Good NEWS Atheists the answers to your TWO main questions.

[TruthTraveler]

http://tomorrowonline.org/order.htm

FREE FREE FREE

I ordered 6 today FREE

Creation or Evolution (I think I ordered this one)http://tomorrowonline.org/lev.htm

and

Who is God?
http://tomorrowonline.org/lwg.htm

 

[ObbiQuiet]

Don't make me laugh.

Edit: *does laugh*

Yeah, the anit-evolution book is 32 pages long. Wow, they must have some real evidence in there.

 

[TruthTraveler]

32 pages.

Sometimes the answer your looking for is short and simple.

 

[Arikay]

Good news creationists, now you get to pay someone to lie to you.

Maybe when you get it, you can post some of its "evidence" so we can see if it was worth it or not.

 

[Cantuar]

Looks like the usual concentration of strawmen per page that's in most creationist publications.

What does "Creation or Evolution" have to do with God, in particular? And why would a book called "Who is God" answer any questions that an atheist might ask? As far as atheists are concerned, God doesn't exist - no question.

 

[Vegan Charity]

In actuality, very few Christians take those two Booklets seriously (its the same phenomena for why atheists dont take books on Alchemy seriously).

A few things I find unusual:

1. There is nothing in those books which presents evidence against evolution.

2. Even if Evolution were disproved, that would not establish Creationism by default

3. Why does the author promote the Christian god, and not any of the other equally possible gods who creates the universe?

4. Why does the author promote his concept of God?


Plain and simple, those booklets are intellectually dishonest, you might as well try to convince atheists of the divinity of God with Jack Chick comics...

 

[TruthTraveler]

Well this is a Christian forum not Buddaforum or Allahforum.................................

 

[TruthTraveler]

Good news creationists, now you get to pay someone to lie to you.

Maybe when you get it, you can post some of its "evidence" so we can see if it was worth it or not.

KEYWORD: FREE

If I selected ordered one of them I'll post what's in it so you all can say LIE LIE LIE.

 

[ChristFollowers]

Seems Christianity is sooooo sure of themselves. Other than "Books" what proof is there that God exists? This is directed at the Christians. Give me ONE proof other than the Bible.


You people are so quick to harass Atheist people, yet you seem to have NO REAL proof of nothing, but a book that says God existed.

I am not trying to "pick" on Christians. Just getting tired of you people trying to prove something to a person that doesnt even believe in God. Christians try to convert an Atheist to believe in God, yet when a Buddahist, Hindu or Jew tries to convert a Christian into their religion......Christians think that they are wrong and Christianity is right. Christians do the same thing as a Atheist.....they deny the other religion is right.

To the Christians.....I have the answer that we should worship the Hindu or Budda God....what would you say if I gave you this question and provided you with a real answer?

Christians really have me thinking about them.....are they a cult that tries to convert people because they are some lunatics that HAVE to harass non believers??????

Christians seem to think they are so perfect.......

 

[Vegan Charity]

You people are so quick to harass Atheist people, yet you seem to have NO REAL proof of nothing, but a book that says God existed.

Philosopher G.E. Moore had a few intriguing things to say:

There are just some people who choose to believe things on a basis of firm inner convictions, rather than the evidence presented to them.

And of all the evidence so far, it seems to point to a purely Naturalistic nature of reality.

That's something I try to remember...

 

[Arikay]

When you said ordered, I assumed it costed something. Good that they are free.

Dont worry, when we say lie lie lie we will back it up with evidence.

KEYWORD: FREE

If I selected ordered one of them I'll post what's in it so you all can say LIE LIE LIE.

 

[Brimshack]

Seems Christianity is sooooo sure of themselves. Other than "Books" what proof is there that God exists? This is directed at the Christians. Give me ONE proof other than the Bible.


You people are so quick to harass Atheist people, yet you seem to have NO REAL proof of nothing, but a book that says God existed.

I am not trying to "pick" on Christians. Just getting tired of you people trying to prove something to a person that doesnt even believe in God. Christians try to convert an Atheist to believe in God, yet when a Buddahist, Hindu or Jew tries to convert a Christian into their religion......Christians think that they are wrong and Christianity is right. Christians do the same thing as a Atheist.....they deny the other religion is right.

To the Christians.....I have the answer that we should worship the Hindu or Budda God....what would you say if I gave you this question and provided you with a real answer?

Christians really have me thinking about them.....are they a cult that tries to convert people because they are some lunatics that HAVE to harass non believers??????

Christians seem to think they are so perfect.......

Take it easy Christfollowers (I'm obviously missing something here about your name). Even I wouldn't say that about Christians in general. Don't get me wrong; I have absolutely no respect whatsoever for the sort of mindless propoganda that TT is promoting here, but we must remember that as much as they slander unbelievers with works like that; they also slander the name of their own Lord, and of the many reasonable Christians that are out there by pretending such bigotry is what it means to be Christian.

 

[Eru]

A 32 page book is supposed to refute Atheism?

Give me a break.

 

[hard_2_take_in]

Ok folks - for a better balanced view on evo - read Prof joseph behe - on the subject - he rounds hot on the likes of Richard Dawkins and Darwin -

To compress his genaraL PRINCIPLE - he can see aspects of evolution which are fair enough - like for example how one bird may slowly adapt to a different species of bird due to environemntal conditioning - but what he argues is that the general bio-tech like workings of any mamal are so complex he cannot foresee how such highly complex systems can be justifiably explained by evolution on its own - the odds are so remote - he cites for example the workings of the eye, even the supposedly simple scarring technique of the skin to heal wounds - this is noe respected scientist - non Christian - who directly challenges evolution as the only creative force - and another thing - talk to many contemporary physicists and mathematicians - and they seem to be coming closer together in the notion that the rules binding our universe together are so infintismally perfect and and almost beautiful that they suggest an intelligenct creative force behind everything - so there! Even the concept of Shrodinger's cat in a box theory on Quantum theory - relating the presence of things to human conscience and perception should be enough to shake anyone's conventional view of existance - (ps excuse me if I have Shriddinger's name wrong - I aint a scientist)

 

[ForeRunner]

Clearly you aren't

 

[notto]

this is noe respected scientist - non Christian - who directly challenges evolution as the only creative force

Behe is a Roman Catholic. He is a Christian however he is not a standard 'Creationist' and does not believe that the world is young or that man and animals were created all at the same time through an act of special creation.

 

[lucaspa]

http://tomorrowonline.org/order.htm

FREE FREE FREE

I ordered 6 today FREE

Creation or Evolution (I think I ordered this one)http://tomorrowonline.org/lev.htm

and

Who is God?
http://tomorrowonline.org/lwg.htm

Well, you get what you pay for.

The second book has some interesting chapter titles. I was struck by "Blood Clotting: A Biological Miracle". This, no doubt, is lifted right out of Behe's Darwin's Black Box. But, of course, the author never went to the scienitifc literature to look at these papers, did he?

1. Doolittle RF, The structure and evolution of vertebrate fibrinogen: a comparison of the
lamprey and mammalian proteins. Adv Exp Med Biol 1990;281:25-37
2. Gray JE, Doolittle RF, Characterization, primary structure, and evolution of lamprey plasma albumin. Protein Sci 1992 Feb;1(2):289-302
3. Doolittle RF, Feng DF, Reconstructing the evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation from a consideration of the amino acid sequences of clotting proteins. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1987;52:869-874
4. Patthy L, Evolutionary assembly of blood coagulation proteins. Semin Thromb Hemost 1990 Jul;16(3):245-259
5. Blake CC, Harlos K, Holland SK, Exon and domain evolution in the proenzymes of blood coagulation and fibrinolysis. Cold Spring Harb Symp Quant Biol 1987;52:925-931
6. Doolittle RF, The evolution of vertebrate blood coagulation: a case of Yin and Yang. Thromb Haemost 1993 Jul 1;70(1):24-28

I think this illustrates just how bankrupt the book is going to be.

 

[lucaspa]

Ok folks - for a better balanced view on evo - read Prof joseph behe - on the subject - he rounds hot on the likes of Richard Dawkins and Darwin -

It's Michael Behe.

To compress his genaraL PRINCIPLE - he can see aspects of evolution which are fair enough - like for example how one bird may slowly adapt to a different species of bird due to environemntal conditioning - but what he argues is that the general bio-tech like workings of any mamal are so complex he cannot foresee how such highly complex systems can be justifiably explained by evolution on its own

Behe is saying that natural selection can't make what he calls "irreducibly complex" structures. And he says in Darwin's Black Box that IC can't arise by chance. Therefore, Behe says IC structures have to be manufactured by an intelligence.

Behe has a couple of problems:
1. Behe himself says that IC structures can arise by chance. Once that happens, then even Behe's strawman version of natural selection will make the IC structure complex.
" Let me interject a note of caution: some systems require several pieces but not ones that need to be closely matched. For example, suppose you were walking in the woods and came across an old log where the wind had blown a tree branch onto it, and the branch was perpendicular to the log. Here you have an irreducibly complex system -- a lever and fulcrum. If there were a boulder nearby, you possibly could use the lever and fulcrum to move it. So some systems require several parts but are not closely matched one." Michael Behe, Intelligent design theory as a tool for analyzing biochemical systems, in Mere Creation ed. William A. Dembski, 1998, pg 179.

2. Behe makes a strawman version of Darwinian evolution. A complete analysis of Behe and Darwinian evolution can be found in the following paper (free online):
A Classification of Possible Routes of Darwinian Evolution
Richard H. Thornhill and Daviud W. Uussery J. theor. Biol. (2000) 203, 111-116
available online at http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/articles/jtb.pdf It completely destroys Behe's thesis that Darwinian evolution can't make IC structures.

the odds are so remote - he cites for example the workings of the eye, even the supposedly simple scarring technique of the skin to heal wounds - this is noe respected scientist - non Christian - who directly challenges evolution as the only creative force - and another thing - talk to many contemporary physicists and mathematicians - and they seem to be coming closer together in the notion that the rules binding our universe together are so infintismally perfect and and almost beautiful that they suggest an intelligenct creative force behind everything - so there!

As someone pointed out, Behe is Christian. Roman Catholic. If you want another Roman Catholic scientist's opinion of Behe and his ideas, read Finding Darwin's God by Kenneth Miller.

The Strong Anthropic Principle -- the idea you stated for mathematicians and physcists -- is an elementary error in logic.

Now, what you are obviuosly doing is fighting the atheism vs theism debate with evolution being atheism. The major problem is that you are using god-of-the-gaps theology to show God. I really suggest Miller's book, because god-of-the-gaps theology is the very atheism that you are supposedly fighting against!

Even the concept of Shrodinger's cat in a box theory on Quantum theory - relating the presence of things to human conscience and perception should be enough to shake anyone's conventional view of existance - (ps excuse me if I have Shriddinger's name wrong - I aint a scientist)

Schroedinger's Cat has been shown experimentally. It doesn't relate the presence of things to consciuosness after all. The cat really is dead and alive at the same time. What the Cat does show is that God is not omnipresent.

5. G Taubes, Atomic mouse probes the lifetime of a quantum cat. Science, 274 (6 Dec): 1615, 1996.
6. P Yam, Bringing Schrodinger's cat to life. Scientific American, June, 1997, pp. 124-129. Summary of recent experiments of superposition (coherence) and dechoherence.

As I read this, I am betting that, by this point, you are thinking that atheism is winning. Evolution is winning, but atheism isn't. Evolution is not atheism. Science simply shows how God created. Only if you have the faulty theology (atheism) of god-of-the-gaps does any of this help atheism. Get rid of god-of-the-gaps.

 

[lucaspa]

KEYWORD: FREE

If I selected ordered one of them I'll post what's in it so you all can say LIE LIE LIE.

We won't say just that. What we will do is show the truth that proclaims the statements in the book to be untrue. IOW, we will actually examine the statements and then test them against the evidence. Just what we always do in science anyway.

 

[lucaspa]

Seems Christianity is sooooo sure of themselves. Other than "Books" what proof is there that God exists? This is directed at the Christians. Give me ONE proof other than the Bible.

Personal experience of God. That's what all the evidence in the Bible is. After all, did Saul of Tarsus believe because he read the gospels? NO! The gospels weren't written yet and Saul didn't believe the disciples. Instead, Saul had personal experience of the risen Jesus that utterly convinced him (who didn't believe) that this was the truth.

You people are so quick to harass Atheist people, yet you seem to have NO REAL proof of nothing, but a book that says God existed.

Look, I understand your frustration at Christians trying to proselytize you. Of course they aren't going to convince you, because your (and my) personal experience is that we have no personal experience of God. Until you do, you won't be convinced.

However, to be charitable, they have to try. Assume for the moment that Christians are correct: that belief in Jesus will lead you to a more fulfilling life and life after death. This means that they have an ethical duty to try to bring those benefits to everyone. To deliberately leave someone out is, from their point of view, to condemn them to death. It is the same as rescuing someone that is drowning. You have to try.

You can argue that their tactics are both objectionable and counter-productive. You can say that their personal arrogance hurts their cause. But you cannot ascribe the effort to simple arrogance or selfishness.

Christians try to convert an Atheist to believe in God, yet when a Buddahist, Hindu or Jew tries to convert a Christian into their religion......Christians think that they are wrong and Christianity is right. Christians do the same thing as a Atheist.....they deny the other religion is right.

Not all of them. Harvey Cox, for instance, has written quite a few books arguing that God's house has many rooms, and that these other religions may be some of the rooms. However, yes, theists are atheists to other religions. Most of the time. However, Truth here is referring not to theists who believe other versions of deity, but people who believe that no deity exists at all.

To the Christians.....I have the answer that we should worship the Hindu or Budda God....what would you say if I gave you this question and provided you with a real answer?

I would say that I do not believe those versions of deity are correct. I can give you my reasons for that belief, but I would not pretend to be able to prove it.

Your generalization of Christians is far too broad.