religious studies scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell)[6] have asserted that White’s and other writings projecting flat Earth belief upon Christians are inaccurate, citing centuries of theological writings, and suggested the motivations for the promotion of such inaccuracies.”

      Be careful who you believe. If you want your brain washed, please follow the directions carefully as shrinkage and discoloration may occur if you use the wrong information or choose the wrong one to wash it ;)

      Here is what the instruction manual for the human being says:

      Ephesians 5
      26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,

      Romans 12
      2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.

      Shalom

    56. Bo
      May 13th, 2012 @ 1:00 pm

      Boris,

      Here is an interesting article showing that science has confirmed the Bible:

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/tba/universe-confirms-bible

      Shalom

    57. Boris
      May 14th, 2012 @ 1:30 am

      Matt B
      Boris, I am still waiting for EVIDENCE about that false claim that early living cells had no DNA. Anything we have found or studied that is living has DNA- even pseudo-life (viruses for example) require DNA from their host to replicate. Multiplying by “falling apart”, indeed…
      “Christians have been on the wrong side of every scientific discovery, advancement, and theory, ever since there have been Christians.”
      Not true, as you well know.

      Response: The blend of hypocrisy and lack of self-awareness in that comment is really amusing. You’re posting arguments against the scientific explanation for the diversity of life while claiming not to be on the wrong side of science. You Bible believers are STILL fighting against and denying long-standing and well- established scientific explanations to this day! Yet somehow you claim that you aren’t and never were! The list of scientists persecuted by the Church is quite extensive.

      Athiests believed that geneocide and torture for the purpose of advancing a political ideology was perfectly right (Lenin, Mao, others…). They were wrong and acted wrongly- does that show that their beliefs about the existence of God were wrong? If not, then your “arguments” in that last post about Christians and scientific progress are also wrong.

      Response: Oh and the Bible God didn’t command the Hebrews to commit genocide to further God’s religious and political ideology? Christians have historically believed that genocide and torture for the purpose of advancing a religious ideology was perfectly right. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. How many people did reformer John Calvin have tortured, murdered, or deported to further his religious and political ideologies? If Calvin, the Crusaders or Inquisitors had access to automatic weapons and gas chambers the death toll would have been millions instead of thousands of people murdered by angry Christians advancing their religious ideology.

      On the subject of Thompson’s book about the Old Testament being myth; that book is an opinion book, not scholarship. Experts on both sides of the fence of Bible minimalism have said so. Dr. Brown suggested a more scholarly work for those interest in facts. You claim to be basing your ideology solely on facts. Yet you hold up a book of opinion, with no citations, footnotes, no comparative scholarship, in fact NO UNIQUE RESEARCH- and you claim it hold the truth. Thompson lost his position and could not even get a professorship in the states after publishing it- because it was such a poor piece of work. No, I will probably not waste my time on that book by Thompson, but further study in the subject does interest me.

      Response: This illustrates just how willing you are to accept other people’s opinions rather than do your own research. There isn’t anything in the book that can’t easily be substantiated. Thompson just points out that before there was any kind of independent history of Palestine people believed the Bible to be historical. But now archaeologists have dug up most of Palestine looking for some evidence for some of the events and major figures described in the Bible and Thompson describes what they’ve found. It’s the same stuff Christian apologists write about, the Tel Dan inscription and other things found and various excavations. Christian apologists claim these meager findings prove the bible is historical and Thompson just shows why they don’t. Any unbiased person can see for them self why the things we do know about ancient Palestine don’t prove the Bible is what believers claim it is, but rather prove it isn’t.

      Matt B
      On the subject of sin:
      Its a very sad thing- yes sin resulted in death. Do you deny that vast numbers of species have gone extinct? Do you deny that people suffer? Do you deny that death, and the bitterness of it are real? Have you ever held your dying child in your arms, and see her breath her last? (I have.) Have you watched as your mother breathed her last? (I have). You know that this world is in agony- greater decay, greater moral decent, greater unrest, increasing drug, alcohol abuse, greater sense of dismay and longing throughout all peoples. SIN- SIN! Man has been separated from GOD, and “dying you will die” is the result. It’s my fault, its your fault- all have fallen short. Not sin 6000 years ago- sin today!

      Response: Leave it to religion to come up with ridiculous and provably false reasons for why people die and species go extinct. I shouldn’t have to point out that science has much more plausible and provable answers to these questions. Statistics do not support your claims about greater moral decay and increasing use of drugs and alcohol.

      Praise the merciful, loving Creator- He has paid the price, He has made the way- and His promise is Eternal Life- Born from Above. He is the healer, the redeemer, the justifier, the righteous judge. He will do right.

      Response: That is your particular superstition and you are welcome to it. However there are 5 billion other people on the planet who do not share that belief and I happen to be one of that overwhelming majority.

      Bo
      Boris,
      Both the Bible and the Assyrian records describe the siege of Jerusalem. Why did the mighty Assyrians not sack Jerusalem? They had everything going for them. The Bible says that Hezekiah built a tunnel to keep water flowing into the city, that 185000 Assyrians died in the siege (cholera or another plague could have easily accomplished this), and that the rest of the Assyrians went home. The Assyrian records affirm the Biblical record except for the death of all those soldiers and they didn’t know about the tunnel. (Of course Assyrian kings do not say much about their foibles and failures and illfate.) Why did they go home?

      Response: The event never happened. Where’s the evidence? Just like the rest of the events described in the Bible there isn’t any. In scientific terms the hypothesis that this story is true is falsified by the absence of evidence required by the hypothesis. Extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence and you’ve got nothing, no independent account of this story and no physical evidence that it ever occurred.

      The main archaeological findings are thus: 1) Hezekiah’s Tunnel, 2) Sennacherib’s Prism. What kind of archaeological evidence would there be for 185000 soldiers dying 3700 years ago outside a large city that continued to exist for over a hundred years? What would be left to uncover? Surely all the bodies would have deteriorated to dust. Surely all the weapons that were left behind would have been collected and used up. Surely any useful object would have been scavenged.
      The chronology, history and archaeology of this event demonstrate that Hezekiah was not a fictitious king, as you assert. He is mentioned by name on Sennacherib’s Prism. There is no scientific evidence that shows the account in the Bible to be untrue. But you will believe who you want to believe.

      Response: There is no evidence that this event even occurred. FYI 185,000 man armies did not exist in antiquity. And once again you COMPLETELY ignored my objection to your argument that Hezekiah really existed. Again: The figure of Hezekiah as presented in the Bible is a fictional character. Nebuchadnezzar was a real king but the figure of Nebuchadnezzar described in the Book of Daniel is fictitious. Herod existed but he didn’t send people around slaughtering infant children. Neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Herod held the conversations recorded in the Bible. Where else do we have such literature written in this style written about these two figures? If you read these stories anywhere else you’d know they were fiction but because they’re in the Bible you don’t even bother to question them. Well I know fiction when I read it.

      You have great faith. It takes more faith to be an atheist than to believe in the Creator/Redeemer described in the Bible. You have sources and authorities that you trust. I have mine. Neither of us saw the beginning of the universe. Neither of us saw the siege of Jerusalem. Neither of us has seen much. We both place faith in what we have read and heard.

      Response: I place faith in what I observe. You place faith in what you’ve been told by OTHER PEOPLE you must believe or else be tortured for all eternity. It does not require faith not to believe in the God of the Bible and all the other absurd beliefs that go with that. It takes religious indoctrination to believe in things like angels, demons, Satan, Jesus, seraphs, heaven, hell, that the Bible is true and the rest of the things you Christians believe in. It doesn’t take any faith at all to disbelieve the claims of Christianity.

      Almost everything we “know” is based upon our believing our sources of information. Once again, you and I are in the judge’s seat, judging what evidence is credible and which witnesses are telling the truth. The problem is that our judging of the evidence will not bring a ruling or judgment to bear upon anyone but ourselves. We are the ones that suffer the punishment of our judgment.
      Judge wisely my friend. What you subconsciously or secretly want to be true might not be true at all.

      Response: People who are gullible enough to actually believe in a final judgment based solely on whether a person adopted or rejected the particular dogmas and doctrines of Christianity they have adopted never understand why that final judgment only frightens them. The only people afraid of the Christian hell are the only people who believe it exists and the only people who believe it exists are Christians. Does that concept EVER cross your mind? Think about man. If you didn’t believe in hell would you even be a Christian. I think we both know the answer to that is no, you would not. And what’s so funny about this whole thing as that Christians never realize they’re in just as much danger of winding up in the Muslin hell as anyone else is in winding up in the Christian hell. Don’t believe in the Muslim hell? How can you be sure?

      “Early Christian Church
      From Late Antiquity, and from the beginnings of Christian theology, knowledge of the sphericity of the Earth had become widespread.”
      “Some historians consider that the early advocates who projected flat Earth upon Christians of the Middle Ages were highly influential (19th century view typified by Andrew Dickson White); current historians (late 20th century view typified by historian and religious studies scholar Jeffrey Burton Russell)[6] have asserted that White’s and other writings projecting flat Earth belief upon Christians are inaccurate, citing centuries of theological writings, and suggested the motivations for the promotion of such inaccuracies.”
      Be careful who you believe. If you want your brain washed, please follow the directions carefully as shrinkage and discoloration may occur if you use the wrong information or choose the wrong one to wash it

      Response: Oh please. We still have Christians TODAY telling us that the earth is flat and/or that the sun orbits the earth. How do you explain the existence of the Flat Earth Society, The Association for Biblical Astronomy and Fixedearth.com may I ask? These are all Christian organizations that are brave enough to admit to and defend what the Bible really says about cosmology and the position of the earth in the universe. I’d have a lot more respect for you if you didn’t try to deny what the Bible really says.

      Here is what the instruction manual for the human being says:
      Ephesians 5
      26 That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word,
      Romans 12
      2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
      Shalom

      Response: These are some of the Bible’s many defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking. According to critics they come from an instruction manual for indoctrinating a human being. Now enough of this. I post comments on this blog because I listen to the show. My original comments are regarding the subject of the thread or something I heard on the show. But somehow the people on this site keep changing the subject and end up trying to sway me from my disbelief. I’m not here to defend atheism, science or get people to reject Christianity. Dr. Brown has asked us all to stick to the subject of the thread. So let’s all do that okay?

    58. Matt B
      May 14th, 2012 @ 7:24 am

      Boris, I will give this one more shot-

      Please post links, reference articles, book titles, comments from news programs on youtube, that scientists have discovered a type of living cell, either in the world today, created (and repeated) in a lab, or ancient and extinct, that has NO DNA, yet functions and replicates itself, by this process you referred to as “falling apart”. I could find no references, and by all appearances, this is something you fabricated or embellished to carry your argument about the origins of life.

    59. ron david metcalf
      May 14th, 2012 @ 8:40 am

      Although I’m not generally as cantankerous as Boris (sometimes), it occurred to me this morn that this is his lifeline to sanity; so please give him some grace.
      Concerning recent historical number theory, Boris (the ‘evolved’ concept that ancient civilizations could not sustain large populations), please give us your theoru concerning the pyramids in Egypt; they are hard for even you to deny.
      In Him, Ron M.

    60. Matt B
      May 14th, 2012 @ 11:15 am

      Ron, point well taken, thank you! I am sometimes as cantankerous or more so- by God’s grace will He fill this common vessel.

      In that vein, the most loving thing is to keep a strong grip until the truth is out.

    61. Boris
      May 15th, 2012 @ 12:04 am

      Matt,
      I’m not going to continue with a conversation that has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Dr. Brown has asked us not to do that and I’m on thin ice here as it is. You can look up the evolution of DNA or scientific articles on the first cells yourself. My original post questioned why Jenn said she was uncomfortable with atheists raising children and I asked Dr. Brown if he shared her views. Dr. Brown saw the question but didn’t answer it and neither did Jenn. The rest of my post discussed the fact that in this particular nation rights are guaranteed by the Constitution and are not doled out or restricted on the whims of the majority. When someone brings a good case before the Supreme Court all of your willfully discriminatory laws will be declared unconstitutional. Once again the Christians will be on the wrong side of social progress. When gay marriage is legal and more widely accepted it will be common for Christians to claim they were never really against equal rights for gays – in much the same way that they claim they were never really against equal rights for African Americans and other minorities. I live in the south. I know better.

    62. Matt B
      May 15th, 2012 @ 7:00 am

      Very well then Boris my friend.

      Boris, how long will you resist the truth and prefer the lie? Yield yourself to the living God. He is just, and righteous in all His ways, and He has poured out mercy and love toward you. His desire is for you, but not for evil, rather for GOOD.

      Thanks for the stimulating discussion. It has helped both sharpen and soften me. I will continue to pray for you, with hope and faith for your deliverance.

    63. Boris
      May 15th, 2012 @ 8:48 am

      I’ll never be duped by the lies of religion.

    64. rfon david metcalf
      May 15th, 2012 @ 9:21 am

      The title of this thread; Bible sanity, moral chaos.

      The pyramids were built @3500 years ago, and link Bible record of the Israelites to a manmade structure that modern science can’t explain; either the ‘small tribe’ theories must be discarded, or else there must have been some ‘outside help’ that defies our silly reasoning that we are the most ‘evolved’ entity in the universe. This is relevant; your thoughts on it please, Boris.
      In Him, Ron M.

    65. ron david metcalf
      May 15th, 2012 @ 9:50 am

      As for the typos where even I spell my name wrong sometimes:
      my oldest son Dylan, who has had CP since birth (now 30) and developed schizophrenia OVERNIGHT 12 1/2 years ago, bit off 1/2 inch of my right index finger in a deliverance session a year ago. I write these blogs ‘as I go’ instead of spell-checking and pasting, which would be more professional; so there is a constant battle to get everything right.
      As for perfection, I am finding that the more I continue this walk with Jesus, the more there is danger of putting exceptional demands on myself, and tend to forget the grace and mercy of entering the kingdom as a little child. I don’t want to be a grizzled old war veteran; I want to continue seeing the world with wonder and excitement. So as we begin this new phase of discussing ‘Biblical sanity’ regarding angels and demons, let me pray that GOD will direct the thread and not I.
      In Jesus’ love and name, Ron David Metcalf

    66. ron david metcalf
      May 15th, 2012 @ 9:56 am

      re-writing the omitted ‘mistakes’ (a good idea):
      the pyramids either needed a huge work-force (of slaves) OR ‘OUTSIDE HELP’ (as modern science can’t duplicste the machinery needed to construct them) or both. It is time to take a sober look at Ezekiel’s wheel and not be afraid of it.
      In Him, Ron M.

    67. Ken
      May 15th, 2012 @ 10:19 am

      Boris, Wake up call to you my friend, you’ve already been duped by the lie of your religion. you have made a G-d unto yourself, who you put much faith in, proven by your own post..I got to tell you if Christ ever called you, you would make a great leader in his church by the great faith you have demonstrated in a false little G-d Peace, joy

    68. Bo
      May 15th, 2012 @ 2:53 pm

      Boris,

      Please do not be duped by the lies of religion. Look closely at your current religion and you will find many lies. Yes Humanism and Atheism and Agnosticism and Materialism are religions. FYI, Yahweh and His son, our Messiah are not a religion. They are beings. They desire a relationship with you.

      Shalom

    69. Eliyahu Moshiach
      May 15th, 2012 @ 6:16 pm

      Boris, I am intrigued, please due converse with me on your concrete findings based upon science. But first you should know I am seeker of truth, and truth will be where I go. I am not a self identified Christian but I am a self identified Jew.

      If you may, please share your concrete findings of what is true.
      So far I think, your concrete evidence you have found is that there is no higher power/ deity, we the humans are it, nothing more. Ok, may I ask you if there are aliens in outer space, did your science ever bring evidence that we, humans are the only ones, is there life in other galaxies according to your science discoverings, and second if there was would you have access to it, some governments may prefer to keep these type of findings under deep secrecy. Just saying, how well is your vass scientific access to the relevant question.

      Please understand that I am not sarcastic but serious in my inquiries of your self professed refusal to believe anything that science has not evidenced. So since I am a person who seeks solely the truth, let me give you the chance to teach me the things you know from scientific unrefuttable evidence. So far you have taught that no higher power exists/deity. All that exists today, the earth and galactic universe, in your science, did it just create itself, or did aliens help start this world, what is the beginning, a big explosion? I’m being honest. Are we, humans, just going to die and cease to exist forever, do we not have anything, or part of us that lives past our bodies?

      Can you please give a scientific explanation on how a group of native American in Canada enchanted rain to come down on one side of the street but not on the other in a place called Fort Hope. My friend has a hard time being an atheist after seeing this mysterious event, and no he hates Christianity, he just has hard time swalling the notion that there is no higher power in the world. I am not from this country so I have seen quite a lot African religions do miracles of healing of cancer and other diseases, how does your science concretely explain how this crazy stuff happens?

      Thanks for sharing, if you so desire, I am a seeker of evidence, truth.

    70. Eliyahu Moshiach
      May 15th, 2012 @ 7:12 pm

      Boris,
      One more thought and it’s just a thought, does your research of science basically unrefutably prove that you and I and the humans have progressed from being monkeys kind of like chimpanzees who have a close DNA to ours and before we were chimpanzees we were something else that eventually progressed and evolved to chimpanzees and all that exist is a result of an explosion that created something that progressed to what progressed to chimpanzees which is now progressed to the human race which invented an imaginary god and now we have progressed to scientifically prove there never ever was god.
      My question is- those that heal cancer and diseases, are they more progressed then the rest of humanity, are we seeing evolution before our eyes. Both my mother and father pray in their religion belief system and a handful of times healings have been activated and people’s lives have been astonished and doctors have been perplexed, so my question is are the little African religions, my parents faith system, are they the new evolution taking place, and why is this evolution taking place with people of religions, interesting, I fear that the dogmatic anti religionists, some being atheist, why don’t we see them tapping into this progressed evolution link in human beings, just a thought, and do you refuse as an atheist progress yourself in an evolutionary new stage of tapping into making your words and thoughts heal cancer and diseases? Just some thoughts from a seeker of the really real the true truth, real evidence.

    71. Boris
      May 16th, 2012 @ 2:01 am

      ron david metcalf

      The fact that the Bible and other Hebrew writings don’t mention the pyramids supports the modern consensus that the Israelites were never in Egypt.

      >Boris, Wake up call to you my friend, you’ve already been duped by the lie of your religion. you have made a G-d unto yourself, who you put much faith in, proven by your own post..I got to tell you if Christ ever called you, you would make a great leader in his church by the great faith you have demonstrated in a false little G-d Peace, joy

      Response: Yes I put faith in myself. I don’t let others do my thinking for me.

      >Bo,
      Please do not be duped by the lies of religion. Look closely at your current religion and you will find many lies. Yes Humanism and Atheism and Agnosticism and Materialism are religions. FYI, Yahweh and His son, our Messiah are not a religion. They are beings. They desire a relationship with you.

      Response: Humanists, atheists, agnostics and materialists don’t gather together once or more a week to sing, hear, shout and scream about something they are all trying to believe. That’s what religious people do because they need strength in numbers to hang on to their beliefs. Christianity fits every definition of religion there is. Religion is a bad word these days so don’t try to pass it off on unbelievers. You’re stuck with it. If Yahweh and His son desire a relationship with me let them tell me about it, in person, in an audible voice and in front of witnesses.

      Eliyahu Moshiach

      >Boris, ….. If you may, please share your concrete findings of what is true.

      Response: I have no concrete findings. All of my findings are subject to future review and even outright rebuttal should I find new and superior evidence any of them are incorrect.

      >So far I think, your concrete evidence you have found is that there is no higher power/ deity, we the humans are it, nothing more…. . Just saying, how well is your vass scientific access to the relevant question.

      Response: I’m not a scientist so I don’t have access to any scientific information that you don’t.

      >Please understand that I am not sarcastic but serious in my inquiries of your self professed refusal to believe anything that science has not evidenced.

      Response: The natural position to take on any subject is unbelief until something has been proved. The existence of God has not been proved. So the natural position to take on the existence of God is unbelief or atheism. People can believe whatever they want to but if you choose do that you can bet whatever you believe isn’t true.

      >So since I am a person who seeks solely the truth, let me give you the chance to teach me the things you know from scientific unrefuttable evidence. So far you have taught that no higher power exists/deity.

      Response: An atheist doesn’t have to be a person who can offer proofs that there is no God. Atheists are just people who think the evidence for God, is on the same level as the evidence for werewolves.

      >All that exists today, the earth and galactic universe, in your science, did it just create itself, or did aliens help start this world, what is the beginning, a big explosion? I’m being honest. Are we, humans, just going to die and cease to exist forever, do we not have anything, or part of us that lives past our bodies?

      Response: Why should there be?

      >Can you please give a scientific explanation on how a group of native American in Canada enchanted rain to come down on one side of the street but not on the other in a place called Fort Hope. My friend has a hard time being an atheist after seeing this mysterious event, and no he hates Christianity, he just has hard time swalling the notion that there is no higher power in the world.

      Response: It’s funny you should mention that. I just witnessed that this afternoon just west of Richmond Virginia. I’ve seen it before but even when I witnessed this as a small child I realized there was a natural explanation for it and that this must happen some place every time it rains. Really man. Think about it for a minute. How anyone can see this as evidence of the supernatural is beyond me. People still believe rain can be called down from the sky huh? Ask them to do it when there are no clouds in the sky why don’t you?

      >I am not from this country so I have seen quite a lot African religions do miracles of healing of cancer and other diseases, how does your science concretely explain how this crazy stuff happens?
      Thanks for sharing, if you so desire, I am a seeker of evidence, truth.

      Response: I’ve witnessed faith healing, snake handling, people supposedly speaking in tongues, and all sorts of other Christian traditions. From what I can tell it seems that the only person more dishonest than a faith healer is his or her patient. I wonder how many people have died from an otherwise curable disease after trusting a faith healer instead of modern medicine and science.

      Cures for diseases don’t come from magic. They come from scientists, most of who work very hard in complete obscurity trying to make the world a better place. Claiming that words, thoughts, the laying on of hands and other things like that can cure diseases is an offense to all the scientists who have proved time and again that they can, have and will continue to make the world a better, safer and healthier place through science.

      Once again I’ve got a bunch of people trying to sway me from my unbelief. Does anybody want to comment on my original post? I don’t think my eternal destiny is the real concern here. I think you’re all much more concerned that I’m right and you are wrong. You think that if you could just get the unbeliever to convert that would help convince YOU that your religious faith hasn’t been a big waste of time, effort, resources and years of intellectual servitude to a false religion. It’s interesting how little faith Christians have in their own faith. But I don’t care about that. Now if anyone wants to comment on or question what I said in post # 16 on this thread or anything I may post in the future I welcome the conversation. Otherwise let’s close this discussion.

    72. Ken
      May 16th, 2012 @ 4:40 am

      Boris, #1. Your posting on a Christan blog. followers of Christ, and yes your eternal destiny is the real concern here, but not for the reasons you think, but out of love for you and anyone who is seeking the truth..I wasn’t always a follower of Christ, I was much like you believing in only what I could see, feel ,and touch thinking Christians were people who had lost there minds and went out and joined a cult. Then at the age of 17 I began seeking, wondering if there really was a G-d out there, and if there was did he even care about me or others, so that night I was watching tv and some guy was speaking about Christ and the love he had for people and that you could have a personal relationship with him by asking for it, so I thought to myself ok if this it true I’m going to fine out right now I simply prayed this, G-d if this man is telling the truth and you do what a relationship with me then send someone to tell me about Jesus who has the truth because I don’t want to fall into a cult. a few hours later after that prayer there was a knock on my door I answered it, there were 3 men standing there who began to tell me about Jesus and the love he had for me and invited me to church. you see I lived there for over 2 years and that never happen before that day.. so if your looking for proof just ask him ..I did…peace,love and joy to you

    73. ron david metcalf
      May 16th, 2012 @ 8:25 am

      Boris,
      after all your lengthy responses agguing your theories that can’t be proven, you get off with a one sentence response?
      The Bible says the Hebrew slaves were in Egypt, and the historical timeline puts them there at the time the pyramids were being built. The question was how they could have been built, or a hundred other massive stone structures that ‘primitives’ had no capability of building, and to which modern science can only go ‘duh’.
      I am not suggesting Oriental ancestor worship, Boris; but I am insulted by your calling all my forefathers apes (including, it seems, Einstein, who used the Bible as historical record)to defend your myth-builders Darwin and Freud, who, like most myths, had a bit of truth in their reasoning.
      I also take no comfort whatsoever in your theory that we evolved from nothing and will very soon disintegrate into elementary particles that have no life; close to Zen Buddhism, of course.
      Instead of constantly arguing about things that can’t be proven either way, I thought we could talk about something substantial: archaeology.
      Your empirical reasoning is based upon everything that went before must be myth and nonsense. This is what I am challenging: your own hubris. I tried all that once; but if that is all there is, you would be better off studying Wilder, O’Neil, and Fellini than championing Nihilism.
      In Him, Ron M.

    74. Bo
      May 16th, 2012 @ 10:03 am

      Boris,

      You wrote:
      “The fact that the Bible and other Hebrew writings don’t mention the pyramids supports the modern consensus that the Israelites were never in Egypt.”

      Your logic is seriously lacking here.

      I cannot understand why you think that the Bible must mention the pyramids to be true. Many books written in America do not mention the St. Louis Arch. Would that make them untrue too?

      If the focus of a writer was to tell the story, and a short story at that, of how the Israelites got into and out of Egypt, why would he need to discuss or even mention the pyramids? The mentioning or lack of mentioning them means, “supports” and proves nothing as to the reliability of the facts in the story in the Bible.

      I am beginning to see how flimsy an argument you have and how little evidence you have for your beliefs. You are not a scientist, but you believe anything that they tell you, as long as it confirms what you want to be true. I would think that all scientists would be atheists, if I were you. They are not. This alone should cause you to question your assumptions and beliefs.

      I would recommend for you to do what Ken advised. Ask Yahweh to reveal himself to you. If you really want to know if He is real, you will find Him. It probably will not happen the same way that it did for Ken or me, but He will show Himself to you.

      Shalom

    75. Matt B
      May 16th, 2012 @ 10:04 am

      The Biblical history of Isreal may not mention Egyptian pyramids, but it does not mention elephants or giraffes either (I don’t think). No reasonable athiest, theologian, archeologist, Jew or Christian believes that these omission disproves the historicity or veracity of the scriptures in the areas where it does contain information.

    76. Matt B
      May 16th, 2012 @ 10:13 am

      Brothers, sisters, those who profess to seek the truth, and have open hearts;
      Let’s not let lack of complete understanding deter us from accepting what is true, or what has been revealed as true. Science has some tools, and can uncover the mechanisms behind physical phenomenon. It cannot give us “why” in many important cases (such as, “Why is life precious and to be valued?”) These are questions we wrestle with, and use science as an aid.

      The God who has created all according to His loving desire, also reveals Himself, and intervenes according to His judgement and plan. That is what the evidence (science AND eye-witness testimony, AND honest reason to a degree), that is what the evidence proclaims.

    77. Bo
      May 16th, 2012 @ 11:10 am

      Boris,

      The best that philosophically atheistic science can do is try to show how something might have occurred without their being a Deity/Creator/Prime mover. It cannot prove that there is no Deity. It can show some possibilities. That is all. There is a branch of science called mathematics. One of the things that it can do is determine probabilities. Though there may be a possibility of there being no intelligent being behind the universe. The mathematicians know better because the probability is basically ZERO.

      “The Single Law of Chance

      The second problem with the assertion of evolutionary inevitability is implied by the work of the renowned French mathematician, Emile Borel, for whom the lunar crater, Borel, is named (O’Connor and Robertson, 2008). In 1962, Borel discussed in depth the law of probability known as the Single Law of Chance—a law that he said “is extremely simple and intuitively evident, though rationally undemonstrable” (1962, p. 2). This principle states that “events whose probability is extremely small never occur” (1965, p. 57). He further stated that we “at least…must act, in all circumstances, as if they were impossible” (1962, p. 3, italics in orig.). The law, he said, “applies to the sort of event, which, though its impossibility may not be rationally demonstrable, is, however, so unlikely that no sensible person will hesitate to declare it actually impossible. If someone affirmed having observed such an event we would be sure that he is deceiving us or has himself been the victim of a fraud” (1962, p. 3, italics in orig., emp. added).

      To clarify the meaning of “extremely small” probabilities, he defined different categories of events in which the probabilities are so small that they are “practically negligible,” including events from the human, terrestrial, and cosmic perspectives (1965, p. 57).

      In his discussion on the probabilities of certain cosmic events, he argues convincingly from mathematical calculations and intuition that reasonable human beings consider probabilities of chance cosmic events that fall below one in 1045 to be negligible (1965, p. 59). In other words, if the probability of a certain event happening in the Universe is less than one in 1045 (i.e., a one with 45 zeros after it), human beings intuitively categorize that event as so unlikely that we consider it to be an impossible event.

      Several years ago, evolutionist Harold Morowitz of Yale, and currently professor of biology and natural philosophy at George Mason University, estimated the probability of the formation of the smallest and simplest living organism to be one in 10340,000,000 (1970, p. 99). A few years following Morowitz’s calculations, the late, renowned evolutionist Carl Sagan made his own estimation of the chance that life could evolve on any given single planet: one in 102,000,000,000 (1973, p. 46)! Note also that these calculations were made before the last several decades have revealed with even more clarity the complexity of life (cf. Deweese, 2010). These probability estimations for the formation of life, made by the evolutionists themselves, are, of course, so far beyond the limit articulated for cosmic events by the Single Law of Chance that we must respond in shock, rather than humor, at the big lie that has been perpetrated on the world at large by so many in the scientific community in thrusting macroevolution on the masses. The distinguished British astronomer, Sir Fred Hoyle once said regarding evolution, “the chance that higher forms have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein” (1981b, 294:105). He further stated: “At all events, anyone with even a nodding acquaintance with the Rubik cube will concede the near-impossibility of a solution being obtained by a blind person moving the cubic faces at random. Now imagine 1050 blind persons each with a scrambled Rubik cube, and try to conceive of the chance of them all simultaneously arriving at the solved form. You then have the chance of arriving by random shuffling at just one of the many biopolymers on which life depends. The notion that not only biopolymers but the operating programme of a living cell could be arrived at by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order” (1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).

      From:

      http://creationrevolution.com/2011/02/god-and-the-laws-of-science-the-laws-of-probability/

      This makes Atheistic, Materialistic, and Evolutionistic belief, mathematically, “nonsense of a high order.” No insult intended. I’m just quoting scientists.

      Shalom

    78. Matt B
      May 16th, 2012 @ 11:56 am

      Boris, you requested we return the discussion t your earlier post. In that vein, from your post #16:
      Boris said, “Every study that has been done on the subject has shown conclusively that fundamentalist indoctrination and belief makes domestic violence a more likely occurrence.”

      See my post #23 where I asked for you to supply supporting evidence. Then in following posts (24, 31, 32) I refuted your assertation about domestic violence, and provided links and some discussion on studies whose conclusions do not support your claim.

      Religious views and practices, particularly Christian beliefs and practices faithful to the teachings of Christ and the scriptures, do not result in increased domestic violence.

    79. Eliyahu Moshiach
      May 16th, 2012 @ 1:23 pm

      Boris, so what you are trying to teach is that there are no true healings. A human body that reverses its death process and heals itself up again. So you are teaching that every account was a lie, where the patients and doctors are just making it up.

      I believe the medical research has documented these occurrences, to deny this reality makes me realize that you have not put all the evidence into consideration, scientific research on any topic must put all the evidence on the table.

      My fiends who are atheist recognize these supernatural occuences and have chalked it up to the new stage of human evolution, but you just call it all a lie, I don’t like your philosophy because you refuse to take into account all the evidence. I can’t accept your philosophy over my life until explain your theory on why people can do supernatural things like heal there bodies. I proposed that this could be the new stage of evolution and you responded with no, it’s all lies. I guess our conversation is over, I have no more questions. Plus, I am way too busy and have lost complete interest in this topic. Best of luck.

    80. Boris
      May 17th, 2012 @ 3:24 am

      Ken
      >Boris, #1. Your posting on a Christan blog..so if your looking for proof just ask him ..I did…peace,love and joy to you

      Response: I’m not looking for proof. I’m posting and reading comments on this blog because I listen to Line of Fire occasionally, or the last hour of it anyway. I’m not trying to be converted. I don’t believe Jesus Christ ever existed. Now how do you know that the God of Islam is not the one true God? If you’re looking for proof why don’t you just ask Allah to reveal himself to you? Or do you think that you don’t need proof that the Muslim God does not exist? Why?

      ron david metcalf
      >after all your lengthy responses agguing your theories that can’t be proven, you get off with a one sentence response?
      The Bible says the Hebrew slaves were in Egypt, and the historical timeline puts them there at the time the pyramids were being built. The question was how they could have been built, or a hundred other massive stone structures that ‘primitives’ had no capability of building, and to which modern science can only go ‘duh’.

      Response: The historical timeline and the biblical timeline are two very different things. There isn’t a shred of corroborating evidence that the Israelites were ever even in Egypt, that any of the Exodus events actually occurred or any subsequent events described in the Bible such as the 40-year wandering in the desert or the supposed Conquest of Canaan. Archaeologists can tell us about hunter-gatherers from about 30,000 years ago who lived and traveled the region the Israelites supposedly lived in for 40 years but they can’t find any evidence that this entire nation of people from 3,000 years ago ever lived there. Now I’ve read descriptions and seen several demonstrations of how the pyramids were built. Are you implying that they are the result of some kind of magic?

      >I am not suggesting Oriental ancestor worship, Boris; but I am insulted by your calling all my forefathers apes

      Response: I made no such comment but now that you mention it according scientists humans ARE a species of ape along with Chimps, Gorillas, Orangutans, Bonobos and one or two others. You can look it up. You’re insulted? You believers call unbelievers “the lost” and claim that anyone who doesn’t believe in your God and holy book is being influenced or even worshiping the so-called devil or Satan. Then you have your little patently offensive sayings like “Love the sinner, hate the sin” accusing us of being sinners as if not accepting your religion is a sin in and of itself. Well I say you know not what you do and so we love the Christian hate the Christianity. How do you feel right now? You gave up your right to feel insulted when you adopted and expressed your beliefs about people who don’t share your faith.

      >‘(including, it seems, Einstein, who used the Bible as historical record)to defend your myth-builders Darwin and Freud, who, like most myths, had a bit of truth in their reasoning.
      I also take no comfort whatsoever in your theory that we evolved from nothing and will very soon disintegrate into elementary particles that have no life; close to Zen Buddhism, of course.
      Instead of constantly arguing about things that can’t be proven either way, I thought we could talk about something substantial: archaeology.
      Your empirical reasoning is based upon everything that went before must be myth and nonsense. This is what I am challenging: your own hubris. I tried all that once; but if that is all there is, you would be better off studying Wilder, O’Neil, and Fellini than championing Nihilism.

      Response: Yeah that’s what I need, someone who calls Darwin and Freud “myth-builders” telling me what I should read. It’s very revealing that you come right out AGAIN and admit that you “take no comfort whatsoever” in certain scientific explanations such as the fact that we “will very soon disintegrate into elementary particles that have no life.” AGAIN you have expressed your stark fear of not existing. Yet when I ask you why this frightens you so much you avoid the question and refuse to answer it. Obviously you can’t come to terms with this part of reality in your own mind. So you shrink from reality and cling to the escapist promises of religion. Go ahead I’m not stopping you. I’m just very curious about why the thought of not existing frightens you so much, why you keep bringing it up and why you then refuse to talk about it.

      >Bo
      I cannot understand why you think that the Bible must mention the pyramids to be true. Many books written in America do not mention the St. Louis Arch. Would that make them untrue too?
      If the focus of a writer was to tell the story, and a short story at that, of how the Israelites got into and out of Egypt, why would he need to discuss or even mention the pyramids? The mentioning or lack of mentioning them means, “supports” and proves nothing as to the reliability of the facts in the story in the Bible.

      Response: I didn’t bring up the pyramids, Ron did.

      ?I am beginning to see how flimsy an argument you have and how little evidence you have for your beliefs. You are not a scientist, but you believe anything that they tell you, as long as it confirms what you want to be true.

      Response: That is absolutely false and utterly ridiculous. Scientists tell us a lot of things I’d rather weren’t true. But I believe them anyway. Science is our best defense against believing what we want to.

      >I would think that all scientists would be atheists, if I were you. They are not. This alone should cause you to question your assumptions and beliefs.

      Response: The vast majority of biologists just happen to be atheists. They’re the ones most qualified to tell us about where we came from. Since they don’t think we are created beings I can’t imagine why anyone else would. People don’t question what atomic scientists tell us even though atomic theory is “just a theory” as creationists love to say about evolution. Gravity is “just a theory” as well but we don’t hear creationists complaining about that now do we?

      >I would recommend for you to do what Ken advised. Ask Yahweh to reveal himself to you. If you really want to know if He is real, you will find Him. It probably will not happen the same way that it did for Ken or me, but He will show Himself to you.

      Response: Suppose a Muslim advised you to seek the truth of Islam by asking Allah to reveal himself to you. Would you do it? Why not? You don’t think Allah exists do you? Well I don’t think Yahweh exists. You’re wasting your time just as a Muslim would be wasting his or her time with you. Understand?

      >Matt B
      The Biblical history of Isreal may not mention Egyptian pyramids, but it does not mention elephants or giraffes either (I don’t think). No reasonable athiest, theologian, archeologist, Jew or Christian believes that these omission disproves the historicity or veracity of the scriptures in the areas where it does contain information.

      Response: I didn’t bring up the pyramids, Ron did. Apparently he thinks they have something to do something, I’m not sure what.

      >Matt B
      Brothers, sisters, those who profess to seek the truth, and have open hearts;
      … That is what the evidence (science AND eye-witness testimony, AND honest reason to a degree), that is what the evidence proclaims.

      Response: What evidence exactly? What eyewitness testimony? Your religious stories are not evidence that your stories are true. We have no eyewitness accounts from outside of the Bible that confirm anything inside the Bible. In fact we have no evidence from outside of the Bible that anything inside the Bible even might be true. You take those stories on faith and you ought to be brave enough to admit it. That is if religious faith is this grand and wonderful thing you claim it is.

      >Bo
      Boris,
      The best that philosophically atheistic science can do is try to show how something might have occurred without their being a Deity/Creator/Prime mover. It cannot prove that there is no Deity. It can show some possibilities. That is all. There is a branch of science called mathematics. One of the things that it can do is determine probabilities. Though there may be a possibility of there being no intelligent being behind the universe. The mathematicians know better because the probability is basically ZERO.

      Response: That’s the same probability that the Genesis account of creation is accurate.

      >“The Single Law of Chance
      The second problem with the assertion of evolutionary inevitability is implied by the work of the renowned French mathematician, Emile Borel, for whom the lunar crater, Borel, is named (O’Connor and Robertson, 2008). In 1962, Borel discussed in depth the law of probability known as the Single Law of Chance—

      This is one of those GOTCHA moments. I seriously doubt you’ve actually read Borel’s book for two very obvious reasons. First creationists use probablity arguments and refer to Borel when they do all the time. Second had you and other creationists actually read the book you would have seen that Borel wrote that we can’t use mathematics to calculate the probablity of life forming. “It is obviously the same as if we asked ourselves whether we could know if it was possible actually to create a human being by combining at random a certain number of simple bodies. But this is not the way that the problem of the origin of life presents itself: it is generally held that living beings are the result of a slow process of evolution, beginning with elementary organisms, and that this process of evolution involves certain properties of living matter that prevent us from asserting that the process was accomplished in accordance with the laws of chance…. Similar observations could be made regarding possible attempts to apply the probability calculus to cosmogonical problems. In this field, too, it does not seem that the conclusions we have could really be of great assistance.” – ‘Probability and Certainty’, p. 124-126. In other words Borel tells us that probability estimates that ignore the non-random elements predetermined by physics and chemistry are meaningless. So your whole case falls flat on its face according to the very authority you try to use to support it! Now this is the problem I have with debating creationists. Either you didn’t read the book and what Borel said about how and why probablity estimates on the chances of the universe forming or life forming are meaningless or you did and you willfully misrepresented it. I’m willing to give you the benefit of the doubt this time and assume you cut and pasted your argument from a creationist website and didn’t bother to read Borel’s book. Or did you read the book and purposely fail to mention what Borel said about the meaninglessness of probility estimates of the chances of life and the universe forming? Or did you read the book and just forget what Borel said about not using statistics the way you did?

      Several years ago, evolutionist Harold Morowitz of Yale, and currently professor of biology and natural philosophy at George Mason University, estimated the probability of the formation of the smallest and simplest living organism to be one in 10340,000,000 (1970, p. 99)… These probability estimations for the formation of life, … by chance in a primordial organic soup here on the Earth is evidently nonsense of a high order” (1981a, 92:527, emp. in orig.).

      All of you calculations are meaningless because they are based on the false assumption that the protein molecule formed by chance. Biochemistry is not chance but rather produces complex products that themselves interact in complex ways. Also your calculations are based on another false assumption, which is that the protein molecule had to take one particular form for life to begin. There are many proteins that promote biological activity and your calculations don’t take into account all the possible molecules that function to promote life. Also creationists assume that life appeared in its present form and assume cells have always been as complex as they are today. However the complexity of the cell is the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution.

      Matt B
      Boris, you requested we return the discussion t your earlier post. In that vein, from your post #16:…

      Response: None of that was from my post #16. You already lost this argument when you ignored my challenge to give you a test that determined your degree of fundamentalism. As we both know the study proved that as the degree of fundamentalism goes up one point the likelihood of spousal abuse goes up 5 percent. So you don’t fall into the category of just practicing religious views and practices. The fact that you’re on this blog pretty much implies that you’re a fundamentalist. I mean there aren’t any disinterested pew-sitters on Christian blogs. I don’t understand why you want to go here again. So do you want to take their test that will determine your degree of fundamentalism? It’s online why don’t you take a look at it yourself?

      I don’t want to continue to discuss things that are not relevant to the subject of the thread. I don’t care if you’re a fundamentalist, if you don’t accept evolution, if you think the Bible is historical or that the pyramids are the result of divine intervention. I am curious why Ron is so frightened of being dead. Other than that let’s stick to the subject or my original comment.

    81. Matt B
      May 17th, 2012 @ 8:08 am

      Boris, my quote was from your post in this thread, #16. If you don’t want discussion on topics or claims you make when you post, then I’d suggest you stop posting. However, I’d be glad to continue the discussion, per your recent request. I copied and pasted a direct quote where you make and assertation, then refuted it with linking two different studies that do not support your claim. You have not proven anything wrt christian teachings and practice correlating to increased violence or abuse within families. The evidence is that practicing the teachings of Jesus Christ leads to lower propensity for domestic violence. That does not mean every Christian or one who names himself as Christian lives consistently with the scriptures or teachings of Christ- admittedly and sadly so. One may say that athiests are often good, moral, upstanding people but that some have committed crimes, murdered on grand scales, lied incessantly, or beaten their dogs. We cannot draw conclusions from anecdotal accounts. However, it cannot be broadly characterized that those following Jesus Christ are more violent. That is a falsehood.

      I brought up pyramids, elephants and the record within scripture in the broader discussion, not because you mentioned them. However, you have mentioned that there is not a shred of evidence that the bible contains corroborated history- that is untrue. In fact as archeologists continue their work there is more evidence and a clearer picture of just how correct the history of the scriptural accounts are. Many references are linked in other’s posts. Why not comment on them, point for point, rather than just restating your position without evidence.

      As for my being a “fundamentalist”- by God’s grace, I am a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. I will own that Name gladly.

      Egyptian historical timelines are far from settled amongs various historians. There is a very good timeline emerging consistnet with the Bible. References within Genesis, Exodus and following refer to real Pharohs, real events, and some records indicate there was a large population of Semetic slaves who left Egypt suddenly. The Egyptians did not keep calenders based on a consistent chronology- rather referencing events by the various pharohs, and for some periods there were more than one Pharoh governing sectors of the Egyptian lands.

    82. ron david metcalf
      May 17th, 2012 @ 8:11 am

      1) Mind v. Universe is unsustainable.
      2) Denial of eternal exisitence leads only to dead ends.
      3) Superego is classic ‘tragedy’ that cannot embrace the ‘comedy’ of fellowship, as the separation allows no bonding (e.g. every blade of grass a razor’s edge trying to destroy you).

      Thus, Tree of Knowledge thinking leads ONLY to death. Life without meaning is hopeless.

      PROOF: The Classic Arts have devolved into ABC blocks of paganism, from heights of (say) Mahler who at least tried to envision Something Bigger than himself.

      Your universe is you, Boris, and that is all. If you can’t find your way out of that prison, you are surely doomed.

      In Him, Ron M.

    83. Matt B
      May 17th, 2012 @ 8:26 am

      Boris here we go again, since you brought it up;.

      “However the complexity of the cell is the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution. ”

      You stated emphatically that you did not wish to discuss this further- particularly because when you were pressed multiple times you refused to offer any scientific evidence. I have looked for such evidence in vain. In other words- cells as they are are overwhelmingly cells as they were, and there is no evidence that less complex cells existed. All living cells contain DNA and RNA, (except a few, like red blood cells, but they cannot reproduce at that stage), and cells contain very complex mechanisms and structures for metabolism, for growth, for procreation, and for self-protection. It can hardly be comprehended how wonderful the fuctions of life are. Even simple single-celled organisms are amazingly intricate, far more “advanced” than anything we have invented to date. There is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence for your claim that these levels of complexity are the result of evolution. The fossil record and any other meausure of scientific evidence shows that life as we see today functions just as it did from its onset.

    84. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 17th, 2012 @ 9:40 am

      Boris, since the thread is already off track, I want you to feel free to respond to these direct questions here. Thanks!

    85. Ken
      May 17th, 2012 @ 10:31 am

      Boris, >Boris Now how do you know that the God of Islam is not the one true God? Answer: When I prayed that prayer G-d didn’t send the Muslim brother hood to my door to convert me to Islam ,he sent men to tell me about his only begotten son Jesus Christ. >Boris, If you’re looking for proof why don’t you just ask Allah to reveal himself to you? answer: I got my proof that Jesus was the only begotten son of the living G-d, search over . >Boris, why? Answer: Jesus Christ didn’t stop answering my prayers after reveling himself to me. I ask him for a wife who also believed. I was over a friends house and there was a girl there whom I’ve never met before but the min I saw her I knew she was the answer to my prayer and I told my friend that’s the girl I’m going to marry I was 17 at the time she was 14 I met her we said hi and that was the end of it.I didn’t see her again until three years later, after we crossed paths again this time we began to date come to find out she was the daughter of a Pentecostal preacher. ordained from the Church of G-d. I must tell you even though G-d had reviled himself to me I hadn’t committed my life to him yet. and had only been to church once at the age of 6. so on are first date she talked me into going to church with her and first time in my life I heard the Gospel preached my a man with so much conviction,and power ,I swear to you it looked like he glowed, and instantly I knew he had something inside of him that I didn’t have, but wanted, it felt like my heart was going to explode in side my chest after he preach he asked if anyone wanted to know Jesus Christ, come to the front and he would pray for them ,so I went he laid his hand on me and and prayed and the tears began to flow out of me like a river and my eyes were opened up and I could see for the first time in my life the need for a savior. so I ask Jesus Christ to forgive me and to become the Lord of my life .I got up from the altar a new person, clean from the inside I felt so light I could fly I had instant love for everyone there walked out the church and could see for the first time in my life the beauty of G-d’s creation ..and let me tell you no man or woman or anything else could had changed me from the inside like that but a true living G-d. how do I know G-d is real he lives inside of me.

    86. Ken
      May 17th, 2012 @ 10:38 am

      oh and by the way we got married and had 22 years together and had three wonderful children..Peace love and joy to you

    87. Bo
      May 17th, 2012 @ 11:11 am

      Boris,

      Your claim that, “There isn’t a shred of corroborating evidence that the Israelites were ever even in Egypt, that any of the Exodus events actually occurred or any subsequent events described in the Bible such as the 40-year wandering in the desert or the supposed Conquest of Canaan. Archaeologists can tell us about hunter-gatherers from about 30,000 years ago who lived and traveled the region the Israelites supposedly lived in for 40 years but they can’t find any evidence that this entire nation of people from 3,000 years ago ever lived there.”

      Well what would a bunch of people dwelling in tents and wandering around, not building any towns, look like to an archaeologist? Hunter-Gatherers? Hmmmm?

      Here is a short article about how archaeology supports the Bible:

      http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible

      Events, names, places and ancient customs that the Bible mentions are shown to be accurate. It used to be said that the Bible was wrong concerning the “Hittites” and “King Sargon” because there were no archaeological discoveries that backed up these people. Now they are confirmed…the Bible was shown to be accurate. The lack of a discovery does not prove the Bible wrong.

      Even if we find no evidence in the desert that a bunch of Israelites were wandering around 3500 years ago, it does not prove that they were not there. It might prove that we have not looked in the right places, or it might prove that they were very conscientious campers, but not that the event didn’t happen. What would you expect to find that would show that the exodus wandering happened?

      Check this article out concerning Archaeology and the Exodus:

      http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48938472.html

      “Good scholars, honest scholars, will continue to differ about the interpretations of archaeological remains simply because archaeology is not a science, it is an art. And sometimes it is not even a very good art.”
      - William Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Arizona

      The quote above is from Archaeology and the Bible:

      http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48939077.html

      Shalom

    88. Bo
      May 17th, 2012 @ 11:39 am

      Boris,

      Since I am wondering if you read the links that I post, I offer the following quote:

      “Biblical criticism comes from the late archaeologist Gosta Ahlstrom. He declares: “It is quite clear that the biblical writers knew nothing about events in Palestine before the 10th century BCE, and they certainly didn’t know anything of the geography of Palestine in the Late Bronze age,” the time of the desert wandering and subsequent conquest of the land of Canaan. Ahlstrom’s proof? He cites the biblical listing of cities along the alleged route that the Israelites traveled immediately before reaching the Jordan River ― Iyyim, Divon, Almon-divlatayim, Nevo, and Avel Shittim (Numbers 33:45-50), and reports that most of these locations have not been located, and those that were excavated did not exist at the time the Bible reports.

      In the meantime, writings from the walls of Egyptian Temples say differently. It is well known that Egypt had much reason to travel to Canaan in those days; trade, exploitation, military conquest. These routes are recorded in three different Egyptian Temples ― listed in the same order as provided in the Bible, and dated to the exact period of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

      Another piece of outside verification is an ancient inscription housed in the Amman Museum. Dating to the 8th century BCE (at least), it was found in the Jordanian village of Deir Alla, which was Moabite territory in biblical times. This inscription tells of a person by the name of Bilaam ben Beor, known to the locals as a prophet who would receive his prophecies at night. These features match precisely the Bilaam described in the Bible (Numbers 21) ― his full name, occupation, nighttime prophecies. And of course, Bilaam was a Moabite.

      HOME
      Current Issues
      Science & Medicine
      Archaeology and the Bible – Part 2

      Is there archaeological evidence that supports the Bible?
      by Rabbi Dovid Lichtman

      Read Part One: Archaeology and the Exodus

      “Good scholars, honest scholars, will continue to differ about the interpretations of archaeological remains simply because archaeology is not a science, it is an art. And sometimes it is not even a very good art.”
      – William Dever, Professor of Near Eastern Archaeology and Anthropology, University of Arizona

      An artist manipulates given materials, determining what the final product will look like. Dever, one of the most highly respected voices in his field, is not referring to the manner in which archaeological remains are retrieved, but rather to the manner in which one interprets the significance of those remains.

      When it comes to interpretation of remains from the time and place of the Bible, the radical “differences” in interpretive style seem more like the art of war than the art of culture. For example, here are the infamous words that launched the most recent battle concerning archaeology and the Bible:

      “This is what archaeologists have learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: The Israelites were never in Egypt, did not conquer the land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of Israel.”
      – Ze’ev Herzog, Professor of Archaeology and Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Tel Aviv University

      Herzog, along with other archaeologists, are considered biblical minimalists (or revisionists as Dever calls them) who see very little historical value in the Bible. Revisionists, like Herzog and Prof. Israel Finkelstein have attempted to speak in a bombastic fashion on behalf of the entire school of biblical archaeology. They are so convinced of their position that they ignore any other approach that does not concur with their own.

      If anything gets Dever’s blood boiling it is when revisionists distort archaeology, thus cheapening and mocking the integrity of his entire academic field.

      Revisionists stubbornly dismiss as fictitious most historical aspects of the Bible. To them, the patriarchal period (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is all imagination, the story of Joseph and the sojourn in Egypt is fabricated, as are the Exodus and the desert wanderings. The conquest, settlement and united monarchy (Saul, David and Solomon) are mere “propaganda” to quote Philip Davies. Marit Skjeggestad, a Scandinavian revisionist, said that on biblical history, “the archaeological record is silent.”

      Click here to receive Aish.com’s free weekly email.

      “In fact,” asserts Dever, “the archaeological record is not at all silent. It’s only that some historians are deaf.”

      So let’s turn to the evidence.

      Patriarchal Period

      One of the assumptions of Bible criticism is that the Bible was written much later than the time period it occurred. Specifically, the claim is that the Bible was written at least 1,000 years after the Exodus. As a result, the alleged biblical writers, who could not possibly know the minutiae of cultural norms of 1,000 years before, would by default include many details that were anachronistic. This would be like watching a movie about life in the 1950s where the actors wore digital watches because the writers did not do their research properly.

      All this changed with the turn of a shovel.

      One of the main indications of an anachronism in the Bible was thought to be that of the camel. The Book of Genesis reports that camels were mainstay beasts of burden and transportation already at the time of Abraham, in the 18th century BCE. Yet it was originally thought that camels were first domesticated in the Middle East no earlier than the 12th century BCE. This anachronism was a clear indication of the later writing of the Bible. Or so it was thought.

      All this changed with the turn of a shovel. Recent archaeological finds have clearly demonstrated that the camel was domesticated by the 18th century BCE. What was previously thought to be a knockout punch against the Bible, is now evidence supporting it.

      Prof. Kenneth Kitchen, an Egyptologist at the University of Liverpool (retired) points out that the sale of Joseph to a caravan of Midianites (for 20 silver pieces) could have been an example of anachronism in the Bible, since 1,000 years later the price for a slave was much higher (ancient inflation). However, the price reported in the Bible matches precisely the going price of slaves in the region from Joseph’s time period. This is just one example that demonstrates, according to Kitchen, that “it’s more reasonable to assume that the biblical data reflect reality.”

      Furthermore, we find that the detailed descriptions of the court of the Pharaoh and its protocols, as reported in Genesis, are extremely accurate to that time period. Joseph’s Egyptian name, clothing, and court orders are all very much in line with what we now understand to have been the norm for that time and place.

      Sojourn in Egypt

      What about evidence of Jewish slavery?

      Egyptologist Sir Alan Gardiner said of Egyptian archaeology: “It must never be forgotten that we are dealing with a civilization thousands of years old and one of which only tiny remnants have survived. What is proudly advertised as Egyptian history is merely a collection of rags and tatters.”

      This sketchy archaeological record makes a document preserved from the Israelite slavery period even more astounding. Known as the Brooklyn Papyrus (because it is in the Brooklyn Museum), this document portrays Israelite names from the Bible as the names of domestic slaves: Asher, Yissachar, and Shifra. The document also includes the term “hapiru” which many scholars agree has clear historical affinity to the biblical term “ivrim,” meaning “Hebrews.”

      The Bible records that Jews built the storage cities of Pitom and Ramses. Austrian archaeologist Manfred Bietak has succeeded in positively identifying the city of Pi-Ramesse. This city he found dates exactly to the period of the sojourn in Egypt, and even contains many Asiatic (of Canaanite origin) remains at the area of the slave residences.

      Egyptian records also tell how Pharaoh Rameses II built a new capital called Pi-Ramesse (the House of Rameses) on the eastern Nile delta, near the ancient area known as Goshen, the precise geographic area where the Bible places the Israelites.

      Further, the Leiden Papyrus (another Egyptian document of that era) reports that an official for the construction of Ramasses II ordered to “distribute grain rations to the soldiers and to the Apiru who transport stones to the great pylon of Ramasses.” (Apiru, as we said, is related to Hebrews.)

      Professor Abraham Malamat of Hebrew University infers from this that the Hebrews were forced to build the city of Ramasses. “This evidence is circumstantial at best,” notes Malamat, “but it’s as much as a historian can argue.”

      Exodus and Desert Wandering

      “When Pharaoh let the people go, God did not lead them by way of the land Philistines, although that was near; For God said: “Lest the people repent when they see war and return to Egypt.” (Exodus 13:17)

      Prof. Malamat explains the reason for this detour: At that time in Egyptian history, and lasting for only about 200 years, there was a massive, nearly impenetrable network of fortresses situated along the northern Sinai coastal route to Canaan. Yet these same defenses were absent near Egypt’s access to southern Sinai ― because the Egyptians felt the southern route was certain death in the desert.

      Therefore, when Moses tells the Israelites to encamp at a site that will mislead Pharaoh, the Egyptians will conclude that the Israelites “are entangled in the land, the wilderness has closed in on them” (Exodus 14:3). This, according to Malamat, “reflects a distinctly Egyptian viewpoint that must have been common at the time: In view of the fortresses on the northern coast, anyone seeking to flee Egypt would necessarily make a detour south into the desert, where they might well perish.”

      More evidence comes from an ancient victory monument called the “Elephantine Stele.” Here is recorded a rebellion in which a renegade Egyptian faction bribed Asiatics living in Egypt to assist them. Although the rebellion ultimately failed, it does confirm that in the same time period when the Israelites were in Egypt, the Egyptians would very likely say, “Come let us deal wisely with them, for if war befalls us, they may join our enemies and fight against us and escape from the land” (Exodus 1:10). “That is precisely what happened in the episode recorded in the Elephantine Stele,” Malamat asserts.

      Biblical criticism comes from the late archaeologist Gosta Ahlstrom. He declares: “It is quite clear that the biblical writers knew nothing about events in Palestine before the 10th century BCE, and they certainly didn’t know anything of the geography of Palestine in the Late Bronze age,” the time of the desert wandering and subsequent conquest of the land of Canaan. Ahlstrom’s proof? He cites the biblical listing of cities along the alleged route that the Israelites traveled immediately before reaching the Jordan River ― Iyyim, Divon, Almon-divlatayim, Nevo, and Avel Shittim (Numbers 33:45-50), and reports that most of these locations have not been located, and those that were excavated did not exist at the time the Bible reports.

      Geographic routes inscribed on the temple of Amon at Karnak, Egypt.In the meantime, writings from the walls of Egyptian Temples say differently. It is well known that Egypt had much reason to travel to Canaan in those days; trade, exploitation, military conquest. These routes are recorded in three different Egyptian Temples ― listed in the same order as provided in the Bible, and dated to the exact period of the Israelite conquest of Canaan.

      Another piece of outside verification is an ancient inscription housed in the Amman Museum. Dating to the 8th century BCE (at least), it was found in the Jordanian village of Deir Alla, which was Moabite territory in biblical times. This inscription tells of a person by the name of Bilaam ben Beor, known to the locals as a prophet who would receive his prophecies at night. These features match precisely the Bilaam described in the Bible (Numbers 21) ― his full name, occupation, nighttime prophecies. And of course, Bilaam was a Moabite…

      As for the issue of encampments are concerned, it is nearly impossible to find traces of large Bedouin encampments in the Sinai Desert from 200-300 years ago. So would one expect the remains of large encampments after 3,000 years?…

      Conquest of Canaan

      Through the 1980s it was commonly held opinion that excavations in Jericho had failed to discover a city there at the time of Joshua.

      In the early 1990s, however, Dr. Bryant G. Woods, then of the University of Toronto, reported finding startling remnants of Jericho in Joshua’s time. The error of previous excavations, he asserts, was that archaeologists were digging in the wrong section of the mound of ancient Jericho.

      Woods reported finding a 3-foot layer of ash covering the entire excavated area, clear evidence of destruction by fire. He further discovered large caches of wheat from the spring harvest that had barely been used. This means that the city fell not as a result of a starvation siege, as would be expected against a walled city, but rather after a very brief siege. All this matches the account in the Book of Joshua. Furthermore, the wheat was from the spring harvest; Joshua conquered Jericho immediately after Passover, the spring holiday.

      Concerning Woods’ work at Jericho, Dr. Lawrence Stager, the respected professor of Archaeology in Israel from Harvard University said: “On the whole the archaeological assessment is not unreasonable. There is evidence of destruction and the date isn’t too far wrong.”

      Rarely can an archaeologist claim that “this is the very item the Bible spoke about.” Yet Dr. Adam Zartal, chairman of the Department of Archaeology at the University of Haifa, may have done it. Joshua 8:30-35 tells of the fulfillment of Moses’ command to build an altar on Mount Eval (Deut. 27). Zartal reports that his excavation team found this very altar. The place is right, the time is right, and the animal bones are consistent with the biblical offerings. Even the style of the altar is right, in such detail, says Zartal, that it looks nearly identical to the description of the Temple’s altar as described in the Talmud ― a uniquely Israelite design that no Canaanite temples used then or later.

      Zartal laments the response of the revisionist archaeological community. “What happened regarding the new accumulation of facts I have cited? Almost nothing. Since the appearance of the detailed report and the many articles I have published on the excavation… silence has descended on the scholarly world.”

      Regarding Zartal’s find, Dr. Lawrence Stager said: “If a sacrificial altar stood on Mount Eval, its impact on our research is revolutionary. All of us [biblical archaeologists] have to go back to kindergarten.”

      Revisionists insist there was no such entity as “Israel” until at least the 9th century BCE. Yet a well known Egyptian inscription dated to about 1210 BCE clearly identifies an Israel in the land of Canaan as a people that had to be reckoned with. The inscription, which depicts the victories of Pharaoh Merneptah in Canaan, reads in part: “Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more.”

      How do revisionists react to this inscription? Dismissively. Says Dever: “They denigrate it as our only known reference. But one unimpeachable witness in the court of history is sufficient. There does exist in Canaan a people calling themselves Israel, who are thus called Israel by the Egyptians ― who after all are hardly biblically biased, and who cannot have invented such a specific and unique people for their own propaganda purposes.”

      More: In the book of Samuel, the Philistines are reported to be expert metal workers, and in the Book of Jeremiah they are reported to have originated in Crete. Both of these details concerning the Philistines, who were off the political map by the 9th century BCE, are corroborated through archaeology.

      Furthermore, 1-Samuel 13:19-21 records the Israelites relying on the metal smiths of the Philistines, and a ‘pym’ used in the tool-sharpening process. But what this ‘pym’ was has been a mystery. Recent excavations found that an ancient coin weight called a “pym,” which was used exclusively during the Israelite settlement period, was apparently the payment for the service of sharpening. Posits Dever: “Is it possible that a writer in the 2nd century BCE could have known of the existence of these pym weights which… would have disappeared for 5 centuries before his time? It is not possible.”

      Additionally, in the hill regions of Judea and Samaria (the heartland of ancient Israel), approximately 300 small agricultural villages were found, built between the 13-11th centuries BCE, the time period of the Israelite conquest of the land. According to Dever, this represented a large population increase that did not come from the native population. He writes, “Such a dramatic population increase cannot be accounted for by natural increase alone, much less by positing small groups of pastoral nomads settling down. Large numbers of people must have migrated here from somewhere else, strongly motivated to colonize an under populated fringe area of urban Canaan now in decline at the end of the Late Bronze Age.” Also, the type of house structure was unique, and matched descriptions in the books of Judges and Samuel. Additionally, all of the settlements lacked any pig remnants amongst animal bones left in the area; only the Jews had a pigless diet.

      The above is from Archaeology and the Bible:

      http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48939077.html

      Shalom

    89. Bo
      May 17th, 2012 @ 11:42 am

      Oops…My cutting and pasting has somehow included the entire article :)

      Sorry. Oh well it is a good article.

      Shalom

    90. Matt B
      May 17th, 2012 @ 12:29 pm

      Brief but informative web page about earliest fossil record of cells:

      http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/bacteriafr.html

      “…the oldest cyanobacteria-like fossils known are nearly 3.5 billion years old, among the oldest fossils currently known.

      …The group shows what is probably the most extreme conservatism of morphology of any organisms.” – in other words, oldest fossils are the same as current living bacteria.

      QED

    91. Boris
      May 17th, 2012 @ 3:10 pm

      Matt B

      As for my being a “fundamentalist”- by God’s grace, I am a disciple of Jesus of Nazareth, the Christ. I will own that Name gladly.

      Response: Okay now, can you think of a situation in which you would slap your wife in the face?

      Egyptian historical timelines are far from settled amongs various historians. There is a very good timeline emerging consistnet with the Bible. References within Genesis, Exodus and following refer to real Pharohs, real events, and some records indicate there was a large population of Semetic slaves who left Egypt suddenly.

      Response: Some records? GOTCHA AGAIN! What are these records exactly?

      The Egyptians did not keep calenders based on a consistent chronology- rather referencing events by the various pharohs, and for some periods there were more than one Pharoh governing sectors of the Egyptian lands.

      Response: Oh please. Had every Egyptian first born child and animal all died on one single night there would be unmistakable evidence for this event. It clearly did not happen. Had the Hebrews then gone on to Conquer Palestine there would be unmistakable evidence for this as well. But even my NRSV Study Bible says that the Hebrews evolved from the local population centuries after the Exodus supposedly occurred. Even your own Christian scholars admit the Exodus events are religious mythology. Go argue with them why don’t you?

      ron david metcalf

      Your universe is you, Boris, and that is all. If you can’t find your way out of that prison, you are surely doomed.

      Response: It never fails. When the Christian realizes their arguments are fatally flawed and far to weak to convince an unbeliever they resort to veiled or even outright threats of violence or torture for all eternity for rejecting their religious claims, dogmas and doctrines. You know besides the fact that you Christians haven’t got a shred of evidence to back up ANY of your religious claims there is another barrier to belief and that is that no rational person wants to be anything like you, awash in moral decay and with absolutely no objective basis for ethics or morality.

      Matt B

      Boris here we go again, since you brought it up;.
      “However the complexity of the cell is the result of 4 billion years of cellular evolution. ”
      You stated emphatically that you did not wish to discuss this further- particularly because when you were pressed multiple times you refused to offer any scientific evidence. I have looked for such evidence in vain. In other words- cells as they are are overwhelmingly cells as they were, and there is no evidence that less complex cells existed. All living cells contain DNA and RNA, (except a few, like red blood cells, but they cannot reproduce at that stage), and cells contain very complex mechanisms and structures for metabolism, for growth, for procreation, and for self-protection. It can hardly be comprehended how wonderful the fuctions of life are. Even simple single-celled organisms are amazingly intricate, far more “advanced” than anything we have invented to date. There is ABSOLUTELY NO evidence for your claim that these levels of complexity are the result of evolution. The fossil record and any other meausure of scientific evidence shows that life as we see today functions just as it did from its onset.

      Response: The scientific evidence shows no such thing. Evolution is taught in every Christian college and university that has an accredited science department. Go tell them what you told me why don’t you? You won’t because you know they will laugh in your face, don’t you?

      Dr Michael L Brown

      Boris, since the thread is already off track, I want you to feel free to respond to these direct questions here. Thanks!

      Response: I find it impossible to believe that this group of arrogant, religiously bigoted, self-absorbed and self-righteous Christian fundamentalists is the least bit concerned with my eternal destiny let alone my welfare on Earth. Rather it’s quite obvious that they are all much more concerned with the fact that I am right and they and you are all wrong, very, very wrong. When the Christian realizes that the arguments that were used to indoctrinate them into the religion of Christianity are not good enough to convince anyone else, not one single unbeliever to believe what they do they become extremely desperate as we can all see they are right now. Look at all the time and effort they’ve wasted cutting and pasting arguments and posting links from creationist propaganda websites. These people are not under God’s control they’re under mine and right now I can make them dance on the end of string as much as I want. Everything I post makes them compelled to try to refute it. My arguments and evidence are devastating to their religion and they (and you) know it. They can’t stand to admit that their arguments are fatally flawed and only good enough to convince those who desperately think they need to believe them anyway. I can’t be indoctrinated into the religion of Christianity because I’ve studied religion and learned the tactics by which religion commands obedience and discourages doubt. You never learned to recognize these tactics, which is why as a troubled teenager you were an easy mark for Christianity. Before a person can be indoctrinated into your particular religion they must first be convinced to believe in hell. Once you’ve scared the daylights out of a person with hell then and only then will all of these absurd arguments against science and for the supposed veracity of the Bible be believed. Let me demonstrate what I mean. There is not a shred of evidence that angels exist, that Satan exists, that Jesus ever existed, that the Bible is historical, that science that disproves the Bible is somehow wrong, that demons exist, that seraphs exist, that hell exists, that heaven exists or that the Christian God exists. Under normal circumstances the evidence for each one of these things should be considered on its own merit. But once a person is convinced hell exists and of the possibility they may wind up there they will swallow the propaganda that all these things are real hook, line and sinker without question. Threats of violence and eternal damnation are the tactics used to indoctrinate people into the religion of Christianity. I don’t believe in an afterlife and so I simply cannot be frightened by your religious dogma. Your arguments and veiled threats have absolutely no effect on me whatsoever except to convince me that I would never want to be like you or viewed by my fellow humans the way you people are. Stop wasting space and time trying to convince me to believe the unbelievable and let’s just discuss the issues you bring up on your show and blog. My atheism has nothing to do with any of that. I’m not converting. Get over it.

      Ken
      May 17th, 2012 @ 10:31 am
      Boris, >Boris Now how do you know that the God of Islam is not the one true God? Answer: When I prayed that prayer G-d didn’t send the Muslim brother hood to my door to convert me to Islam ,he sent men to tell me about his only begotten son Jesus Christ. >Boris, If you’re looking for proof why don’t you just ask Allah to reveal himself to you? answer: I got my proof that Jesus was the only begotten son of the living G-d, search over

      Response: Well I got my proof Jesus Christ never existed. Search over. You have described the emotional experience that led you to believe Christian dogmas and doctrines. It’s never intellectualism that leads one to adopt Christian dogma but always an emotional experience. There are two kinds of people in the world; those who can control their emotions and those who let their emotions control them. I am of the former group and you Christians fall into the latter category.

      Ken
      oh and by the way we got married and had 22 years together and had three wonderful children..Peace love and joy to you

      Response: I have a wife and kids too. My youngest daughter is an evolutionary biologist who is helping make the world a better place through science. I am so proud. I asked her what her fellow scientists think about people who deny evolution in favor of some version of creationism. She said, “We don’t pay any attention to crazy people Daddy. The simple are rightly called.” I’m so proud.

      Bo
      Your claim that, “There isn’t a shred of corroborating evidence that the Israelites were ever even in Egypt, that any of the Exodus events actually occurred or any subsequent events described in the Bible such as the 40-year wandering in the desert or the supposed Conquest of Canaan. Archaeologists can tell us about hunter-gatherers from about 30,000 years ago who lived and traveled the region the Israelites supposedly lived in for 40 years but they can’t find any evidence that this entire nation of people from 3,000 years ago ever lived there.”
      Well what would a bunch of people dwelling in tents and wandering around, not building any towns, look like to an archaeologist? Hunter-Gatherers? Hmmmm?
      Here is a short article about how archaeology supports the Bible:

      Response: You are wasting your time posting links to any AnswersinGeneisis propaganda. Dinosaurs did not coexist with humans as AnswersinGenesis insists they did. AnswersinGenesis is a religious organization whose sole purpose is to distort scientific facts and explanations for the purpose of promoting a dead religion.

      Events, names, places and ancient customs that the Bible mentions are shown to be accurate. It used to be said that the Bible was wrong concerning the “Hittites” and “King Sargon” because there were no archaeological discoveries that backed up these people. Now they are confirmed…the Bible was shown to be accurate. The lack of a discovery does not prove the Bible wrong.
      Even if we find no evidence in the desert that a bunch of Israelites were wandering around 3500 years ago, it does not prove that they were not there. It might prove that we have not looked in the right places, or it might prove that they were very conscientious campers, but not that the event didn’t happen. What would you expect to find that would show that the exodus wandering happened?

      Response: Rather than make excuses for why there is no evidence to support ANY of the stories in the Bible wouldn’t it just be easier to admit the stories are fiction?

      Once again stop wasting space and time trying to convert me. It ain’t happening.

    92. Matt B
      May 17th, 2012 @ 3:43 pm

      ” These people are not under God’s control they’re under mine and right now I can make them dance on the end of string as much as I want.”

      Boris, this statement is very revealing about your state of mind. While your objective is to have others dance for you, our objective and the objective of this website is to inform and discuss, perhaps debate. I think you need to take some time to re-evaluate your life’s objectives and moorings, but of course that is up to you. I’ve avoided directly attacking you, or deriding your point of view. You do not seem to be capable of the same.

    93. ron david metcalf
      May 17th, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

      What I fear, Boris, is your Mind Annihilation Pill to the masses that has already poisoned your own children, and is deadly to mine also; and because you remind me of me if I hadn’t of repented, and continued down the road I was on.

      There comes a time when Y(s)HW(e)H draws a line in the sand and says, “Negotiations are over; now the War begins.” It seems that by your last post you have made that boastful declaration. It happened with Pharaoh; it happened with my best friend in high school; and it certainly can happen with you.

      In Jesus’ love and name, Ron David Metcalf

    94. Ken
      May 17th, 2012 @ 6:52 pm

      Boris, I thank my G-d for the heart of flesh that he replace my old blacken cold stone heart with when he saved me..and restored my emotions, how can we have Love for one another without it?, and once again your wrong about are motives here.yes its true it would bring joy to me if you became a believer,and by all means the choice is all yours. Know this though, are Lord Jesus Christ Loved you so much that he laid down his own life for you.. to restore you to himself. and to give you as a free gift ,life forever more…Peace, love joy to you

    95. Matt B
      May 17th, 2012 @ 9:35 pm

      It struck me as I was driving home from work, that the way he taught and handled debates during his earthly ministry, Jesus was very, very wise. :)

      It also occurs to me that one thing we want to do is to help remove obstacles and barriers that prevent people from having the freedom to believe the gospel. Said another way: Falsehoods, misconceptions of the nature of God and of His creation, lies sown by the enemy- these can become and excuse NOT to believe. We should neither be lazy, nor also usurp the working of the Holy Spirit.

      “He who has seen Me has seen the Father.”

    96. Bo
      May 17th, 2012 @ 10:25 pm

      Boris,

      I notice that you think that you are making us dance, but you are the one dancing around the specific information that I and others bring up. Please deal specifically with the arguments with specific info that disproves the findings of the archaeologists, mathematicians and other scientists.

      Discounting logical and historical information because of your preconceived judgment about the institution, whether it be Christianity, Answers in Genesis or “us fundamentalists” smacks of arrogance, atheistic bigotry and elitism. If you read the accidental long post of mine, which I doubt you did, you would become aware of some of the archaeological findings that back up the historicity of the Bible’s narratives.

      So continue to dance my friend, but you will have to pay the fiddler in the end.

      Shalom

    97. Dr Michael L Brown
      May 18th, 2012 @ 12:21 am

      Boris,

      It appears that you’re looking to get yourself banned from the site with attacks like this: “I find it impossible to believe that this group of arrogant, religiously bigoted, self-absorbed and self-righteous Christian fundamentalists is the least bit concerned with my eternal destiny let alone my welfare on Earth.”

      You may have been guilty of doing this all along, but I don’t read most of the posts and just spotted this.

      So, this is the last warning. I would much rather have you posting here, but if you’re looking to get yourself banned from posting (God certainly knows why), then cross the line once more, and that’s it. NO PERSONAL ATTACKS ARE ALLOWED. Period. No exceptions either. Surely you can exercise more self-control than this.

    98. Sheila
      May 18th, 2012 @ 12:53 am

      saw that coming…

    99. Boris
      May 18th, 2012 @ 3:17 am

      Bo
      I notice that you think ….please deal specifically with the arguments with specific info that disproves the findings of the archaeologists, mathematicians and other scientists.
      Discounting logical and historical information because of your preconceived judgment about the institution, whether it be Christianity, Answers in Genesis or “us fundamentalists” smacks of arrogance, atheistic bigotry and elitism. If you read the accidental long post of mine, which I doubt you did, you would become aware of some of the archaeological findings that back up the historicity of the Bible’s narratives.
      So continue to dance my friend, but you will have to pay the fiddler in the end.

      Response: Almost all fiction is placed in a historical time and place and mentions real historical people and places. That doesn’t mean the narratives are historical especially when they contain dialog, people all speaking to each other in complete sentences. That is the way fictional narratives are written, never historical narratives. Plus these narratives contain all sorts of tales of the supernatural, which cannot be taken as historical without some really extraordinary evidence to support them. I don’t care if you do. I just gave you the reasons I do not believe the Bible is even remotely historical. Answers in Genesis claims the Earth is only a few thousand years old and that dinosaurs coexisted with humans. You closed your post with the threat that I’m going to have to pay the fiddler for not believing this. Of course if any of your claims were based on evidence you wouldn’t need to try to frighten people into believing them now would you? The Association for Biblical Astronomy claims the sun orbits the earth. What’s your view on that? Fixedearth.com uses “science” and the Bible to prove the earth is stationary, it never moves. What is your view on that?

      My original comment was in response to Jenn’s post in which she said that she was uncomfortable with atheists raising children. The thread isn’t about that so I wondered what caused her to make such an appalling statement. It couldn’t be her concern that the children of atheists are bound for hell because the children of the adherents of any religion other than Christianity are supposedly bound for hell as well. So why are atheists unfit to raise children may I ask? Ron has already weighed in with his opinion that I’ve poisoned my children’s minds, I guess because one of them is a biologist.

      The second part of my comment was about the subject of the thread, which is the gay marriage issue. I pointed out that in this particular country rights are not dictated by the majority but rather guaranteed by the Constitution. This particular issue will ultimately be the judicial branch of the government on that basis alone. I predict that once again the religious right will be on the wrong side of history.

    100. Boris
      May 18th, 2012 @ 3:22 am

      This particular issue will ultimately be decided by the judicial branch of the government on that basis alone.

    101. Bo
      May 18th, 2012 @ 9:28 am

      Boris,

      What do you do with this:

      “Revisionists insist there was no such entity as “Israel” until at least the 9th century BCE. Yet a well known Egyptian inscription dated to about 1210 BCE clearly identifies an Israel in the land of Canaan as a people that had to be reckoned with. The inscription, which depicts the victories of Pharaoh Merneptah in Canaan, reads in part: “Israel is laid waste, his seed is no more.”

      How do revisionists react to this inscription? Dismissively. Says Dever: “They denigrate it as our only known reference. But one unimpeachable witness in the court of history is sufficient. There does exist in Canaan a people calling themselves Israel, who are thus called Israel by the Egyptians ― who after all are hardly biblically biased, and who cannot have invented such a specific and unique people for their own propaganda purposes.”

      The above is from Archaeology and the Bible:

      http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48939077.html

      And this from the same article:

      “Additionally, in the hill regions of Judea and Samaria (the heartland of ancient Israel), approximately 300 small agricultural villages were found, built between the 13-11th centuries BCE, the time period of the Israelite conquest of the land. According to Dever, this represented a large population increase that did not come from the native population. He writes, “Such a dramatic population increase cannot be accounted for by natural increase alone, much less by positing small groups of pastoral nomads settling down. Large numbers of people must have migrated here from somewhere else, strongly motivated to colonize an under populated fringe area of urban Canaan now in decline at the end of the Late Bronze Age.” Also, the type of house structure was unique, and matched descriptions in the books of Judges and Samuel. Additionally, all of the settlements lacked any pig remnants amongst animal bones left in the area; only the Jews had a pigless diet.”

      And this from the same article:

      “Through the 1980s it was commonly held opinion that excavations in Jericho had failed to discover a city there at the time of Joshua.

      In the early 1990s, however, Dr. Bryant G. Woods, then of the University of Toronto, reported finding startling remnants of Jericho in Joshua’s time. The error of previous excavations, he asserts, was that archaeologists were digging in the wrong section of the mound of ancient Jericho.

      Woods reported finding a 3-foot layer of ash covering the entire excavated area, clear evidence of destruction by fire. He further discovered large caches of wheat from the spring harvest that had barely been used. This means that the city fell not as a result of a starvation siege, as would be expected against a walled city, but rather after a very brief siege. All this matches the account in the Book of Joshua. Furthermore, the wheat was from the spring harvest; Joshua conquered Jericho immediately after Passover, the spring holiday.

      Concerning Woods’ work at Jericho, Dr. Lawrence Stager, the respected professor of Archaeology in Israel from Harvard University said: “On the whole the archaeological assessment is not unreasonable. There is evidence of destruction and the date isn’t too far wrong.”

      Something happened 3500 to 3000 years ago in the middle east. Somebody called themselves Israel. Somebody that was known to Egypt. Somebody that migrated into Canaan, and didn’t eat pork. And somebody destroyed Jericho. I guess you could posit a thousand different possibilities to show that it didn’t have to be the Israelites coming out of Egypt. But the probability is that the Bible got it’s history right.

      Your historical fiction idea doesn’t hold up. There are many documents in history that give us word for word conversations or proclamations. Countless court recorders do this every day. Inaugural addresses are brought down to us from the past, word for word. What about Patrick Henry? “Henry’s words were not transcribed, but no one who heard them forgot their eloquence, or Henry’s closing words: “Give me liberty, or give me death!”-http://www.history.org/almanack/life/politics/giveme.cfm

      Why is it so impossible to you for a book that starts out with the exact words of our Creator creating everything by His words to contain other’s exact words? Why would the people that preserved this manuscript for thousands of years in near perfect “word for word” condition not be a people that remembered words? That recorded them? That cherished them? Why would you accept the history of the Assyrians, Egyptians, and other ancient civilizations, that fail to report their failures, but then you would find honesty lacking in the historical record of a people that openly criticize themselves and tell of their failures? What archaeological find do you present that discounts the Biblical account of history?

      “Revisionists stubbornly dismiss as fictitious most historical aspects of the Bible. To them, the patriarchal period (Abraham, Isaac and Jacob) is all imagination, the story of Joseph and the sojourn in Egypt is fabricated, as are the Exodus and the desert wanderings. The conquest, settlement and united monarchy (Saul, David and Solomon) are mere “propaganda” to quote Philip Davies. Marit Skjeggestad, a Scandinavian revisionist, said that on biblical history, “the archaeological record is silent.”

      “In fact,” asserts Dever, “the archaeological record is not at all silent. It’s only that some historians are deaf.”

      So let’s turn to the evidence.

      One of the assumptions of Bible criticism is that the Bible was written much later than the time period it occurred. Specifically, the claim is that the Bible was written at least 1,000 years after the Exodus. As a result, the alleged biblical writers, who could not possibly know the minutiae of cultural norms of 1,000 years before, would by default include many details that were anachronistic. This would be like watching a movie about life in the 1950s where the actors wore digital watches because the writers did not do their research properly.

      All this changed with the turn of a shovel.

      One of the main indications of an anachronism in the Bible was thought to be that of the camel. The Book of Genesis reports that camels were mainstay beasts of burden and transportation already at the time of Abraham, in the 18th century BCE. Yet it was originally thought that camels were first domesticated in the Middle East no earlier than the 12th century BCE. This anachronism was a clear indication of the later writing of the Bible. Or so it was thought.

      All this changed with the turn of a shovel. Recent archaeological finds have clearly demonstrated that the camel was domesticated by the 18th century BCE. What was previously thought to be a knockout punch against the Bible, is now evidence supporting it.

      Prof. Kenneth Kitchen, an Egyptologist at the University of Liverpool (retired) points out that the sale of Joseph to a caravan of Midianites (for 20 silver pieces) could have been an example of anachronism in the Bible, since 1,000 years later the price for a slave was much higher (ancient inflation). However, the price reported in the Bible matches precisely the going price of slaves in the region from Joseph’s time period. This is just one example that demonstrates, according to Kitchen, that “it’s more reasonable to assume that the biblical data reflect reality.”

      Furthermore, we find that the detailed descriptions of the court of the Pharaoh and its protocols, as reported in Genesis, are extremely accurate to that time period. Joseph’s Egyptian name, clothing, and court orders are all very much in line with what we now understand to have been the norm for that time and place.”

      The above quote is from: http://www.aish.com/ci/sam/48939077.html

      Is it that the archaeological record is silent? Or are you wearing ear plugs?

      Shalom

    102. Bo
      May 18th, 2012 @ 10:27 am

      Boris,

      Here is an article that discusses the major non-biblical/non-Christian references to the man known as Jesus:

      http://www.probe.org/site/c.fdKEIMNsEoG/b.4223639/k.567/Ancient_Evidence_for_Jesus_from_NonChristian_Sources.htm

      How you say that He is a myth is beyond reason.

      Shalom

    103. Matt B
      May 18th, 2012 @ 10:30 am

      From an anointed songwriter I love, these lyrics describe well our rebellious nature, and the great working of mercy and grace by which God delivers us from our snares:

      In the distance there stands a wild horse.
      Proud and persistent to run it’s own course,
      Entering through no other doors,
      But those he has made for himself.
      In his own eyes he’s a prince of all,
      Clever and wise, he heeds to no call,
      Never denies that he might fall,
      Dependent on nobody else.

      As time went on he came upon
      The thought that he was lonely.
      I felt no fear, he cried a tear,
      He knew he was not the only.

      The Rider whose name is True begins to seek
      And He opens His eyes to find His stallion meek.
      Then came the moment, with no one in sight
      But a horse with no name and the Rider in white
      Filled with compassion for his plight
      The stallion He claimed for His own.

      As time had past, there came at last
      The lifting of His burden
      His strength renewed, with gratitude
      And joy, he became a servant.

      The Rider has come in view, His form unique
      And He’s chosen to ride upon His stallion meek.
      -Wild Horse, by Phil Keaggy

    104. Matt B
      May 18th, 2012 @ 10:56 am

      On athiests raising children- I’m not uncomfortable with that at all. No particular reason a person who ascribes to athiesm cannot raise their children in love and nurturing. Evidence is that they do. They may in fact make excellent parents and raise highly accomplished children. Of course- I will strive to bring them to faith in Jesus the Christ- the parents and the children.

      We must resist immoral practices, and the passing of immoral laws. I would never vote for legislation that denied parenthood, or any other right, because someone does not believe in God.

      Now I may not vote for such a one to take public office, and I may not choose to allow such a one to teach my children in a “captive” setting (public or private school), depending on the content.

      As for laws- yes let the majority decide- because we are a republic built on government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” So we must always strive to bring the people to a majority understanding of what we know is most morally right and beneficial for society.

      Marriage therefore, defined as between a man and a woman, most benefits society. Laws that compromise that institution should not be passed.

      From the Declaration of Independence:
      “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

    105. Bo
      May 18th, 2012 @ 9:30 pm

      Shabbat Shalom everyone!

    106. Dan1el
      May 19th, 2012 @ 1:19 am

      Matt B,

      “On the distance there stands a wild horse.
      Proud and persistent to run it’s own course,
      Entering through no other doors,
      But those he has made for himself.”

      This story is patently false; horses don’t forge doors.

      Debunked.

    107. Boris
      May 19th, 2012 @ 2:41 am

      >Bo
      What do you do with this:
      “Revisionists insist there was no such entity as “Israel” until at least the 9th century BCE. … How do revisionists react to this inscription? …

      Response: The name Israel goes back to the 13th century BCE and maybe before that. It means ‘Fighters for El’ who was a Canaanite deity. The reference to ‘Israel’ in the Egyptian inscription does not refer to the same Israel mentioned in Assyrian and Palestinian texts or Israel in the Bible. The inscription says that Israel was destroyed and its seed was “no more.” Exodus describes the Israelites as a great nation of a few million people. If the Egyptian inscription is historical in the least these Israelites are certainly not the same Israel annihilated by Merenptah

      >Why is it so impossible to you for a book that starts out with the exact words of our Creator creating everything by His words to contain other’s exact words?

      Response: It’s impossible for me to believe that those are the words of our Creator. I don’t believe there is a Creator for one thing. The very first sentence in the Bible demonstrates the biblical author’s subjective viewpoint when it implies that the heavens and the earth are separate parts of creation, with a dome between them. We now know the earth is just part of a solar system, part OF the heavens. I don’t believe the earth, sun and moon just popped into existence. We can look out into space and see stars in all stages of development and existence so we know how are sun and planet were formed. I don’t believe vegetation was on the planet before the sun and moon even existed as the Bible says it was. There is so much wrong with the Genesis account of creation I don’t know why people still try to defend it as being accurate. This has really given Christianity a black eye.

      >Is it that the archaeological record is silent? Or are you wearing ear plugs?

      Response: What you have done is waste a lot of time and effort proving people lived in ancient Palestine. This is not evidence any of the events described in the Bible actually occurred and it’s certainly not evidence that there was any kind of divine intervention going on in the ancient Near East or that beings like Satan or Yahweh have ever existed

      >Here is an article that discusses the major non-biblical/non-Christian references to the man known as Jesus:
      How you say that He is a myth is beyond reason.

      Response: Okay then you should have no problem constructing a short biography of the man known as Jesus Christ using only extra-biblical references. So here’s the challenge: We both know there are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus from outside of the Bible but you can use anything but the Bible written within say 40 years from the time Jesus was supposedly crucified which is commonly thought to be around 30 CE. Use any text that mentions Jesus or Jesus Christ by name and write me a short biography of Jesus say about 100 – 200 words just using the author’s of these references own words.

      >Matt B
      We must resist immoral practices, and the passing of immoral laws. I would never vote for legislation that denied parenthood, or any other right, because someone does not believe in God.

      Response: Would you vote for legislation that forced parenthood on people who don’t want it or are not ready for it? Wouldn’t that be passing an immoral law?

      >Now I may not vote for such a one to take public office, and I may not choose to allow such a one to teach my children in a “captive” setting (public or private school), depending on the content.

      Response: Suppose a fiscal and social conservative atheist was running against a liberal who was a professing Christian in any election you might be voting in. If neither candidate had any character flaws or dirty laundry whom would you vote for?

      >As for laws- yes let the majority decide- because we are a republic built on government “of the people, by the people, for the people.” So we must always strive to bring the people to a majority understanding of what we know is most morally right and beneficial for society.

      Response: Rights are not up for majority rule in the United States. They are guaranteed by the Constitution.

      >Marriage therefore, defined as between a man and a woman, most benefits society. Laws that compromise that institution should not be passed.

      Response: I understand that argument and it makes several valid points. However passing laws that are designed solely to discriminate against a particular segment of society is setting a very bad precedent.

      >From the Declaration of Independence:
      “Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

      Response: Are you suggesting we abolish the present government and institute a new government? The Declaration of Independence is not one of our founding papers. It’s an angry letter from some rich slave owners who didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes. So they stirred up the masses and sent the poor to fight and die for their cause. Some things never seem to change huh?

    108. Sheila
      May 19th, 2012 @ 9:35 am

      Boris–Response: The name Israel goes back to the 13th century BCE and maybe before that. It means ‘Fighters for El’ who was a Canaanite deity. The reference to ‘Israel’ in the Egyptian inscription does not refer to the same Israel mentioned in Assyrian and Palestinian texts or Israel in the Bible. The inscription says that Israel was destroyed and its seed was “no more.” Exodus describes the Israelites as a great nation of a few million people. If the Egyptian inscription is historical in the least these Israelites are certainly not the same Israel annihilated by Merenptah

      Yes it’s true that the dieties of other nations called their gods by el, but what other nation was named “Israel?” The name Israel is usually translated as “struggles (wrestles) with God” although there is the connotation that it could incorporate the “shin-resh” as “shar” and then we have the translation near to “a prince with God.” So your interpretation of “Fighters for El” would be better translated by Dr. Brown or Dr. Michael Heiser who are both scholars of the ancient semitic and eastern languages. It’s my understanding that it’s somewhat uncertain what “exactly” it does mean other than that Jacob was named Israel after his encounter with the Angel of the Lord; as I’m certain you know, seeing as you grew up in the Christian tradition. Are you suggesting that a people “borrowed” the identity of another people and then wrote the Scriptures?

      How does a nation, named after the same character as is found in Scripture with the meaning of his name the same, enter into your interpretation as referring to another nation? Where did you get that from anyway? Secular scholars interpretations? It’s nonsensical to declare that “the Egyptian inscription does not refer to the same Israel.” Have they discovered “another” Israel? No.

      What I’ve read, whether we’ll find more evidence to substantiate it at a later date or not, is that the inscription may well reference the slaughter of the innocents, when Pharoah had the newborn children of his slaves, the Israelites killed–slaughtered. The inscriptions reference to “seed” is of particular interest to me. There’s no reason to believe it refers to an entire nation of grown people.

      As far as the name el goes, the prophets employed it as well to warn the children of Israel that the elohim they were worshipping have nothing in common with the one true God who is the God of Israel. It was thought that one of the Canaanite gods rode the clouds and the prophet employed that belief, telling the Israelites that it was YHWH only who commanded the heavens and their hosts. So, yes it was employed in other contexts other than El, God of Israel. What does that prove though?

    109. Sheila
      May 19th, 2012 @ 9:59 am

      I should have mentioned, too, that you can find some excellent books that document the archaeological discoveries verifying Israel’s presense in Judea. Assyrian inscriptions (etched in stone) name several kings of Israel and their battles, although never as outright lies as the Egyptians were want to tell (you know, where they were always the victors). They’ve located the stronghold city of the Hittites as well. As much as it may be inconvenient for some, there’s no denying, although some will, the archaeological evidence that’s mounting daily affirming historical persons named in the Bible as well as Israel’s presense in Judea and Jerusalem.

    110. MattB
      May 19th, 2012 @ 10:55 am

      Dan1el,
      the verse’s references are allegorical.

      Boris,
      The Constitution is a covenant by which we have set our processes within which the majority’s desires should be reflected.

    111. ron david metcalf
      May 19th, 2012 @ 12:38 pm

      Rules of Order:
      In previous posts, Boris made an Appeal to Force followed immediately by an Appeal to Sympathy; both fallacies that get you disqualified in any real debate.
      But it is easy to win every game when you make the rules.
      So let’s ‘have it your way’ for a moment, and see where we stand:
      Matter/energy conservation is the only a priori Law in the universe (from which all other laws ‘evolve’).
      What does this say about Ethics? Absolutely nothing!
      Therefore, Adolph Hitler was as ‘moral’ as Boris, perhaps more so, going strictly by the ‘numbers’, because Hitler was a ‘leader’ in the annals of history.
      This is the ‘poison pill’ I was referring to.

      Now Boris stands neither by the Bible nor the Constitution, yet thinks that the U.S. Supreme Court will endorse his personal opinion concerning homosexuality. But what if they don’t? Then, of course, they also belong to the ‘simple-minded’ whose ruling doesn’t really mean anything. Now multiply this understanding by @ half the population of the U.S., brainwashed for decades by our educational system, that whoever believes the Bible is stupid, and you have a definition of the Problem.

      My ‘solution’ is confined to those that believe the Bible; not as a ‘club’ or similar; but for those who share my own terms that there is Absolute Law. Those who believe that law is relative based upon individual rights and society to define whatever they want at any time (e.g. Hitler) have another set of ‘rules’ that we do not agree upon; so ‘debate’ is useless.

      I say (for those who agree, giving freedom to others to disagree, but not define what I MUST believe outside of General Statutes that are necessary for Societies and Nations to exist, and which are defined by Vote, Congressional and Executive Authority, and Legal Judgments):

      Substitute ‘science’ for ‘idols’ in the Bible, and there you have it. The KJV even uses Boris’ god ‘science’ twice: Daniel 1:4 (Hebrew MDE) and 1 Timothy 6:20 (Greek ‘gnosis’).

      Now he won’t agree to any of this; but the Question is: should he be allowed to prevail (and why)?

      In Him, Ron M.

    112. Matt B
      May 19th, 2012 @ 1:36 pm

      Boris states: “The Declaration of Independence is not one of our founding papers. It’s an angry letter from some rich slave owners who didn’t want to pay their fair share of taxes. So they stirred up the masses and sent the poor to fight and die for their cause. ”

      Boris, your revisionist scythe knows not its limits. However, were I to engage you in a discussion on this new “point” you make, soon we would find ourselves where you wish to discuss the topic no further, once the shifting sands of your arguments foundations wash away.

    113. Sheila
      May 19th, 2012 @ 2:30 pm

      Why is it so important for the glbt activists to force legislation to re-define marriage? And don’t say it’s a matter of witholding rights from a small percentage of people in this country because that’s a worn and deceptive argument that doesn’t hold water. None of their constitutional rights as citizens are witheld from them. “By definition” their union didn’t fit “the definition.” How is it that that particular word has even become an issue that requires “judicial legislation” to change the meaning of it?

      The glbt minority works tirelessly to borrow phraseology from a tradition that the greater majority of them are diametrically opposed to. Why is it vital that they call their union “marriage?” It’s a civil union between two persons of the same sex and I’m more than comfortable calling it a “union,” albeit not one that requires the deconstruction of the very definition of another word (marriage).

      Where does the re-definition of the English language end? We already have to re-define the word “bigot” because when the glbt community uses that word it refers to any who are not in agreement with their ideology; yet when we point out their vicious and vitriolic language, not to mention their calling individuals by name and attacking them as narrow-minded, hate-filled, bigotted *%#-&^$# s, we are the only ones who are referenced as bigots?! Come on, listen to the chatter and be honest with yourself. It sounds pretty clear to me that a re-definition of the meaning of “bigot” is in order.

      Why stop there? Point of fact is, they don’t intend to. Let’s see; “boy scouts”: Any child whatsoever that has even one iota of genetic material even remotely similar to any other human being, who, although the child was birthed as a female of our species the same female child wishes to re-define themselves as being from the opposite sex. Accordingly we would need to re-define “girl”.

      I don’t see where glbt’s civil rights are impinged in the least, nor does their union require thinking people to support judicial legislation to overturn the millennium old definition and universal meaning of a particular word.

      This is not about exposing narrow-minded, bigoted people, obviously, because if it were the glbt community would be working relentlessly to protect their fellow citizens who happen to be Christians from the same hate-filled and vitriolic speech that they’ve experienced. Do you have any examples of them doing that? How can intelligent people justify the glbt’s working to strip away the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens who seek only the free exercise of their consciences and personal beliefs, whether derived from religious convictions or not? Do intelligent people not see and hear the gross hypocrisy of that?

      Let’s be honest. Do we really need to re-define the word, marriage, before glbt’s can truly experience life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Why are they waging war against a particular phraseology that has absolutely no bearing on their civil liberties whatsoever? They’ve manipulated human sensibilities by whipping the masses into believing that the definition of “one” word is preventing them from enjoying the same rights afforded to all Americans. It’s because of the religious connotations that the word marriage carries with it, which is true, so why not make up their own word and have it mean whatever they want it to when referring to any union outside of the one used by people of faith for millennia?

    114. Ken
      May 19th, 2012 @ 3:00 pm

      Boris, Jesus Christ dis-proved evolution in the very first signs he did, by turn water into wine..and not just any wine but the finest wine as written about in John 2:1-11 we all know it takes (age) to make (fine wine) in order for the chemical reaction to take place..but he did it instantly…proving he can and did create something out of nothing with (age) built in .i.e. creation! also proving John 1:1-3 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

    115. Bo
      May 19th, 2012 @ 10:25 pm

      Boris,

      Please read this short CS Lewis essay about science and religion;

      http://books.google.com/books?id=I6xWiVDThpEC&pg=PA72&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

      Shalom

    116. Boris
      May 20th, 2012 @ 2:00 pm

      >Sheila
      I already pointed out that almost all fiction is placed in a historical time and place and mentions real historical people, places and some times major events. That the Bible does this doesn’t mean that the stories in the Bible are historical. They are written in the style of fiction and there isn’t a shred of evidence to support any of them. The supposed prophecies in the Bible were all written well after the events they supposedly “predicted” had already occurred.” The Book of Daniel is a classic example of this style of fiction. Even your own Christian scholars admit this.

      >MattB: The Constitution is a covenant by which we have set our processes within which the majority’s desires should be reflected.

      Response: The most recent polls show a majority of people support legal recognition of same sex marriage. Support for same sex marriage has grown fairly quickly over the last decade. It appears this trend will continue. Like I said fundamentalist Christians will once again find themselves on the wrong side of history. But when haven’t they been?

      >ron david metcalf
      So let’s ‘have it your way’ for a moment, and see where we stand:
      Matter/energy conservation is the only a priori Law in the universe (from which all other laws ‘evolve’).

      Response: Boy science is really a foreign language to Bible believers ain’t it? Whew! Our physical laws did evolve of course. Physical laws are a human description of how the universe consistently behaves. Christians think physical laws control the behavior of the universe and therefore posit a lawgiver. But in science we humans are the lawgivers.

      >What does this say about Ethics? Absolutely nothing!
      Therefore, Adolph Hitler was as ‘moral’ as Boris, perhaps more so, going strictly by the ‘numbers’, because Hitler was a ‘leader’ in the annals of history.
      This is the ‘poison pill’ I was referring to.

      Response: By what convoluted measurement of numbers does being a ‘leader,’ make a person more ‘moral’ than another? Just because Hitler was a devout Catholic Christian who according to Christian doctrine is in heaven or present with the Lord, doesn’t mean he was more moral than I am.

      >Now Boris stands neither by the Bible nor the Constitution, yet thinks that the U.S. Supreme Court will endorse his personal opinion concerning homosexuality. But what if they don’t? Then, of course, they also belong to the ‘simple-minded’ whose ruling doesn’t really mean anything.

      Response: Oh you mean like the anti-choice people who still claim abortion is murder? Apparently the Supreme Court’s ruling on abortion rights doesn’t really mean anything to those people now does it? And if the Court legalizes gay marriage, that won’t really mean anything to fundamentalist Christians either. Bible believers will claim that their God does not approve of these marriages, as if anyone else cares.

      >Now multiply this understanding by @ half the population of the U.S., brainwashed for decades by our educational system, that whoever believes the Bible is stupid, and you have a definition of the Problem.

      Response: Teaching science, isn’t exactly telling people that whoever believes the Bible is stupid. But if you believe the Bible in the light of modern science then you have no right to complain about what educated people think and say about you. Then we have the religious system of Christianity, which teaches that anyone who doesn’t believe the Bible is evil and being influenced by the devil. That of course is as untrue as any lie ever told on this planet.

      >My ‘solution’ is confined to those that believe the… Now he won’t agree to any of this; but the Question is: should he be allowed to prevail (and why)?

      Response: I’d like to disagree but I don’t know what I would be disagreeing with exactly.

      >Sheila: Why is it so important for the glbt activists to force legislation to re-define marriage? …. It’s because of the religious connotations that the word marriage carries with it, which is true, so why not make up their own word and have it mean whatever they want it to when referring to any union outside of the one used by people of faith for millennia?

      Response: People of faith don’t own the right to define marriage and marriage is not the property of any religion. Your God didn’t invent marriage. Both marriage and God are strictly human inventions. It’s interesting that one of the aspects of the homosexual lifestyle Christians often criticize is promiscuity. Yet when gay people want to have a lifetime relationship that is legal and recognized by the state Christians disapprove.

      Ken>Christ dis-proved evolution in the very first signs he did, by turn water into wine..

      Response: A science minded person would say that evolution disproved the Bible. If it didn’t fundamentalist Christians wouldn’t fight against it so bitterly against it.

      Bo
      I’m familiar with C. S. Lewis. If I thought his arguments were any good then I’d be a Christian wouldn’t I? But I’m not because they’re not. Neither is the one you tried to make by posting another link to a Christian website that supposedly listed historical references to Jesus Christ. Where is the information I requested you supply to prove your claim that there were historical references to Jesus Christ? I asked for historical references made within 40 years of Jesus’ supposed crucifixion and for you to tell me what they said exactly. Of course no such references exist do they? Do you have any explanation for that? Well I do. Jesus Christ never even existed. What’s yours?

      All of you people are wasting a lot of time and effort trying to convert me. All of your arguments are fatally flawed and easily debunked as I have repeatedly demonstrated. If you had any evidence for your claims you wouldn’t have to resort to fatally flawed arguments and threats of eternal damnation now would you? Your Bible and religious leaders have misled about why people do not accept your religious claims, dogmas and doctrines. It’s not because we are evil, lost or being influenced by an absurd non-existent being like Satan. We don’t believe because there isn’t any evidence to support ANY of your religious claims. Of course you cannot admit to this truth because then you’d have to admit that all of you have believed without evidence. Well you have. You’ve believed because OTHER PEOPLE first frightened you with the myth of hell to the point that you were willing to accept anything else they told you in order to avoid spending eternity in hell. No Christian has ever believed for any other reason. I don’t believe in an afterlife so I simply cannot be convinced to believe by lame arguments or threats of punishment for not accepting your claims. Perhaps you people should think about all of this and sit down and take an unbiased look at your religion. No one has ever done this and not ended up rejecting their religion. Good luck.

    117. Matt B
      May 20th, 2012 @ 2:47 pm

      “Like I said fundamentalist Christians will once again find themselves on the wrong side of history. But when haven’t they been? ”

      Boris- another untruth- William Wilberforce.

      I think that our discussions are over, as you never fully answer points I make that either disprove your statements, or bring to light evidence that you have been mislead. Thanks- I’m shaking the dust off of my sandals now. As I said though, I do and will continue to pray that you will encounter the living Son of God.

    118. Boris
      May 20th, 2012 @ 3:13 pm

      What’s the matter Matt? Too much truth for you to face in my last post huh? One down and five to go.

    119. Ken
      May 20th, 2012 @ 3:24 pm

      Boris, I don’t have to fight against evolution because it’s a fairytale….never been proven to be right…..although there is proof of mutations in micro biology..that’s is far as it goes and of course a mutation is far different from something that evolved. Peace , joy to you

    120. Bo
      May 20th, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

      Boris,

      CS Lewis sat down and examined the claims of his religion (Atheism) and became a Christian. Many other atheists have done the same. Many of them scientists.

      Your argument about scriptural prophecy being written after the fact is wrong, and only a handful of liberal theologians go in for this sort of idea. Your claim that the Bible narratives are historical fiction cannot be true. That sort of writing was not even invented until 150 years ago. CS Lewis would rake you over the coals for this sort of nonsensical reading of the Bible. Being that he was a highly educated professor of literature, I go with his take on this. You simply do not know the difference between a modern historical novel and an eyewitness testimony. That you do not believe the testimony is your option. That you believe the handful of liberal revisionists that doubt the existence of the man know as “Jesus”, only shows your philosophical bent.

      The testimony of the secular sources only confirms the fact that this man “Jesus” did in fact exist. They are references in passing, not biographies of the New Testament characters. The Gospels are memoirs relating real events. You are free to reject them, but there are virtually no historical writings, from the same time frame, that are in any sense authoritative or complete. I am betting that you believe them, though.

      Though you are familiar with CS Lewis, I would love to get your take on the essay that I posted a link to, once you have read it thoroughly. But I doubt that you will take the time, and I also doubt that you will have good answer for his arguments. Give it your best shot. I am waiting.

      Shalom

    121. Sheila
      May 20th, 2012 @ 8:53 pm

      Boris,

      I’m somewhat baffled as to why a man of your ilk is trolling the web looking for intellectual Christians to stand and pontificate against? Well, then again, you’re just one more misinformed member of the masses of evolved humanity, the greater majority of whom are blissfully unaware that we’re not at all ignorant nor uneducated, as if intellectuals would never be found among us. Let’s not confuse learning with wisdom. It’s all foolishness to God anyway.

      We’re only Christians because we’re afraid of being damned to hell you say? Are you only an atheist because you don’t want to be held accountable to anyone for anything? The premise that belief in hell preceeds a Christian’s faith is akin to saying that arrogance preceeds the atheist’s position. Not sure I can use that as an example; one of them is true.

      There are as many holes in your evolutionary theory as there are in swiss cheese. How many question marks and let’s play try to connect the dot, dot, dot’s can one supposedly airtight theory contain? You won’t find equivocation in all of Scripture.

      Here’s a list of question marks and dot, dot, dot’s that comprise the evolutionist’s “evidence.”

      http://www.handprint.com/LS/ANC/evol.html

    122. ron david metcalf
      May 20th, 2012 @ 9:15 pm

      PHYSICAL LAWS EVOLVED.

      There you have it, from obviously the most brilliant mind in the universe.
      Too bad it is headed for complete oblivion in such a short amouint of time!
      Please inform us lesser mortals how this came about. I’m not talking about solar systems; I’m talking about subatomic structure; energy; gravity; and the like; how did it all EVOLVE, Boris? The entire global scientific community is holding its breath.
      In Him, Ron M.
      p.s. you can hold off on putting another notch on your belt until you can give some sort of real answer for a change. In this I’m very serious.

    123. Sheila
      May 20th, 2012 @ 9:18 pm

      Listen to the language of the evolutionary theory. Any thinking person should automatically question the validity of what they’ve claimed to have proved. There is no proof. Take an imaginary eraser and erase all of the question marks and all of the dot, dot, dots and, lo and behold, what are you left with? You’re left with straight lines of separate species. Nowhere in your own chart do anyone of them intersect each other.

      …”hypothesized”
      …”tentative” connections between species
      …a “likely” solution

      Evolution is based solely on “blind faith” as all of those supposed “missing links” are still, well, “missing…” I’m wondering how evolutionists can claim as fact a theory that is only speculative at best?

    124. Matt B
      May 20th, 2012 @ 10:04 pm

      Boris, as has been pointed out to you: you are chronically dishonest, skirt issues you don’t wish to discuss after the facts don’t lean your way- there is nothing at all productive in discussion with you any longer- neither for you nor for me.

      Sorry, but in your present state of prideful boasting and obfuscation- your rebellion against God makes it impossible to have rational discussion.

    125. Bo
      May 20th, 2012 @ 11:21 pm

      Boris,

      If you are right and there is no Divine Creator or Redeemer, then neither of us will know the difference or care in 50 years. You will live your life and be as comforted and contented as possible and so will I. If I am right, I will at least have a chance at continuing to live. What is it that you have because of your belief that I do not have because of mine? Maybe we are both happy and fulfilled in this life, but I also have a hope of a future life without pain, sorrow, sickness, etc. Your future hope ends drastically soon. If there is no hell or damnation, we both win. If there is…you lose…big time. Not threats intended. There is just nothing that your belief system has to offer that mine does not also have.

      A random universe that produces random evolution can only produce random thoughts and actions that make no difference in the long run. How can you trust the chemistry of your brain to be able to make any statements that have any meaning or importance? There is no need or reason for your continuing to discuss this or even think about it, because it is all utimately meaningless in your atheistic, materialistic religion.

      Shalom

    126. Sheila
      May 21st, 2012 @ 12:01 am

      Boris,

      There are over three hundred Messianic Prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled by one person alone. The chances of only 8 of those being fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth and no one else is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. If 17 were fulfilled the odds are then 1 chance in 4.8 trillion x 1 billion x 1 trillion. The only question that remains concerning the person who fulfilled the First Testament prophecies, which were sealed (canonized) in the third century BC, is whether the Son of Man, Jesus of Nazareth was who He claimed to be. I would think any Mathematician would bet on Jesus if he took the statistical evidence and applied it to anything else with those odds.

      I agree with my brothers in Christ (surprise!) that you’ve not brought anything to stand on other than your mountainous ego and that which is the only theory atheists can cling to while standing in opposition to Intelligent Design.

      Making broad generalizations of the individual Christians experience in arriving at the truth doesn’t help your case, rather it only serves to further demonstrate your narrow understanding of the facts upon which we base our beliefs. Atheists love to use the word “faith” as if that alone negates all of the facts upon which our belief is founded.

      May the Lord accomplish for you what you’ve asked of Him in a previous post, that’s my prayer for you.

    127. Boris
      May 21st, 2012 @ 3:20 am

      Ken
      Boris, I don’t have to fight against evolution because it’s a fairytale….never been proven to be right…..although there is proof of mutations in micro biology..that’s is far as it goes and of course a mutation is far different from something that evolved. Peace , joy to you

      Response: Transitional fossils do exist and are abundant contrary to the claims of the few people still fighting against advancing science known as creationists. Every Christian college and university with a science department teaches evolution. Humiliating isn’t it?

      CS Lewis sat down and examined the claims of his religion (Atheism) and became a Christian. Many other atheists have done the same. Many of them scientists.

      Response: C.S. Lewis was not an atheist and atheism is NOT a religion. Lewis claimed he was angry with God. Someone who doesn’t believe in God can’t be angry at something that doesn’t exist as far as they’re concerned. Atheism makes no claims whatsoever. An atheist doesn’t have to be a person who thinks they can prove there is no God. An atheist is a person who thinks the evidence for God is on the same level with the evidence for leprechauns, werewolves and UFO abductions.

      Your argument about scriptural prophecy being written after the fact is wrong, and only a handful of liberal theologians go in for this sort of idea. Your claim that the Bible narratives are historical fiction cannot be true. That sort of writing was not even invented until 150 years ago.

      Response: The Iliad and the Odyssey was written a lot more than 150 years ago.

      The testimony of the secular sources only confirms the fact that this man “Jesus” did in fact exist. They are references in passing, not biographies of the New Testament characters. The Gospels are memoirs relating real events. You are free to reject them, but there are virtually no historical writings, from the same time frame, that are in any sense authoritative or complete. I am betting that you believe them, though.

      Response: HOW do you have the nerve to make that claim about secular sources that supposedly mention Jesus when I’ve challenged you twice now to produce something written by one of these sources from within 40 years of Jesus’ supposed crucifixion? No such sources exist that fit the criteria I’ve put forth and you KNOW it. You can’t just go on repeating the same claims over and over and over again until you first respond to my objections to them. You failed to do that. Again.

      Though you are familiar with CS Lewis, I would love to get your take on the essay that I posted a link to, once you have read it thoroughly. But I doubt that you will take the time, and I also doubt that you will have good answer for his arguments. Give it your best shot. I am waiting.

      Response: I am so weary of Christians posting links to articles for me to read and comment on or else cutting and pasting arguments from Christian websites. You don’t see me doing that and I’ve got several people here all ganging up and me at once. I take the time to answer everybody’s questions and objections in my own words while mine are almost always completely ignored. I’m not reading any of the stuff you post links to. I’ve seen more Christian apologetics than all of you put together. If you can’t formulate an argument in your own words, and one that pertains to the subject of the thread then don’t bother posting anything directed to me. I’m not interested.

      I’m somewhat baffled as to why a man of your ilk is trolling the web looking for intellectual Christians to stand and pontificate against? Well, then again, you’re just one more misinformed member of the masses of evolved humanity, the greater majority of whom are blissfully unaware that we’re not at all ignorant nor uneducated, as if intellectuals would never be found among us. Let’s not confuse learning with wisdom. It’s all foolishness to God anyway.

      Response: I’m not trolling the web. I’m posting and reading comments on this blog for the same reason everybody else is. I listen to the show now and then and have for years. I’m not interested in being converted. I’m occasionally interested in the subjects being discussed on the show. If it doesn’t interest me when I happen to tune in I turn the radio back to ESPN.

      We’re only Christians because we’re afraid of being damned to hell you say? Are you only an atheist because you don’t want to be held accountable to anyone for anything? The premise that belief in hell preceeds a Christian’s faith is akin to saying that arrogance preceeds the atheist’s position. Not sure I can use that as an example; one of them is true.

      Response: That would only make sense if one were actually held accountable for their actions by God according to your religious doctrine. But the only thing a person is judged for is whether or not they bought into the right religion or not. I’m not the least bit worried about being accountable for that. I’m held accountable every day and I have to live up to expectations or there will be consequences. I can’t make excuses if I mess up and blame it on a fallen world or the devil the way Christians do when they fail to live up to expectations.

      There are as many holes in your evolutionary theory as there are in swiss cheese. How many question marks and let’s play try to connect the dot, dot, dot’s can one supposedly airtight theory contain? You won’t find equivocation in all of Scripture.
      Here’s a list of question marks and dot, dot, dot’s that comprise the evolutionist’s “evidence.”

      Response: It’s not MY theory. It’s the only explanation for the diversity of life on earth there is or will ever be. Get over it. You don’t have the nerve to post your own arguments against evolution in your own words if you could even formulate any, which I highly doubt. You know very well any atheist would make Swiss cheese of all your creationist nonsense.

      ron david metcalf

      PHYSICAL LAWS EVOLVED.
      There you have it, from obviously the most brilliant mind in the universe.
      Too bad it is headed for complete oblivion in such a short amouint of time!
      Please inform us lesser mortals how this came about. I’m not talking about solar systems; I’m talking about subatomic structure; energy; gravity; and the like; how did it all EVOLVE, Boris? The entire global scientific community is holding its breath.

      Response: I said nothing about energy or gravity evolving. I said our human descriptions of how the universe consistently behaves known as physical laws have evolved. Laws don’t control the universe. We don’t know why large objects attract or things thrown skyward fall back to earth. Saying it’s the “law of gravity” says nothing at all. Understand?

      Sheila
      Listen to the language of the evolutionary theory. … I’m wondering how evolutionists can claim as fact a theory that is only speculative at best?

      Response: Why don’t you go down to the science department of any Christian college or university with a science department as ask them what you just asked me? Because you know very well evolution is based on facts not speculation. You’re not going to convince anyone with that kind of nonsense and baseless assertion. You are giving Christianity a black eye however and making it too embarrassing for millions of people to call themselves Christians anymore. So go for it.

      Matt B
      Boris, as has been pointed out to you: you are chronically dishonest, skirt issues you don’t wish to discuss after the facts don’t lean your way- there is nothing at all productive in discussion with you any longer- neither for you nor for me.
      Sorry, but in your present state of prideful boasting and obfuscation- your rebellion against God makes it impossible to have rational discussion.

      Response: First of all I am NOT dishonest. It’s impossible to have a rational discussion with someone who can’t even understand that atheists can’t rebel against something they don’t believe exists. Why do you rebel against Allah, the God of Islam? We’ve been over this before. Once again you just keep making the same bogus claims over and over and over and over again and completely ignoring my objections. I’m dishonest? Please! Doubt and skepticism are NOT the same as rebellion. Even though this is true you can’t accept it because your religion teaches otherwise. When your religion demands belief in what is obviously not true don’t you think it’s time to question it? Your beliefs make you repeat things that are not true and you have the nerve to call me dishonest!

      Bo
      If you are right and there is no Divine Creator or Redeemer, then neither of us will know the difference or care in 50 years. You will live your life and be as comforted and contented as possible and so will I. If I am right, I will at least have a chance at continuing to live. What is it that you have because of your belief that I do not have because of mine?

      Response: I’ll tell you what I don’t have: A bunch of escapist and life-avoidance issues due to an unwarranted belief in an afterlife.

      Maybe we are both happy and fulfilled in this life, but I also have a hope of a future life without pain, sorrow, sickness, etc. Your future hope ends drastically soon. If there is no hell or damnation, we both win. If there is…you lose…big time. Not threats intended. There is just nothing that your belief system has to offer that mine does not also have.

      Response: I’m not the least bit concerned that you God is going to follow me to my grave and keep me alive in some kind of disembodied state for the sole purpose of torturing me for all eternity because I didn’t believe the claims people like you made about their particular religion. Really man, how come you can’t see through that hoax? Scared it’s true aren’t you? And you’re not even brave enough to admit that’s the only reason you believe the claims of Christianity in the first place are you? When you threaten people with hell you expose the only reason you have been indoctrinated into the religion of Christianity and the only reason anyone ever has been. Gotcha man. You can’t hide from the truth.

      A random universe that produces random evolution can only produce random thoughts and actions that make no difference in the long run. How can you trust the chemistry of your brain to be able to make any statements that have any meaning or importance? There is no need or reason for your continuing to discuss this or even think about it, because it is all utimately meaningless in your atheistic, materialistic religion.

      Response: Just because life is ultimately meaningless and has no inherent meaning, doesn’t mean that it has to be meaningless at the present and near future. I’m not wasting my life on escapist fantasies hoping for another. I’m living a meaningful life right now. I don’t have time to keep discussing subjects like this with people who have already made up their minds I must be wrong because I’m being influenced by the devil.

      Sheila
      Boris,
      There are over three hundred Messianic Prophecies in the Bible that were fulfilled by one person alone. The chances of only 8 of those being fulfilled by Jesus of Nazareth and no one else is 1 in 10 to the 17th power. If 17 were fulfilled the odds are then 1 chance in 4.8 trillion x 1 billion x 1 trillion. The only question that remains concerning the person who fulfilled the First Testament prophecies, which were sealed (canonized) in the third century BC, is whether the Son of Man, Jesus of Nazareth was who He claimed to be. I would think any Mathematician would bet on Jesus if he took the statistical evidence and applied it to anything else with those odds.

      Response: Before I can accept your claim about the supernatural origin of the supposed messianic prophecies and your fantastic odds of them coming true, common sense tells us that you must first rule out the far more plausible account that the events are fictional, written so as to conform to earlier prophecies. What’s more likely, my account or yours? How do you intend to rule that out may I ask? A traveler saw an archer and around him were arrows that were stuck in the dead center of each target painted on a tree. The traveler asked the archer how he became such a good shot with the bow and arrow. “Easy,” said the archer.” First I shot the arrows and then painted the targets around them.” I think most people know that’s how these kinds of tales are spun. Except you and your brothers and sisters in Christ.

      I agree with my brothers in Christ (surprise!) that you’ve not brought anything to stand on other than your mountainous ego and that which is the only theory atheists can cling to while standing in opposition to Intelligent Design.

      Response: Where is this Intelligent Design taught as science may I ask? Not only do all the Christian colleges and universities teach evolution they go to great lengths to distance themselves from Intelligent Design and the few people left promoting it. Why should anyone believe your claims about Intelligent Design when your own CHRISTIAN colleges and universities state emphatically that it’s not science and all teach evolution by natural selection instead?

      Making broad generalizations of the individual Christians experience in arriving at the truth doesn’t help your case, rather it only serves to further demonstrate your narrow understanding of the facts upon which we base our beliefs. Atheists love to use the word “faith” as if that alone negates all of the facts upon which our belief is founded.

      Response: Articles of faith are not facts. What are these facts exactly?

      May the Lord accomplish for you what you’ve asked of Him in a previous post, that’s my prayer for you.

      Response: Thanks but I don’t remember asking anything of Him.

      Ed, Bo, Matt, Sheila, Ron, Ken,
      Now I’ve had enough of all of your claims that the Bible is true and evolution isn’t. I’ve made it very clear why most of the world rejects your absurd claims. I’m not responding to your baseless arguments about these things anymore. Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. I’m not going to disregard the findings of rational science in favor of the baseless assertions of non-rational authoritarianism. If you want to live your life in intellectual servitude go right ahead. Don’t expect me or anyone else to join you.

    128. Sheila
      May 21st, 2012 @ 7:53 am

      Boris,

      Yeah, you guys are so sure that you won’t even let the concept be considered and you call that “intelligent” and “evolved?”

      Don’t you mean “No Intelligence Allowed?” (Ben Stein)

      Boris, the “draw the circle around the bullseye thingy” is getting really old. You guys need to drum up some fresh material because all of your arguments have been used and abused and you could really use some fresh ammo.

      Give me one entire community of eyeballs, or hip bones or big-toes from within 40 years of your missing link and I’ll consider it. :) (I know eyeballs don’t hang around but it was funnier to include them.)

      You’ve not investigated the evidence for the historical Jesus yet you would have others believe there is none. At least join the ranks of those who fully studied the matter and reject the claims he made as to who he was, is and always will be.

      TTYL

    129. ron david metcalf
      May 21st, 2012 @ 8:39 am

      Laws don’t control the universe. We don’t know why large objects attract or things thrown skyward fall back to earth. Saying it’s the “law of gravity” says nothing at all. Understand?

      What I understand, Boris, is the only ‘proof’ you have about anything whatsoever is to attack Christians on anything and everything they believe.

      Ed, Bo, Matt, Sheila, Ron, Ken,
      Now I’ve had enough of all of your claims that the Bible is true and evolution isn’t.

      Ah, we finally agree. You’re tired of us; we’re tired of you. Thank you, GOD bless, and good-bye.

      In Him, Ron M.

    130. Sheila
      May 21st, 2012 @ 9:22 am

      This is for everyone following this discussion:

      “Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.”

      You can read it here:

      http://www.biblebelievers.org.au/radio034.htm

    131. Sheila
      May 21st, 2012 @ 9:49 am

      I really am finished after this.

      The text for Stoner’s book is found here:

      http://www.sciencespeaks.net/

    132. Bo
      May 21st, 2012 @ 10:14 am

      Boris,

      You have presented no facts. You have spouted old and specious comebacks against Christianity. You have exaggerated your claims with the utmost rhetoric. You have ranted and raved on and on… about Christian Collages with science departments and historical revisionism and supposed transitional forms and old ideas about the big bang and evolution.

      You misconstrued CS Lewis.

      Here is what (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C._S._Lewis) states:

      “Lewis was raised in a church-going family in the Church of Ireland. He became an atheist at 15, though he later described his young self as being paradoxically ‘very angry with God for not existing’.”

      “He fought greatly up to the moment of his conversion, noting that he was brought into Christianity like a prodigal, ‘kicking, struggling, resentful, and darting his eyes in every direction for a chance to escape.’”

      “You must picture me alone in that room in Magdalen, night after night, feeling, whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. That which I greatly feared had at last come upon me. In the Trinity Term of 1929 I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all England.”

      Hmm,, not a mention of being scared of going to hell, but yes afraid of admitting “God was God” just like all atheists before or since. They cannot stand the idea that they have a responsibility to their creator. They hold back in horror at the idea of submission to their master and maker. Atheists are in rebellion whether they feel like they are rebelling or not. (Denial that there is such an Authority does not make resisting it not rebellion.) And when they (the atheists) come face to face with the living and loving and forgiving Creator of the universe, they are frightened at what it means to their future life. They will have to relinquish the reigns of their life to another who knows better and loves them more than they loved themselves hitherto.

      So BoreUs, keep refusing to read CS Lewis and keep supporting your beliefs and getting your brain washed by revisionists and pseudo-scientists if you like, but you may want to ask a few Christians that have converted from Atheism why they did such a thing, instead of assuming that you are all knowing and that the only reason that anybody is a Christian is because of fear of hell fire. Your bigotry is immense. And it is religious bigotry whether you can comprehend it or not.

      I double dog dare you :) to read 2 books by CS Lewis. Mere Christianity, which is a collection of radio addresses and God in the Dock, which is a collection of essays. These are very easy reading of short and to the point discussions of many things that you seem to be quite unaware of. If you care to expand your narrow thinking a bit, give them a try then let us know why CS Lewis is wrong. If you have no good arguments against His reason, you have no good arguments. But I am guessing that you are afraid to find out that you might be wrong. It would cost you too much to humble yourself like Lewis had to.

      The meek shall inherit the earth.

      “What do they teach the children in school these days?”-Professor Digory Kirke

      Shalom

    133. Bo
      May 21st, 2012 @ 11:27 am

      Boris,

      The Iliad and the Odessy, indeed. Have you not the ability to distinguish the difference between styles and of writing? Or do you not want to notice the difference in this case?

      “Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man (Jesus) as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the Story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”-CS Lewis, God in the Dock, pgs. 158-159

      Shalom

    134. Bo
      May 21st, 2012 @ 11:36 am

      Boris,

      And in case you are thinking of challenging CS Lewis on his ability to remember what he had read and comment upon it or its genre…

      “Was C.S. Lewis a genius?

      Oh, absolutely, there’s no doubt about that. He was a complete genius. He also was a very fast reader, but he had honed the talent and perfected the strange memory that resulted in never forgetting anything he had read. Now he could, he could ask you to pick any book off of his shelves, and you would pick a page and read him a line and he would quote the rest of the page; in fact, quote the rest of the book until you told him to stop. He had this enormous capacity to remember everything he’d ever read.”-Recollections about C.S. Lewis by Douglas Gresham (His Step-Son) http://cslewisjrrtolkien.classicalautographs.com/cslewis/recollections/douglasgreshamstepson.html

      Shalom

    135. Bo
      May 21st, 2012 @ 11:50 am

      Boris,

      But enough about Lewis. Just read his books and maybe you will be cured of your Atheism. Of course that could happen from reading The Creators book, but I think that your mind and heart have been poisoned so that you cannot make sense of its plain meaning.

      Shalom

    136. Bo
      May 21st, 2012 @ 11:50 am

      I’m Done. ;)

    137. Eliyahu Moshiach
      May 21st, 2012 @ 1:38 pm

      Boris, are you a Christian? You and the Christians both teach evolution, you on this Internet forum and Christians in their colleges and universities. Are you a Christian? The Christian churches, preach that their, priests, bishops, clergy, reverends and pastors, should be lesbian or bi or gay if they prefer.

      Interesting, that’s what you believe.
      With sarcasm I know you are not a Christian, and not all Christians hold to the above Christian churches’ teachings. I said all this so that you understand that Christians are not the bad guys, they are leading the way to accomplish your ideals. Just did not want you to label all Christians as insane or evil, when Christians are on your side, even one of the most powerful Christians, President Barack Obama.

      If anyone should think Christians are insane and evil, it’s me not you, they are on your side.

      Nonetheless, from a debating point of view, if I were to adapt your world view, I could not lose a debate because my beliefs would be defending nothing unless it was proven true by scientific methods, since God, an invisible essence can not be labotorial investigations be done to it, it would hard pressed to put God in a lab and conclude that this God exists. Since this seems so far fetched a notion, how can an invisible being that fills the whole universe be scientifically proved by putting him in a lab and doing experiments to conclude he exists. If that is your need to trust anyone or trust any belief, you will never believe, unless God visited you personally, but still if that happened it was not scientifically proven and thus you would eventually have to forsake your prior demands to put God in a labatory and prove the existence of God.

      My experiences make it impossible to be your type of atheist, the one that refuses all the superhuman powers demonstrated by human beings .

      I am not going to respond, these are my closing thoughts, that’s all.

    138. Ken
      May 21st, 2012 @ 5:15 pm

      Boris, transitional fossils are incomplete..therefor can’t prove evolution..but nice try…peace,joy to you

    139. Boris
      May 22nd, 2012 @ 3:11 am

      Sheila
      Yeah, you guys are so sure that you won’t even let the concept be considered and you call that “intelligent” and “evolved?”
      Don’t you mean “No Intelligence Allowed?” (Ben Stein)

      Response: What we’re sure of is that Intelligent Design is religion, not science. A scientific theory has to be useful. Evolutionary theory has produced tremendous advances in medicine and agriculture among other things. What scientific breakthroughs has Intelligent Design led to? None and it’s never going to. Saying, “God did it” which is all ID does, explains absolutely nothing and has no use in the scientific community.

      Boris, the “draw the circle around the bullseye thingy” is getting really old. You guys need to drum up some fresh material because all of your arguments have been used and abused and you could really use some fresh ammo.

      Response: Oh please, you’ve never even been confronted with my arguments before. If you had actually ever seen my arguments before you wouldn’t have exposed your absurd “theory” to a knock out punch, which is exactly what I did to it. You have no way of proving that the biblical authors didn’t write the gospels to conform to earlier prophecies. The gospel writers simply molded a fictional character into the role of a coming messiah. This account is much more likely than yours, which requires a belief in the supernatural and faith in a lot of other things like angels, demons, Satan, etc. as well. Okham’s Razor demands we accept my explanation because it requires far fewer assumptions than yours. It is the logical explanation unless the existence of all these absurd Christian bogey entities can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. Good luck with that.

      You’ve not investigated the evidence for the historical Jesus yet you would have others believe there is none. At least join the ranks of those who fully studied the matter and reject the claims he made as to who he was, is and always will be.

      Response: What evidence? Hearsay accounts from 60 to 100 years after Jesus’ supposed crucifixion written by men who were not even alive when Jesus was? Christians always trot out the big four, Pliny, Tacitus, Josephus and Suetonius when reminded of the fact that there is no evidence for a historical Jesus. How embarrassing it must be for you to have to resort to accounts written far to late to be of any use for your case. The fact that this is the best Christian apologists can come up with proves there’s no evidence that Jesus Christ ever existed at all.

      ron david metcalf
      Ah, we finally agree. You’re tired of us; we’re tired of you. Thank you, GOD bless, and good-bye.

      Response: I guess we’ll never know why you fear non-existence so much.

      Sheila
      This is for everyone following this discussion:
      “Professor Emeritus of Science at Westmont College, Peter Stoner, has calculated the probability of one man fulfilling the major prophecies made concerning the Messiah. The estimates were worked out by twelve different classes representing some 600 university students.”

      Response: The probability that the gospel writers molded their stories to make it SEEM like Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies is 100 percent.

      Bo
      You have presented no facts. You have spouted old and specious comebacks against Christianity. You have exaggerated your claims with the utmost rhetoric. You have ranted and raved on and on… about Christian Collages with science departments and historical revisionism and supposed transitional forms and old ideas about the big bang and evolution.

      Response: What about the fact that you claimed there were secular references to Jesus in antiquity but when I asked you to produce some useful ones and tell us all what they said, three different times, you failed to produce any? I’d say it’s you Bo, who not only hasn’t presented any facts you couldn’t even produce the facts you claimed you could. You have exaggerated your claims with the utmost rhetoric. I haven’t ranted and raved about anything. I’ve patiently answered all of your questions and satisfactorily responded to all of your claims and objections.

      You misconstrued CS Lewis.
      So BoreUs, keep refusing to read CS Lewis and keep supporting your beliefs and getting your brain washed by revisionists and pseudo-scientists if you like, but you may want to ask a few Christians that have converted from Atheism why they did such a thing, instead of assuming that you are all knowing and that the only reason that anybody is a Christian is because of fear of hell fire. Your bigotry is immense. And it is religious bigotry whether you can comprehend it or not.

      Response: So Bo, keep refusing to accept modern science and keep supporting your beliefs and getting your brain washed by religionists and pseudo-scientists if you like, but you may want to ask a few atheists that have de-converted from Christianity why they did such a thing, instead of assuming that you are all knowing and that the only reason that anybody is atheist is because they cannot stand the idea that they have a responsibility to their creator. Your bigotry is immense. And it is religious bigotry whether you can comprehend it or not. All of your arguments can be turned on their heads and used to demonstrate just how offensive the things you say really are. I think this reflects a real lack of self-awareness on your part.

      I double dog dare you to read 2 books by CS Lewis. Mere Christianity, which is a collection of radio addresses and God in the Dock, which is a collection of essays. These are very easy reading of short and to the point discussions of many things that you seem to be quite unaware of. If you care to expand your narrow thinking a bit, give them a try then let us know why CS Lewis is wrong. If you have no good arguments against His reason, you have no good arguments. But I am guessing that you are afraid to find out that you might be wrong. It would cost you too much to humble yourself like Lewis had to.

      Response: C. S. Lewis’ arguments are ridiculous and like all apologetic arguments they’re only good enough to convince those who desperately want to believe them anyway. His most popular argument the ‘Lord or liar and lunatic argument’ is a classic example of a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. Lewis tells us that either Jesus was who he said he was or he was a liar and a lunatic take your pick and his argument clearly implies those are our only two choices in the matter. That is a false dichotomy. Of course there is a third much more logical answer to the question, which is that Jesus is a figure in story never even existed at all. The gospel writers put words in his mouth. Like all apologists Lewis’ own thinking had been so narrowed by his religious beliefs he couldn’t even conceive of these and other possibilities and if he did he certainly wouldn’t want his readers to consider them.

      The meek shall inherit the earth.

      Response: Jesus supposedly said that but it hasn’t happened. Thor said he would rid the world of frost giants. I don’t see any frost giants.

      Bo
      The Iliad and the Odessy, indeed. Have you not the ability to distinguish the difference between styles and of writing? Or do you not want to notice the difference in this case?

      Response: You tell me. What’s the difference?

      “Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man (Jesus) as being legends. … Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”-CS Lewis, God in the Dock, pgs. 158-159

      Response: Well C.S. Lewis knew nothing about ancient texts and neither so you, especially that one. Based on the oldest manuscripts and other evidence scholars agree that this particular passage was not originally part of John’s Gospel. It was added later. It couldn’t possibly be an eyewitness account. The anti-logic Lewis uses to arrive at the conclusion that the story just must be true is truly hilarious and ridiculous.

      Boris,
      But enough about Lewis. Just read his books and maybe you will be cured of your Atheism. Of course that could happen from reading The Creators book, but I think that your mind and heart have been poisoned so that you cannot make sense of its plain meaning.

      Response: Enough about science. Just read a few science books and maybe you will be cured of your Christianity. Of course that could happen from an unbiased reading of the Bible (no book is responsible for more atheism than the Bible), but I think that your mind and heart have been poisoned so that you cannot make sense of its intended meaning. How does it feel to have your own arguments used against you? Your arguments and all apologetic arguments are self-refuting, as I have just demonstrated. But you go right on believing that they’re valid anyway, and make sure you try to convince as many people as possible they are as well.

      Eliyahu Moshiach

      Response: I’m not sure what you’re talking about but yes I do not believe in superhuman or supernatural. I’m one of those rare people who require some evidence before we’ll believe something.

      Ken
      Boris, transitional fossils are incomplete..therefor can’t prove evolution..but nice try…peace,joy to you

      Response: Hey I don’t want you or any of your Christian brothers and sisters to accept evolutionary theory. No on the contrary, you keep telling everyone you meet that you believe in Adam and Eve, that Noah had an ark, that dinosaurs coexisted with humans and that the Association for Biblical Astronomy tells us that the sun orbits the earth. You creationists have done more to kill Christianity than all of the critics and skeptics combined.

    140. Sheila
      May 22nd, 2012 @ 8:18 am

      Boris,

      Oh please, spare me (and all of us)! I could shred everything you’ve posted to me above and turn it into confetti that would fly away with the wind, but to what avail? Only a “supernatural” act of God can remove your blinders.

      I don’t feel the need to continue in lifting the veil on your oh-so-typical, timeworn half truths and flip-flopping rhetoric. Apparently you weren’t tuned in when the debate with the Orthodox Rabbi’s ran over 800 posts.

      My prayer for you stands; May the Lord reveal Himself to you as you requested and may you be able to receive the truth when He does.

    141. Ken
      May 22nd, 2012 @ 8:22 am

      Boris, News flash: heaven and earth will pass way but the word of G-d will never die, Christianity lives as does the Lord of Lord’s and king of king’s
      (Jesus Christ!!!) you can choose to reject the Lord but one day you will bow down to him as all will…and as these words sting you to the very core (depart from me you worker of iniquity for a never knew you) it isn’t because we haven’t tried. I’m still praying that the Lord will open your understanding and give you eye’s to see…Peace,joy to you

    142. Bo
      May 22nd, 2012 @ 8:53 am

      Boris,

      It is quite amusing to watch you speak of one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century as If He didn’t know logic or ancient manuscripts. He could quote everything he ever read in its original language. You think that you are so smart. May real life descend upon you, and may it open your eyes.

      Shalom

    143. Bo
      May 22nd, 2012 @ 9:52 am

      Boris,

      Here is an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

      “Applications (of evolutionary science)

      Understanding the changes that have occurred during an organism’s evolution can reveal the genes needed to construct parts of the body, genes which may be involved in human genetic disorders.[272] For example, the mexican tetra is an albino cavefish that lost its eyesight during evolution. Breeding together different populations of this blind fish produced some offspring with functional eyes, since different mutations had occurred in the isolated populations that had evolved in different caves.[273] This helped identify genes required for vision and pigmentation.[274]”

      The above is presented as an application of evolutionary science. So is it?

      So what we have here are mutations in cavefish. No new animal. We are dealing with loss of genetic information, not increasing genetic information.

      We are using crossbreeding to bring the previous information back to the deformed creature’s offspring. None of this requires evolutionary science. It requires knowledge of genetics and crossbreeding.

      This is a prime example of devolution and it takes intelligence to fix it. Without our intelligent interference the problems get worse not better.

      So goes the whole of evolutionary theory. Yes theory. If this is one of evolutionary sciences great achievements, then we obviously do not need it. It didn’t do anything. It wasn’t even used in the above example.

      I wonder if this is how all the “evolution is a fact” propaganda is used to brainwash our children. Because only a child would not see through this ridiculous example of the necessity of evolution.

      Shalom

    144. Bo
      May 22nd, 2012 @ 10:53 am

      Boris,

      Your religion of Materialism is about ready to be exposed.

      I was reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus about the platypus and found out how evolutionists are baffled by it and how they have supposedly determined when it diverged from the non-egg laying mammals. “Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19–48 million years ago.[61]” They used a clock. The molecular clock. I did some shopping for that clock, because according to you, Boris, my ideas about history are distorted by believing the Bible’s timescale.

      The quotes below are from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock My comments will not be in quotation marks.

      This “clock” isn’t really a clock, but a theory that is much contested. Below are some telling examples of how evolutionary science is not only a theory, but a hopelessly faulty one.

      “The molecular clock (based on the molecular clock hypothesis (MCH)) is a technique in molecular evolution that uses fossil constraints and rates of molecular change to deduce the time in geologic history when two species or other taxa diverged.”

      “The molecular clock alone can only say that one time period is twice as long as another: it cannot assign concrete dates.”

      No concrete dates…hmmm?

      “Researchers such as Ayala have more fundamentally challenged the molecular clock hypothesis.[13][14] According to Ayala’s 1999 study, 5 factors combine to limit the application of molecular clock models:”

      They had been using this “clock” for about 40 years to prove things only to find out that it wasn’t really that useful. How bad is it?

      “It must be remembered that divergence dates inferred using a molecular clock are based on statistical inference and not on direct evidence.”

      No direct evidence…hmmm?

      “The molecular clock runs into particular challenges at very short and very long timescales.”

      So both long and short timescales give it problems and…it is based on statistical inference and…it can only say when one time period is twice as long as another. Since this is the case, how do we know that the intermediate timescales, whatever they might be, are no problem to this “clock”? Aren’t intermediate timescales twice as long as some of the short ones that the clock is not good at determining? It really does run into “particular challenges”, doesn’t it? I would throw away my watch if it didn’t keep good time for 5 seconds or 3 days. How could I trust it for an hour?

      “The molecular clock technique is an important tool in molecular systematics, the use of molecular genetics information to determine the correct scientific classification of organisms or to study variation in selective forces.”

      After all these concessions/confessions, evolutionary science has the audacity to proclaim this “clock” that is just a bad theory to be important. How can this “clock” be an “important tool” if it doesn’t actually work? I have just figured it out…it is good for indoctrination of a false religion called Materialism. I guess I will continue to use the Bible as my “clock.”

      Shalom

    145. Bo
      May 22nd, 2012 @ 2:51 pm

      While Boris lambasts Christianity for using intimidation to gain and keep converts, he is heaping guilt upon himself. The words he uses, the method of their use, and their repetition are all intended as intimidation. He is not intimidated by the possibility of Hellfire. He is intimidated by “the majority”, even if it is only a construct of his mind, of scientists or scholars or modern Americans. He wishes to intimidate us by showing that all of his majorities are going to think that we are stupid wife beaters and filled with hate and intolerance. So who should we be intimidated by?

      Matthew 10
      28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

      Proverbs 29
      25 The fear of man bringeth a snare: but whoso putteth his trust in the LORD shall be safe.

      What does Atheism desire to gain from its rebellion against the ultimate authority? Whatever it can get away with. Personally, that might be carnal gratification, not the least of which is all manner of sexual deviancy. Politically, it has produced extreme persecution of those that stand against it and lavishes all types of privileges and luxuries upon its leaders and proponents. Peer pressure on the personal level and persecution of the political level will always be there to intimidate.

      In a sense, Boris is correct that we have been intimidated. He more by lessor authorities. It is not the fear of hell, but the fear of YHWH that motivates us. Fear in the sense of honor and the realization that He is our master and creator and that He has a responsibility to execute justice in the end. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and other Athiest leaders will have their day in the eternal court soon. So will you and I and Boris. We have the choice to either be our own god and savior and be awed by our own minds or to give reverence to the real Creator/Redeemer…and there is no choice in between. And the bride will make herself ready.

      Revelation 19
      5 And a voice came out of the throne, saying, Praise our God, all ye his servants, and ye that fear him, both small and great.
      6 And I heard as it were the voice of a great multitude, and as the voice of many waters, and as the voice of mighty thunderings, saying, Alleluia: for the Lord God omnipotent reigneth.
      7 Let us be glad and rejoice, and give honour to him: for the marriage of the Lamb is come, and his wife hath made herself ready.

      Shalom

    146. Bo
      May 22nd, 2012 @ 9:37 pm

      Rosh Chodesh Sameach

      Happy New Moon

    147. Boris
      May 23rd, 2012 @ 1:54 am

      Sheila
      Oh please, spare me (and all of us)! I could shred everything you’ve posted to me above and turn it into confetti that would fly away with the wind, but to what avail? Only a “supernatural” act of God can remove your blinders.

      Response: What a bunch of hot air. Okay, shred the fact that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to ancient well known prophesies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them. Not only can’t you offer a rebuttal to that contention you accuse ME of being the one with blinders on! How come you and the other Christians can’t see what is so obvious? Obviously you’re the ones with blinders on. But you see it now that I’ve exposed the truth about messianic prophesies to you. What’s it like trying to believe what you now know is not true?

      My prayer for you stands; May the Lord reveal Himself to you as you requested and may you be able to receive the truth when He does.

      Response: Knowledge doesn’t come through revelation. It comes from examining evidence. There isn’t any evidence to support the claims my fellow humans make about God.

      Ken

      Boris, News flash: heaven and earth will pass way but the word of G-d will never die, Christianity lives

      Response: That isn’t a news flash it’s an ancient superstition. I do have eyes to see which is why I can see all the holes in your theistic arguments. According to Dr. Brown’s friend Frank Turek and other Christians spokesmen 3 out of 4 Christian college students reject their faith before they graduate. The Southern Baptists say that half their membership is over 55 years of age. Christianity lives? Not much longer.

      Bo
      It is quite amusing to watch you speak of one of the most brilliant minds of the 20th century as If He didn’t know logic or ancient manuscripts. He could quote everything he ever read in its original language. You think that you are so smart. May real life descend upon you, and may it open your eyes.

      Response: I find C.S Lewis to be dreary and absurd.

      Bo
      Here is an excerpt from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
      “Applications (of evolutionary science)…Because only a child would not see through this ridiculous example of the necessity of evolution.

      Response: My daughter spent 6 years in college so she could become an evolutionary biologist. Your ridiculous comment is an insult to all the scientists who have dedicated their lives to making the world a better place by understanding how nature works. Why don’t you go down to the science department of any Christian college or university and ask the professors why the teach evolution and what its applications are? Because you are afraid of the truth, that’s why. You’d rather believe the comforting lies of religion. You’re welcome to them.

      Bo

      Boris,
      Your religion of Materialism is about ready to be exposed. …it is good for indoctrination of a false religion called Materialism. I guess I will continue to use the Bible as my “clock.”

      Response: Materialism is not a religion. It has no churches, no dogma; there is no hierarchy of materialist leaders and it’s certainly not false because unlike the false religion of Christianity materialism makes no pie in the sky promises that it cannot keep. Materialism doesn’t ask people to believe a bunch of ridiculous religious fairytales nor does it ask people to surrender their brains and believe in a bunch of absurd bogey entities they way the false religion of Christianity does. Religion is a dirty word these days. Don’t try to pass it off on other ideologies, worldviews or atheism. You’re stuck with that label.

      Bo

      While Boris lambasts Christianity for using intimidation to gain and keep converts, he is heaping guilt upon himself. The words he uses, the method of their use, and their repetition are all intended as intimidation. He is not intimidated by the possibility of Hellfire.

      Response: And you lambaste me for exposing the tactics by which Christianity commands obedience and discourages doubt so people can recognize these and reject them. Fear is not a good reason to believe something. Christianity appeals to the base emotion of cowardice. It would only stand to reason that a religion that uses the tactics Christianity uses must have an awful lot to hide besides having nothing but pie in the sky promises to offer.

      He is intimidated by “the majority”, even if it is only a construct of his mind, of scientists or scholars or modern Americans. He wishes to intimidate us by showing that all of his majorities are going to think that we are stupid wife beaters and filled with hate and intolerance. So who should we be intimidated by?

      Response: I can’t be intimidated by anything and that fact irks you to no end. I am not here to intimidate. I’m here to read and post comments that pertain to come of the issues that interest me discussed on the radio broadcast. You and the other Christians want to argue me into believing what you have no evidence for. As a result you’ve seen the very same arguments that have helped you sustain your faith, as well as the fear-mongering that got you to accept all the Christians dogmas and doctrines in the first place, completely dismantled by an atheist. Now everything I post draws several responses that all reflect the desperation of your position. It’s only going to get worse for you so I’d suggest you stop trying to indoctrinate me into your religion.

      What does Atheism desire to gain from its rebellion against the ultimate authority?

      Response: Answer this question: Why do you continue to rebel against the ultimate authority of Islam? Do you want to wind up in the Muslim hell? What ultimate authority, your ultimate authority, the Muslim ultimate authority, the Hindu ultimate authority? People cannot agree on which ultimate authority is the correct one. Atheists are people who don’t believe there is an ultimate authority and are usually very aware of how much violence and bloodshed there has been among religious people fighting over whose ultimate authority we must all follow. And again you simply ignored my very clear refutation of your claim that atheism is an act of rebellion. See if you can grasp this concept: DOUBT AND SKEPTICISM ARE NOT REBELLION. We do not believe there is a God to rebel against. Your religion teaches otherwise which is just one more proof it is a false religion. I mean your religion has you repeating claims that are untrue. Maybe the light will come on for you some day, I don’t know.

      Whatever it can get away with.

      Response: No, it’s what we want to get away FROM. That is people like YOU telling us that we must believe in what YOU say about your God and obey what YOU say your God has said in a book YOU call God’s Word. When we reject YOU as the authority in our life, YOU become upset and tell us that God will punish us for rejecting what YOU say. We atheists don’t care if there is a God or not because there are no verifiable consequences either way. We do care that other people try to force their religion on us anyway they can. Nowadays you can only threaten us with absurd superstitions about an afterlife. But it wasn’t that long ago that unbelievers were not only threatened with physical violence they received it at the hands of angry Bible believing Christians. Stories of Christian martyrdom are Church fabrications completely unsupported by historical documentation. The real martyrs over the centuries have been the millions of unbelievers who were harassed, arrested, tortured and murdered by Bible believers for the supposed crime of unbelief.

      Personally, that might be carnal gratification, not the least of which is all manner of sexual deviancy. Politically, … In a sense, Boris is correct that we have been intimidated. He more by lessor authorities. It is not the fear of hell, but the fear of YHWH that motivates us.

      Response: It is the fear of YHWH sending you to hell that motivates you to believe what other people tell you about God.

      Fear in the sense of honor and the realization that He is our master and creator and that He has a responsibility to execute justice in the end. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-tung, and other Athiest leaders will have their day in the eternal court soon.

      Response: Don’t try to pass Hitler off on the atheists. Hitler claimed to have eradicated atheism in Germany. Hitler was a Christian. He’s all yours.

      So will you and I and Boris. We have the choice to either be our own god and savior and be awed by our own minds or to give reverence to the real Creator/Redeemer…and there is no choice in between. And the bride will make herself ready.

      Response: That is of course a logical fallacy known as a false dichotomy. That is exactly the kind of fallacy-riddled argumentation C.S. Lewis used. There are a lot more than two choices a person can make. A person can follow any number of gods, not just yours. Mormons give reverence to God but you claim they aren’t worshiping the real Creator/Redeemer so obviously Mormonism is one of many choices besides being awed by our own minds. But here is what is so hypocritical and ridiculous about your whole argument: You want to have it both ways. First you say unbelievers place no value on life because they think we are all just animals and then you accuse us of wanting to be our own gods and saviors. Once again we have a classic example of a self-refuting Christian apologetic argument. I suggest you find someone besides C.S. Lewis to get your religious dogma from.

    148. Ken
      May 23rd, 2012 @ 10:06 am

      Boris, If G-d was proven to you today, Would you love him? Could you love him?..in order to love someone, There must be a relationship, Some kind of inter action, G-d being a spirit we much worship and love him in spirit, Therefore all the proof in the world will never get you any closer to G-d, Each and every one of us much either decides to except the word of G-d as the truth or reject it as a lie, For me I will serve the unseen G-d and place all my trust in his Son Jesus the Christ. I might be narrow minded to the so called smart people, but narrow is the road to salvation, and wide is the road to destruction. Boris what you have to asked yourself is what road are you on my friend?..Peace, Joy to you.

    149. Ken
      May 23rd, 2012 @ 10:22 am

      sry type O..replace*much with must

    150. Sheila
      May 23rd, 2012 @ 3:59 pm

      “Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution”

      by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

      http://www.icr.org/article/6882/

      Boris,

      I don’t have much spare time at all these days let alone the time to deconstruct your worn arguments. It’s been done to death already. If you’re not willing to read anything, as you stated to Bo, would you have me write out what’s already been covered time and again? Do you honestly think that I (we) haven’t considered and thoroughly investigated the claims you make before arriving at our conclusion? I can assure you we’re likely better informed of those theories contrary to Christian doctrine than you are. What is it about atheists that cause them such angst when they encounter thinking Christians who’ve done their homework?

    151. Bo
      May 23rd, 2012 @ 11:09 pm

      Boris,

      And I noticed that you didn’t deal with those quotes from the Wikipedia articles.

      No false dichotomies in Lewis’s or my posts. There are almost no current scholars that think that there was not a historical Jesus. You are guilty of a false unichotomy. You see nothing but what you have painted on the inside of your glasses. You are way behind the times with your outdated revisionist claims and evolutionary ideas.

      Shalom

    152. Boris
      May 24th, 2012 @ 3:27 am

      Ken
      Boris, If G-d was proven to you today, Would you love him? Could you love him?..

      Response: If God were proved to be the Muslim God to you today would you love him? Could you love him? Don’t avoid this question Ken. I asked it to make you think for yourself. Now do it and tell me what you would do. Then I’ll answer your question.

      in order to love someone, There must be a relationship, Some kind of inter action, G-d being a spirit we much worship and love him in spirit, Therefore all the proof in the world will never get you any closer to G-d,

      Response: How can you have a relationship with someone you can’t disagree with and who demands you subjugate yourself to their every whim? In our society we call that an abusive relationship and you would be advised to get away from this person and seek help immediately. You might actually want to think about that Ken. There are support groups for recovering ex-Christians.

      Each and every one of us much either decides to except the word of G-d as the truth or reject it as a lie,

      Response: What I reject is YOUR claim that the Bible is the Word of God. It has a talking donkey in it. I’d sooner believe it was written by a drunken horse.

      For me I will serve the unseen G-d and place all my trust in his Son Jesus the Christ. I might be narrow minded to the so called smart people, but narrow is the road to salvation, and wide is the road to destruction. Boris what you have to asked yourself is what road are you on my friend?..

      Response: It doesn’t matter because I know how to use the entire highway system, I’m in a really hot car with a really hot chick and we’re having a blast.

      Sheila
      “Newly Discovered Human Brain Genes Are Bad News for Evolution”
      by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.

      Response: You sent me a link to a creationist propaganda website, not to a peer reviewed scientific paper. And you wonder why I don’t bother reading that drivel. You people are completely incapable of answering my objections in your own words so you post links to websites with disinformation that you think I haven’t seen before. If you can’t defend your claims in your own words then don’t make them in the first place.

      Boris,
      I don’t have much spare time at all these days let alone the time to deconstruct your worn arguments. It’s been done to death already. If you’re not willing to read anything, as you stated to Bo, would you have me write out what’s already been covered time and again?

      Response: You don’t have enough spare time to respond to one argument? Really? I notice you have enough time to listen to a two-hour radio program and comment on just about every thread on a daily basis. But you don’t have time to respond to one single objection to your claims about messianic prophecies while you continue posting other comments directed to me? Sure. Don’t pour water on me and tell me it’s raining. I want you to prove that the gospel writers did not write their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it appear that Jesus had fulfilled them.

      Do you honestly think that I (we) haven’t considered and thoroughly investigated the claims you make before arriving at our conclusion? I can assure you we’re likely better informed of those theories contrary to Christian doctrine than you are. What is it about atheists that cause them such angst when they encounter thinking Christians who’ve done their homework?

      Response: I know that you did not consider that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it appear that Jesus had fulfilled them. Had you considered that problem BEFORE you were indoctrinated into the religion of Christianity it would have raised many other suspicions that the Bible isn’t what Christians claim it is. But now that other people have indoctrinated you with the fear of hell you can’t just accept the perfectly logical and plausible account of how the gospels were written. Have fun with that. I know very well you’ve never considered this problem before or you would have some kind of rebuttal locked and loaded. But your silence proves the desperation of your position. No matter where you search for answers on the Internet you won’t find them. Once again your God and your religion have let you down. All you have to do is prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the gospel writers did not write their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them. You say you’ve considered this problem so what’s the answer?

      Bo
      And I noticed that you didn’t deal with those quotes from the Wikipedia articles.

      Response: Why do we test drugs and surgical procedures on animals before we try them on humans? How come we didn’t do that until we realized that humans are related to other animals? Why would we expect a rat to react to a chemical in much the same way a human would if humans and rats were not related? My daughter is working on a project that studies anomalous antibody morphologies in unrelated species because this has led to a new and more effective drug design for single domain antibodies. In other words evolutionary biologists are saving and improving lives. People like you are telling them they are wasting their time and they shouldn’t be looking into things like the origin of the immune system. That’s what Michael Behe said when Intelligent Design Magic had its day and court and lost. Knowing how the immune system evolved is important in learning how to deal with disease. But your religious ideology is more important to you than public safety and the health and well being of humanity. Do you have any excuse for that?

      No false dichotomies in Lewis’s or my posts.

      Response: No dice Bo. You can’t just wave your Christian magic wand and make my objections disappear without responding to and refuting them. Otherwise you concede the point. That is that both your arguments and those of C.S. Lewis are fatally flawed because they are indeed false dichotomies, which I clearly demonstrated. I showed that there are more than two possibilities in Lewis’ ‘Lord or liar and lunatic’ argument one being that Jesus never existed at all. I proved that people don’t have to either worship the Christian God or themselves by showing that people can worship many other things or nothing at all. Now until you effectively refute those arguments my criticism of your arguments stands. That’s how it works in a debate Bo. But it doesn’t really matter because you lost this debate a long time ago when you failed to produce secular references to Jesus and tell us all what they said. You’re all talk Bo, just like your friend Sheila. If you can’t back up your claims then don’t bother making any because I’m going to call you on them every time.

      There are almost no current scholars that think that there was not a historical Jesus.

      Response: Based on what Bo? You’re argument is a logical fallacy known as An Appeal to Authority and is therefore impermissible in debate. You couldn’t produce one single historical reference or piece of evidence dating no more than 40 years from the time Jesus was supposedly crucified. Most Bible scholars are Christians so of course they have accepted the existence of Jesus on faith. However no historian will touch the story of Jesus because historians need reliable evidence to write their accounts and there isn’t any evidence for a historical Jesus. Tell me everything you can about Jesus just using your secular accounts. Poof, there went your whole case.

      You are guilty of a false unichotomy. You see nothing but what you have painted on the inside of your glasses. You are way behind the times with your outdated revisionist claims and evolutionary ideas.

      Response: Claiming evolution is outdated is no different than saying the earth is flat – just like the Bible says it is.

    153. R. Kneubuhl
      May 24th, 2012 @ 4:33 am

      Boris, you claim that there isn’t any evidence for a historical Jesus.  What is your most reasonable explanation for the origin of the Christian faith?  Also, our faith is called Christianity because the name of the founder is Jesus Christ.  This was a movement that survived through the centuries.  Why were people believing in a man who they say rose from the dead?  Why would anyone believe such a thing?  Why would first century Jews give their lives and reputations for such a crazy idea?  Where did they come up with this idea and why did people in Jerusalem believe it?  If Jesus wasn’t real, couldn’t the Christian faith be exposed right there and then as a fraud since Jesus was from that area?

    154. Sheila
      May 24th, 2012 @ 6:42 am

      Boris,

      If you’d like a list of the books in my library at home I’ll be happy to supply them for you. After you’ve read them all come back and we’ll talk.

      Concerning the link; so anything that scientists uncover as absolutely true can’t be trusted if they’re Christians?

      Again, your very, very broad and erroneous statement about how and why anyone of us have accepted the Bible as true and Messiah, Jesus, as being who he said he was, is, and always will be is so utterly lame but apparently you’re sticking to the only well rehearsed answer you have. So, who was it that brain-washed you into espousing that falsehood? Or you just came up with that yourself? Are you afraid of hell, because I’m not as I’ll never see it? I believe I’ve heard you mention hell almost from day one.

      Would you like the list or not?

    155. Ken
      May 24th, 2012 @ 7:29 am

      Boris: If God were proved to be the Muslim God to you today would you love him? answer: No, Because Jesus the Christ has proven to me he (is) the one and only true G-d.

      Boris: How can you have a relationship with someone you can’t disagree with and who demands you subjugate yourself to their every whim?

      answer: If your knew Jesus all your preconceptions of him would be proven wrong. You would find a loving friend who would understand your concerns and thoughts about him and his word, without judgement or condemnation.

      Boris: What I reject is YOUR claim that the Bible is the Word of God. It has a talking donkey in it. I’d sooner believe it was written by a drunken horse.

      Answer: parrots talk, even dog’s have been trained to talk I heard one on t.v say i love you,so the fact the bible said a donkey talked is not hard to believe concerning Jesus is G_d and nothing is imposable for him.

      So once again I’ll say to you, your playing on a rock that won’t be moved…Peace,love and joy to you.

    156. Matt B
      May 24th, 2012 @ 8:44 am

      The post that Shiela linked on the human brain development gene function is very interesting.

      See also this site (similar summary report is found in several publications):

      http://www.cell.com/retrieve/pii/S0092867412004618

      This quote is telling:
      “Our data suggest a mechanism where incomplete duplication created a novel gene functionantagonizing parental SRGAP2 functionimmediately at birth 23 mya, which is a time corresponding to the transition from Australopithecus to Homo and the beginning of neocortex expansion.”

      This statement shows a priori assumption that evolution is true, and links the scientific discovery to speculations (largely un-substantiated) about human evolutionary history. Typical and tragic process when real scientific discoveries are used to support a pet postulate “theory” which cannot be tested or repeated. Such is the faith of the new generation of evolutionists.

    157. Bo
      May 24th, 2012 @ 9:20 am

      I have finally figured it out! Those cave fish that lost their eyesight because of “evolution” have shown us why there are atheists starting to show up on the scene in last 150 years. They have lost genetic information. They cannot see spiritually. The cannot come the the light because their deeds are evil.(John 3:19-20) It is a heart problem, not a brain problem. So we need to crossbreed them, with the “Cross” in a way that their offspring will one day be able to see just like those scientists did for those poor cave fish :)

      Genetic information is lost over time. It does not increase. It takes intelligence, not chance, to produce life in the first place and to fix it when it has problems later on.

      But let this be a lesson to us. Our offspring will loose spiritual genetic information and the ability to recognize their creator if we let them crossbreed with atheists. The Atheists have had owned the educational system for a long time and it produces the likes of Boris. If you send your children to public school, do not be surprised if you end up with a Boris for an adult child.

      Psalms 14
      1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

      John 3
      19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
      20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

      Proverbs 13
      20 He that walketh with wise men shall be wise: but a companion of fools shall be destroyed.

      1 Corinthians 15
      33 Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals.”

      Shalom

    158. Boris
      May 24th, 2012 @ 1:09 pm

      R. Kneubuhl

      Boris, you claim that there isn’t any evidence for a historical Jesus. What is your most reasonable explanation for the origin of the Christian faith?

      Response: Christianity and Judaism both evolved from other older sun worshiping cults and Islam from Arabian moon worshiping cults. Moses and Mohammad never existed either so don’t feel too bad about Jesus not existing. Christianity as we know it today did not exist until it was invented by Constantine and is the result of religious syncretism. Constantine thought if he included the Jewish books he could get those pesky Jews to conform to his new one world religion (Catholic means universal), which is why we have an Old Testament.

      Sheila
      Boris,
      If you’d like a list of the books in my library at home I’ll be happy to supply them for you. After you’ve read them all come back and we’ll talk.
      Concerning the link; so anything that scientists uncover as absolutely true can’t be trusted if they’re Christians?

      Response: No scientist would ever say something was absolutely true. Scientists tell us that all findings are subject to future revision. If you new even the first thing about science you would know that. But you don’t because you don’t.

      Again, your very, very broad and erroneous statement about how and why anyone of us have accepted the Bible as true and Messiah, Jesus, as being who he said he was, is, and always will be is so utterly lame but apparently you’re sticking to the only well rehearsed answer you have. So, who was it that brain-washed you into espousing that falsehood? Or you just came up with that yourself? Are you afraid of hell, because I’m not as I’ll never see it? I believe I’ve heard you mention hell almost from day one.
      Would you like the list or not?

      Response: You Christians don’t ever realize that you’re in as much danger of going to the Muslim hell for your rejection of Islam as anyone else is in going to the Christian hell. I don’t want a list of books. I want you to respond to my claim that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled the. None of your books can refute that fact and neither can you. You have just conceded the point and lost our debate. Don’t write anything else directed to me unless you admit to conceding that point or offer some kind of rebuttal, no matter how lame it might be. You can just deal with the fact that you’ve lost another debate with an atheist and wallow in defeat.

      Ken
      Boris: If God were proved to be the Muslim God to you today would you love him? answer: No, Because Jesus the Christ has proven to me he (is) the one and only true G-d.

      Response: Okay well science has proved to me that the Christian God does not exist.

      answer: If your knew Jesus all your preconceptions of him would be proven wrong. You would find a loving friend who would understand your concerns and thoughts about him and his word, without judgement or condemnation.

      Response: Then he would understand why I don’t believe he exists.

      Answer: parrots talk, even dog’s have been trained to talk I heard one on t.v say i love you,so the fact the bible said a donkey talked is not hard to believe concerning Jesus is G_d and nothing is imposable for him.

      Response: When the premise of your argument is part of your conclusion you’re proved absolutely nothing.

      So once again I’ll say to you, your playing on a rock that won’t be moved…Peace,love and joy to you.

      Response: In other words your mind cannot be changed even if you see new evidence that you may very well be wrong. Thanks for admitting just how indoctrinated you really are.

      Matt B
      This statement shows a priori assumption that evolution is true, and links the scientific discovery to speculations (largely un-substantiated) about human evolutionary history. Typical and tragic process when real scientific discoveries are used to support a pet postulate “theory” which cannot be tested or repeated. Such is the faith of the new generation of evolutionists.

      Response: You problem isn’t with me or “evolutionists” it’s with your own CHRISTIAN ACADEMIC COMMUNITY, that insists on teaching evolution by natural selection and has loudly and clearly rejected Intelligent Design Magic and Creation Magic. Most creationists have never set foot on a college campus so they have no clue that Christian colleges all teach evolution. Even you people on this blog didn’t realize that until I told you. How embarrassing and humiliating that must be for all of you fundamentalists. Why don’t you take your complaints about evolution to your own Christian scientists who insist in teaching it? Because you know they will laugh in your faces. You know very well evolution is the only explanation for the diversity of life on earth that there will ever be. One more proof that the Bible is a fairy book. Matt, I didn’t think you’d have the nerve to post anything else directed to me after the way I turned your arguments on their heads and used them against you. That HAD to be humiliating for you. I sure got some big belly laughs from doing that to your arguments.

      Bo
      I have finally figured it out! Those cave fish that lost their eyesight because of “evolution” have shown us why there are atheists starting to show up on the scene in last 150 years. They have lost genetic information. They cannot see spiritually. The cannot come the the light because their deeds are evil.(John 3:19-20) It is a heart problem, not a brain problem. So we need to crossbreed them, with the “Cross” in a way that their offspring will one day be able to see just like those scientists did for those poor cave fish
      Genetic information is lost over time. It does not increase.

      Response: That is creationist propaganda, not a fact. I alreaay refuted that point anyway. Should I repost my rebuttal to your propaganda?

      It takes intelligence, not chance, to produce life in the first place and to fix it when it has problems later on.

      Response: Life is designed from the bottom up, not from the top down. That is a fact, not a theory.

      But let this be a lesson to us. Our offspring will loose spiritual genetic information and the ability to recognize their creator if we let them crossbreed with atheists. The Atheists have had owned the educational system for a long time and it produces the likes of Boris. If you send your children to public school, do not be surprised if you end up with a Boris for an adult child.

      Response: Crossbreed with atheists? Your religious bigotry is just off the charts. If your religion were true you wouldn’t have to bludgeon your children into submission to religious dogma but you would simply tell them to search for truth themselves. But you don’t because you are afraid they’ll find the truth and it won’t be your religion. Spiritual genetic information? All children are born atheists and they would stay that way if their parents didn’t brainwash them with religious superstitions. A person’s original religion can accurately be predicted to be the religion of their parents. Thankfully my parents were not religious.

    159. Sheila
      May 24th, 2012 @ 2:12 pm

      Boris—”Response: No scientist would ever say something was absolutely true. Scientists tell us that all findings are subject to future revision. If you new even the first thing about science you would know that. But you don’t because you don’t.”

      WHAT?! That’s absurd. Forgive me for posting what’s already been established by our dictionaries:

      Definition of “Science”:

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

      Boris,

      I once thought just like you do. I studied the classic philosophers, read all of the atheist manifestos and seriously considered the secular writings concerning the religious myths of mankind. I learned the rules and language of logic and how to engage the defence of my position. Your professor obviously sold you short. He should have alerted you to the necessary pre-requisite when laying the foundation for any logical debate; that prior to your engaging your opponent you first need to be able to argue the premise from your opponent’s point of view before introducing yours.

      I am greatly saddened that you were so easily swayed by the fallacy of contrary reasoning. You tried to show that our belief is based solely on the human emotion of fear with no rational basis for bowing our knee to what you believe is an imaginary Creator God. The truth is that our belief involves the mind, the domain of the intellect where the processing of information takes shape, as well as the heart, where all emotion is seated. The gathering of the two, the mind and the heart, most would consider to be the soul of individual mankind. These three reside within us. Our soul’s not separate from our bodies, yet at the same time it is. How does evolution account for the dual nature of mankind as well as his conscious attribution that there is anything at all greater than himself in the first place? How does the subtraction or addition of genetic material possibly account for the unique spiritual nature of man? Man is unique in that he’s self-aware; he’s aware that he possesses a soul we could say. He’s just as aware of the dualism residing in his very nature. Can evolution explain man’s willingness to behave in ways that are contrary to his individual self preservation? If evolution is a model of random mutations where did the material come from that brought self-awareness, let alone the awareness of all creation extending to the very heavens? Animals don’t question whether or not it’s right to go hunt for a mate or to go kill some supper for the family, they just do it automatically. No moral choices involved. No dual nature to contend with. Man is uniquely embued with the knowledge of a Creator already in place. It is not the result of a virus or a mutation.

      If survival of the fittest is more appropriate, then you can write the final chapter on your evolutionary theory right now as survival will be purely by chance for you and your theory because you will have to concede the fittest as being the madman who succeeds in blowing the rest of mankind up! If I believed as you do that would be the natural conclusion that I would come to.

      Consider this silly idea for a moment. Imagine the universe as we understand it gathered inside of a balloon. God takes the balloon and hangs it by a string from a tree in his garden. He goes about doing what it is he does and a thought comes to him. He says to one of his angels, “That universe I created, have you any idea where I put it?” That general idea was borrowed from the producer of “The Star of Bethlehem” and it was so funny I’ve been wanting to use it! :) Do you see how insufficient our knowledge is from that perspective?

      Psa 8:1 To the choirmaster: according to The Gittith. A Psalm of David.
      O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth! You have set your glory above the heavens.

      Psa 8:2 Out of the mouth of babies and infants, you have established strength because of your foes, to still the enemy and the avenger.

      Psa 8:3 When I look at your heavens, the work of your fingers, the moon and the stars, which you have set in place,

      Psa 8:4 what is man that you are mindful of him, and the son of man that you care for him?

      Psa 8:5 Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

      Psa 8:6 You have given him dominion over the works of your hands; you have put all things under his feet,

      Psa 8:7 all sheep and oxen, and also the beasts of the field,

      Psa 8:8 the birds of the heavens, and the fish of the sea, whatever passes along the paths of the seas.

      Psa 8:9 O LORD, our Lord, how majestic is your name in all the earth!

    160. Matt B
      May 24th, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

      Boris, I wasn’t posting anything directed at you, but rather was contributing to the overall discussion. Nonetheless, evidence is evidence.

      What you have done in our earlier discussions is avoid answering direct questions, and changed the subject when I posted reasonable refutations of points you had made. That is why, after many exasperating attempts to engage you, our discussion ended.

    161. R. Kneubuhl
      May 24th, 2012 @ 2:40 pm

      Boris, thanks for taking time to answer my question.  I find it hard to believe that Constantine invented Christianity because even the great Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Christ (and early Christians) in his work, Annals, and he existed before Constantine was born.  Christianity as we know it today didn’t begin in Rome according to what I’ve read in the writings of one of the greatest Roman historians.  I know that we disagree, but I wondered what your thoughts were on the origin of the Christian faith.

    162. Matt B
      May 24th, 2012 @ 3:39 pm

      Constantine did not invent Christianity, nor did he invent Jesus as a man who actually taught, performed wonders, confounded the experts, loved with His whole life to the utmost. Many many references from non-Christian sources, and many many accepted analyses of the Christian texts and scriptures show that Jesus lived, that His followers believed and taught that He is resurrected. No reasonable person debates those facts. New evidence has thus far only strengthened that case.

      Boris, have you found the scientific publications for me that demonstrate the early cells with no DNA, that replicate by falling apart? That little problem unravels the whole postulate that life began from inanimate chemicals.

    163. Ken
      May 24th, 2012 @ 3:50 pm

      Boris, your Response: In other words your mind cannot be changed even if you see new evidence that you may very well be wrong. Thanks for admitting just how indoctrinated you really are.

      answer: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

      For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.For (since the creation of the world) His (invisible attributes are clearly seen), being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are (without excuse), because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Professing to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man..

      Sound like the man in the mirror Boris?

      Peace ,love joy to you

    164. Boris
      May 25th, 2012 @ 9:07 am

      Sheila
      WHAT?! That’s absurd. Forgive me for posting what’s already been established by our dictionaries:
      Definition of “Science”:

      In science no finding is the final word and all findings are subject to future revision or even outright rebuttal. Scientists are not absolutists the way you religionists are.

      I once thought just like you do.

      Response: That is not true. Never was I arrogant enough to claim I knew more about a particular branch of science than the scientists who actually work in that field. At least I know something about evolution. You do not and all the things you’ve said about it prove you’ve been misled by creationist propaganda. Everything you’ve supposedly learned about evolution is wrong. I don’t get my information about science from creationist propaganda the way you do. Your claim that you were once thought like me implies that you are somehow superior to me because you’ve accepted a lot of religious superstitions and let them rule your life. You have no business talking down to me like that especially after I made you concede on your claim about messianic prophecies and have patiently refuted everyone of your other claims as well.

      I studied the classic philosophers, read all of the atheist manifestos and seriously considered the secular writings concerning the religious myths of mankind.

      Response: Oh please. Do you really think I believe that? How come you could not raise even the tiniest objection to my claim that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to earlier prophesies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them? You didn’t seriously consider that at all. Please tell us all how you came to the conclusion to reject that logical explanation for why it may seem like Jesus fulfilled messianic prophesies. It’s beyond me how you can expect me to believe what you say when you can offer not even the lamest rebuttal to my claims that you’ve supposedly considered so seriously. You ought to be brave enough to admit that my explanation caught you completely off guard because you never considered it before at all. Come on Sheila you’ve already proved that. None of the people on this blog have ever been confronted with this explanation before. You all live in a bubble. It caught them all off guard as well. Don’t think I haven’t noticed that no one has the nerve to step up to the plate and challenge this point, least of all you. This problem for you proves how Christians will always reject a logical explanation for something that is based on minimal assumptions in favor of a supernatural explanation that requires a whole bunch of assumptions many of which are absurd superstitions that require giant leaps of faith and none of which are evidence based.

      I learned the rules and language of logic and how to engage the defence of my position.

      Response: Ignoring a challenge, making appeals to authority, ignoring objections, repeating claims that have been refuted, and making assertions without evidence is not defending your position. Those things are impermissible in real debates but I find them to standard operating procedure for Christians in debates like this. It’s all you do.

      Your professor obviously sold you short.

      Response: Whoever convinced you to accept the Christian superstitions without providing evidence for any of them, sold you short. Way short.

      He should have alerted you to the necessary pre-requisite when laying the foundation for any logical debate; that prior to your engaging your opponent you first need to be able to argue the premise from your opponent’s point of view before introducing yours.

      Response: Your premise is this: Whatever you currently believe about the Bible is true and therefore anything that contradicts what you currently believe is automatically wrong. Of course the conclusion of your argument is always incorporated into your premise so with each and every one of your arguments you prove absolutely nothing.

      I am greatly saddened that you were so easily swayed by the fallacy of contrary itionreasoning. You tried to show that our belief is based solely on the human emotion of fear with no rational basis for bowing our knee to what you believe is an imaginary Creator God.

      Response: Of course bowing your knee to what OTHER PEOPLE have convinced you is a real God is an act of worship NOT friendship. So stop saying your religion is a relationship.

      The truth is that our belief involves the mind, the domain of the intellect where the processing of information takes shape, as well as the heart, where all emotion is seated. The gathering of the two, the mind and the heart, most would consider to be the soul of individual mankind.

      Response: The people who wrote the Bible actually believed the heart was more than a muscle for pumping blood and that it was where emotions came from. Maybe you do too, I don’t know. One more proof of just how ridiculous the Bible really is. In case you don’t really know, emotions come from the brain. There are scientific explanations for emotions. The most important point I want to make and this is very important is that on this subject there are two kinds of people in the world: Those who can control their emotions and those who let their emotions control them. I fall into the former category and you the latter. Acceptance of religious dogma is never a rational decision but rather an emotional one as you have just pointed out.

      These three reside within us. Our soul’s not separate from our bodies, yet at the same time it is. How does evolution account for the dual nature of mankind as well as his conscious attribution that there is anything at all greater than himself in the first place?

      Response: Belief in a soul is called a superstition. Where’s the evidence for such a thing? Evolution doesn’t have to account for something that doesn’t exist.

      How does the subtraction or addition of genetic material possibly account for the unique spiritual nature of man?

      Response: You mean the superstitious nature of man.

      Man is unique in that he’s self-aware; he’s aware that he possesses a soul we could say. He’s just as aware of the dualism residing in his very nature. Can evolution explain man’s willingness to behave in ways that are contrary to his individual self preservation? If evolution is a model of random mutations where did the material come from that brought self-awareness, let alone the awareness of all creation extending to the very heavens? Animals don’t question whether or not it’s right to go hunt for a mate or to go kill some supper for the family, they just do it automatically. No moral choices involved.

      Response: Not exactly. We can observe many instances of moral behavior in animals. Apes and monkeys comfort members of their community who are upset or sick and they work together to get food. Vampire bats share their food as well. Dolphins and porpoises push sick members of their pod to the surface to get air and whales will put themselves in harms way to help a wounded member of their group. Elephants will risk their lives to save injured members of their family or herd. Mothers have loved and protected their young long before humans existed for obvious evolutionary reasons. How do you explain the existence of morality in the animal kingdom? Once again evolution has the answer and religion some nonsense about how all the animals will get along one day and stop eating each other when Jesus comes back. And you expect me to believe that someone who hasn’t been frightened out of their minds can actually believe your religious claims.

      No dual nature to contend with. Man is uniquely embued with the knowledge of a Creator already in place. It is not the result of a virus or a mutation.

      Response: That is not true. Everyone is born an atheist and they would stay that way if their parents or someone else didn’t indoctrinate them with religious beliefs. My brother and I are proof of that. “The vast majority of personal religious beliefs can accurately be predicted based solely on the beliefs of one’s parents or the culture one is raised in… Religionists should ask themselves, ‘Are my religious beliefs based on rationality and evidence or indoctrination?’” – John Bice

      If survival of the fittest is more appropriate, then you can write the final chapter on your evolutionary theory right now as survival will be purely by chance for you and your theory because you will have to concede the fittest as being the madman who succeeds in blowing the rest of mankind up! If I believed as you do that would be the natural conclusion that I would come to.

      Response: You have no idea what I believe because your conclusion is ridiculous. I already demonstrated that our knowledge of how nature structures itself through natural selection has helped us stop and even reverse survival of the fittest by allowing even the most unfit among us a chance at an enjoyable life.

      Consider this silly idea for a moment. Imagine the universe as we understand it gathered inside of a balloon. God takes the balloon and hangs it by a string from a tree in his garden. He goes about doing what it is he does and a thought comes to him. He says to one of his angels, “That universe I created, have you any idea where I put it?” That general idea was borrowed from the producer of “The Star of Bethlehem” and it was so funny I’ve been wanting to use it! Do you see how insufficient our knowledge is from that perspective?

      Matt
      Boris, I wasn’t posting anything directed at you, but rather was contributing to the overall discussion. Nonetheless, evidence is evidence.

      Response: Yes and arguments are NOT evidence. If there were really any evidence at all for God we would never hear the end of it from theists. However on evidence the theists are dead silent. Instead what they offer are only arguments and we all know what they are: The argument from design, the argument from morality, the argument from fine-tuning, the first cause argument that when refuted becomes the unmoved mover argument which of course is just as easily refuted as all the other fatally flawed arguments I just mentioned. If there were really evidence for the existence of God, not to mention all the things God has supposedly done (flood the earth etc.), then why all the fatally flawed arguments? I shouldn’t have to remind anyone that I’ve completely destroyed all of these arguments while patently exposing their flaws on this blog over the last few weeks.

      What you have done in our earlier discussions is avoid answering direct questions, and changed the subject when I posted reasonable refutations of points you had made. That is why, after many exasperating attempts to engage you, our discussion ended.

      Response: You have refuted nothing and watched a couple of your arguments turned on their heads and used against you. How did that feel Matt?

      R. Kneubuhl

      Boris, thanks for taking time to answer my question. I find it hard to believe that Constantine invented Christianity because even the great Roman historian Tacitus wrote about Christ (and early Christians) in his work, Annals, and he existed before Constantine was born. Christianity as we know it today didn’t begin in Rome according to what I’ve read in the writings of one of the greatest Roman historians. I know that we disagree, but I wondered what your thoughts were on the origin of the Christian faith.

      Response:

      Matt B

      Constantine did not invent Christianity, nor did he invent Jesus as a man who actually taught, performed wonders, confounded the experts, loved with His whole life to the utmost. Many many references from non-Christian sources, and many many accepted analyses of the Christian texts and scriptures show that Jesus lived, that His followers believed and taught that He is resurrected. No reasonable person debates those facts. New evidence has thus far only strengthened that case.

      Response: What new evidence? I’m calling you on that one Matt. Either tell us what this “new evidence” is or retract that ridiculous claim. Hearsay accounts from 60 to 80 or more years after the supposed crucifixion of Jesus written by men who were not even alive when Jesus supposedly was prove only that there isn’t a shred of reliable evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed. How embarrassing it must be for you to have to resort to that kind of hearsay, men repeating legends without giving their sources. You ought to be ashamed of yourself. You’ve obviously never read Josephus. This guy claimed Hercules was a historical figure. Josephus claimed he witnessed a ten-foot tall giant casting out demons. Are you willing to accept those accounts as being true without question as well? You must know the passages in Josephus’ works that supposedly mention Jesus are suspected to be forgeries done by Church propagandist Eusebius even by the most conservative Christian scholars anyway. That just proves how desperate the early Church was to provide evidence for the greatest story ever sold. None of the other historians that supposedly wrote about Jesus even mentioned him by name. What does that prove may I ask? I mean besides the desperation of your position. Jesus Christ never existed. I’m sure of that. It’s the greatest story ever sold. Not a word of it is true.

      Boris, have you found the scientific publications for me that demonstrate the early cells with no DNA, that replicate by falling apart? That little problem unravels the whole postulate that life began from inanimate chemicals.

      Response: The scientific consensus is that DNA evolved from RNA.

      Ken
      answer: For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ,for it is the power of God to salvation for everyone who believes, for the Jew first and also for the Gentile. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “The just shall live by faith.”

      Response: And I am certainly not ashamed to say that I don’t believe there is a God and I am positive that the Gods of Christianity, Judaism and Islam do not exist.

      For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them.For (since the creation of the world) His (invisible attributes are clearly seen), being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are (without excuse), because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened.Professing to be wise, they became fools,and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man..

      Response: Just more proof that the Bible is wrong about many things. There have always been people who noticed that there was no need or evidence for God or a first cause. I am proof of that. So are all of the other atheists in the world. You can pretend we are unrighteous, rebellious or that we really believe but you are just lying to yourself to protect yourself from acknowledging the truth. I think you know that once you start considering that the Bible isn’t what OTHER PEOPLE have indoctrinated you to believe it is, your whole religion will unravel like a cheap sweater.

      Sound like the man in the mirror Ken?

    165. Boris
      May 25th, 2012 @ 9:30 am

      “Iit will not do to investigate the subject of religion too closely, as it is apt to lead to infidelity.” – Abraham Lincoln

    166. Ken
      May 25th, 2012 @ 10:13 am

      Boris, We can agree on one thing for sure, I don’t believe in religion for religion sake either, but rather a relationship with the one and only true living G-d and Jesus his son by whom my relationship was made possible. something you can never understand unless you experience it, further more my so called indoctrination came from the the word of G-d (I.E) bible. and most impotently the Holy Spirit… Peace,love and Joy to you

    167. Bo
      May 25th, 2012 @ 10:16 am

      Proverbs 26
      4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
      5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.

      Psalms 14
      1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.

      Shalom

    168. Matt B
      May 25th, 2012 @ 11:05 am

      Scientists recognize tht RNA or other self-replicating complex molecules would not arise spontaneously. They are unstable and highly reactive and would quicly become corrupted in “primative earth” conditions- in fact these molecules are unstable and decay rapidly outside of the living cell unless kept within specifically controlled environment, free from energy sources such as UV, and other reactants.

      DNA is less reactive, so more suited for being the storehouse of information, maintaining stability for many millions of generations.

      Interestingly, self replicating RNA type molecules have been created in a labratory. It’s a brilliant piece of work really, and may be useful for all sorts of new drugs, treatments, or inventions. The experiment required controlled conditions, input from the scientists, and purposeful arrangement of the correct constituent molecules to get the end result the scientists desired.

      It is highly speculative that life arose from non-living molecules spontaneously. Not perhaps impossible in the sense that there is a very, very remote chance. But scientific research following the most improbable premise (based on evidence) is not recognized as good science.

      Not outside of the Darwinian or neo- Darwinian faithful, that is.

      Certainly, we cannot ever prove the theory of life arising from non-life with no “giver or originator of information”, as we cannot go back in time, and any experiment is by definition a directed process. So the question becomes, based on what we observe and believe we know (we are always learning more), what is the most reasonable conclusion when we consider the origin of life, in all its complexity, its diversity, the minutiae of detailed processes working so nearly perfectly together? We should most reasonably conclude that something or someone meant for it to be so.

    169. Bo
      May 25th, 2012 @ 11:31 am

      On transitional fossils:

      Statements in quotes are from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

      My comments will not be in quotes.

      “A transitional fossil is any fossilized remains of a life form that exhibits traits common to both an ancestral group and its derived descendant group.”

      Common traits of an “ancestral” and a “descendant” group is language that assumes evolution, but does not prove it, as we shall see. The fact that an animal has traits that are common to other animals can just as easily insinuate a common designer. Given our environment, we would expect that certain common structures are what work well.

      “These fossils serve as a reminder that taxonomic divisions are human constructs that have been imposed in hindsight on a continuum of variation.”

      These categories are man made and are “imposed” upon the facts. What if the imposition is wrong? Is there a “continuum of variation” or just a wide variety of traits? I vote for the latter.

      “Because of the incompleteness of the fossil record, there is usually no way to know exactly how close a transitional fossil is to the point of divergence.”

      So we cannot know for sure if the supposed transitional form is close to the supposed divergence of two kinds of creatures or not. Could this also mean that there is no real divergence, but just an extinct animal form that is not a transition at all?

      “Therefore, transitional fossils cannot be assumed to be direct ancestors of more recent groups.”

      So the supposed transitions are not direct ancestors…Hmmm? If they are not direct ancestors, that means that there are still missing links, which if evolution was true, would probably be in the millions and billions given the vast differences compared with the few similarities, (Sounds like a missing chain instead of a missing link to me.) or that these transitions are dead ends and thus are not in an evolutionary line to any animal we see today. This means that they are not transitional at all but just a variety that we have no way of knowing their “ancestors” or their “descendants.” Maybe that is because these “ancestors” and “descendants” are imaginary constructs of the materialist human mind.

      “In 1859, when Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species was first published, the fossil record was poorly known. Darwin described the perceived lack of transitional fossils as “the most obvious and gravest objection which can be urged against my theory”, but explained it by relating it to the extreme imperfection of the geological record.[2]”

      So Darwin either prophesied that once we have more evidence from the fossil record, that this “gravest objection” to his theory would be overturned or he admitted that the fossil record does not support his theory. There have been millions and millions of fossils dug up and classified, and the supposed transitional forms are remarkably minimal and inconclusive, as we have just read. The fossil record shows stasis, not transition.

      “A source of confusion is the notion that a transitional form between two different taxonomic groups must be a direct ancestor of one or both groups…However, it is almost impossible to be sure that any form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other.”

      Quite the confession, wouldn’t you say? Once again, this means that the supposed transitional forms are not transitional at all.

      “In fact…because of the incompleteness the fossil record, it is unlikely that any particular form represented in the fossil record is a direct ancestor of any other.”

      Yep…just what I always thought. Huge gaps in the supposed relationships. Missing chains, not missing links. No proof whatsoever of evolution, but just proof that there is a great diversity of life. Quite the artistic Creator we have!

      “The phrase “missing link” has been used extensively in popular writings on human evolution to refer to a perceived gap in the hominid evolutionary record. It is most commonly used to refer to any new transitional fossil finds. Scientists, however, do not use the term, as it refers to an outdated view of evolution.”

      So the outdated view was wrong. Now that we have no proof of “ancestors” or “descendants”, link is too small of a word/concept. There is no link. There is no chain. Just variety and extinction.

      “Not every transitional form appears in the fossil record, because the fossil record is not complete.”

      That is an understatement. Shouldn’t be “practically no” instead of “not every”? Lets see which is correct.

      “The paleontologist Donald Prothero noted that this is illustrated by the fact that the number of species known through the fossil record was less than 5% of the number of known living species, suggesting that the number of species known through fossils must be far less than 1% of all the species that have ever lived.”

      So they base their evolutionary constructs on much less than 1%. And of that small fraction of everything that has ever existed, there are maybe 1,000,000th of a percent (I am being quite generous here) that could be considered transitional forms. OK, I get it. It is not missing links or missing chains…it is missing brains…if we fall for this sort of slight of hand and hopelessly absurd ideology.

      There must have been billions of transitional forms in the past according to evolutionary theory. If evolution is still rolling on, where are the transitional forms that are living today? There should be hundreds of thousands for us to investigate. But alas, they are imaginary also.

      You decide who exercises the most faith in their religion. I just do not have enough blind faith to be a materialist evolutionist. I will stick with the much more rational conclusion that we were created by YHWH.

      Shalom

    170. Sheila
      May 25th, 2012 @ 11:50 am

      Boris—”Response: You don’t have enough spare time to respond to one argument? Really? I notice you have enough time to listen to a two-hour radio program and comment on just about every thread on a daily basis.”

      I don’t know who you’ve mistaken me for but I haven’t been able to listen to Dr. Brown’s programs for well over a month. I’m a torchbearer for Dr. Brown because I believe he’s one of only a few voices who are courageous enough to not be brow beaten by hate spewing, hypocritical zealots who would love to whip him into submission and silence his ministry completely. I also wholeheartedly support his outreach to the Jewish communities, both here and around the world, as well as his missionaries who take the Gospel to the furthest reaches on the globe. I was able to catch a live broadcast just the other day and I did comment. My habit is to select what I can, when I can from OnePlace and play them in the late evenings or the wee hours and sometimes comment on the topics that interest me. I don’t know how you translated that into me “commenting on just about every thread on a daily basis.” You really don’t mind stretching the truth beyond recognition do you?

      I’d like to know as well as others would, where your intense loathing for any and all Messianics comes from? I’ve never met a sectarian jihadist with a zeal quite like yours before. In reading many of your posts again, I can’t help but notice how you change your basis premise to suit any particular statement you wish to make at the time. It’s as if you’re incorporating statements from more than one person; like there’s three or more fielding the balls. Maybe that’s it?

      Anyway, these last few days is the most I’ve written in months and that’s just sad because I’m really lagging behind.

      I haven’t read your previous post yet.

    171. Bo
      May 25th, 2012 @ 12:15 pm

      Boris,

      Just thought you would like to know that your daughter could still do the highest quality work in her field and reject the evolutionary garbage that she has been taught.

      Dr Ian Macreadie-Creationist molecular biologist and microbiologist

      Dr Ian Macreadie is a highly regarded Australian researcher in the fields of molecular biology and microbiology. Author of more than 60 research papers, he is a Principal Research Scientist at the Biomolecular Research Institute of Australia’s Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO), and national secretary of the Australian Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology.

      In 1997 he was part of a team which won the CSIRO’s top prize, the Chairman’s Medal. In 1995 he won the Australian Society for Microbiology’s top award, for outstanding contributions to research. He is also adjunct professor of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology.

      The above is form: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/i_macreadie.asp

      Shalom

    172. Matt B
      May 25th, 2012 @ 3:10 pm

      Boris, you bring up a very interesting subject (rather, you rabidly regurgitate the objection); Did an historical Jesus exist?

      This discussion could go on for quite a time, ast it encompasses many potential disciplines and writings. Suffice it for now to point out that no-one, either followers nor enemies of Christianity during the early first and second centuries, and beyond, ever refuted that the Jesus we are talking about really, actually, physically existed.

      To quote a historian you may respect:
      Cambridge historian Michael Grant, an atheist, argues that the New Testament should be considered as evidence in the same way as other ancient history:

      “If we apply to the New Testament, as we should, the same sort of criteria as we should apply to other ancient writings containing historical material, we can no more reject Jesus’ existence than we can reject the existence of a mass of pagan personages whose reality as historical figures is never questioned.”
      -Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (London: Rigel, 2004), 199-200.

      Admittedly I have never read the book, but it’s now on my list!

    173. Matt B
      May 25th, 2012 @ 3:21 pm

      Oh, more quotes from the work referenced above by Michael Grant:

      “Judaism was a milieu to which doctrines of deaths and rebirths of mythical gods seems so entirely foreign that the emergence of such a fabrication from its midst is very hard to credit.”

      “Modern critical methods fail to support the Christ-myth theory [Osiris, Mithras, etc.]. It has again and again been answered and annihilated by first-rank scholars.”

      This is just one book, after a very brief search. I plan to dig more deeply into this topic. Thank you, Boris.

      I may not agree with all the conclusions Mr. Grant came to, but it is worth noting that this piece of historical scholarship is of excellent quality and on the main accepted.

      Even people who witnessed Jesus’ miracles first hand, and found Him missing from the grave, still chose not to believe in Him or follow Him. Such is the way of man.

    174. Ray
      May 25th, 2012 @ 11:52 pm

      When men don’t believe in God they are open to every crazy thing, but when they believe in him, they are open to righteousness, truth, justice, mercy, and grace because Jesus is the door.

      I believe it’s quite possible that many men come through the door they were not aware of as they came to the light.

      All truth is of God and every bit of it is a part of Christ.

    175. Boris
      May 26th, 2012 @ 3:14 am

      1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.

      Response: That’s because a wise man shouts it out loud for everyone to hear. The Bible has many defenses against free inquiry and critical thinking.

      Matt B

      Scientists recognize tht RNA or other self-replicating complex molecules would not arise spontaneously.

      Response: You haven’t a clue what real scientists recognize and what they don’t. There’s no other explanation at the present. The man from dirt woman from a rib explanation is a failed hypothesis. It explains nothing but that’s the same for all theistic “explanations” anyway.

      Not outside of the Darwinian or neo- Darwinian faithful, that is.

      Response: You mean like every Christian college and university in the world with a science department? Those Darwinian faithful? ROFL! I love rubbing that in to creationists. How humiliating is it for you to have to admit that your own CHRISTIAN colleges and universities reject your anti-science claims and insist on teaching evolution? Don’t try to tell me they teach that evolution is flawed either. They teach students how nature structures itself through evolution by natural selection so they can use this knowledge to make more effective drugs, new crop products, better poisons to fight an ever evolving insect population among many other uses.

      We should most reasonably conclude that something or someone meant for it to be so.

      Response: Someone meant for most of the animals on the planet to live their lives in fear of being eaten by other animals until they eventually were? Life must destroy other life to survive. Gee that’s a good plan. How long do you think it took someone to come up with that idea?

      Bo
      No proof whatsoever of evolution, but just proof that there is a great diversity of life. Quite the artistic Creator we have!

      Response: Oh really? What explains the existence of nylon eating bacteria better, evolution by natural selection or an artistic Creator? Creationists claim that all species were created at the same time. However nylon did not exist until the 1930s, which of course is a real problem for creationists. But then what isn’t?

      There must have been billions of transitional forms in the past according to evolutionary theory. If evolution is still rolling on, where are the transitional forms that are living today? There should be hundreds of thousands for us to investigate. But alas, they are imaginary also.

      Response: It’s hard to believe anyone would still make that claim in the 21rst Century. There are indeed obvious examples of transitional species alive today. Among the better known ones are walking catfish, walking perches and Snakeheads. These species’ predecessors lived only in the water. You can find others on the Internet, any public library, or in the science department of any Christian college or university. However the fact is that all species are transitional and give rise to new species including hominids or humans. In one specific example scientists have observed salmon in a lake split into two separate populations in just 13 generations, or about 70 years. The research paper on this appeared in Science 290 (5491): 516-518. A clear example of transitional fossils would be the ancestor of the modern horse. Miohippus evolved from its ancestor Mesohippus and there are examples of transitional fossils that show characteristics of both in an intermediate stage. The fossil record of horses is exceptionally well represented with many finds. You can deny these fossils exist if you want to. In fact I think you should tell people that things they can see with their own eyes like living transitional species and transitional fossils really don’t exist and things they cannot see with their own eyes really do. After all isn’t that what religion has been doing for thousands of years?

      You decide who exercises the most faith in their religion. I just do not have enough blind faith to be a materialist evolutionist. I will stick with the much more rational conclusion that we were created by YHWH.

      Response: You’re welcome to that conclusion but don’t try claiming it’s a rational one. You deny rational science in favor of non-rational authoritarianism.

      Sheila
      Boris—”Response: You don’t have enough spare time to respond to one argument? Really? I notice you have enough time to listen to a two-hour radio program and comment on just about every thread on a daily basis.”

      Perhaps you’d like to hear the Line of Fire program that I was the guest on for an hour.

      I’d like to know as well as others would, where your intense loathing for any and all Messianics comes from? I’ve never met a sectarian jihadist with a zeal quite like yours before. In reading many of your posts again, I can’t help but notice how you change your basis premise to suit any particular statement you wish to make at the time.

      Response: That is not true. I defy you to give an example of me changing my premise. I made one particular statement that you continue to ignore and avoid. I responded to your claim that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies with a clear and satisfactory rebuttal. That is that the gospel writers wrote their stories to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them. That explanation caught you completely off guard as your total silence on the matter has demonstrated. Your claim that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies has been refuted. Are there any other common Christian claims about the Bible you’d like to see annihilated?

      It’s as if you’re incorporating statements from more than one person; like there’s three or more fielding the balls. Maybe that’s it?

      Response: I’m incorporating statements from more than one person? There is only one Boris the Atheist. You people hardly ever use your own words to make a point but rather cut and paste and post links to other people’s arguments. Can’t defend your faith all by yourself? Maybe that’s it?

      Bo
      Just thought you would like to know that your daughter could still do the highest quality work in her field and reject the evolutionary garbage that she has been taught.

      Response: You could have a better life if you rejected all the religious garbage you’ve been taught.

      The above is form: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/i_macreadie.asp

      Response: Yeah the people who claim the earth is only a few thousand years old and that would mean of course that dinosaurs and humans coexisted.

      Matt B

      Boris, you bring up a very interesting subject (rather, you rabidly regurgitate the objection); Did an historical Jesus exist?

      Response: All your appeals to authority and attempts at denigrating the view that Jesus Christ never existed are nothing but hot air and reflect the desperation of your position. I challenged Bo several times to produce the best evidence that Jesus existed. He has completely ignored the challenge but continued to pester me with anti-science propaganda from creationist websites thereby conceding the point that there is no secular evidence for a historical Jesus. Perhaps you’d like to present in your own words a brief case for a historical Jesus. While you’re at it Sheila was unable to counter my rebuttal to her claim that Jesus fulfilled messianic prophecies thereby conceding that point. Any comment?

      This discussion could go on for quite a time, ast it encompasses many potential disciplines and writings. Suffice it for now to point out that no-one, either followers nor enemies of Christianity during the early first and second centuries, and beyond, ever refuted that the Jesus we are talking about really, actually, physically existed.

      Response: You have it backwards. No one has ever proved that Jesus actually existed. The burden of proof is on the people making the outrageous claim that God took human form, not the people who don’t believe the claim.

      -Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian’s Review of the Gospels (London: Rigel, 2004), 199-200.

      Response: Michael Grant wrote biographies of Paul and Peter. Of course no real historian would write such nonsense since the only source we have for either figure is the Bible. Grant’s area of expertise was in the history of U.S. currency or something like that. You could look it up.

      Matt B
      I may not agree with all the conclusions Mr. Grant came to, but it is worth noting that this piece of historical scholarship is of excellent quality and on the main accepted.

      Response: You just love making bald assertions without providing a shred of evidence to back them up don’t you? How do you know his scholarship is of excellent quality? You haven’t even read it! I’ll tell you what you do. Provide an example of what you think passes for Grant’s so-called “scholarship” for me to examine. I’ve read Grant’s drivel and I will prove that it does not meet or even come close to the standards required by historical method. Are you up for the challenge Matt? If you’re not retract the claim that “this piece of historical scholarship is of excellent quality and on the main accepted.” Because it is not.

      Even people who witnessed Jesus’ miracles first hand, and found Him missing from the grave, still chose not to believe in Him or follow Him. Such is the way of man.

      Response: How do we know about the people who supposedly witnessed Jesus’ miracles first hand and the women at the tomb? From the gospel stories them selves! The witnesses you claim as evidence for a historical Jesus are all PART OF THE SAME STORY! What you are doing is like proving the existence of Superman by citing the eyewitness testimony of Lois Lane, Jimmy Olsen and Perry White! You can’t use the story itself to prove the story is true. What I want is corroborating evidence from outside the of Bible that Jesus performed miracles, heeled the sick, raised the dead, was tried and found innocent but was crucified anyway and then rose from the dead and appeared to many people including 500 at once. Along with that I need corroborating evidence that dead people came back to life, unburied themselves, climbed out of their graves, walked into Jerusalem and appeared to many other people. Do you see the problem Matt?

    176. Matt B
      May 26th, 2012 @ 8:09 am

      Boris, clearly anyone who disagrees with you is,

      Ignorant of science
      Believes a myth
      superstitious
      Has failing scholarly abilities

      No matter what their education level or how long they’ve labored in their field. No matter the weight of evidence, no matter the number of well-reasoned educated people who concur with the opposing point of view, in your eyes they are all wrong.

      No matter the multitude of people who have experienced the Living Lord and willingly testify to such.

      There is no futher hope to continue with you at this time; you simply accept NO OTHER POSITION BUT YOUR OWN.

      In light of these things it is impossible to reason with you because you are unreasonable.

      The points I and others have made are valid, worthy of the defense of our positions, and open to sincere critical review. We have offered many refutations of your points that mainly go unanswered- a rant is not a counterpoint. So let them stand as a witness for others who are reading these posts. Let them stand as a witness between you and me; let the truth judge between you and me.

    177. Ray
      May 26th, 2012 @ 1:04 pm

      And why is the world so against the light of God?

      Isn’t it because they don’t have a love for righteousness?

      I wonder if they began in life by finding that they had a love for what is right. If so I suppose they found it to be a bit burdensome at times, or at least a bit uncomfortable at times because we often find that we ourselves are not always right.

      We are not always as right as we would like to be.

      Sometimes we stumble at the truth, or at least have some difficulty with it because of something
      inherent within our nature, something we were born with.

      If we didn’t love what is right we would never have come to Jesus would we?

      Have some people sold their love of the truth? If so, I wonder what it is they thought to get in exchange for it.

      Whatever it is, I suppose they would do well to try to take it back, and exchange it for the truth, if the grace of God would still permit them to do so.

      I’ve heard it said that as long as there is life there is hope. But what if one is spiritually lifeless?

      They would have to come to Christ wouldn’t they?

      Jesus said that he is the way, the truth, and the life.

      So there must be some life in the truth. Truth lives forever doesn’t it? It has to because it is in Jesus, right? He is eternal life.

    178. Sheila
      May 26th, 2012 @ 1:31 pm

      Boris–”Perhaps you’d like to hear the Line of Fire program that I was the guest on for an hour.”

      Yes, I most certainly would. Please provide the url.

      I’m still typing away and it will most likely take me all weekend. When I’ve got it worked up I’ll post it, but I can’t say right now when that’ll be.

    179. Matt B
      May 26th, 2012 @ 4:04 pm

      I just re-read Boris’ comparison of the Gospel of Jesus the Resurrected Savior, to the Superman comic/story (well known to all as fiction, as the writer clearly intended for us to understand it). He believes these two are equivalent.

      Of course the first message is intended and witnessed to be true, the other is not.

      When a man cannot distinguish between these two types of writing, there is nothing to do but ask him if he’s comfortable, and check the schedule for his meds.

    180. Matt B
      May 26th, 2012 @ 8:35 pm

      Our nation, the USA, was founded by Christians and Deists/Theists. Our governmental structure was intentionally patterned after principles found within the Bible: Man’s accountability to God, man’s accountability to one-another, man’s inherent sinfulness and therefore the need for checks and balances within government, and of course much more. Christian teachings in schools and universities were found to be essential to continue as a people who could in fact self-govern after the manner we began. Essential to ensure continuing freedoms for economical and religious pursuits. This of course does not mean that this nation is perfect.

      Thus far, our nation has overwhelmingly been an example of prosperity, charity within and throughout the world, peace within our borders (with some notable exceptions), and Justice.

      The Soviet Union was founded on a system which keeps Atheism at its core, and functioned under the notions that mankind is no different from animals in the very essence of what we are. God was taken out of the government and the schools. Church practice and belief (in fact any religion) was actively persecuted.

      Corruption, mass murder, injustice, rule by intimidation and force, poverty, and oppression were the fruit of such a godless “utopia”.

      Practically speaking, which system of belief has been proven better?

    181. Sheila
      May 26th, 2012 @ 9:24 pm

      Boris,

      You asked for my own words and I’ve devoted my weekend to condensing the reason for my faith in the accuracy and integrity of the New Testament Scriptures and their witness to the truth of Messiah, Jesus. I fear for you, Boris. I really won’t continue to engage you after this post as I don’t want to hear anymore that I know you’ll have to give an account for when the Lord returns. It’s never to late to investigate the truth of Scripture for yourself, perhaps in secret even. I didn’t investigate it in order to see where I could fit Jesus in to Scripture, I just started reading and when I got to the end of both Testaments I had to make a decision. You can do the same, start at the beginning I mean, and listen to the voice speaking throughout Scripture. It’s not the voice of ordinary men.

      To my brothers in Christ; I just want to say how proud I am to be among you! I’m honored to stand with you as we suffer the reproach of Christ together. As any independant jury would find, each of you has presented excellent and solid reasoning together with cold, hard facts that should give anyone pause when considering the validity and basis of our faith. Faith is not a blind profession of ignorance, nor is it an outgrowth of unsubstantiated and unreasonable evidence. Our faith is in the truth and the truth speaks for itself to any with ears to hear.

      HOW CAN WE BE CERTAIN THAT THE NEW TESTAMENT WRITERS DIDN’T JUST PAINT JESUS INTO THE ROLE OF MESSIAH AS WAS OUTLINED IN THE FIRST TESTAMENT SCRIPTURES?

      Your premise is that an arrow was fired from the First Testament Scriptures and it landed in first century Galilee where a band of rag-tag, uneducated country bumpkins, for reasons unknown to us, decided to make up a fictional character to fit the First Testament prophesies outlining a Messiah who would deliver a people from their enemies and restore Jerusalem and the surrounding countryside to the descendants of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.

      At one point you agreed that the Messianic prophecies existed in the First Testament. Another time you relegated all of Scripture to a dung heap and then again you moved back to your previous position that the first century Jewish proletarians painted Jesus into already existing prophesies written before 1 B.C–1 A.D.. Then you moved back once more to your claim that all the prophecies had been written after the fact, especially Daniel; yes, especially Daniel.

      The Orthodox Jewish scholars as well as Secular scholars really dislike dealing with the book of Daniel as he’s the prophet that wrote specifically of the time frame as well as the fact that Messiah would be cut off as Isaiah also declared, and Daniel predicted the destruction of Jerusalem once again and the exile of the Jewish nation to the ends of the earth. Whether or not they like Daniel, he couldn’t possibly have written the prophecies of Messiah “after the fact” as the First Testament Scriptures were canonized, “sealed” in the third century B.C. when they were translated into Greek. We have the archaeological evidence of the Dead Sea Scrolls to attest to the First Testament Scriptures. The jury’s still out on whether or not there are four very small fragments of New Testament Scriptures among the scrolls in one of the caves or not. Who knows when or if we’ll get to see them? My estimation is that it’s not likely at all to be forthcoming anytime soon.

      The arrow, we both agree, represents the First Testament Messianic Prophecies. The New Testament Scriptures relating the life of Jesus represents the paint used to draw the circle around the arrow.

      The first reason that comes to mind as to the fallacy of that argument is that Jesus was nothing like the Messiah that the Jews were expecting at all. He didn’t come as King Messiah to rule on the throne of David with Jerusalem as his captital city from where he was expected to dispense judgment to all the nations as retribution for their hatred of Him and His people, Israel. To that ideal all the prophets agree; Messiah would rule the nations of earth with a rod of iron and all would bow their knees to both Him and to the Jews who would be in possession of the Holy Land again when he takes up reign. So, he was not the Lion of the Tribe of Judah that would come and tear the nations apart in fury and zeal for His Holy Hill of Zion and His people Israel. He was not the dashing figure of a deliverer in the least. Anything but the convoluted story of Jesus of Nazareth would have been much more palatible and better received when considering the central theme of the Messianic expectations. That’s the number one reason they wouldn’t have chosen Jesus in the first place. It’s also the number one reason that the Orthodox Jews reject Jesus’ claims to this day.

      The next argument to dispute the bulls-eye remedy is that no one was expecting Messiah to die and then be resurrected. That the idea of such a convoluted occurance never crossed the Disciples minds is attested to in the very writings themselves. Why write in an incident that only serves to further complicate your intentions? The invented writings would have certainly been better received and much more palatible to a greater number of first century Jews than that their Messiah was crucified in such a gastly and ignominous way, humiliated and degradated, placed in a tomb as dead, gone and buried; yet, here He is again–resurrected! What in the world would have possessed anyone in any century whatsoever to resurrect a leader who died in such a manner as Jesus did, when any sensible people would have admitted He wasn’t really their Messiah? The very resurrection story in the New Testament Scriptures is the strongest case we can make for the Disciples’ not painting Jesus around the arrow.

      The details we find in the New Testament Scriptures together with all of the negative publicity they include is another reason why no people would have made up such things in order to pull the wool over everyone’s eyes; it just isn’t literarily sound to include the narratives, anecdotal evidence, detailed chronology that their adversaries could easily gainsay, not to mention their including several mis-matched versions of the same events they did if they were painting a lie. If the authors were lying they would have made every effort to keep their narratives flawlessly straight, after all who would want their charade expoused for what it was? No, it makes no sense to let any other versions loose than those which were well polished and purposefully contrived. What advantage did they gain by obviously doing otherwise? There was a conspiracy of twelve who told and wrote various and seemingly incongruous accounts of the same events they’d invented? To what avail was that?

      The details and the story line is much, much too long in narrative and specific details to pass for contrived. Spit it out and be done with it already! The more nuanced detail they included the greater the chance for them to be exposed. Yet what are the New Testament Scriptures if not nuanced and detailed and fantabulous all at once? The Jews, if they were anything at all, and I absolutely believe they are a people who are many things at once, were a people who told the truth, meaning the good the bad and the ugly. They don’t write at all like scribes from the other nations and yet they’re recorded by almost every ancient civilization that they had any dealings with; Egypt being contested by some, even though there’s a wonderful stone relief that some scholars believe can be interpreted as Moses and the Israelites crossing the Red Sea, but no matter, more evidence is coming no doubt. The Disciples, in perfect keeping with Jewish literary style, had the presense of mind to cap off their Scriptures using the same idiosyncratic pattern of self-deprecation in order to deceive their own people? Why would a remnant of any people go to such lengths as to stoke the ire of their foreign captors, especially the raging fury of Rome in order to promulgate and then die, all for the telling of a lie? That especially makes no sense as their lie should have died out with them but it didn’t, it grew and spread the world over and it is still alive and well today. A lie, leading 2.1 BILLION (yes, that’s 2.1 BILLION!) people by the nose; keeping them from enlightenment and the new age of humanism where any and all things are true for the highly evolved. Why, just imagine all that wasted talent going to Heaven instead of hell! I had to throw the Boogie-Man in, after all he’s a major bad boy in the yarn.

      Taking the Gospel to the Gentiles is another foreign element that first century Jews would not have incorporated into their testimony. The prophecies concerning the Gentiles weren’t exactly heralded from the rooftops as they aren’t all that obvious in the First Testament to begin with. They’re rather obsure references that one would back into as opposed to making them the crux of your witness by the end of the New Testament writings. If the Jews of the first century were going to paint Jesus as Messiah there’s absolutely no reason to take it on that tragectory. That’s a great big strike against them making it up. Why would they risk their entire convoluted campaign at deception by capping off First Testament Scriptures with the bringing in of the Gentiles as their central theme? Does a hoax of that magnitude really need that kind of overkill? It doesn’t stand to reason that they would even think to embark on that venture of their own accord. No; something changed. It was a change that happened quickly and dramatically that had the Jews taking the knowledge of Messiah to the Gentiles. Unheard of! In fact, that’s another strike against Jesus if they were wanting to paint a discernable bulls-eye. It’s still a strike against Him in the minds of the Orthodox who await the receiving of the Gentiles after Messiah comes to reign. Not good thinking to include that bit about the Gentiles.

      In typology, Messiah, Jesus, is the only person who will ever fit the bill for the Jews Messiah. The Disciples could never in a million years, unlike Lucy, come to fabricate all the typological elements conceived of in the First Testament Scriptures and proceed to paint Jesus in type and antitype of them all. That’s rather the work of a genius indeed. Scholars are still disecting the vast complexity of all that Jesus represents even today. It’s almost absurd, in fact it is absurd, to even entertain the thought that those country bumpkins sat down and were doing exactly that, writing Jesus into typology. It’s ridiculous to conceive of mortal man polishing off what is hidden from view to begin with. They would have been working from the perspective of tunnel vision. We sometimes forget that they weren’t working with two Testaments. There was one and only one Canon of Scripture. It’s not until we step back and we’re able to view the entire picture from beginning to end that we can honestly and thoroughly appreciate the sheer magnitude of all that would entail. It’s clear to me they didn’t have the presense of mind or the wherewithal to fill in typology even before the Gospels left Judea. Yet there we have it; the New Testament Scriptures complete with type and antitype.

      The writers of the Gospels certainly wouldn’t have portrayed themselves as ignorant fools when relating the very things they’re meaning to substantiate. To what purpose? Their intent is to disseminate a lie yet they make themselves ignorant of the same lie? They include their personal biases and manifold weaknesses, their prejudiced national pride and their deficient knowledge of their own Scriptures all in the name of getting the lie out. That’s not reasonable either. Anyone wanting to pull the wool over other people’s eyes concerning a subject matter as volatile as the coming of the Jewish Messiah and King, all the while under the iron fist of Rome, would do much better to cling only to the most obvious of Scriptural references and leave any and all detractions out of the script, especially leaving out completely the more ignominious and demeaning details of Messiah’s death that they deliberately included as factual. Not good when selling a lie. They’d be setting themselves up to much closer scrutiny and that wouldn’t do at all. Why did they include all that they did? And why did they go to their deaths rather than confessing their deception and sparing their lives and the lives of their family and friends? That fact alone makes the least sense of all. They died clinging to what they knew was a lie. No. Not reasonable at all.

      That Jesus’ immediate Disciples as well as many others willingly went to their deaths believing they had personally witnessed a resurrected Jesus is one of the most convincing arguments in favor of the truth of their beliefs. It is also the most convincing argument for Jesus being the promised Messiah of the Jews. Messiah is endowed with blessings far and above His brothers such as Joseph stands in type of. God, the Father, called Messiah, “My Son,” and as the promised seed and heir to David’s throne, Messiah is uniquely spoken of in the First Testament as being the Judge of all the Earth. Judgment is handed to Messiah in the First Testament and Jesus repeated the same as refering to Himself. It’s way beyond the scope of this discussion to bring the deity of Christ to bear and I’ll not be entertaining any queries concerning it at all. But the more profound and stupidest claim the writers of the New Testament could have made was that Jesus was One with YHWH. That is definitely taking things way to far! “Who would have believed their report?” Yet it was believed and it is still believed today and that will still be true of tomorrow and the next day and the day after that. To see the sky break open and Messiah coming on the clouds of heaven will be a joyous site to all who believe. I pray you’re among us Boris. I pray that you’re brave enough to revisit the Scriptures from beginning to ending “and when you are converted, strengthen your brothers.” Amen.

      HEY, ALL OF YOU 2.1 BILLION WHO STAND FOR CHRIST—-DON’T GIVE UP AND DON’T GIVE IN—LIFT YOUR HEADS AND LOOK UP! HE WHO OVERCOMES AND STANDS FAST IN HIS FAITH TO THE END, HAVING OVERCOME THE SPIRIT OF THIS AGE, WILL BE CALLED THE SONS OF GOD AND WILL INHERIT THE EARTH!! BLESSINGS TO ALL 2.1 BILLION OF YOU!! BLESSINGS IN JESUS’ NAME!!

    182. Matt B
      May 26th, 2012 @ 10:44 pm

      Boris, I also pray that you’d be among us. Though I gain absolutely nothing from the hope and labor, I would gain great joy and rejoicing if you become a follower of Christ. To walk with you in the Eternal City would be full reward.

      So much more does the Son of God yearn for you, to give you the Kingdom gladly.

    183. Sheila
      May 27th, 2012 @ 12:34 am

      Here’s a link to a couple of good books:

      http://www.bede.org.uk/sciencehistory.htm

      And there’s this from 62 A.D., which would put it within 32 years of Boris’ challenge of writings attesting to Jesus within 40 yrs. of His death and resurrection, stated as 30 A.D., taken from Josephus’ “Antiquities of the Jews”–20.200 where it reads as follows:

      “Therefore, understanding the situation [that the Sadducees are tougher than the Jews in judging others] Ananas recognized an opportunity because Festus had died and [his replacement] Albinus was still on his way. He assembled th Sanhedrin of judges and brought forth James the brother of Jesus who was called Christ and some others as lawbreakers. Having accused them, he delivered them to be stoned.”

      And please keep me and my nephew, Ashton, in your prayers. I’m going back undercover… :)

    184. Boris
      May 27th, 2012 @ 3:19 am

      Matt B
      Boris, clearly anyone who disagrees with you is,
      Ignorant of science
      Believes a myth
      superstitious
      Has failing scholarly abilities

      Response: The existence of absurd beings like Satan, demons, angels, things like hell and heaven, and the occurrence of supernatural healings and other miracles have not been documented. Anyone who takes a story literally that mentions these kinds of bogies and hocus-pocus has no business identifying them self as a scholar.

      No matter what their education level or how long they’ve labored in their field. No matter the weight of evidence, no matter the number of well-reasoned educated people who concur with the opposing point of view, in your eyes they are all wrong.

      Response: Matt you should really think about your arguments before you make them. They can all be turned on their heads and used against you. You creationists pretend to know more about biology and evolution than actual trained and employed evolutionary biologists no matter what their education level or how long they’ve labored in their field. No matter the weight of evidence, such as the existence of transitional fossils, observed speciation, the facts of common descent, etc., no matter the number of well-reasoned educated people who concur with the opposing point of view, in your eyes they are all wrong.

      No matter the multitude of people who have experienced the Living Lord and willingly testify to such.

      Response: People of other religions make the exact same claims about experiencing their God and willingly testify to such. Why should I accept your claims and deny theirs? No dice Matt. I can’t accept something as evidence from you for the existence of your God such as personal experience that you would not accept as evidence from a member of another religion as evidence for their God. Why should I? You have the exact same amount of evidence that your God exists as other religions have that their Gods exist: zero. “The kinds of things that religious people offer as evidence for their brand of religion, they do not accept as evidence when proffered by adherents of other religions. Religions do not accept each other’s miracles, revelations, prophets, or holy books… In the absence of any convincing reason to accept one set of claims while rejecting the rest, the simplest conclusion is that they are all…” – Greg Erwin

      There is no futher hope to continue with you at this time; you simply accept NO OTHER POSITION BUT YOUR OWN.

      Response: There is no further hope to continue with you at this time; you simply accept NO OTHER POSITION BUT YOUR OWN. Really Matt, look in the mirror when you say that.

      In light of these things it is impossible to reason with you because you are unreasonable.
      The points I and others have made are valid, worthy of the defense of our positions, and open to sincere critical review. We have offered many refutations of your points that mainly go unanswered- a rant is not a counterpoint. So let them stand as a witness for others who are reading these posts. Let them stand as a witness between you and me; let the truth judge between you and me.

      Response: Repeat these objections you have made to anything I’ve said that has supposedly gone unanswered. I’ll be glad to debunk them all over again.

      Sheila
      Boris–”Perhaps you’d like to hear the Line of Fire program that I was the guest on for an hour.”
      Yes, I most certainly would. Please provide the url.

      Response: I’d have to Email it to you as an attachment. I don’t know if I can post my Email address on this blog. I’m not sure what the rules are about that. Perhaps whoever moderates the comments on this site could let me know.

      Matt B
      I just re-read Boris’ comparison of the Gospel of Jesus the Resurrected Savior, to the Superman comic/story (well known to all as fiction, as the writer clearly intended for us to understand it). He believes these two are equivalent.

      Response: You missed the salient point. The characters in a story do not serve as witnesses that the story is true. They’re all part of the same story. Apologists will ask why the disciples believed if they hadn’t seen the resurrected Jesus. But the disciples are part of the gospel stories and they exist only in the stories and NOWHERE ELSE. History knows absolutely nothing about ANY of the disciples. So they are as mythical as the mythical Jesus.

      Of course the first message is intended and witnessed to be true, the other is not.

      Response: That is where I disagree. What evidence do you have that the gospel stories were intended to be understood as a literal account of actual events? That many people have believed they were? That’s all you have to go on because there is nothing that could corroborate any of the stories in the gospels. Understanding these stories as historical distorts their meaning. A prophet who speaks of a coming judgment to inaugurate God’s kingdom is a figure in the ancient literary world. You are defining the gospel stories in terms not shared by their authors and giving them a meaning they do not bear. The different narratives about Jesus’ birth, baptism, teaching, miracle working, suffering and resurrection fulfill a coherent function in ancient literature. The motifs of wine and fertility borne by a dying and rising divine figure in the passion narrative reiterate the myths of Dionysus. The festivals of Dionysus were the most popular in antiquity and this divine-human figure played different roles in ancient literature. The figure of a god-man who relinquishes his life and who is born again is as fundamental to mythic reflection of the natural cycle of agriculture as it is central to the theme of resurrection. Overcoming death through suffering marks the self-sacrifice of the hero, which leads to expressions of joy through wine and food. These are the same basic themes present in Plutarch’s description of Dionysus. Jesus had much more in common with Dionysus than he does with Isaiah’s Israel.

      When a man cannot distinguish between these two types of writing, there is nothing to do but ask him if he’s comfortable, and check the schedule for his meds.

      Response: It’s you and your Christian friends who cannot distinguish between these two types of writing. Many scholars recognize the mythic nature and language of the gospel stories. “My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.” – John Dominic Crossan

      Matt B
      Our nation, the USA, was founded by Christians and Deists/Theists. Our governmental structure was intentionally patterned after principles found within the Bible: Man’s accountability to God, man’s accountability to one-another, man’s inherent sinfulness and therefore the need for checks and balances within government, and of course much more.

      Response: What a load of religious propaganda and nonsense! The Bible knows nothing of democracy and the only governments pictured in it are theocracies. Our laws and system of government are patterned after the ancient Greek and Roman laws and governments.

      The Soviet Union was founded on a system which keeps Atheism at its core, and functioned under the notions that mankind is no different from animals in the very essence of what we are. God was taken out of the government and the schools. Church practice and belief (in fact any religion) was actively persecuted.
      Corruption, mass murder, injustice, rule by intimidation and force, poverty, and oppression were the fruit of such a godless “utopia”.
      Practically speaking, which system of belief has been proven better?

      Response: Before communism existed, corruption, mass murder, injustice, rule by intimidation and force, poverty, and oppression were the fruit of such a God fearing organization known as the Christian Church. And let’s not forget Nazi Germany was a Christian nation in which Hitler claimed to have wiped out atheism. People who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones. Fundamentalists love to conflate atheism with communism. Atheism is not a system of belief. It’s a word that describes disbelief in any Gods. That’s all and nothing more. The system of belief that is comparable to Christianity is communism in which the omnipotent, omniscient God of Christianity is replaced by the omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent state. In my opinion both are equally nuts.

      Sheila

      Boris,
      You asked for my own words and I’ve devoted my weekend to condensing the reason for my faith in the accuracy and integrity of the New Testament Scriptures and their witness to the truth of Messiah, Jesus…. You can do the same, start at the beginning I mean, and listen to the voice speaking throughout Scripture. It’s not the voice of ordinary men.

      Response: I studied the Bible in college. I wrote papers on it and I’ll be glad to prove it by posting some of them right here on this blog. You’d be very surprised I’m sure and the things I prove about the Bible would shock you. I studied Ancient Greek in high school and college, a private Christian college. I’ll match my knowledge of the text of the Bible with anyone including and especially Dr. Michael Brown. Can you tell me who Solomon’s mother was and what her father’s name was? Oh that’s right you’re not speaking to me anymore. I’m fine with that because you don’t want to discuss my original post you just want to try to convert me. It really bothers you fundamentalists that many people cannot be frightened into believing the way you were. Your arguments only sound good to people who desperately want to believe them anyway the way you want to. The rest of us can easily see through them as I demonstrated with my refutation of your claim that Jesus fulfilled many messianic prophecies. You really should learn to accept this because it’s true; you’re wasting your time trying to convert someone who doesn’t believe in an afterlife. Only a person frightened out of their mind by the myth of hell could be convinced that Christianity’s lame arguments are valid. Once a person believes in hell then and only then have you hooked a fish – a mental slave. They’ll believe anything at that point.

      Matt B
      Boris, I also pray that you’d be among us. Though I gain absolutely nothing from the hope and labor, I would gain great joy and rejoicing if you become a follower of Christ. To walk with you in the Eternal City would be full reward.
      So much more does the Son of God yearn for you, to give you the Kingdom gladly.

      Response: No thanks Matt. I am my own person and I am a free thinker. I could never adopt a religion that demands that I keep my thoughts in captivity the way your religion does. Besides you can ignore my posts but they point out very good reasons to reject the claims of Christians and Christianity.

    185. Sheila
      May 27th, 2012 @ 8:10 am

      Boris,

      I knew you were raised in knowledge of the Christian faith from the beginning. You can post the link to Dr. Brown’s show, we do it all the time.

    186. Sheila
      May 27th, 2012 @ 9:19 am

      Boris,

      I mis-read the sentence about your email address, I thought it was the link for Dr. Brown’s show you were talking about.

      I don’t know about the other.

    187. ron david metcalf
      May 27th, 2012 @ 10:52 am

      Sheila,
      you’ve said at least three times you were going to quit this. See how the devil leads you on?
      Boris proved himself Lawless many blogs ago; yet he continues to fill this thread with his name.
      How can you debate with someone who makes his own rules, and is his own final authority?
      just a gentle nudge, sister:
      In Him, Ron M.

    188. Sheila
      May 27th, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

      Thanks Ron,

      I have no intention of debating him on any other points. I really am intent on not responding whether or not he posts the link to the other show. I’ve not searched for it and have many things I need to be doing.

      Thanks again for your words! God Bless!

    189. Bo
      May 28th, 2012 @ 10:26 am

      Bore Us,

      You just say the same unfounded things over and over and misquote us and “turn our arguments” upside down and do not deal with the topics brought up and do not read our links.

      I wrote: No proof whatsoever of evolution, but just proof that there is a great diversity of life. Quite the artistic Creator we have!

      Your Response: Oh really? What explains the existence of nylon eating bacteria better, evolution by natural selection or an artistic Creator? Creationists claim that all species were created at the same time. However nylon did not exist until the 1930s, which of course is a real problem for creationists. But then what isn’t?

      The bacteria is still bacteria. It didn’t become a cave fish or an archaeopteryx. That we have now some bacteria that can eat nylon only means that there was genetic information previously contained in bacteria that when expressed caused such a thing or that there was a mutation that would allow for it. Adaptation is not molecules to man evolution. Neither is genetically engineering corn to withstand pesticide. And for the record, it takes outside intelligence to genetically engineer anything.

      Concerning supposed horse evolution:

      “The horse series has long been a showcase of evolution. But in reality, this series is the best argument that can be presented against evolution from the fossil record…This article addresses some of the current problems, and concludes that the horse series probably comprise three different created kinds, not including all animals that have been labeled Hyracotherium. Hyracotherium itself appears to contain several different created kinds such as animals similar to tapirs.” – http://creation.com/horse-evolution

      So we have walking fish. They are still fish. They haven’t turned into amphibians or reptiles or mammals.

      If all Christian colleges taught molecules to man evolution, which they don’t, it wouldn’t prove that evolution is true…just that Christian colleges have been corrupted by false teaching.

      You wrote:
      “I challenged Bo several times to produce the best evidence that Jesus existed. He has completely ignored the challenge but continued to pester me with anti-science propaganda from creationist websites thereby conceding the point that there is no secular evidence for a historical Jesus.”

      You are quite wrong my friend. I quoted Wikipedia and rebutted the evolutionary articles with my own words and thoughts. The best historical evidence that “Jesus existed” is the gospels. That you refuse to accept historical evidence is on evidence that you are not intellectually honest because a previous religious view called Atheism.

      There is no corroborating evidence that you would accept. You do not accept Josephus statements. I f I were to produce an ancient document that spoke of Messiah’s miracles, you would say that it could not be true because miracles do not happen. You would discount the account because of your religious belief in materialism. Casting pearls before swine does not usually accomplish a good meal for the pig or increase the pearl owner’s wealth and happiness.

      You didn’t deal with the fact that there are award winning microbiologists that believe in creation. You want to us to only use your religions documents to prove our religion. You use the “fact” that supposedly all Christian colleges teach evolution to support your belief but fail to acknowledge Creationists that are top notch scientists. You only accept evidence that supports your religious view. You are quite a religious fundamentalist materialist indeed.

      You wrote:
      “You have the exact same amount of evidence that your God exists as other religions have that their Gods exist: zero. “The kinds of things that religious people offer as evidence for their brand of religion, they do not accept as evidence when proffered by adherents of other religions. Religions do not accept each other’s miracles, revelations, prophets, or holy books… In the absence of any convincing reason to accept one set of claims while rejecting the rest, the simplest conclusion is that they are all…” – Greg Erwin”

      This is precisely why we do not accept your religion. Your miracles are too hard to believe. Real science has proved that life doesn’t come from nonlife over and over. Real science has proved that the universe is not random chance. Real science has proved that there was a supernatural first cause.

      You wrote:

      Boris–”Perhaps you’d like to hear the Line of Fire program that I was the guest on for an hour.”
      Yes, I most certainly would. Please provide the url.

      Response: I’d have to Email it to you as an attachment. I don’t know if I can post my Email address on this blog. I’m not sure what the rules are about that. Perhaps whoever moderates the comments on this site could let me know.”

      No you wouldn’t. Just post the url as you and we have done above. Or you could click on Sheila’s name at the beginning of her posts and contact her that way. The attachment thing is ridiculous. How do we know that you will not send a virus in that attachment? Just post the url.

      You wrote:
      “It’s you and your Christian friends who cannot distinguish between these two types of writing. Many scholars recognize the mythic nature and language of the gospel stories. “My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.” – John Dominic Crossan”

      CS Lewis and Sheila show the absurdity of the above statement. It is beyond obvious that the Gospels were intended as true accounts. Do not be so “dumb” as to listen to Dominic Crossan.

      “Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man (Jesus) as being legends. Now, as a literary historian, I am perfectly convinced that whatever else the Gospels are they are not legends. I have read a great deal of legend and I am quite clear that they are not the same sort of thing. They are not artistic enough to be legends. From an imaginative point of view they are clumsy, they don’t work up to things properly. Most of the life of Jesus is totally unknown to us, as is the life of anyone who lived at that time, and no people building up a legend would allow that to be so. Apart from bits of the Platonic dialogues, there are no conversations that I know of in ancient literature, until about a hundred years ago when the realistic novel came into existence. In the Story of the woman taken in adultery we are told Christ bent down and scribbled in the dust with His finger. Nothing comes of this. No one has ever based any doctrine on it. And the art of inventing little irrelevant details to make an imaginary scene more convincing is a purely modern art. Surely the only explanation of this passage is that the thing really happened? The author put it in simply because he had seen it.”-CS Lewis, God in the Dock, pgs. 158-159

      Do not forget that CS Lewis remembered everything he ever read. I doubt that Dominic Crossan remembers anything except what he wants to remember, being the revisionist that he is.

      Shalom

    190. Boris
      May 29th, 2012 @ 2:30 am

      Bo
      You just say the same unfounded things over and over and misquote us and “turn our arguments” upside down and do not deal with the topics brought up and do not read our links.

      Response: I turn your arguments on their heads and use them against you so that you will be able to see how truly weak and absurd they are and why I reject them. How many times do I have to repeat that I don’ want to deal with the topics you people bring up? I’m here to comment on the topics Dr. Brown brings up and then read and comment on the subsequent posts having to do only with that particular subject. That’s all. I don’t read links because they all direct you to creationist websites not to peer reviewed papers or relevant data. I know what all the creationist arguments and as I have repeatedly demonstrated on this blog I know how to refute them all. But then that’s no great feat.

      The bacteria is still bacteria… the record, it takes outside intelligence to genetically engineer anything.

      Response: You’re missing the point. The existence of nylon eating bacteria proves that mutations can and do add new information. This refutes the absurd creationist claim that mutations do not produce new information. But the question is what explains the existence of this bacteria better evolution or magic? Where did nylon eating bacteria come from? Answer: It evolved. How did Noah get all the bacteria on the ark and keep it alive anyway Bo? And how come God said man would have dominion over all the other creatures and then God let bacteria and germs have dominion over us? Why did God make bacteria, especially harmful bacteria anyway?

      Concerning supposed horse evolution:

      Response: It is so typical of creationists or anyone who cannot defend their position to commit the logical fallacy known as An Appeal to Authority. Posting a link to a creationist website is futile and reflects the desperation of your position. The Bible’s creation myth has been known to be false for a very long time. It doesn’t matter what creationists say about evolution. No one cares.

      So we have walking fish. They are still fish. They haven’t turned into amphibians or reptiles or mammals.

      Response: These things don’t happen over night but the fossil record indicates over and over and over again that they do indeed happen over and over and over again.

      If all Christian colleges taught molecules to man evolution, which they don’t, it wouldn’t prove that evolution is true…just that Christian colleges have been corrupted by false teaching.

      Response: Evolution isn’t a “teaching.” The subject of biological evolution is a branch of scientific research and its purpose is learning about nature. Creationism is a “teaching” because the creationists don’t do any research. And once again creationism has been shown to be a false teaching.

      You are quite wrong my friend. I quoted Wikipedia and rebutted the evolutionary articles with my own words and thoughts. The best historical evidence that “Jesus existed” is the gospels. That you refuse to accept historical evidence is on evidence that you are not intellectually honest because a previous religious view called Atheism.

      Response: Atheism is not a religious view. Atheists are just people who take a dim view of religion. We also take a dim view of religious people who accuse atheists of being intellectually dishonest. What do we have to lie about? We’re not the ones making outrageous claims about magic and miracles and all without a shred of evidence to back them up. I’d call THAT being intellectually dishonest.

      There is no corroborating evidence that you would accept. You do not accept Josephus statements. I f I were to produce an ancient document that spoke of Messiah’s miracles, you would say that it could not be true because miracles do not happen. You would discount the account because of your religious belief in materialism. Casting pearls before swine does not usually accomplish a good meal for the pig or increase the pearl owner’s wealth and happiness.

      Response: What pearls? Josephus wasn’t even alive when Jesus supposedly was so anything he might have written would be nothing more than hearsay and not even first hand hearsay at that. How does someone repeating what we would now call an urban legend qualify as evidence, may I ask? Besides even your own Christian scholars admit the golden paragraphs in Josephus that supposedly mention Jesus are rank forgeries done by Church propagandist Eusebius. Christians embarrass themselves by having to resort to such spurious “evidence” to support their case for a historical Jesus. This all just proves that there really is no evidence that Jesus Christ actually existed or that any of the events mentioned in the gospels even might have happened.

      You didn’t deal with the fact that there are award winning microbiologists that believe in creation. You want to us to only use your religions documents to prove our religion. You use the “fact” that supposedly all Christian colleges teach evolution to support your belief but fail to acknowledge Creationists that are top notch scientists. You only accept evidence that supports your religious view. You are quite a religious fundamentalist materialist indeed.

      Response: Science isn’t a religion either and science doesn’t use documents to prove anything the way creationists try to do. Scientists use observation, experimentation, demonstration among other methods to discover how the universe works, what it’s made of and how we can best use this knowledge to advance our civilization. Creationists don’t do any of these things because they don’t think they need to and they couldn’t anyway. Creationists think they have all the answers they need already and no amount of evidence or proof that they are wrong will change their minds. That is because they will only accept evidence that supports their religious view.

      This is precisely why we do not accept your religion. Your miracles are too hard to believe. Real science has proved that life doesn’t come from nonlife over and over. Real science has proved that the universe is not random chance. Real science has proved that there was a supernatural first cause.

      Response: That statement shows just how little you know about science and scientific method. In science no finding is the final word and all findings are subject to future revision or even outright rebuttal. Precisely what are these many proofs that life did not come from non-life? If you ignore the question you concede the point and must withdraw your ludicrous claim. Real science has observed that mass-energy cannot be created or destroyed and so the scientific consensus is that the mass-energy that comprises the universe has always existed in one form or another. If God could always have existed, so could have mass-energy.

      CS Lewis and Sheila show the absurdity of the above statement. It is beyond obvious that the Gospels were intended as true accounts. Do not be so “dumb” as to listen to Dominic Crossan.

      Response: It’s beyond obvious that stories that mentioned all sorts of magical beings such as Satan, demons, God, angels and all sorts of magical occurrences were intended to be true accounts? Sure. Then you top off your “proof” that the gospels are “true” with an ad homenim, a logical fallacy.

      “Another point is that on that view you would have to regard the accounts of the Man (Jesus) as being legends… Do not forget that CS Lewis remembered everything he ever read. I doubt that Dominic Crossan remembers anything except what he wants to remember, being the revisionist that he is.

      Response: Watch how easily your arguments can be turned on their heads and used against you: Crossan and I show the absurdity of the above statement. It is beyond obvious that the Gospels were intended as solar myths. Do not be so “dumb” as to listen to C.S. Lewis.

      Do you see how weak and frivolous your arguments appear when they are turned on their heads? Your arguments are weak, fatally flawed, and ridiculous and what is truly pathetic is that’s the best you can do. All of your assertions are made without evidence and you attack the character of anyone who doesn’t share your point of view. C.S. Lewis didn’t even realize that the story he was referring to wasn’t included in any of the early manuscripts but was a later interpolation (a nice word for forgery). So it could not have been an eyewitness account. More importantly the overwhelming consensus among Christian scholars is that the gospels are much too late to be eyewitness accounts of anything. The fact is that there is no witness to the gospels before 190 CE a fact Christian apologists don’t want you to know. “The Christian community continues to exist because the conclusions of the critical study of the Bible are largely withheld from them.” – Hans Conzelman (1915-1989), German New Testament Scholar

    191. Matt B
      May 29th, 2012 @ 9:09 am

      “Our willingness to accept scientific claims that are against common sense is the key to an understanding of the real struggle between science and the supernatural. We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.”

      -Quote from the fair and open-minded biology professor emeritus at Harvard University, Richard Lewontin

      In choosing a priori to eliminate the possibility that there is a Creator, the originator of life, such “scientists” must follow incoherent constructs and fanciful gossamer threads to interpret what they see, and fill in the voids with what they do not see as if it were reality.

      Thank God that not all scientists are this blind.

    192. Sheila
      May 29th, 2012 @ 9:12 am

      Bo,

      So much for me going away. You may want to study this scholar’s writing on the subject of Josephus and the Testimonium Flavianum. Just because some make statements with such passion and conviction, it will never make them true.

      http://www.bede.org.uk/Josephus.htm

      “This article thoroughly examines the authenticity of the disputed reference to Jesus, the Testimonium Flavianum referred to hereafter as the ‘TF’.”

      “Second, in Book 20 there is what could be called a passing reference to Jesus in a paragraph describing the murder of Jesus’ brother, James, at the hands of Ananus, the High Priest.”

      ” — But the younger Ananus who, as we said, received the high priesthood, was of a bold disposition and exceptionally daring; he followed the party of the Sadducees, who are severe in judgment above all the Jews, as we have already shown. As therefore Ananus was of such a disposition, he thought he had now a good opportunity, as Festus was now dead, and Albinus was still on the road; so he assembled a council of judges, and brought before it the brother of Jesus the so-called Christ, whose name was James, together with some others, and having accused them as lawbreakers, he delivered them over to be stoned.”

      Jewish Antiquities 20.9.1

      [It appears I included the wrong numerical reference previously, I had 20.200]

      “It is not the purpose of this article to address the arguments of the few commentators – mostly Jesus Mythologists – who doubt the authenticity of the second reference. According to leading Josephus scholar Louis H. Feldman, the authenticity of this passage “has been almost universally acknowledged” by scholars.” (Feldman, “Josephus,” Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pages 990-91).”

      “Occam’s razor states that one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything, however, the simple theory must be able to account for or explain what needs explaining. It’s not enough to have a simpler theory if you can’t account for anything. Though we shouldn’t add entities beyond what’s needed, we also should not subtract entities beyond what’s needed.” ~ Paul Manata

      “A great many of those who debunk traditional values have in the background values of their own which they believe to be immune from the debunking process.” ~ C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1944)

      “If sinners be damned, at least let them leap to Hell over our bodies. If they will perish, let them perish with our arms about their knees. Let no one go there unwarned and unprayed for.” ~ C.H. Spurgeon

      Spurgeon stills speaks today; now it’s to the Secular Scientism of our day.

    193. Bo
      May 29th, 2012 @ 9:41 am

      Boris,

      You still didn’t answer the arguments that I posted. You are good at reviling and ridiculing and refusing to answer main points, but not at refuting.

      Shalom

    194. Bo
      May 29th, 2012 @ 10:11 am

      “Bacteria capable of metabolizing nylon were discovered in the 1970s. Nylon is a man-made substance that was developed in the 20th century. Since bacteria had not been exposed to it before then, could their new capacity to consume nylon positively demonstrate evolutionary progress?

      Evolution (also known as macroevolution) is typically described as a natural process that generates new biological structures from less ordered material, such that (given time, selection of fitter individuals in a population, and mutations) “simple” creatures like bacteria are transformed into complex organisms like birds. This process implies a developmental history of life that is incompatible with that described in the Bible, which portrays the creation of fully-formed life (Genesis 1:11-27).

      On the other hand, adaptation (or microevolution) describes the capacity of organisms to undergo limited changes over several generations in order to make better use of, or survive better in, different environments. Creation scientists agree that God’s creatures were given the potential to adapt to different environments, but they propose that these adaptations have natural limits. Adaptations in response to environmental changes are observed in nature, but evolution is not.

      Many supporters of evolutionary theory have claimed that nylon-eating bacteria strongly demonstrate the kind of evolution that can create new cellular structures, new cells, and new organisms.1 However, examining only the apparent, visible beneficial trait can be misleading. Recent research into the genes behind these traits indicates that no evolution has taken place.2 In fact, the genes of nylon-eating bacteria show that they have been degraded through mutation.

      The gene that mutated to enable bacteria to metabolize nylon is on a small loop of exchangeable DNA.3 This gene, prior to its mutation, coded for a protein called EII with a special ability to break down small, circularized proteins. Though synthetic, nylon is very protein-like because inventor Wallace Carothers modeled the original fiber based on known protein chemistry. Thus, after the mutation, the new EII protein was able to interact with both circular and straightened-out nylon. This is a clear example of a loss of specification of the original enzyme. It is like damaging the interior of a lock so that more and different keys can now unlock it.

      This degeneration of a protein-eating protein required both the specially-shaped protein and the pre-existence of its gene. The degeneration of a gene, even when it provides a new benefit to the bacteria, does not explain the origin of that gene. One cannot build a lock by damaging pre-existing locks. Nylon-eating bacteria actually exemplify microevolution (adaptation), not macroevolution. Science continues to reveal, though, how benevolent is our Creator God, who permits bacteria to benefit from degradation, and man also to benefit from bacteria that can recycle synthetic waste back into the environment.”

      From: http://www.icr.org/article/4089/296/

      Shalom

    195. Bo
      May 29th, 2012 @ 10:20 am

      Boris,

      That bacteria is still bacteria. No change from one type of organism to another. No molecules to man evolution. Still no scientific proof that anything of the sort happened. You really should go back up and read my debunking of the molecular clock so that you can see the ideology and religious faith that evolutionists start with. Remember that I got my quotes directly from Wikipedia, not from any creationist website. Here…I’ll just repost it for you.

      Your religion of Materialism is about ready to be exposed.

      I was reading here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus about the platypus and found out how evolutionists are baffled by it and how they have supposedly determined when it diverged from the non-egg laying mammals. “Molecular clock and fossil dating suggest platypuses split from echidnas around 19–48 million years ago.[61]” They used a clock. The molecular clock. I did some shopping for that clock, because according to you, Boris, my ideas about history are distorted by believing the Bible’s timescale.

      The quotes below are from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molecular_clock My comments will not be in quotation marks.

      This “clock” isn’t really a clock, but a theory that is much contested. Below are some telling examples of how evolutionary science is not only a theory, but a hopelessly faulty one.

      “The molecular clock (based on the molecular clock hypothesis (MCH)) is a technique in molecular evolution that uses fossil constraints and rates of molecular change to deduce the time in geologic history when two species or other taxa diverged.”

      “The molecular clock alone can only say that one time period is twice as long as another: it cannot assign concrete dates.”

      No concrete dates…hmmm?

      “Researchers such as Ayala have more fundamentally challenged the molecular clock hypothesis.[13][14] According to Ayala’s 1999 study, 5 factors combine to limit the application of molecular clock models:”

      They had been using this “clock” for about 40 years to prove things only to find out that it wasn’t really that useful. How bad is it?

      “It must be remembered that divergence dates inferred using a molecular clock are based on statistical inference and not on direct evidence.”

      No direct evidence…hmmm?

      “The molecular clock runs into particular challenges at very short and very long timescales.”

      So both long and short timescales give it problems and…it is based on statistical inference and…it can only say when one time period is twice as long as another. Since this is the case, how do we know that the intermediate timescales, whatever they might be, are no problem to this “clock”? Aren’t intermediate timescales twice as long as some of the short ones that the clock is not good at determining? It really does run into “particular challenges”, doesn’t it? I would throw away my watch if it didn’t keep good time for 5 seconds or 3 days. How could I trust it for an hour?

      “The molecular clock technique is an important tool in molecular systematics, the use of molecular genetics information to determine the correct scientific classification of organisms or to study variation in selective forces.”

      After all these concessions/confessions, evolutionary science has the audacity to proclaim this “clock” that is just a bad theory to be important. How can this “clock” be an “important tool” if it doesn’t actually work? I have just figured it out…it is good for indoctrination of a false religion called Materialism. I guess I will continue to use the Bible as my “clock.”

      Shalom

    196. Bo
      May 29th, 2012 @ 10:35 am

      Boris,

      You wrote:
      “And how come God said man would have dominion over all the other creatures and then God let bacteria and germs have dominion over us?”

      We still have dominion over bacteria. We capture it and do experiments on it, etc. etc. That bacteria can make us sick, or even kill us, does not mean that it has dominion over us.

      Bears and giraffes do not put us in zoos. White mice and monkeys do not make us run mazes and inject us with cancer causing agents in California. Elephants and dogs do not pitch a tent and sell tickets to come watch us do tricks. Dogs and cats do not pass laws that require us to wear tags around our necks.

      Shalom

    197. Bo
      May 29th, 2012 @ 11:11 am

      Boris,

      You wrote,
      “Response: Well C.S. Lewis knew nothing about ancient texts and neither so you, especially that one. Based on the oldest manuscripts and other evidence scholars agree that this particular passage was not originally part of John’s Gospel. It was added later. It couldn’t possibly be an eyewitness account.”

      If you are really interested to find out if the story of the woman caught in adultery was added centuries later, please read the following. If not, just continue to heed your revisionist sources that rewrite history the way they want it to read.

      http://av1611.com/kjbp/articles/jones-pericope.html

      And how do you explain that Eusebius of Caesarea (c. AD 263 – 339) in telling of Papias who (writing in the first third of the 2nd century) and was a bishop of the early Church, mentioned the very passage in question? John wrote in the last part of the first century. And it was referenced in the very first part of the second century and this writing was attested to in the third century. How could it be referenced so early if it wasn’t there originally?

      I would bet that CS Lewis did know those ancient texts. I know that he could read the originals. And if he did, he could quote them in their original language.

      The real question is…can you read the originals and can you remember everything you ever read and why do you trust men that are intent on inventing their own version of reality instead of accepting the testimonies of far more truthful men than themselves.

      Shalom

    198. Bo
      May 30th, 2012 @ 8:38 am

      Boris,

      Uh oh…your transitional forms are loosing a partner and you are loosing an ancestor thanks to British scientists.

      http://www.guampdn.com/VideoNetwork/1662585250001/New-Research-Debunks-Tetrapod-Walk-Theory

      “New research debunks tetrapod walk theory

      May 29 – A team of British-based scientists have produced a three-dimensional reconstruction of the extinct, 360-million-year-old Ichthyostega, which they say debunks long held theories about how the mammal moved on land. School children have long been taught that the animal was one of the first to develop legs, but the scientists say their reconstruction demonstrates otherwise.”

      What do they teach the children in school these days? I wonder if it will take 50 years for the text books to change, like it has in the past. Indoctrination into materialist religion doesn’t take kindly to anyone messing with their transitional forms.

      I wonder if that “very important” molecular clock is failing to tell correct time again.

      Shalom

    199. Bo
      May 30th, 2012 @ 8:43 am

      Boris,

      Maybe I should be a bit more compassionate about your loss of an ancestor…I am sorry for your loss, but your loss is humanity’s gain. We will, one day, be found to have been created in the image of YHWH. It will just take materialist religionists about 3.5 billion years to figure it out.

      Shalom

    200. Bo
      May 30th, 2012 @ 8:43 am

      200

    201. Boris
      May 30th, 2012 @ 8:12 pm

      Matt and Bo,
      The methodological naturalism of scientific work and knowledge does not mean that scientific work and knowledge are atheistic. Let me demonstrate this point. Do you consider God in deciding where to park your car in a parking lot or where to sit in a theater? If not do you reject God because you did not consider Him in your decisions? I think not. Scientific work and knowledge are properly silent about God because they do not consider Him. Science cannot logically conclude that God does or does not exist because science does not consider God in their work. Claims that evolution is atheistic or that science denies God are based on faulty logic or assume a particular philosophical view, or both. As you or Bo pointed out there are scientists who believe in a God and even some who claim to be Christians. However when these Christians study the natural world they do not consider God in their work in much the same way they didn’t consider God when they parked their car when they got to work.

      Bo,
      Well if all of your arguments against modern science are so good then you should be picking up a Nobel Prize for science and get very rich and famous real soon. Yet somehow I just don’t think that is going to happen. Like I said, take all of your ridiculous claims about evolution down to the Christian college or university of your choice and demand that they stop teaching evolution and replace it all with a story about a magic wizard creating the universe and life on earth. You won’t do that and we both know why now don’t we? You don’t want those Christian scientists to laugh in your face. You already know the rest of the world is laughing at you.

    202. Bo
      May 30th, 2012 @ 11:45 pm

      Boris,

      You are the one that is afraid of mere people, scientists or oterwise, laughing in your face. You fear the man. Peer pressure has great effect upon you.

      I fear YHWH. I have confronted scientists to their faces in regard to accepting evolution and other faulty ideas that are against scripture. I really am not known for mincing words on this website or most anywhere else. I am not looking for respect from proponents of higher education, whether that would be religious, historic, scientific higher education. As can be seen by my writing skills, I am probably not too intimidated by English professors either.

      As for the rest of the world laughing at me…there are plenty of other things that I take strong stands on that most of the Christian world are opposed to me on. I would also bet that there is a solid 50% that would agree with me that the universe was created by a supernatural being. Maybe more.

      It is too bad that you cannot see through the futile circular reasoning that is the foundation of evolutionary science. I notice that you do not refute my critique of the molecular clock, nor do you show any scientific evidence of one type of animal evolving into another. Nor do you do much more than produce rhetoric and ridicule and remind us that Christian colleges teach evolution. You have produced precious little true refutation, if any.

      And you are quite right in recognizing, in your post above, that it does not take a materialistic, evolutionary, atheistic mindset to do good science. Science was invented mostly by people that believed in a Creator.

      Shalom

    203. Boris
      May 31st, 2012 @ 1:01 am

      Bo blurted: “You are the one that is afraid of mere people, scientists or oterwise, laughing in your face. You fear the man. Peer pressure has great effect upon you.”

      I’d ask if you’re kidding but I know you really believe that. Only 10 to 20 percent of Americans claim to be atheists. We atheists live among the lost who keep trying to force their absurd beliefs on us anyway they can. But we don’t knuckle under to peer pressure the way the lost do.

    204. Ray Brensike
      May 31st, 2012 @ 1:46 am

      Jesus said that the meek will be blessed and will inherit the earth. He told those who said that they see, that they were blind, for they were yet in their sins and were walking in darkness. (Matt 5:5, John 9:41)

      We know that these things are true, the evidence being all around us.

      Jesus is the only life for us that will endure forever in the presence of Almighty God the maker of us all. Jesus is the only one who remained faithful at all times and in all things to the image of God which was his calling and purpose.

      Every knee shall bow to him. The weight of sin and the greatness of his glory will overwhelm
      everyone who is not right with him. They will buckle. They will fall. Though they boast, their boasting will be short lived. If they will be saved, they will be ashamed of it. They will be made whole in the light of his countenance.

    205. Matt B
      May 31st, 2012 @ 8:22 am

      Boris, the point is that many evolutionists, particularly those most vocal, are in fact professing athiests who state that they will not allow the evidence to lead to a particular conclusion. The predilection has lead to spurious conclusions and distortion of the scientific data.

      Truly science will never “prove” God created the universe and life within it; however if God did indeed do so, then the discoveries of science will only point to that fact. In fact even the eminent (if unaccomplished) Richard Dawkins exlaimed that life gives the impression of having been designed by intelligent agent(s).

      His current theory is that space aliens planted life here on earth. I suppose that could be true but there is absolutely no evidence support that hypothesis. Indeed, it may not even qualify as a hypothesis, as it cannot be falsified.

      I understand that scientific research and even scientific philosophy is about getting to the bottom of “what” and “how”. And I’m totally excited about that (I am both a scientist and an engineer by training and by trade). Science, like any other form of knowing, is inherently good.

      So what I have pointed out is just that- science cannot disprove God, yet many advocates of evolutionary explainations for the origin of life claim just that. And they openly ridicule reasonable and substantial challenges to their theories.

      In both the past and the present times, theists and Christians have given sizeable and notable contributions to science for the betterment of life in our present age. To claim otherwise or to shut out these scientists or FUTURE SCIENTISTS because they believe in God, and have reservations or outright disagreements with evolutionary theories extant, is tragic.

    206. Matt B
      May 31st, 2012 @ 8:30 am

      Oh, and in fact there is not uniform or even broad support for the idea that first life forms used RNA for information encoding and transfer (sans DNA). It seems only to be a line of reasoning and labratory experimentation, untenable as an origin of life theory. Experiments with RNA and self-replicating molecules may lead to useful new discoveries.

      Most who know these processes in detail realize that RNA is delicate unstable, therefore not viable except under carefully controlled conditions, which did not exist prior to living beings themselves being formed.

    207. Matt B
      May 31st, 2012 @ 9:28 am

      One more thing- I do (or should) consult with God about even seemingly mundane questions like parkig the car. After all I am the Lord’s bondslave, and He the good master. It’s a priveledge to be in contiuous communion with Him who loves me most. And I miss out if I seek to go my own way even in smaller decisions, though this is a process of sanctification (being set apart for His purpose).

      This will likely mystify anyone who does not have this experience with the Lord.

      God brought the animals to Adam, so see what he would name them. There is interaction and freedom, if there is communion.

      So when I am undertaking a new design or development process, I certainly ask for guidance, wisdon, and most of all humility to see where I am going wrong, and that I might learn fro others. To God be the Glory.

    208. Bo
      May 31st, 2012 @ 11:39 am

      Boris,

      Are you confessing that you are afraid of 10 to 20 percent of the population? And that you do dare not get on the wrong side of those that you are trying to impress? That you have to be in the educational elite’s status quo? That you do dare not think outside of higher educations “godless” box?

      The problem is that they have a god. And he is very small. And they worship him every day. All day long. SELF. He is a very important god in this 10 to 20 percent of the population. Everybody has a different name that they call him, but he is quite persistent that he be worshiped. And his followers bow at his every whim. They cannot see outside of his narrow brainwashing. You might want to throw away your mirrors. I think that they have blinded you.

      I can just see you with your elitist “friends”, when you get together, laughing at all of us ignorant non-atheists. All the while your colleagues are forging data about climate change and rewriting history to suit their elitist agendas and proclaiming supposed transitional forms. Deceiving themselves and others that are afraid to think outside of new “norm.” Hmm…that just might be the real name of the the Atheist’s god. Norm. They do not want to offend “Norm”, whatever they think that he is or whatever they think that the “Norm” is thinking at the current time.

      Well I am not normal, or a “Normist”. I do not worship “Norm”. And I am very happy about that. Let the world that serves “Norm” laugh in my face. As for me and my house, that has over 9 times more children in it than “Norm’s”, we will serve YHWH.

      Shalom

    209. Boris
      May 31st, 2012 @ 2:08 pm

      “Boris, the point is that many evolutionists, particularly those most vocal, are in fact professing athiests who state that they will not allow the evidence to lead to a particular conclusion. The predilection has lead to spurious conclusions and distortion of the scientific data.”

      That is truly hilarious. What evidence is there that the Christian God actually exists? FYI arguments are NOT evidence. So let’s see this evidence scientists may be ignoring.

    210. Matt B
      May 31st, 2012 @ 2:19 pm

      Refer you back to Richard Lewontin quote.

      No other world view but materialism allowed. The evidence therefore is not allowed to speak for itself, were it to indicate an intelligent creator.

      Stifling.

    211. Ken
      May 31st, 2012 @ 2:25 pm

      Boris, the word of G-d is clear, Unless the holy spirit reveals to you that Jesus Christ is Lord and G_d..all the proof in the world would not help you beleive..

    212. Ken
      May 31st, 2012 @ 2:26 pm

      *believe

    213. Matt B
      May 31st, 2012 @ 2:41 pm

      I know that God exists, in small part, because a great many athiests are working so hard to cover up His fingerprints.

      We would know nothing of God unless He revealed Himself to us. And part of this revelation is His very creation. You exist, and that is evidence that God exists.

    214. Boris
      June 1st, 2012 @ 12:37 am

      Matt B
      Refer you back to Richard Lewontin quote.
      No other world view but materialism allowed. The evidence therefore is not allowed to speak for itself, were it to indicate an intelligent creator.
      Stifling.

      Refer you to the truth of the matter:
      Response: No other worldview but Christianity allowed. The evidence therefore is not allowed to speak for itself, were it to indicate naturalistic explanations.
      Stifling.

      Ken
      Boris, the word of G-d is clear, Unless the holy spirit reveals to you that Jesus Christ is Lord and G_d..all the proof in the world would not help you beleive..

      Response: In other words because I do not believe in hell I cannot be frightened into believing the Bible is the Word of God the way you were. Got it.

      Matt B
      I know that God exists, in small part, because a great many athiests are working so hard to cover up His fingerprints.
      We would know nothing of God unless He revealed Himself to us. And part of this revelation is His very creation. You exist, and that is evidence that God exists.

      I know that the universe and life have naturalistic explanations, in small part, because a great many theists are working so hard to cover up the evidence. We know nothing of God because he has not revealed himself to us. There is no evidence of God in the universe. You exist, and that is evidence that man created God.

    215. Matt B
      June 1st, 2012 @ 7:41 am

      So Boris, we part ways, for now.

    216. Ken
      June 1st, 2012 @ 8:54 am

      Boris, No was never frightened into believing

      I believe because, The Holy spirit revealed to me and all who believe that Jesus Christ was and is the one and only true living G_d!

      unless the Holy Spirit reveals that truth to you
      you will not and can not know him..

      what good is proof to a blind man who can not see it and a deaf man who can not hear it.

      Peace,Love and Joy to you!

    217. Boris
      June 3rd, 2012 @ 1:20 pm

      Ken,
      You believe because OTHER PEOPLE convinced you that hell exists and that you cannot trust yourself to make rational decisions. Once they did that they hooked a fish, a mental slave and you were then willing to believe whatever it took to avoid the flames of hell. Your fear of hell is two-fold. Your greatest fear now that you’ve been indoctrinated into the religion of Christianity is that hell doesn’t exist. If hell does not exist then all the unbelievers will live their lives in so-called debauchery and self-indulgence rejecting your religious claims and they will not be judged or punished for their unbelief in your God. And conversely you will have lived your miserable life in intellectual servitude and self-denial and you will not be rewarded for subjecting yourself to these things at all. I’ve studied religious fundamentalism and I know all of your dirty little secrets. The truth is that religions like Christianity survive by making non-disprovable claims and frightening people into accepting them. The way to counter non-disprovable claims is with non-disprovable claims like this one: People who make non-disprovable claims are lying. See what I mean? You can’t disprove that claim either. Your fear of the existence of hell was unfounded but your fear that hell does not exist is justified.

    218. Ken
      June 3rd, 2012 @ 4:39 pm

      Boris your so wrong! about me, about Christ, about most things you post!..I serve Jesus the Christ out of LOVE for HIM. the sad thing is your missing out on the greatest LOVE you can ever experience..because of your unbelief SAD! SAD! SAD!
      Peace, love and joy to you.

    219. Matt B
      June 3rd, 2012 @ 5:52 pm

      “If hell does not exist then all the unbelievers will live their lives in so-called debauchery and self-indulgence rejecting your religious claims and they will not be judged or punished for their unbelief in your God. And conversely you will have lived your miserable life in intellectual servitude and self-denial and you will not be rewarded for subjecting yourself to these things at all. ”

      In this Boris is quite right, as Paul pointed out in 1 Corinthians 15 vs 19.

      However, we believe and join in the witness of the last two thousand years that Christ is raised from the dead. Therefore our service to the giver of Life is offered because we are glad to no longer be slaves of sin, made free, not slaves to that which would control and destroy us.

      So it is for love of God, returned in kind for the greater Love and Mercy He has given us, that we labor and submit to His Lordship.

      Now we began and could continue a long discussion on whether Christ Jesus has been raised from the dead, and if He even existed at all as recorded in the Bible. Weight of testimony:

      1. The beginning and continuance of the Church.
      2. Miracles recorded throughout history and in recent days- many undeniable accounts that have been verified. The recent book from Craig Keener on miracles:
      http://www.amazon.com/Miracles-Credibility-Testament-Accounts-Volume/dp/0801039525

      3. Changed lives- people who have been delivered from addictions, from murderous anger, from destructive sin; marriages reborn, families re-united, criminals reformed (Chuck Colson a wonderful example of Christ’s power).

      4. The consistency of the old and new testaments in the Bible, presenting God’s creation, man’s fall, and God’s redemptive work in Love and mercy, by His grace. The works are themselves a wonderful testament to the truth, by the nature of their message over many centuries of being written.

      Other points could be made; witness of creation, the operation of living organisms, the greatly to be preferred result when society is based on Christian truth and principles. We’ve hit on all these things in the threads posted here. These matters are not trivial could be refuted at length; in the right context I for one am willing because I don’t fear the truth (though I cannot hope to have all the answers- many books have been written and I for one have only scratched the surface). The point is that we have considered these things and only found deeper truth and experience of God and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

    220. Matt B
      June 3rd, 2012 @ 5:55 pm

      By the way, my life is a LOT less miserable the more I am in servitude (intellectual, physical, and spiritual) to God through Jesus. In fact He fills me with His Holy Spirit, better than the finest wine.

    221. Ray
      June 3rd, 2012 @ 6:08 pm

      Boris, in your above post I couldn’t help but notice that you say that if hell does not exist, then all the unbelievers will spend their lives in
      “so called debauchery and self-indulgence..”.

      Looking up the word debauchery in my dictionary, I see that it is defined by terms such as moral corruptness, going astray, even using the term orgies.

      My dictionary says nothing about it being a “so called” condition as you suggest.

      Most people, if not all people, when in an honest condition of heart and soundness of mind, will agree that there is truly such a thing as that which the word debauchery describes.

      I tend to honestly suppose that there are very few words in a common dictionary that use the term “so called” anywhere in their definition.

      If a man were to live only by indulging himself in whater he would please himself to do, would that not truly be self-indulgence?
      I’m sure you can find more words than you could count in a day in a dictionary that are not defined by using the term “so called”.

      How many other words do you suggest should be defined by using the term “so called”?

      I trust that hell has a place as well as a purpose of God and for such reasons and more, it really does exist, one of them being that were it not to have an existance, many more people living today, might be living their lives in debauchery, even more than are doing so now, (in part or in whole) for without the fear of God, people in this world would be without wisdom.

      Boris, are you saying that orgies are not a form of debauchery? Are you for them or against them and if so, why?

      If a man is neither for or against such a thing, then it seems to me that he has little or no moral sense, conscience, or good direction in life, and if a man walks with no good direction, will he not become lost?

      What should guide a man other than goodness, virtue, honesty, purity, righteousness, truth, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith, which are in Christ Jesus?

      Or are you saying that whatever it is that the Bible may refer to that would seem to suggest debauchery, that such a thing is only “so called” debauchery, but is not the real thing?

      How would you then define debauchery?

      Would you define it only by whatever terms would be fitting to please yourself? Might that in itself be a form of debauchey?

      And if a man has his own rule, should he violate it by his behaviour, should he judge himself by his own rule or not?

      Have you ever found a consequence to vioationg what you have believed to be right, good, or true?

      Who is it that designed the world to hold such consequences as a man falling should he climb too high upon an unstable step ladder, for example?

      Is a man truly better off to have no moral rule?

      If a man has no moral rule, will he find higher moral ground? Or does morality have no virtue?

      If there is no such thing as morality, would it be right for a man to judge nothing at all?

    222. Ray
      June 3rd, 2012 @ 6:55 pm

      About the love of God, there is no rule against it is there?

      Though there are things in this world that are contrary to love, in heaven they have no place, rule, authority, or power.

      And so, to arrive there should be the hope of every just man, because of Jesus.

    223. Boris
      June 4th, 2012 @ 8:40 pm

      Now we began and could continue a long discussion on whether Christ Jesus has been raised from the dead, and if He even existed at all as recorded in the Bible. Weight of testimony:
      1.The beginning and continuance of the Church.

      Response: How does that prove anything? The beginning and continuance of Islam must prove the truth of the Koran then.

      2. Miracles recorded throughout history and in recent days- many undeniable accounts that have been verified. The recent book from Craig Keener on miracles:

      Response: Miracles? Ah yes, the Judeo-Christian God, easily defeated by chariots of iron, and whose greatest miracle of the modern day is a light show to some people in a field.
      What we do have undeniable proof of is the fact that believers will filter their experience to see and/or hear what they need to in order to maintain their worldview. I don’t think the topic of miracles even deserves the attention of skeptics.

      3. Changed lives- people who have been delivered from addictions, from murderous anger, from destructive sin; marriages reborn, families re-united, criminals reformed (Chuck Colson a wonderful example of Christ’s power).

      Response: People of all religions especially those who convert to them after childhood make the exact same claims about how their religion changed their life for the better. Why should I accept something as evidence for the truth of your religion that you would not accept as evidence from adherents of other religions as proof of the truth of their religion?

      4. The consistency of the old and new testaments in the Bible, presenting God’s creation, man’s fall, and God’s redemptive work in Love and mercy, by His grace. The works are themselves a wonderful testament to the truth, by the nature of their message over many centuries of being written.

      Response: I already explained much of this perceived consistency between the Old and New Testaments. It’s a willful contrivance. The gospel writers wrote their fables to conform to earlier prophecies in order to make it seem like Jesus had fulfilled them. Any rabbi would tell you all of those prophecies were fulfilled in the Old Testament and had nothing to do with Jesus.

      Other points could be made; witness of creation, the operation of living organisms, the The point is that we have considered these things and only found deeper truth and experience of God and the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

      Response: The existence of the universe and the operation of living organisms have satisfactory naturalistic explanations. The claim that, “God did it!” explains absolutely nothing. It’s nothing more than a desperate plea from Bible believers for scientists to stop discovering facts about the universe. That’s because every fact we discover about the universe argues against the supernatural.

      What should guide a man other than goodness, virtue, honesty, purity, righteousness, truth, justice, judgment, mercy, and faith, which are in Christ Jesus?

      Response: The value of human life itself should guide a person. Whatever harms or protects life is termed good and anything that harms or destroys life should be considered bad. That leads to a much more rational moral system than one based on a bunch of religious dogma and nonsense.

    224. Boris
      June 4th, 2012 @ 11:48 pm

      I meant whatever enhances or protects life should be termed good.

    225. Bo
      June 4th, 2012 @ 11:51 pm

      Boris,

      You wrote:

      “The value of human life itself should guide a person. Whatever harms or protects life is termed good and anything that harms or destroys life should be considered bad. ”

      So do you think that the killing of life in the womb via abortion is bad?

      Why is life the ultimate ideal? How can you back this idea up from an atheistic approach? If there is no absolute authority, why should we accept your version of what is good and bad? Why can we not all decide for ourselves?

      Are you trying to assert your materialistic atheistic religious morals upon the rest of us?

      Should we make our decisions on how many people will be harmed or killed in the long run or in the immediate? Is the death penalty good if it keeps the convict from killing more people or bad because it harms a life?

      Does all animal life count as the same? Should we swat a fly or smash a spider? Wouldn’t be wrong to kill the bacteria that is making us sick? Are you a vegetarian?

      Shalom

    226. Boris
      June 5th, 2012 @ 2:26 am

      Bo
      So do you think that the killing of life in the womb via abortion is bad?

      Response: According to our laws terminating a pregnancy is not killing. Abortion is a medical procedure and there are a few good reasons to get an abortion. And then there seem to be a whole lot of really bad reasons to get an abortion. For example sex selective abortion doesn’t seem like a very good reason to get an abortion does it? So whether a woman’s decision to get an abortion is a moral choice or not depends on the reason she’s getting an abortion.

      Why is life the ultimate ideal? How can you back this idea up from an atheistic approach?

      Response: Atheists realize they only have one life and so life itself is the ultimate value.

      If there is no absolute authority, why should we accept your version of what is good and bad? Why can we not all decide for ourselves?

      Response: Everyone does decide for them self what is right and what is wrong. They may use the Bible, Koran or some other guide to justify their personal beliefs but everyone still makes those choices for them self. There is an ultimate authority, the laws and the governments of the societies we live in. There are consequences for violating these laws, which is why most of us obey most of them.

      Are you trying to assert your materialistic atheistic religious morals upon the rest of us?

      Response: No I was just answering Matt’s question about what I thought should guide a man. I just gave the answer that in reality all of us, religious or not, use as a guide for morality, which is the value of life itself.

      Should we make our decisions on how many people will be harmed or killed in the long run or in the immediate?

      Response: Human history says we sacrifice the few and the brave in the short term for the good of the rest of us in the long term. Living in the real world means taking chances and making tough choices.

      Is the death penalty good if it keeps the convict from killing more people or bad because it harms a life?

      Response: I don’t think the death penalty is absolutely necessary to keep convicts from killing more people. However there are cases in which killing is justified such as self-defense or in defense of others.

      Does all animal life count as the same? Should we swat a fly or smash a spider?

      Response: I specifically said that moral choices are based on the value of human life. But let’s talk about the spider and the fly. Do you think it’s moral for the spider to catch the fly in its web and then kill and eat it? Who came up with that idea may I ask? Don’t avoid this question Bo.

      Wouldn’t be wrong to kill the bacteria that is making us sick? Are you a vegetarian?

      Response: Why would God “design” bacteria that would make us sick in the first place? I think evolution explains all the different strains of bacteria a lot better than the God hypothesis does. I’m not a vegetarian and that is not a healthy lifestyle. The reason our ancestors evolved differently from the other ape species is because they ate meat. This made their brains evolve differently and is what made humans the dominant species on earth. Notice how the other animals that eat meat are more intelligent and agile than those that don’t.

    227. Matt B
      June 5th, 2012 @ 7:18 am

      Boris, most states it is homocide or manslaughter (depends on intent and other particulars) if you kill an unborn child.

      Why is that, if the terminating a pregnancy is not killing?

      Our laws are terribly inconsistent on this point. Therefore, should willfully causing the death of an unborn child no longer be murder?

    228. Sheila
      June 5th, 2012 @ 3:48 pm

      All of you need to watch this. According to Hitler, it was “legal” “by law” to kill Jews.

      http://180movie.com/

    229. Matt B
      June 5th, 2012 @ 4:14 pm

      Sheila, Hitler believed in evolution and in existential naturalism (ecology) as the highest ideals. “Lower” forms of human evolutionary chain were responsible for crimes against nature and therefore needed to be removed, to make room for the “higher” forms.

      Sick, but not far from what some groups are promoting today. Godless existential belief, supported by evolutionary premise, has many times over lead to extremely horrific acts by those who are in power, in the “know”, and are not resisted.

      Some have claimed Hitler was a Christian, which simply does not hold up under even a cursory examination of his own beliefs and writings, much less his actions. He was a naturalist, humanist, racist (as were most evolutionists during that period), following where “new” philosophies allowed him to go. But they really were not new at all.

    230. Matt B
      June 5th, 2012 @ 4:22 pm

      Saints, let’s hold fast to what is true, and use our time for God’s glory- the days are evil.

      Let’s draw more closely to our Savior, and being filled with His Holy Spirit, bear the fruit of the good Vine! Even those who have rejected God, when finding their needs met through love as they are touched by His Body, will turn and look on Him whom they pierced. So let us not grow weary of doing good, and not fear, for the battle is the Lord’s.

    231. Boris
      June 5th, 2012 @ 5:44 pm

      Matt,
      You have a wreckless disregard for the truth. Adoplh Hitler did NOT accept evolution and neither did Joseph Stalin. Hitler insisted that Christian creationism be taught in the German public schools and this is a matter of record. The German schools did not stop teaching creationism until 1960. By then there was only one other Christian nation teaching creationism, that bastion of Christian ideology known as South Africa. The Soviets let millions of people starve to death because they rejected evolutionary biology in favor of something called Lysenkoism which led the Russians to believe they could grow wheat on the frozen tundra. One of the many tragedies that have occurred when humans have rejected modern science.

      “National Socialism is not a cult-movement– a movement for worship; it is exclusively a ‘volkic’ political doctrine based upon racial principles. In its purpose there is no mystic cult, only the care and leadership of a people defined by a common blood-relationship… We will not allow mystically- minded occult folk with a passion for exploring the secrets of the world beyond to steal into our Movement. Such folk are not National Socialists, but something else– in any case something which has nothing to do with us. At the head of our programme there stand no secret surmisings but clear-cut perception and straightforward profession of belief. But since we set as the central point of this perception and of this profession of belief the maintenance and hence the security for the future of a being formed by God, we thus serve the maintenance of a divine work and fulfill a divine will– not in the secret twilight of a new house of worship, but openly before the face of the Lord… Our worship is exclusively the cultivation of the natural, and for that reason, because natural, therefore God-willed. Our humility is the unconditional submission before the divine laws of existence so far as they are known to us men.” -Adolf Hitler, in Nuremberg on 6 Sept.1938.

      “We were convinced that the people needs and requires this faith. We have therefore undertaken the fight against the atheistic movement, and that not merely with a few theoretical declarations: we have stamped it out.” -Adolf Hitler, in a speech in Berlin on 24 Oct. 1933 [This statement clearly refutes modern Christians who claim Hitler as favoring atheism.

      “The anti-Semitism of the new movement [Christian Social movement] was based on religious ideas instead of racial knowledge.” –Adolf Hitler Mein Kampf (This quote is very interesting for it disperses the idea that Hitler raged war due to being an Aryan supremacist. He states quite clearly that he has a problem with Jews for their belief not race.

    232. Bo
      June 5th, 2012 @ 6:46 pm

      The quote below is from: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/sn-hitler.html

      “Once Hitler had gained power, he began to see Christianity as a threat to the National Socialists’ domination of Germany. After 1935 his speeches and writings became more and more virulently anti-Christian; he argued that Christian worship was a sign of weakness, and that it should be replaced by reverence for the nation and the state, and of course for the National Socialist Party. However, he retained his belief in reincarnation, and his conviction that there was some supreme creative force whose will he was enacting.

      The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity … The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity.

      I’ll make these damned parsons feel the power of the state in a way they would have never believed possible. For the moment, I am just keeping my eye upon them: if I ever have the slightest suspicion that they are getting dangerous, I will shoot the lot of them. This filthy reptile raises its head whenever there is a sign of weakness in the State, and therefore it must be stamped on. We have no sort of use for a fairy story invented by the Jews.
      [Quoted from Hitler's "Table Talks" with Bormann,
      in Hitler: A Study in Tyranny by Allan Bullock.]“

    233. Bo
      June 5th, 2012 @ 6:55 pm

      The following quote is from: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Adolf_Hitler%27s_personal_beliefs

      ” Hitler was a strong believer in Paganism. He had Pagan advisers and also star gazers that would tell him when to attack. Basically, he and Aleister Crowley are some of the people that made Paganism so infamous, when really it is all about energetic balance and natural harmony. Paganism is not polytheistic like most believe, it is actually free for anyone to believe in any god/goddess they choose. This misconception is connected to Wiccans. Most believe they are one in the same, but they are completely different.

      Hitler really didn’t hate the Jews at all. He was hated and rejected by his father and smothered by his mother. He wandered around while young (nothing particularly intelligent about him during this time) and eventually became involved in politics. If he wasn’t so ego-maniacal and a maniac he could have done some wonderful things to improve the world instead of the degrading deeds he did do. Hitler wanted an Arian race (blond and blue-eyed pure German). If you can ever get the book “The Doll’s House” read it! This place existed. It was a huge, mansion for the elite of blond, blue-eyed German soldiers and higher ranking officers and very selected blond, blue-eyed young women knowing full well the plan was for them to get pregnant and create a new Arian race. Hitler paid these women handsomely for each child they produced. The more power Hitler had the more he lost his belief system in what he started out to do.

      HITLER AND CHRISTIANITY: Also contrary to popular belief, Hitler and the Nazis were not Christians, and were in fact vehemently opposed to that religion, which they saw as a Jewish originated belief system. In public, Hitler accepted or even praised Christianity when it was anti-Jewish, but in private, he detested it, as a reading of his personal dinner table chat recorded by Martin Borman and published as “Hitler’s Secret Conversations”, Farrar, Straus and Young, New York, 1953: The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity. Bolshevism practices a lie of the same nature, when it claims to bring liberty to men, whereas in reality it seeks only to enslave them. In the ancient world, the relations between men and gods were founded on an instinctive respect. It was a world enlightened by the idea of tolerance. Christianity was the first creed in the world to exterminate its adversaries in the name of love. Its keynote is intolerance. Without Christianity, we should not have had Islam. The Roman Empire, under Germanic influence, would have developed in the direction of world-domination, and humanity would not have extinguished fifteen centuries of civilization at a single stroke. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things.” – Adolf Hitler, ibid, Night of 11th-12th July 1941.

      Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_were_Adolf_Hitler's_personal_beliefs#ixzz1wxy7sEvP

    234. Bo
      June 5th, 2012 @ 7:15 pm

      The following quote is from: http://www.bede.org.uk/hitler.htm

      “What were Hitler’s religious beliefs?…

      So much for Hitler’s early life. What about his attitude to religion and the Church later on? In Mein Kampf (1925) Hitler criticized the Catholic Church in its political form, which he said failed to recognize Germany’s and Europe’s “racial problem”. His Party Charter for the nascent Nazional Sozialistische Deutsche Arbeiter Partei demanded in Article 24, in contrast to strong Christian control of German’s spiritual life, “complete freedom of religion” (in so far, of course, as that was not a “danger to Germany”) (William Shirer, The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, Arrow, 1991). Indeed, the official “Nazi Party Philosopher”, Alfred Rosenberg, (later to be hanged at Nuremberg), appointed of course with Hitler’s consent, was totally opposed to Christianity. However, Hitler the politician was also aware that to achieve power he would need to win votes from the Catholic Centre Party and could not afford total alienation.

      Upon attaining office and enjoying a free hand, what line did Hitler take on religion and the Church? Five days after becoming Chancellor in 1933, Hitler allowed a sterilization law to pass, and had the Catholic Youth League disbanded (Shirer, The Rise). The latter was a measure applied to other youth organizations too, in order to free up young people to join the Hitler Youth. At the same time, Hitler also made an agreement with the Vatican to allow the Catholic Church to regulate its own affairs. (It is probably worth noting here the low value that Hitler placed on written agreements.) Parents were pressured to take their children out of religious schools. When the Church organized voluntary out-of-hours religious classes, the Nazi government responded by banning state-employed teachers from taking part. The Crucifix symbol was even at one point banned from classrooms in one particular jurisdiction, Oldenburg, in 1936, but the measure met with fierce public resistance and was rescinded. Hitler remained conscious of the affection for the Church felt in some quarters of Germany, particularly Bavaria. Later on, though, a wartime metal shortage was used as the excuse for melting church bells (Richard Grunberger, The Twelve Year Reich, Henry Holt, Henry Holt, 1979 and Richard Grunberger, A Social History of the Third Reich, Penguin, 1991).

      Hitler’s references to providence and God and the ritualistic pageantry of Nazism were more than likely pagan than Christian. Earthly symbols of German valour and Teutonic strength were to be worshipped – not the forgiving, compassionate representative of an “Eastern Mediterranean servant ethic imposed on credulous ancient Germans by force and subterfuge” (the phrase is Burleigh’s own, in Michael Burleigh, The Third Reich: a New History, Pan, 2001). A Hitler Youth marching song (Grunberger, A Social History) illustrates it:

      We follow not Christ, but Horst Wessel,
      Away with incense and Holy Water,
      The Church can go hang for all we care,
      The Swastika brings salvation on Earth.

      (Horst Wessel was an early Nazi party Sturmabteilung street-fighter murdered by communists and turned into a martyr by propaganda chief Josef Goebbels.)

      The SS were particularly anti-Christian, and officers and men were encouraged to leave the Church, although those that refused to renounce their Christian faith were not visibly punished, perhaps because their otherwise faithful adherence to SS codes of behaviour gave the lie to any claim of true Christian affiliation. The SS also brought in its own neo-pagan rituals for marriage ceremonies and baptisms.

      At this time then, the only alignments between Nazism and Catholicism were the Church’s perceived anti-Semitism and anti-communism, and an abhorrence of abortions by healthy pregnant German women (although Hitler did diverge from the Church once again in 1939 when he authorized the medical extermination of mentally and physically handicapped children). As the war progressed and the Wehrmacht gained control of large parts of the Soviet Union, the question of the suppressed Russian Orthodox Christian sects surfaced. Hitler’s response was to leave them to their own devices “so they can beat each others’ brains out with their crucifixes”. He also had contempt for European Protestants: “as submissive as dogs” (Shirer, The Rise). In the debate about his spiritual leanings, Hitler is also sometimes alleged to have flirted with the occult, although in fact it was far more a passion of Himmler’s. For instance, Hitler loathed astrologers. Others close to him, such as Goering, were also dismissive of Himmler’s obsession with the supernatural and Hitler would no doubt have enjoyed Goebbels’ joke, during one clampdown on eccentric religious types, that it was “odd that not a single one [of a group of arrested clairvoyants] predicted he would be arrested”. Goebbels would later try to rally Hitler in his bunker at the end of the war with astrological charts predicting victory but Hitler was still unmoved.

      At times, Hitler was more pragmatic about religion: “If my mother were alive, she would definitely be a churchgoer, and I wouldn’t want to hinder her. On the contrary, you’ve got to respect the simple faith of the people”. If Hitler was motivated by a supreme being, or convinced that his success was providential, it is hard to see that he was referring to the same God worshipped by Christians. These elements of his orations were dramatic and poetic figures of speech, and the immortality he stood for was of the earthly type, in which heroic legends and monumentalist architecture alone would preserve a great name or event for generations. This analysis stands entirely apart from the actions committed in Hitler’s name which shatter any pretence of Christian leaning. In conclusion, it is reasonable beyond doubt to say that Hitler was not at any stage of his life a Christian.”

    235. Bo
      June 5th, 2012 @ 7:23 pm

      The following quote is from:
      http://www.sullivan-county.com/nf0/hitler/hitler1.htm

      “Hitler’s main opposition to Christianity was its rejection of Darwinism. (Azar, 1990, p. 154). His entire “scientific” racism was built on secular Darwinism with influences from Theosophy and other bits of New Age nonsense…

      Historian Steigmann-Gall argues that Hitler demonstrated a preference for Protestantism over Catholicism, as Protestantism was easier to reinterpret with non-traditional readings, more receptive to positive Christianity, and because some of its liberal branches had held similar views. These views were supported by the German Christians movement, but rejected by the Confessing Church.

      According to Steigmann-Gall, Hitler regretted that “the churches had failed to back him and his movement as he had hoped.” Hitler stated to Albert Speer, “Through me the Protestant Church could become the established church, as in England.”

      Not all the Protestant churches submitted to the state, which Hitler said in Mein Kampf was important in forming a political movement. Hitler supported the appointment of Ludwig Müller as Reichsbischof over the Protestant churches, hoping that he would get them to adhere to Nazi positions. After 1935 Hitler was advised by the newly-appointed Reich Minister for Church Affairs Hans Kerrl. Many Protestants who were not persuaded by argument were arrested and their property and funds confiscated.

      By 1940 it was public knowledge that Hitler had abandoned advocating for Germans even the syncretist idea of a positive Christianity. Dachau concentration camp alone held the largest number of Catholic priests at 2,579. ]To quote,

      “If one believes the anti-Semitic, one should also believe the anti-Christian, for both had a single purpose. Hitler’s aim was to eradicate all religious organizations within the state and to foster a return to paganism” (Dimont, 1994, p. 397).”

    236. Bo
      June 5th, 2012 @ 7:24 pm

      And now we know “The rest of the story.”

    237. Bo
      June 5th, 2012 @ 7:35 pm

      The following quote is from: http://www.muhammadanism.org/Inquiries/Jesus/hitler_jesus.htm

      “Did Hitler Use Jesus To Justify His Actions?…

      The library edition of the book [Mein Kampf] does not list either the Bible or Jesus in its Index.1 Now, if Hitler had based his justification for murdering Jews upon the Bible and Jesus, one would expect to find a number of references to them in the Index of Mein Kampf. However, neither word is found there. So, it appears that the Muslim’s assertion may be false. Secondly, using a Google search of the Adolf Hitler web site, which includes an English translation of Mein Kampf, a word search does not yield any result.2 Now if the word Jesus or Bible is not found a single time in a book of 694 pages, the Muslim’s assertion is clearly without foundation. Because, if the justification for killing 6 million Jews were Hitler’s belief in Jesus, Jesus’ name should be mentioned numerous times in Mein Kampf. As a result, this appears to be another Muslim claim that has no basis in reality. In other words the claim is false and shows a disregard for the truth…

      So, nowhere in Mein Kampf does Hitler refer to his personal belief in Jesus or the Bible to justify his actions against the Jews. In fact, Jesus was a Jew and Hitler hated Jews. So, why would Hitler turn to any Jew to support Nazism. Where does Hitler turn to Christ’s true doctrine to base his claims of race superiority, worldly economics, and earthly militarist conquest? So, even on the surface, the Muslim’s charge is ridiculous to any who knows history and values the truth. This may not be the case with ignorant Muslims who are disposed against Jews and Christians and who are not acquainted with the history of Adolph Hitler. As stated during the Nuremberg War trials in Germany,

      The Nazi Party always was predominantly anti-Christian in its ideology. … the conspirators devised and carried out a systematic and relentless repression of all Christian sects and churches. 4

      Reichsleiter Martin Bormann wrote in the secret decree entitled, Relationship of National Socialism and Christianity, that “National Socialist and Christian concepts are irreconcilable.” 5″

    238. Bo
      June 5th, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

      Boris,

      Your revisionist history beliefs have fooled you again. Try some real history some time. You also might try reading a bit from the other side of your personal irrational hope of there being no Creator.

      Shalom

    239. MattB
      June 5th, 2012 @ 8:18 pm

      Boris, evidently the Nazi propaganda machine is still working on some.

      The things Hitler said in public do not necessarily reflect what he really believed. That much should be clear.

      BTW, I never stated that Hitler was atheist. Stalin, Lenin were, and also evolutionists. The starvation which resulted from the Communist farming reforms were one of many ways that the party kept the masses in submission.

    240. Matt B
      June 5th, 2012 @ 10:42 pm

      Boris, per your earlier post, you have a view of the Bible which is unorthodox and not commonly held by scholars. In fact, most who have earnestly studied their origins would eschew the idea that as a whole the NT was written late. It is simply not possible that the writers arranged it so that the events as they recorded them would fit just so with ancient OT prophesies.

      The idea that the OT psalmists and prophets could have possibly known (in the natural) or arranged for crucifixion as a method of capital punishment would be invented and implemented in the future is absurd.

      You can choose to disbelieve the veracity of the Bible, but it does not hold up to investigation.

    241. Boris
      June 6th, 2012 @ 2:54 am

      Boris,
      Your revisionist history beliefs have fooled you again. Try some real history some time.

      Response: Let’s see we have Hitler’s own words confessing his faith in and love for Jesus Christ. Hitler’s inspiration for the Holocaust was Martin Luther the founder of your version of Christianity. His soldiers all had belt buckles that said ‘God is with us.” Onward Christian soldiers. Then we have Christians, without a shred of evidence to prove it, telling us that in secret Hitler really wasn’t a Christian! Sure. Look at how much time and effort and all the words you cut and pasted from Christian propaganda websites to try to hide the truth about Adolph Hitler. No dice Bo brother Adolph is all yours you keep him.

      You also might try reading a bit from the other side of your personal irrational hope of there being no Creator.

      Response: You also might try reading a bit from the other side of your personal irrational hope of there being no evolution by natural selection. Let’s look at some of the things other people have frightened you into believing are real for which there exists not one shred of evidence: Angels, demons, Satan, heaven, hell, seraphs, Jesus, just to name a few. You’ve got no business calling anyone else irrational. Wow religious indoctrination has really turned your world upside down.

      MattB
      Boris, evidently the Nazi propaganda machine is still working on some.
      The things Hitler said in public do not necessarily reflect what he really believed. That much should be clear.

      Response: We know what Hitler said in public and we have Christian propagandists telling us on no basis whatsoever they he really didn’t mean it. Gee, whom should we believe? We couldn’t trust people with a religious agenda even if they told us they were lying to us.

      BTW, I never stated that Hitler was atheist. Stalin, Lenin were, and also evolutionists. The starvation which resulted from the Communist farming reforms were one of many ways that the party kept the masses in submission.

      Response: Not true. Stalin rejected Darwinian Evolution as a bourgeois Western philosophy and instead his government employed a pseudo-science called Lysenkoism. This is what caused the Russians to believe they could grow wheat on the frozen tundra. Look it up. You have to read something besides Christian propaganda to get the facts about things you know.

      Matt B
      Boris, per your earlier post, you have a view of the Bible which is unorthodox and not commonly held by scholars. In fact, most who have earnestly studied their origins would eschew the idea that as a whole the NT was written late.

      Response: Precisely how have any “scholars” studied the origins of the gospels? The early dating of the gospels is based on nothing but Christian wishful thinking. The first witness to the gospels, if he actually existed at all was Iraneus and that was in 190 CE. There is nothing from before that time for your “scholars” [read: grown men who still believe in fairies and magic] to study. Not a thing.

      It is simply not possible that the writers arranged it so that the events as they recorded them would fit just so with ancient OT prophesies. The idea that the OT psalmists and prophets could have possibly known (in the natural) or arranged for crucifixion as a method of capital punishment would be invented and implemented in the future is absurd.
      You can choose to disbelieve the veracity of the Bible, but it does not hold up to investigation.

      Response: The gospel writers were not recording any actual events, they were writing religious fiction. I mean really man. Who was around to record a conversation between Satan and Jesus on a mountaintop may I ask? Go ahead take a story literally that talks about absurd bogey entities for which there exists no evidence like Satan, demons and angels or that claims dead people came back to life, unburied themselves and walked into Jerusalem and appeared to many other people. There’s no way you would believe a word of these stories if they appeared anywhere else but the Bible because they are without any evidence to support them, they are written in the style of fiction and above all they are ridiculous. What doesn’t hold up under investigation is the claim that the gospels are a record of actual events. The gospels claim Jesus was followed by huge crowds and his fame spread throughout the land. However not one single person wrote one single word about any of the miraculous events described in the Bible or anything about Jesus or any of his disciples. We have no artifacts and no evidence to support anything that is written in the gospels. Why would we? They’re solar myths just like the stories of Hercules and the other superheroes of the day. You’re never going to convince me that the fairytales your religion is based upon are somehow true. So you can stop wasting your time now.

      My unbelief is a constant reminder to you Christians of just how implausible your beliefs really are. That’s why you waste so much time trying in vain to answer my objections to your absurd and completely baseless claims. You’re not going to change my mind so you’re just going to have to deal with that unless or until you change yours.

    242. Matt B
      June 6th, 2012 @ 9:44 am

      “My unbelief is a constant reminder to you Christians of just how implausible your beliefs really are. That’s why you waste so much time trying in vain to answer my objections to your absurd and completely baseless claims. ”

      No, I am not threatened by your unbelief, but it is lamentable. The efforts to discuss these things here may as much be for the benefit of others reading the posts as to try to persuade you. On the other hand, as I’ve said, my hope and prayer is that you will be persuaded. This would gain me nothing but you, everything.

      I’m still interested in you take on how death by cricifixion was prophesied in the OT before that method was invented. How could the writers have arranged that? And the evidence is that the OT books are as old as they purport themselves to be.

    243. Bo
      June 6th, 2012 @ 11:19 am

      Boris,

      It would seem that the modern politically correct movement to only teach materialistic evolution is along the lines of Lysenkoism. It is an educational and political and philosophical agenda that is employed to produce a populace that is void of free thinking but full of free sex. The followers of this new “Lysenkoism” are dieing of aids instead of starvation. They are committing suicide in ever increasing numbers. They are living their lives without hope of finding meaning and going to their graves without hope of salvation.

      Here are some quotes from:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism

      “Lysenkoism, or Lysenko-Michurinism, also denotes the biological inheritance principle which Trofim Lysenko subscribed to and which derive from theories of the heritability of acquired characteristics,[1] a body of biological inheritance theory which departs from Mendelism and that Lysenko named “Michurinism”.”

      Mendel was a Christian, a scientist, and he developed the foundation for our modern scientific view of genetics. Lysenko was an pawn in an atheistic regime.

      “The word (Lysenkoism) is derived from the centralized political control exercised over the fields of genetics and agriculture by the director of the Soviet Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences, Trofim Denisovich Lysenko and his followers, which began in the late 1920s and formally ended in 1964.

      Lysenkoism is used colloquially to describe the manipulation or distortion of the scientific process as a way to reach a predetermined conclusion as dictated by an ideological bias, often related to social or political objectives.[2]”

      That last sentence sums up the educational monopoly of our land and Boris is one of it’s most zealous converts.

      “In 1928, Trofim Lysenko, a previously unknown agronomist, claimed to have developed an agricultural technique, termed vernalization, which tripled or quadrupled crop yield by exposing wheat seed to high humidity and low temperature. While cold and moisture exposure are a normal part of the life cycle of fall-seeded winter cereals, the vernalization technique claimed to enhance yields by increasing the intensity of exposure, in some cases planting soaked seeds directly into the snow cover of frozen fields. In reality, the technique was neither new (it had been known since 1854, and was extensively studied during the previous twenty years), nor did it produce the yields he promised.”

      Just like Darwin claiming to have discovered the idea of evolution that had been shown to be impossible by real scientists such as Pasteur and Mendel, Lysenco made a name and a career for himself by promoting a philosophical hope as science.

      “Lysenko’s political success was due in part to his striking differences from most biologists at the time.”

      Kind of like Darwin, don’t you think.

      “Lysenko did not apply actual science.”

      Kind of like Darwin, don’t you think.

      “On August 7, 1948, the V.I. Lenin Academy of Agricultural Sciences announced that from that point on Lysenkoism would be taught as “the only correct theory”. Soviet scientists were forced to denounce any work that contradicted Lysenko’s research.[3] Criticism of Lysenko was denounced as ‘bourgeois’ or ‘fascist’, and analogous ‘non-bourgeois’ theories also flourished in other fields in the Soviet academy at this time (see Japhetic theory; socialist realism). Interestingly, perhaps the only opponents of Lysenkoism during Stalin’s lifetime to escape liquidation came from the small community of Soviet nuclear physicists. But as Tony Judt has observed, “Stalin left his nuclear physicists alone… [He] may well have been mad but he was not stupid.”[4]”

      And now the truth comes out. State run education always has a political agenda. Boris has taken the bait…hook, line and sinker, and rod and reel and boat and has even swallowed the whole ocean of religious, materialistic, evolutionary, atheism. It is amazing what people will believe if they do not want to serve their creator. It is amazing what lies can be invented and histories changed and even what scientific data can be fudged (man-made global warming anyone?) by the supposed “educational elite” to produce societal manipulation for their god “Norm’s” cause.

      “It is often suggested that Lysenko’s success came solely from the desire in the USSR to assert that heredity had only a limited role in human development; that future generations, living under socialism, would be purged of their ‘bourgeois’ or ‘fascist’ instincts.”

      Evolutionary doctrine, in the same way, is being used to purge the world of conscience and purpose. Hitler used his propaganda machine, Stalin used his, and the new world order uses theirs.

      “Many other countries of the Eastern Bloc accepted Lysenkoism as the official “new biology” as well; however the acceptance of Lysenkoism was not uniform in communist countries. In Poland, all geneticists except for Wacław Gajewski[5] followed Lysenkoism. Even though Gajewski was not allowed contacts with students, he was allowed to continue his scientific work at the Warsaw botanical garden. Lysenkoism was then rapidly rejected starting from 1956[5] and modern genetics research departments were formed, including the first department of genetics headed by Wacław Gajewski, which was started at the Warsaw University in 1958.”

      Today we have the same thing happening to award winning scientists. They can continue to do their research if they are Creationists, but they are not allowed to teach in the classroom. The documentary movie “Expelled” gave ample evidence of this sort of thing.

      “Lysenkoism dominated Chinese science from 1948 until 1956, when, during a genetics symposium opponents of Lysenkoism were permitted to freely criticize it and argue for Mendelian genetics.[8] In the proceedings from the symposium, Tan Jiazhen is quoted as saying “Since [the] USSR started to criticize Lysenko, we have dared to criticize him too”.[8] For a while, both schools were permitted to coexist, although the influence of the Lysenkoists remained large for several years.[8]”

      I wonder what would happen if molecules to man materialistic evolution had to defend it’s propaganda against Intelligent Design on a level playing field, instead of imposing it’s political weight through censorship and peer review (read peer pressure).

      “From 1934 to 1940, under Lysenko’s admonitions and with Stalin’s approval, many geneticists were executed (including Isaak Agol, Solomon Levit, Grigorii Levitskii, Georgii Karpechenko and Georgii Nadson) or sent to labor camps. The famous Soviet geneticist Nikolai Vavilov was arrested in 1940 and died in prison in 1943.[9]

      Genetics was stigmatized as a ‘bourgeois science’ or ‘fascist science’ (because fascists — particularly the Nazis in Germany — embraced genetics and attempted to use it to justify their theories on eugenics and the master race, which culminated in Action T4).

      Despite the ban, some Soviet scientists continued to work in genetics, dangerous as it was.[citation needed]

      In 1948, genetics was officially declared “a bourgeois pseudoscience”;[10] all geneticists were fired from their jobs (some were also arrested), and all genetic research was discontinued. Nikita Khrushchev, who claimed to be an expert in agricultural science, also valued Lysenko as a great scientist, and the taboo on genetics continued (but all geneticists were released or rehabilitated posthumously). The ban was only waived in the mid-1960s.”

      The same thing as above, though not prison and death sentences in the west, is happening today against Creationists and ID proponents. The one thing that history teaches us, is that we fail to learn from history…true history, that is, not Boris’ revisionist propagandized “history.”

      Shalom

    244. ron david metcalf
      June 6th, 2012 @ 7:39 pm

      Not competing with Bo on detail, a much earlier ‘genetic experiment’ is recording in the ancient Hebrew texts (whenever the oral record was written); the Testimony being both Written and Holy) of @ 3500 years ago, of several different Caananite names for the local ‘giants’; coinciding with Egyptian pictographs of the same period; so either everyone in the region had a jack-in-the-beanstalk complex back then, or Boris has a bit of rethinking to do. He managed to dodge the pyramid question quite well, but the record of archaeology refutes evolutionary theories over and over; the ancients weren’t that dumb in many spectacular ways. So show me irrefutable evidence of the existence of the Trade Towers; if you can’t give me more than pictures and stories, I’ll suppose they never existed.
      In Him, Ron M.

    245. Boris
      June 7th, 2012 @ 12:53 am

      No, I am not threatened by your unbelief, but it is lamentable. The efforts to discuss these things here may as much be for the benefit of others reading the posts as to try to persuade you. On the other hand, as I’ve said, my hope and prayer is that you will be persuaded. This would gain me nothing but you, everything.

      Response: Well I am definitely not threatened by your superstitions but is lamentable that we still have people in this country who know so little about science, what science is, what scientists do and even why we study nature in the first place.

      I’m still interested in you take on how death by cricifixion was prophesied in the OT before that method was invented. How could the writers have arranged that? And the evidence is that the OT books are as old as they purport themselves to be.

      Response: Are you talking about Genesis 40:19? That’s hardly referring to Jesus. What evidence do you have that crucifixion actually was invented and used as a method of punishment and when do you claim this mythical method of punishment was actually used and by whom? The New Testament mythmakers twisted Old Testament prophecies away from their original meaning and reinterpreted them to make it seem like their Jesus had fulfilled them. Again ask any rabbi if you don’t believe me. It’s pretty easy to see that the gospel stories were reverse engineered. If you hadn’t been frightened by other people into accepting these stories without any evidence that they even might be true then it would seem a bit odd to you that actions should be deliberately performed by Jesus just so a prophecy could be vindicated. It sure looks like fiction writing me. But then I’m not afraid to consider that these stories are fiction. You are. Therefore your opinion on them is irrelevant.

      Bo, You have proved exactly two things, which are that you know how to cut and paste religious propaganda and that you don’t even bother to read what you cut and paste. There are several examples I could point to but just one will suffice.

      Bo
      June 5th, 2012 @ 6:55 pm
      Hitler really didn’t hate the Jews at all.

      Bo
      June 5th, 2012 @ 7:35 pm
      In fact, Jesus was a Jew and Hitler hated Jews.

      Really Bo? Which is it? Did Hitler hate the Jews or not? You’re hilarious! These posts are 40 minutes apart. Why should I bother reading your posts when you don’t even read them? Why does the fact that Hitler was a Christian bother you so much? Had he had gas chambers, machine guns and the necessary political muscle Martin Luther would have done the exact same thing.

    246. Bo
      June 7th, 2012 @ 4:54 pm

      Boris,

      Read a little closer. I was quoting other people to show you what others have said about Hitler. It is interesting that so many with differing ideas and ideologies do not think that Hitler could be convicted in the court of law for being a Christian. His actions and confessions take the mask off of his political speeches and his well tailored public image.

      And for the record. I am no follower of Martin Luther nor the Pope.

      You think that you can show that religion in general and Christianity in specific has perpetrated hate crimes and massacres. The problem is that you fail to realize that atheism is a religion too. It is power that tends to corrupt people…Atheist and Christian alike.

      And you also fail to realize that all atrocities against mankind that supposed Christians have committed have been done to the contrary of what Messiah taught. In otherwords, if they were truly following Messiah, they would not have done those things. Being Christian in name is much different than being a Christian in deed.

      As for Atheists they have no basis for their morals and will always be found to commit great atrocities when they are in power…especially absolute power. Survival of the fittest brings no morality with it. Self preservation will lead to all kinds of lies and cover ups. Please do remember those wonderful scientists that forged data on climate change. A political leader that claims to be Christian and abuses power proves that he has said in his heart “There is no God.” He is an Atheist for all practical purposes.

      Hitler was one of these practical Atheists. He deceived those that heard him and himself. So does every Atheist…whether they say that there is no God in their heart of with their mouth or both.

      2 Timothy 3
      13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
      14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;
      15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
      16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
      17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

      Shalom

    247. ron david metcalf
      June 7th, 2012 @ 8:01 pm

      ‘Science has triumphed over religion.’
      This is the (unspoken) Big Lie that has divided the U.S. in half, and upon which we will vote this November. It is sad that these discussions are many times more intelligent and relevant than the millions of dollars that will be spent on drivel the next few months. This is for the Heart of the People, so what is said here is indeed important.
      Boris comtinues to make some good points, though he refuses to play by anyone’s rules. Oh well, relativism. Science is somewhat flashy and gives immediate gratification; a good definition of an idol. I say that this new generation, these teenagers who CAN go to college (less and less) are being taught to put on the blinders and not think about death even more than my generation of 40 years ago, if that is possible; and that is dangerous. Selective history was being discussed as a philosophical novelty back then; now it’s the norm. BTW, Boris, have you ever read Hart Crane? Brilliant poet; dove into the middle of the ocean off a ship when he was around thirty (seemingly much more deliberate than Natlie Wood). Life is short; there’s something we’ll eventually agree upon.
      In Him, Ron M.

    248. Matt B
      June 7th, 2012 @ 9:58 pm

      Boris, I find it strange that you frequently accuse other posters on these pages of being ignorant of science and scientific method. I suppose that is the party line among athiests who wish to vindicate their positions. I cannot really see what of any that has been posted is anti-science or mis-application of science. With the very stark exemption of the idea that life sprung forth from non-life. There is absolutely no evidence for this either in nature, or in the lab.

      In any case, are you familiar with the term “Science qua science”? Are you familiar with anthropic philosophy?

    249. Matt B
      June 7th, 2012 @ 10:01 pm

      Sorry, I meant exception, not exemption in my post above. I need to slow down and play editor.

    250. Boris
      June 7th, 2012 @ 11:57 pm

      Boris,
      Read a little closer. I was quoting other people to show you what others have said about Hitler. It is interesting that so many with differing ideas and ideologies do not think that Hitler could be convicted in the court of law for being a Christian. His actions and confessions take the mask off of his political speeches and his well tailored public image.

      Response: Read a little closer? ROFL! You don’t even read your own drivel! I don’t care what anyone said about Adolph Hitler. We have his speeches and his writings and we know what he did. Those things alone prove Adolph Hitler loved Jesus and was a devout believer. According to Christian doctrine your brother Adolph is in heaven and present with the Lord. Heaven sounds just like Nazi Germany to me so I would expect if it really existed Hitler would be quite the hero there.

      And for the record. I am no follower of Martin Luther nor the Pope.
      You think that you can show that religion in general and Christianity in specific has perpetrated hate crimes and massacres. The problem is that you fail to realize that atheism is a religion too. It is power that tends to corrupt people…Atheist and Christian alike.

      Response: Atheism is not a religion. It has no holy book, no churches or temples, no leaders or preachers, no dogma, no miracles or magical healings. Atheists are not insecure just because they are a minority and don’t need strength in numbers to reinforce what they believe or don’t believe they way Christians do. We don’t see atheists gathering together once or more a week to listen to someone else tell them how to live and what they must believe nor do atheists gather to sing, shout, scream and screech about something they are trying desperately to believe. THAT is what religious people do and it’s insane.

      And you also fail to realize that all atrocities against mankind that supposed Christians have committed have been done to the contrary of what Messiah taught. In otherwords, if they were truly following Messiah, they would not have done those things. Being Christian in name is much different than being a Christian in deed.

      Response: That is a logical fallacy known as the No True Scotsman Fallacy. No dice, Hitler was a Christian and he did not act alone. It took a whole nation of Bible believing Christians to commit the atrocities of the Holocaust, not just one man.

      As for Atheists they have no basis for their morals and will always be found to commit great atrocities when they are in power

      Response: Atheists objectively base their morality on the value of life itself. Whatever harms or destroys life is bad or evil and whatever enhances or protects life is termed good. This basis for morality is objective because it is based on the value of human life itself. This leads to a far more compassionate and rational system than that of a deity most of the world does not believe exists and whose whims cannot be understood and who is not constrained in any manner by the commands he gives to others. Your Christian morality is subjective to the extreme because it is established by a being of dubious existence and whose motives and very nature are absolutely beyond human comprehension, which makes it impossible to discern any moral law beyond, “God wills it.” The commandment against murder in the Bible actually means, “Thou shalt not kill “except when I (God) tell you to do so.” Multiple times in the Old Testament, God orders what we would now term “ethnic cleansing.” Saul was directed to utterly exterminate the Amelekites, including “men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” He lost his kingship and eventually his life because he failed to carry out these instructions from God to the letter. That is moral relativism at its starkest. Even the slaughter of infants is “good” when ordered by God under particular circumstances. So who has no basis for morality? ROFL! I just demonstrated that it is the Christians who have no basis whatsoever for morality and of course all the atrocities committed by Christians not to mention their constant war on advancing science prove this beyond any doubt whatsoever. Christians have always been the most violent, intolerant, dangerous people in the world and if it weren’t for the rise of secular humanism they would still be just as violent and bloodthirsty as ever. It is from we atheists and humanists that Christianity has adopted its modern morals and ethics. Humiliating isn’t it?

      …especially absolute power. Survival of the fittest brings no morality with it.

      Response: Survival of the fittest is not a belief system. That is simply the description of how Nature operates. I already showed how science has reversed survival of the fittest so that the unfit among us can lead long and healthy lives and even reproduce and pass their defective genes on to their progeny.

      Self preservation will lead to all kinds of lies and cover ups.

      Response: Yes the Watergate crime was planned and carried out by devout evangelical Christians who then conspired and lied to cover it up.

      Please do remember those wonderful scientists that forged data on climate change. A political leader that claims to be Christian and abuses power proves that he has said in his heart “There is no God.” He is an Atheist for all practical purposes. Hitler was one of these practical Atheists. He deceived those that heard him and himself. So does every Atheist…whether they say that there is no God in their heart of with their mouth or both.

      Response: Hitler claimed to have wiped out atheism and atheists from Germany. Just like you Bo, Hitler hated and feared the spread of free inquiry and critical thinking. The Nazis didn’t just murder 6 million Jews, they murdered 5 million other people, deists, Muslims, atheists, agnostics and anyone else who did not profess faith in Jesus Christ. The Holocaust is simply the latest Christian Crusade. Christians have gone to great lengths to cover up the fact that the Holocaust was a totally Christian deed. But it was and there’s nothing you or anyone else can do to change that.

      ron david metcalf

      ‘Science has triumphed over religion.’
      This is the (unspoken) Big Lie that has divided the U.S. in half, and upon which we will vote this November.

      Response: Science always wins. When have scientists ever had to revise any of their findings or theories in the face of the constant complaints and whining from Bible believers? It’s always the Christians who have to back off their flat earth claims and then they try to make excuses and lie about all the scientific blunders in the Bible. It’s a shame half of our population rejects rational science in favor of non-rational authoritarianism. This kind of ignorance is to be expected in theocracies like Saudi Arabia but it’s shameful that it exists in a supposedly free society. That’s what we get for letting the Republicans dumb down our public schools. They knew their religion of Christianity would not survive another generation if our children learned about science and how to think for themselves.

      Matt B

      Boris, I find it strange that you frequently accuse other posters on these pages of being ignorant of science and scientific method. I suppose that is the party line among athiests who wish to vindicate their positions. I cannot really see what of any that has been posted is anti-science or mis-application of science. With the very stark exemption of the idea that life sprung forth from non-life. There is absolutely no evidence for this either in nature, or in the lab.

      Response: Are you kidding me? Claiming that there is no evidence for evolution or that transitional fossils do not exist is as anti-science as you can get. You might not like the findings and explanations of modern science but they’re not going anywhere. What is disappearing and faster than ever before is your religion. Fundamentalist Christian lies about science are the main reason 3 out of 4 Christian college students reject their faith before they graduate. So just keep on spreading all your lies and propaganda about modern science because you’re killing Christianity much more effectively than we critics can do it.

      In any case, are you familiar with the term “Science qua science”? Are you familiar with anthropic philosophy?

      Response: What could you possibly know about philosophy? Like it is with science philosophy is completely incompatible with religion. Philosophy asks questions that may never be answered while religion gives answers that may never be questioned. You might as well give up Matt. I’m never going to believe in an afterlife, angels, demons, Satan, Jesus or in any of the other things you have believed because other people scared you out of your mind with threats of hell. I’m not a coward.

    251. Matt B
      June 8th, 2012 @ 7:42 am

      Boris, at this point (as I have pointed out) I am not trying to convince you, but rather expose the falseness of your claims for all to see.

      Philosophy is patently not antithetical to religion, and again, what basis do you have to assume I know naught of philosophy or any other discipline? No need to answer- you have none.

    252. Boris
      June 8th, 2012 @ 9:38 am

      Why do you want to keep other people from questioning their religion? Why do doubt and slepticism frighten you so much?

    253. Bo
      June 8th, 2012 @ 9:45 am

      Boris,

      You have rewritten history to suit your religion again. An unbiased perusal of who started hospitals and medical missions and orphanages and unwed mother homes and prison support groups and who it was that was against Hitler and that were trying to help Jews escape and on and on, show you to be hopelessly under the influence of a belief system that does not care what the facts are. You have more blind faith than anybody I have ever met. You are religious to the max. You are indoctrinated to the max.

      Chuck Colson was an unbeliever that was convicted during watergate. He became a believer while in prison and then went on to help prisoners through Prison Fellowship. Where are the atheists that are laying down their lives to help the downtrodden and outcasts?

      Everybody but you can see and understand that Hitler had denied YHWH in his heart. His speeches were designed to rally support not to preach the gospel. His views and actions prove what he really believed.

      James 2
      18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

      Boris, you have shown us your faith. You serve and worship “Norm” who is the personification of your personal view of what everybody that is as intelligent as yourself thinks. You are a religious zealot for atheistic materialism. You are a believer in the god self. And when atheists act morally, it is because they have stolen Christian morality or are afraid of what people will think if they acted the way their system of belief demands.

      And it is absurd for you and “Norm” to think that higher intelligence evolved because our ancestors ate meat. What do you think is the average IQ of a maggot or a barracuda or what ever evolved from them? Why do we not have teeth and digestive systems that show that we have evolved to eat meat? Maybe soon we will develop wolf-like mouths and agility. Maybe we should stop putting our efforts into teaching our children to eat their fruits and vegetables so that we will evolve faster. Strange that our intelligence came from eating meat but our intelligence is not smart enough to know to eat our fruits and vegetables. An evolutionary paradox…hmmmm?

      Shalom

    254. Bo
      June 8th, 2012 @ 5:06 pm

      Boris,

      With all of your rolling and laughing, I am pretty sure that you are on the cutting edge of your religion. It will probably be called the Unholy Rollers. “ROFL” is nothing but ridicule. It is not debating or refuting the many things that have been brought up. You really need to get up to speed on actually proving your points and try some honest attempts at proving ours wrong. A little less time rolling, ranting and raving and a little more time listening and learning wouldn’t hurt you a bit.

      Shalom

    255. Bo
      June 8th, 2012 @ 7:38 pm

      Boris,

      If you can exercise a little self control and stop laughing and rolling for about 5 to 10 minutes, then check out this short article:

      http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

      Here are some excerpts:

      “Some Real Scientists Reject Evolution

      Do any scientists with Ph.D. degrees reject the theory of evolution? Yes, they do!

      The Credential Attack

      You may have noticed that evolutionists often attack the scientific credentials of any scientist who rejects the theory of evolution. They have to do this because:

      There is so little scientific evidence that supports evolution.
      What little evidence they have is highly questionable.

      Since they can’t refute the scientific evidence, they try to refute the scientist.

      The more time we spend defending ourselves, the less time we have to present factual data about the unscientific notions upon which the theory of evolution is based. That’s why we tend to ignore the personal attacks and focus on science.

      Because we do this, our critics naturally claim that we don’t defend the credentials of scientists who reject the theory of evolution because we can’t. Since the charge is repeatedly made that all “real scientists” accept the theory of evolution, we will address that charge this month.
      Past Scientists

      There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.

      Evolutionists, of course, will argue that these great scientists lived before Darwin, and weren’t acquainted with the theory of evolution or modern scientific discoveries. While that may be true of some, it certainly isn’t true of Werner von Braun (1912 – 1977). Furthermore, their argument is based on the false premise that the evidence for the theory of evolution is stronger today than it was in the sixteenth through twentieth centuries. In reality, it was easier to believe in the theory of evolution when the fossil record was much less complete, before spontaneous generation of life was disproved, before genetics and molecular biology were understood as well as they are today.”

      “We get criticized for using fairly tale analogies, but we can’t help seeing a similarity to the story of The Emperor’s New Clothes. Wise people knew the emperor was naked, but they were afraid to say so because they were afraid to appear to be fools. When one little boy blurted out the truth, then other people had the courage to agree. We believe that there are many other scientists like DeHart, Haley, and LeVake who realize the inadequacy of the theory of evolution to explain the origin of life, and are just now willing to state what they know to be true because other scientists have broken the ice by saying that the emperor has no clothes.
      Who Are Real Scientists?

      But, some might argue, DeHart, Haley, and LeVake aren’t really scientists. They are just high school science teachers.

      If high school science teachers aren’t really scientists, then we have to accept the fact that a large segment of the general public (specifically, people who have high school diplomas and no higher education) were taught everything they know about science from unqualified non-scientists. This line of reasoning leads to the conclusion that many people have been taught that evolution is true by non-scientists who don’t know what they are talking about.

      We consider science teachers to be real scientists. We think engineers are real scientists. We don’t limit the term “scientist” to professors of evolutionary biology.”

      “This is another example of how evolutionists use circular reasoning. Circular logic concludes that no “real scientist” rejects evolution because the very fact that he rejects evolution means he isn’t a “real scientist”.

      My late friend Jim Rieger used this method to distinguish a scientist from an engineer:

      When a scientist makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. Where should I publish it?” When an engineer makes a discovery, he immediately thinks, “This is an amazing new discovery. How can I make a buck with it?”

      Engineers are scientists who use scientific knowledge to design products (or invent procedures) that are commercially profitable. Scientists may speculate about how planets are formed, but not one of them has ever actually made a planet. On the other hand, when engineers claim they know to how to build a space probe that can reach those planets, they actually have to build it. This means that engineers tend to be brought back to reality more often than college professors.

      ALL my friends with Ph.D. degrees who are college professors believe in evolution. NONE of my friends with Ph.D. degrees who work in the defense industry believe in evolution.”

      “Notice that if one is an engineer, he only “claim[s] to have academic credentials,” and isn’t really a scientist, in the words of that evolutionist. In response to his next-to-last sentence, one could argue that engineers are more inclined to accept only actual experimental results, whereas scientists are more likely to accept fanciful theories (if told skillfully enough).
      Why Does it Matter?

      Why does it matter who is a scientist and who isn’t? Because our society has been conditioned to accept the notion that any sentence that begins, “Scientists say …” is undeniably true. The general public has been told that scientists are unbiased, objective individuals who are never wrong. If you can’t trust what scientists say, what can you trust?

      Evolutionists weren’t too worried when scientists said evolution was true and preachers said it wasn’t. But now that thousands of scientists (not counting engineers and high school science teachers) are saying publicly that evolution isn’t true, that’s a big problem for evolutionists. Scientists have much more credibility (in their opinion) than mere preachers do. The general public might believe what scientists say. Therefore, the evolutionists have to convince the public that the scientists who reject evolution aren’t really scientists-they are just high school science teachers, engineers, or skillful debaters posing as scientists.

      Why 50 Scientists Reject Evolution

      We would like to recommend the book In Six Days (why 50 scientists choose to believe in creation) edited by John F. Ashton. It is a collection of fifty essays, each written by a different scientist. Each author’s (impressive) academic credentials are listed at the beginning of his or her essay. They span a wide variety of academic disciplines. They aren’t all engineers! (But some are.)”

      “Although we failed to count the number of times every argument was used, we did notice that the second law of thermodynamics was mentioned by seven of the fifty scientists. Specifically, they were Jeremy Walter and Stanley Mumma (two engineers), Larry Vardiman and Don deYoung (two physicists), Ker Thompson and John Baumgardner (two geophysicists, but Baumgardner also has B.S. and M.S. degrees in electrical engineering as well as his M.S. and Ph.D. degrees in Geophysics and Space Physics), and Geoff Downes (forestry research, but he learned about thermodynamics in a physical chemistry class).

      We, too, believe the second law of thermodynamics is one of the most powerful arguments against evolution. We have not used it on our web site because we haven’t found a way to explain it in a way that the general public can understand. These seven men give it a valiant try, and nearly succeed.

      The problem is that thermodynamics is a one-semester mechanical engineering course that mechanical and electrical engineering students are generally required to take to graduate. Physics majors probably have to take it, too. It is a course that students usually try to put off until their junior or senior years because it is a tough course, which many students flunk.

      To explain why the second law of thermodynamics prohibits evolution, one must rely on concepts appreciated only by people who have received a passing grade in thermodynamics. People who don’t understand thermodynamics make stupid counter-arguments about snowflakes or open systems.”

      “We certainly agree that most of the scientists who reject evolution believe the Bible, but it is unclear which is the cause and which is the effect. Do scientists reject evolution because they believe the Bible, or do they believe the Bible because they reject evolution? (On the other side of the coin, most atheists are evolutionists. Are they evolutionists because they are atheists? or are they atheists because they are evolutionists?)”

      Just read the article and explore the website. You just might learn something. More likely you will continue to laugh and roll as you continue in your religiously induced atheistic trance.

      The choice is yours.

      Shalom

    256. Bo
      June 8th, 2012 @ 8:52 pm

      Boris,

      Give this a shot this weekend:

      http://evolutionfacts.blogspot.com/

      Go to the above site, scroll down to the links that say “Why I am not an atheist part 1″ and “Why I am not an atheist part 2″, listen to these presentations by Ravi Zacharias, and let us know what you think.

      Shabat Shalom

    257. Boris
      June 9th, 2012 @ 3:25 am

      Boris, you have shown us your faith. You serve and worship “Norm” who is the personification of your personal view of what everybody that is as intelligent as yourself thinks. You are a religious zealot for atheistic materialism. You are a believer in the god self.

      Response: I believe in myself but I don’t view myself as a god. I don’t think I’m going to live forever.

      And when atheists act morally, it is because they have stolen Christian morality or are afraid of what people will think if they acted the way their system of belief demands.

      Response: In what way does not believing what other people claim about their Gods and religions demand a person act may I ask? I already demonstrated that morality based on the value of human life itself is superior to Christian morality based on the Bible in post #250 on this thread. I also showed that it wasn’t until the rise of skepticism and secularism that Christians became civilized and so it is Christianity that has borrowed its modern morals from secular humanism. True to form you completely ignored my refutation of your claim and went right on repeating it as if no objections had been raised to it at all. My statement stands. Christians borrow their morals from secular humanism.

      I’m not reading any of the stuff you want me to. I highly doubt you’d read anything a skeptic suggested that you read. I’m very familiar with Christian apologetics. There aren’t any creationist or theistic arguments I don’t know how to refute. I can’t argue with Ravi Zacharias he’s not here. But I can refute his arguments if you want to post a brief version of one or two of them in your own words. You are not going to change my mind with arguments because arguments are not evidence. Unbelief is the natural position to take on any subject until something has been proved at least beyond a reasonable doubt. The existence of God has not been proved and so the natural position to take on the claims people make about various Gods is unbelief or atheism. Short of a personal appearance by God I shall remain an unbeliever. I don’t care what you believe about God or modern science. However you’re obviously very concerned about what I think because you’ve wasted an awful lot of time and space on this blog trying to convince me to believe what you do. I think you’re just trying to convince yourself that what other people have convinced you to believe is really true.

    258. Bo
      June 11th, 2012 @ 10:54 pm

      Boris,

      I ran across this studying something else. Just thought you might want to know about an archeological find concerning one of the 12 original apostles of Y’shua.

      “On Wednesday, 27 July 2011 the Turkish news agency Anadolu reported that archeologists had unearthed the Tomb of Saint Philip during excavations in Hierapolis close to the Turkish city Denizli. The Italian professor Francesco D’Andria stated that scientists had discovered the tomb, within a newly revealed church. He stated that the design of the Tomb, and writings on its walls, definitively prove it belonged to the martyred Apostle of Jesus.”

      The above quote is from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_the_Apostle#cite_note-11

      Your “not a shred of evidence” statement proves untrue once again. You make pretty bold assertions for someone that hasn’t read everything. Of course to be a true atheist, declaring that there is no God, you would have to be omniscient and that would prove that you were God and thus disprove your absolute statement that there is no God. For someone who doesn’t believe in absolutes, you sure have a lot of absolute beliefs.

      Shalom

    259. Dan1el
      June 11th, 2012 @ 11:12 pm

      Is Boris a “true atheist” – does he venture where (I’m assuming, here) much more learned men (i.e.: Richard Dawkins – even Dawkins says he is not 100% certain of atheism) do not dare ?

    260. Boris
      June 12th, 2012 @ 2:35 am

      I didn’t say nor do I think I could prove there is no God. I just think the evidence for God is on the same level as the evidence for werewolves. And the evidence for the supposed tomb of Saint Phillip is on the same level as the evidence for the James ossuary and the Shroud of Turin.

    261. ron david metcalf
      June 12th, 2012 @ 7:36 am

      Unless Boris has fooled us all, he is a Seeker of Truth, which means he must follow some rules in spite of himself. I have met many Liars where there is no connection whatsoever. But empirical science has many strict rules, and that is a trap for so-called ‘free-thinkers’. If I don’t follow the exact sequence every time, my bluetooth won’t allow me on the internet. If the laws of aerodynamics aren’t followed, the airplane won’t get off the ground. So ‘anything goes’ concerning your Life doesn’t seem to apply in light of scientific experimentation; many thousands of hours are constantly spent ‘getting it right’.
      In Him, Ron M

    262. Bo
      June 12th, 2012 @ 11:08 am

      Boris,

      You wrote:
      “I just think the evidence for God is on the same level as the evidence for werewolves. And the evidence for the supposed tomb of Saint Phillip is on the same level as the evidence for the James ossuary and the Shroud of Turin.”

      And you know this because you decided it was this way before you investigated it.

      I guess you can continue to only accept evidence that goes along with your predetermined conclusions. That is all that you are doing. You are going nowhere fast in a nonexistent search for truth…running little circles in your mind. If by some outside chance you would like to investigate a website that deals with peer reviewed scientific findings and critiques them scientifically and logically, here is your place to go:

      http://scienceagainstevolution.info/v15i4f.htm

      Start with this article and then peruse the site.

      Of course, if you have already decided that the site must be wrong because it disagrees with you, then you probably should go back to your ROFLing. It will give you some aerobic exercise, but it will not keep your conscience from atrophying and it won’t help you see through a blindfold.

      Shalom

    263. Matt B
      June 12th, 2012 @ 12:31 pm

      Boris believes there is no god- therefore he is an antheist. He claims to have seen no evidence for God’s existence. Evidence has been offered and rejected.

      The converse however has to be pointed out: there is no evidence for God’s non-existence.

      So we have supported reasons to believe that God does exist (in many forms- physical evidence i.e. creation, classical arguments from metaphysics, personal testimonies, corroborating historical investigations to the biblical claims, etc).

      And then we have preferences and opinions that God does not exist- because well, it seems better for some to believe that He doesn’t. Bot no evidence at all that he does not- because as many prominent Atheists have poited out, it cannot be proven that God does not exist.

    264. Matt B
      June 12th, 2012 @ 12:50 pm

      To complete my points above:
      It has been stated here that the natural or perhaps preferred position to take is “unbelief”. That status would be held until irrefutable evidence is brought forth to cause “belief”. I think it was meant in a general sense- whether one is discussing man-made global warming, the orignation of life from non-life, the human-ness of an un-born child, the factual veracity of biblical history, or the existence of God, as some possible propositions to believe or disbelieve.

      I am skeptical that the most natural position is always unbelief- it would certainly depend on what is being presented. In science, when testing a hypothesis, we are trying to disprove (starting in un-belief).

      In nearly any other realm, belief may be the most natural position to take in the first. Note how difficult it is to stamp out religious belief among the peoples in nations whose governments enforce atheism (substituting statism). Eventually the society recognizes that religion is very important to keep a stable society. Is this a vestige of “evolutionary” development, no longer needed? Is theism a societal norm so ingrained it would take generations to remove? Or is it the natural state to recognize that god exists, based on human observation and experience?

      I don’t think the answers are as settled as some would lead others to believe. I don’t think unbelief is the most natural state. There is research to back this up.

    265. Matt B
      June 12th, 2012 @ 2:23 pm

      Note, in the discussion above, “belief” in god does NOT equal FAITH in God. One can believe in, but not submit onesself to the existing god.

    266. Bo
      June 12th, 2012 @ 10:13 pm

      Matt B,

      Good point.

      Hebrews 11
      6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.

      Shalom

    267. Matt B
      June 12th, 2012 @ 10:51 pm

      Bo, interesting that I was reminded in the spirit about belief and faith- the verse you brought is very timely- thanks.

      Boris, you have made this statement in one form or another a few times, “…it wasn’t until the rise of skepticism and secularism that Christians became civilized and so it is Christianity that has borrowed its modern morals from secular humanism.”

      This is very interesting and I wonder what evidence or arguments you have to back it up.

      From an early church “father” Tertullian:
      “Look,” they say, “how they love one another” (for they themselves hate one another); “and how they are ready to die for each other” (for they themselves are readier to kill each other).” from Apologeticum ch. 39, 7

      Relating the non-Christians remarks about the community of believers in Christ, he wrote this in early 3rd century A.D. Other sections describe how the Christians helped poor children, widows, abstained from sexual immorality, murder, drunkenness, lying and murder (in contrast to some pagan norms). Many other general acts courage, kindness, and loving care were outlined as well. These are only one man’s observations of his times, his community.

      Point is, how again can it be said that Christianity “borrowed” its morals from secular humanism? It seem to me that it is quite the opposite. Secular humanism has recognized good moral behavior (in some form anyway) and claimed it for their own- in that humanists recognize the need for “good” morals. The departure is that outside the Law of Grace, morals inevitably become corrupted, or go in wrongful directions if even initially meaning well (the early Soviet Union, for one obvious example). Yes, a secular humanist may be a very “moral” person- but it means living beyond, not within, the framework of non-belief in God.

    268. Boris
      June 13th, 2012 @ 3:10 am

      ron david metcalf
      Unless Boris has fooled us all, he is a Seeker of Truth, which means he must follow some rules in spite of himself. I have met many Liars where there is no connection whatsoever. But empirical science has many strict rules… So ‘anything goes’ concerning your Life doesn’t seem to apply in light of scientific experimentation; many thousands of hours are constantly spent ‘getting it right’.

      Response: Okay Ron you can live by the rules for inanimate objects and walk by faith in religious dogma and I’ll go by educated guesses.

      Bo
      And you know this because you decided it was this way before you investigated it.
      I guess you can continue to only accept evidence that goes along with your predetermined conclusions. That is all that you are doing.

      Response: That’s hilarious coming from someone who assumes any scientific finding that disagrees with the Bible must automatically be incorrect.

      You are going nowhere fast in a nonexistent search for truth…running little circles in your mind. If by some outside chance you would like to investigate a website that deals with peer reviewed scientific findings and critiques them scientifically and logically, here is your place to go:

      Response: Your website hasn’t published any scientific peer-reviewed papers itself and yet somehow you think they’re qualified to critique real papers that report on actual experiments, demonstrations and observations! When are creationists going to actually produce something useful with their creation “science” may I ask? You can’t just publish a bunch of arguments that supposedly refute actual work done in a lab and observations made the field. You have to go out and do the same kind of work yourself if you want to prove something. That’s how real scientists work and produce real world results. Christian colleges and universities teach evolution and reject creationism. How come your creationists on that website can’t even get your own CHRISTIAN colleges and universities to teach their creationism? You let me know when they do. That isn’t ever going to happen and we both know why.

      Matt B

      Boris believes there is no god- therefore he is an antheist. He claims to have seen no evidence for God’s existence. Evidence has been offered and rejected.

      Response: You didn’t offer any evidence but only arguments and arguments are not evidence. On the one hand believers tell us that God’s existence is indisputably seen in nature, and those who disbelieve are without excuse. However that claim runs in direct contrast to the argument that God could give proof of his existence, but won’t because that would take away our free will to believe or disbelieve. So which is it Matt? Has God given proof of his existence or not? Do we have free will or not?

      Note, in the discussion above, “belief” in god does NOT equal FAITH in God. One can believe in, but not submit onesself to the existing god.

      Response: Is that what you would do if you found out that the God of Islam was the one true God and the creator of the universe?

      I already demonstrated that morals based on the whims of a deity most of the world does not believe exists are subjective to the extreme. This is why for most of its history Christianity has been a violent, oppressive, intolerant and bloodthirsty religion. It’s only since the rise of secular humanism that Christianity has become a civilized religion. Should we think Christians had an attack of conscience and stopped hunting heretics, burning witches and fighting wars of aggression to spread their religion? Or is it more logical to assume that it was the rise of secular humanism that gave Christianity its modern face? Believe what you want.

      FYI your “Law of Grace” is not a real law. It’s imaginary religious dogma.

    269. ron david metcalf
      June 13th, 2012 @ 8:36 am

      If Boris could convince himself that we are all fools, that the rewards of this life are all there is, and that is all, he would be happy; and even the Apostle Paul can offer no “proof” otherwise, except the Witness of the Spirit of GOD. Yet, there is this nagging doubt that it doesn’t quite all add up, or else he would stop trying to convince us. Jesus said (paraphrasing): “What if you conquer the world, but lose your soul?” This is not classic literature; it is GOD’s question to man for all ages. Though he was ‘close’ to having it all figured out, the rich young ruler, when confronted by GOD, couldn’t make that final step toward the question he had asked. GOD’s answers demand action.
      In Him, Ron M.

    270. Matt B
      June 13th, 2012 @ 9:09 am

      Boris, please show me your evidence for non-existence of god. Sorry, but given how many claim that he does, and how evident it is from creation, the atheist claims are just opinion in the absence of any type of evidence.

      You have patently not demonstrated that secular humanistic morals are somehow superior, and those based on the teachings of Jesus Christ are inferior. I have given you evidence of the contrary. Your reply is…

    271. Bo
      June 13th, 2012 @ 9:27 am

      Boris,

      You wrote:
      “Your website hasn’t published any scientific peer-reviewed papers itself and yet somehow you think they’re qualified to critique real papers that report on actual experiments, demonstrations and observations! When are creationists going to actually produce something useful with their creation “science” may I ask? You can’t just publish a bunch of arguments that supposedly refute actual work done in a lab and observations made the field. You have to go out and do the same kind of work yourself if you want to prove something. That’s how real scientists work and produce real world results.”

      Did you go to the website and actually read anything fully? Or are you just using arguments and platitudes to dismiss what you haven’t investigated?

      As for evolutionists…they just produce arguments and ideas and have not been able to demonstrate that live can come from non life and they have produced no experiment that shows one kind of organism turning into another. Evolution is a philosophy and a religion not science.

      Shalom

    272. ron david metcalf
      June 13th, 2012 @ 10:01 am

      There have been many cross-breeding experiments that result in sterility; the GMO food experiments are DANGEROUS in that corporations would be in charge of the distribution of sterile seed to the nations. Vaccines have been suspect lately and are subject to scrutiny. Science, like Nobel’s dynamite, has proved itself much more adept toward death and destruction than Life.
      Witness Hawking’s (discredited) Black Hole theories as the most celebrated Modern Thought.
      In Him, Ron M.

    273. Bo
      June 13th, 2012 @ 11:12 am

      Boris,

      You wrote:
      “When are creationists going to actually produce something useful with their creation “science” may I ask?”

      You haven’t read your history. If you had you wouldn’t ask silly questions.

      “There is no question that some of the most famous scientists of all times believed in creation. Ann Lamont has written a book entitled 21 Great Scientists Who Believed The Bible. She devotes chapters to Kepler, Boyle, Newton, Linnaeus, Euler, Faraday, Babbage, Joule, Pasteur, Kelvin, Maxwell, and Werner von Braun. These men weren’t dummies, and they believed in creation.”-from: http://www.ridgenet.net/~do_while/sage/v5i10f.htm

      Please read the link if you haven’t already decided that it cannot be true.

      Shalom

    274. Bo
      June 13th, 2012 @ 11:23 am

      Boris,

      You wrote:
      “Christian colleges and universities teach evolution and reject creationism. How come your creationists on that website can’t even get your own CHRISTIAN colleges and universities to teach their creationism? You let me know when they do. That isn’t ever going to happen and we both know why. ”

      At least 24 Christian colleges do not teach evolution according to this website: http://www.returntotheword.org/colleges.html

      Shalom

    275. Bo
      June 13th, 2012 @ 11:58 am

      Boris,

      Do these count as scientists that produced “something useful with their creation science”?

      Francis Bacon (developed the Scientific Method)

      Michael Faraday (helped develop science of electromagnetics / developed the Field Theory / invented the electric generator)

      Gregor Mendel (founded the modern science of genetics)

      Isaac Newton (helped develop science of dynamics and the discipline of calculus / father of the Law of Gravity / invented the reflecting telescope)

      Blaise Pascal (helped develop science of hydrostatics / invented the barometer)

      Louis Pasteur (helped develop science of bacteriology / discovered the Law of Biogenesis / invented fermentation control / developed vaccinations and immunizations)

      William Thompson (Lord Kelvin) (helped develop sciences of thermodynamics and energetics / invented the Absolute Temperature Scale / developed the Trans-Atlantic Cable)

      Young-Gil Kim of the Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology. Ph.D. in Materials Science, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute / highly distinguished / inventor of various important high-tech alloys.

      There are many more.

      Shalom

    276. Matt B
      June 13th, 2012 @ 1:58 pm

      It has been observed that the tenets of Darwinian evolutionary thought (and its more recent off-shoots) have not had any discernable affect on actual scientific discovery (outside of the smallish enclave of evolutionary biology itself, of course):

      “Dr. Marc Kirschner, 2005 chair of the Department of Systems Biology, Harvard Medical School, stated in a Boston Globe article: “In fact, over the last 100 years, almost all of biology has proceeded independent of evolution, except evolutionary biology itself. Molecular biology, biochemistry, physiology, have not taken evolution into account at all.” Dr. P.S. Skell wrote, “It is our knowledge of how these organisms actually operate, not speculations about how they may have arisen millions of years ago, that is essential to doctors, veterinarians, farmers ….” Evolution actually hinders medical discovery. Then why do schools and universities teach evolution so dogmatically, stealing time from experimental biology that so benefits humankind?”

      I could summarize the content of the posts in this thread; numerous straw-man assertations, setting up fallacies and downright falsehoods as fact, to whit:

      1. Constantine invented Christianity
      2. Jesus of Nazareth never even existed
      3. the whole of historicity in the Judeo-Christian scriptures has been “proven” false and is therefore myth
      4. evolution has been “proven” true, though there are no fossil records that directly support evolutionary progression.
      5. Life sprang forth from non-life, without an intelligence providing intent.
      6. Fundamentalist Christian beliefs inexorably lead to family violence
      7. Hitler was a practicing Christian in the fullest sense, and not an ideologue driven by lust for power and evolutionary thought
      8. Secular humanism produces higher moral standards than Christianity, which is clearly depraved. Atheism is therefore a superior worldview.
      9. Christians cannot understand science or evolution, and therefore have not contributed at all to scientific discoveries
      10. Though the world appears to have a Creator, it cannot have been thus. Scientists must remind themselves of this over and over (reference a quote from Sir Francis Crick the co-discoverer of DNA).
      11. Christians have faith in their religion simply because they are afraid of hell, and are too afraid to question their own beliefs. So if they hold to their beliefs, then they are simply being coerced by fear.
      12. If one accepts that a creator god exists, then one must necessarily believe in any god (Christianity –> Islam).
      13. If God exists, he would have proven it to me in big red flashing letters; He has not, therefore He cannot exist.

    277. Matt B
      June 13th, 2012 @ 2:05 pm

      Hey, Bo, don’t forget the guy that led the way in sequencing the human genome: Director of the Human Genome Project, Dr. Francis Collins, Christian believer in God as Creator.

    278. ron david metcalf
      June 13th, 2012 @ 2:55 pm

      One thing I forgot to mention is that ANYTHING ‘proven’ true about Christanity seems to be a threat (crack-in-the-door) to Boris’ beliefs; which shows vulnerability and irrationality. By simple reverse-engineering, then, ANYTHING proved historically true in the Bible could shake his iron-clad-shut analysis.
      This thread ‘proves’ who is more concerned about ‘learning’, with Boris contributing @ half the content.
      In Him, Ron M.

    279. ron david metcalf
      June 13th, 2012 @ 7:04 pm

      Furthermore, as this has become a sort-of Layman’s Guide to Arguing Law, the most recent FRC’s Ca. 9th District Court “Animi v Animus” Brief :) shows how bias affects what sometimes seems to be a pre-determined verdict based on ‘clout’, if all Rule is Relative and based on Current Social Opinion, as Boris appears to be proposing. What value, then, does something like Vote have, if all ‘christians’ are defined as ‘stupid’ in someone’s book, and are disqualified as ‘riff-raff’ by default? Media brainwashing techniques would be just one of the ‘tools’ used as ‘persuasion’ if only the ‘elite’ (as defined by themselves) are allowed to ‘win’. Witness the Bush/Clinton (for lack of better terminology) controversy. But ‘see’ also how the Church is beginning to once again redefine itself as a Kingdom Apart from Politics, more concerned with Absolutes than ths shifting sands of temporary domain- a Role it paradoxically shares with Pure Science that can be as protagonistic as antagonistic, because “idols can do neither good nor evil” (Jeremiah).
      In Him, Ron M.

    280. Boris
      June 14th, 2012 @ 3:47 am

      ron david metcalf
      If Boris could convince himself that we are all fools, … Yet, there is this nagging doubt that it doesn’t quite all add up, or else he would stop trying to convince us.

      Response: I’m not trying to convince you people of anything. I read and post comments on this blog for the same reason everyone else does: I listen to the show, or at least the second hour of it when I can and if the subject interests me. I’m not trying to de-convert anybody and I don’t want to be converted. There are several people who just cannot stick to the subject of the thread and feel they have try to convince me that their religious beliefs are valid. They should tell someone who cares because I don’t.

      GOD’s answers demand action.

      Response: So YOU say. However we atheists do not believe YOU or anyone else who claims to speak for God. In fact if there were a God trying to tell us something I doubt we’d hear or recognize it over the din of noise made by people all constantly speaking for their Gods.

      Matt B
      Boris, please show me your evidence for non-existence of god. Sorry, but given how many claim that he does, and how evident it is from creation, the atheist claims are just opinion in the absence of any type of evidence.

      Response: The things conservative Christians fight against the most are abortion, evolution and lately global warming. The reason is obvious. These things prove beyond a reasonable doubt that contrary to the claims of Christians God is definitely NOT in control. When you’ve proved that God is not in control you’ve given very good evidence that there is in fact no God. However it isn’t just a God you believe in. You believe in angels, demons, Satan and that these absurd bogey entities are actually fighting some kind of invisible cosmic war that somehow controls what goes on in the real world. You believe in an afterlife, heaven and hell. You believe people and animals die because the first two humans disobeyed God. Where’s the evidence for ANY of these things? Where do you get the nerve to say that atheist claims are just opinion in the absence of any type of evidence? You haven’t got a shred of evidence to support ANY of your beliefs.

      You have patently not demonstrated that secular humanistic morals are somehow superior, and those based on the teachings of Jesus Christ are inferior. I have given you evidence of the contrary. Your reply is…

      Response: It’s easy to say that I haven’t demonstrated my case when you simply ignore what I said which is exactly what you did. The humanist basis for morality is objective because it is based on the value of human life itself. This leads to a far more compassionate and rational system than that of a deity most of the world does not believe exists and whose whims cannot be understood and who is not constrained in any manner by the commands he gives to others. Your Christian morality is subjective to the extreme because it is established by a being of dubious existence and whose motives and nature are beyond human comprehension. This makes it impossible to discern any moral law beyond, “God wills it.” The commandment against murder in the Bible actually means, “Thou shalt not kill “except when I (God) tell you to do so.” Several times in the Old Testament, God ordered what we would now call “ethnic cleansing.” Saul was ordered to completely exterminate the Amelekites, including “men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and donkeys.” He lost his kingship and eventually his life because he failed to carry out these instructions from God to the letter. That is moral relativism at its starkest. Your reply is….

      Bo
      As for evolutionists…they just produce arguments and ideas and have not been able to demonstrate that live can come from non life and they have produced no experiment that shows one kind of organism turning into another. Evolution is a philosophy and a religion not science.

      Response: You might as well say Algebra is a religion. What is the purpose of studying evolution by natural selection? To debunk Christianity perhaps?

      ron david metcalf
      Witness Hawking’s (discredited) Black Hole theories as the most celebrated Modern Thought.

      Response: Are you saying black holes do not exist?

      At least 24 Christian colleges do not teach evolution according to this website:

      Response: That’s because they are all Bible colleges! None of them even have a science department.

      Bo
      Do these count as scientists that produced “something useful with their creation science”?

      Response: Are you kidding me? None of these scientists used any kind of creation “science.” A person could read the whole Bible and they still wouldn’t know how to make a shoe let alone do any of the things these men did. What I find amusing is how on the one hand we hear that a Christian, Francis Bacon, deserves the credit for inventing modern scientific method because it introduced the assumption of uniform natural law.
      Then the same people tell us that the assumption of uniform natural law is contrary to Christianity and is only made by atheists. Which is it Bo?

    281. ron david metcalf
      June 14th, 2012 @ 8:54 am

      Euclid’s methods probably Were religion to his peers. That’s because measurement demands convention; ‘proving’ something involves a Standard of Agreement. And I am not saying black holes don’t exist; I’m saying that very soon Stephen Hawking won’t exist (by your standards); you still don’t ‘get it’.

      You have mentioned the Purging of the Promised Land several times. What is the ratio of Israel to the rest of the world? This is the tiny piece of real estate GOD demanded to be Pure, and that is all. You have shown your disdain for any concept of Absolute, or Pure, so our conversation is nearly at an end.

      Sporting events are pleasant & entertaining to those sitting on bleachers, but you are not a spectator; actors are applauded, but you are not a patron watching a play; this is deadly serious intervention; but you refuse to take anything seriously, except your own ‘smart’ answer to anything we might say, which is most often just demeaning and insulting, and hardly intelligent at all by normal standards of debate.

      Your delusion that you are winning when you are losing badly hinders you greatly; but the millisecond you admit that you are losing, you can begin winning. This is called Repentance.
      Sorry, but these are the Rules; & I didn’t make them.

      In Him, Ron M.

    282. Boris
      June 14th, 2012 @ 1:05 pm

      Your delusion that you are winning when you are losing badly hinders you greatly; but the millisecond you admit that you are losing, you can begin winning. This is called Repentance.
      Sorry, but these are the Rules; & I didn’t make them.

      Response: Yes but OTHER PEOPLE made those rules. Follow other people all you want. I don’t care.

    283. online fire science degree maryland
      September 27th, 2012 @ 2:25 am

      Excellent ρost. I ωaѕ сhecκіng cоnstantly thіs
      blog anԁ I аm іmprеssed!
      Extremely useful іnfο paгticulaгlу the last pагt :) I caгe fоr ѕuch infοrmation a lot.

      I was looking fοг this ceгtаіn information for а long time.
      Thank you аnԁ gοod luсk.

    Leave a Reply