If the last one didn't make you cry, this will.

MartinM · Jun 11, 2005

TIG said:
answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp for example has alot of reasons for example the earth is young, based on science.

Now, how can AiG be doing science when they quite clearly state on their own website that their religious beliefs regarding the physical world must be correct regardless of whatever evidence has been or may be found?

MartinM · Jun 11, 2005

Smidlee said:
Also It's sad that people has targeted this 14 year old teen (according to her profile) who just beginning to get interested in science.

Nobody targeted her. We're attacking the people who are lying to her, not her herself.

TIG · Jun 11, 2005

Electric Sceptic said:
TIG said:

I find it amazing that many of you all assume instantly that anyone who belives the YEC theory must be ignorant of real science, id say thats being ignorant.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's because it's simply true. No science supports YEC; all science points away from it.

Lol, "no science supports YEC" and you say im ignorant!

Electric Sceptic said:
TIG said:

I dont agree with all the evidence put forth that supports a young earth but much of it i do.

Click to expand...

And that's because you're ignorant of science. I don't say that to be insulting - you're only young, and you can hardly be expected to know a great deal about science. So, in your ignorance, you believe what you are taught about it supporting YEC. It doesn't, as any science (not creationist) text will tell you.

Im young? how old do you think i am? I didnt post the piece originally quoted in this thread, i just thought id post the link to the evolution cruncher book which was mentioned.

In your ignorance you belive what you are taught about the issue that supports evolution.
Do you belive that any scientist who has concluded there is a Creator because of his science not inspite of it is also acting in ignorance?
As for your recomendation about reading non creationist text instead id like to mention i do, aswell as creationist material, The scientific evidence supports creation much more soundly then it does evolution.

Electric Sceptic said:
TIG said:

answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp for example has alot of reasons for example the earth is young, based on science.

Click to expand...

And it's all rubbish, which can be easily rebutted by anyone with a knowledge of science. Make no mistake. AIG is NOT based on science, and nothing on their website is.

Science is quite definite on the subject - YEC is false. Believe in YEC if you like, but don't make the mistake of thinking that there is any science that supports your point of view.

I see and the Staff at AIG have no knowledge of science? Take Dr. Jonathan Sarfati for example -
He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules.

Would you claim he has no knowledge of science? Also your claim that the content on their website can easily be refuted is also not true, while others may try to interpret the same evidence according to there naturalistic theory the evidence still is better explained by the YEC model.

This links bellow is a good eg, the last one is a refutation of a refute, all done with science.
answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
icr.org/headlines/humphreys_to_hanke.pdf

MartinM · Jun 11, 2005

TIG said:
Lol, "no science supports YEC" and you say im ignorant!

Yup.

I see and the Staff at AIG have no knowledge of science? Take Dr. Jonathan Sarfati for example -
He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules.

And? Doesn't make his articles at AiG any less wrong.

Would you claim he has no knowledge of science?

I would claim that he has a grossly inadequate and distorted knowledge of the particular areas of science which he chooses to write about.

Also your claim that the content on their website can easily be refuted is also not true, while others may try to interpret the same evidence according to there naturalistic theory the evidence still is better explained by the YEC model.

Any model can be made to fit the available data arbitrarily well if you fudge it enough. How about some specific predictions the YEC model makes? That's where real science is done.

Hydra009 · Jun 11, 2005

TIG said:
Lol, "no science supports YEC" and you say im ignorant!

Posturing aside, it is true that YEC is falsified by science. There is a rather extensive archive about discussions on this topic on CF. I urge you to check it out. http://www.christianforums.com/t1161676-the-ce-thread-archive.html

Do you belive that any scientist who has concluded there is a Creator because of his science not inspite of it is also acting in ignorance?

It is not that theism is ignorant, it is that the stance of YEC most assuredly is. It is a common rhetorical tactic among creationists to equate their own position with belief in God and claim that whoever disagrees with their creationism is against belief in God. As you will find out, that is definitely not the case.

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Jun 11, 2005

Smidlee said:
Also It's sad that people has targeted this 14 year old teen (according to her profile) who just beginning to get interested in science. Read how many negative thing people here has said here; Like a pack of wolves ready to jump on the youth. I don't know how good the book is yet atleast it cause her to have some interest in science. I believe this is one point Behe made that Darwinism is turning some our youth away from science. It's a dog eat dog world but this is what we should expect from people who believe they are nothing but animals.

I think this post is a wonderful, albeit horrifically scary, glimpse into the modus operandi of some of our theist counterparts. I love how, when a theist shows a hint of independent thought, some other theists get apprehensive. They spring into action spouting analogies akin to lambs being taken by wolves. They try to reinforce the fear of losing their immortal soul that has, for so long, kept their flock in line. I find this behavior out of line Smidlee. If someone has questions, let them be answered. Ultimately its up to them how they sort it all out not you.

Electric Sceptic · Jun 11, 2005

TIG said:
Lol, "no science supports YEC"

That's correct - none does.

TIG said:
and you say im ignorant!

Of science, yes.

TIG said:
Im young? how old do you think i am? I didnt post the piece originally quoted in this thread, i just thought id post the link to the evolution cruncher book which was mentioned.

Somebody else said that you are 14 - that seems reasonable to me.

TIG said:
In your ignorance you belive what you are taught about the issue that supports evolution.

I'm not sure what this means...what issue 'supports evolution'?

TIG said:
Do you belive that any scientist who has concluded there is a Creator because of his science not inspite of it is also acting in ignorance?

Why on earth would you even ask such a question? It's completely unrelated to the issue.

TIG said:
As for your recomendation about reading non creationist text instead id like to mention i do, aswell as creationist material,

Really? Could you list some science books you have read on the subject please?

TIG said:
The scientific evidence supports creation much more soundly then it does evolution.

It's lines like this that make me talk of your ignorance of science. Regardless of how old you are, I have no doubt that you have no scientific qualifications. Based on that, you state that "the scientific evidence supports creation". Yet 98% of the world's scientists - men and women who have studied the subject for decades, who have qualifications in the field - disagree with you. You don't seem to be aware of this.

TIG said:
I see and the Staff at AIG have no knowledge of science? Take Dr. Jonathan Sarfati for example -
He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules.

No, YOU take him.

TIG said:
Would you claim he has no knowledge of science?

On the subjects on which he writes regarding evolution, he either has no knowledge of science or is a liar. Your choice.

TIG said:
Also your claim that the content on their website can easily be refuted is also not true

No, it's not.

TIG said:
while others may try to interpret the same evidence according to there naturalistic theory the evidence still is better explained by the YEC model.

Yup, you know better than the world's scientists.

TIG said:
This links bellow is a good eg, the last one is a refutation of a refute, all done with science.
answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
icr.org/headlines/humphreys_to_hanke.pdf

Gee, you're right. Thank goodness the world's scientists, the nobel prize winners, have religious websites to correct their science.

Smidlee · Jun 11, 2005

AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
If someone has questions, let them be answered. Ultimately its up to them how they sort it all out not you.

Hello? Do you even bother in reading the first post? there was no question being ask only to mock someone who posted in OT. First she thanks those for their advise and support. (evil?) then she told about a book she was excited about which in turn which has sparked some ducussion at school. Exactly what sad about this?

AnEmpiricalAgnostic · Jun 11, 2005

Smidlee said:
Hello? Do you even bother in reading the first post? there was no question being ask only to mock someone who posted in OT. First she thanks those for their advise and support. (evil?) then she told about a book she was excited about which in turn which has sparked some ducussion at school. Exactly what sad about this?

Wow, sorry Smid, In all my bouncing around from thread to thread I got confused and thought this was the Honest question for evolutionists thread. I apologize and hope you can see that if you were to put your post in the context of that thread it would have earned that.

Pete Harcoff · Jun 11, 2005

TIG said:
Can be found at
evolution-facts.org/Cruncher%20TOC.htm

I find it amazing that many of you all assume instantly that anyone who belives the YEC theory must be ignorant of real science, id say thats being ignorant. I dont agree with all the evidence put forth that supports a young earth but much of it i do.

That's because most people who are YEC are ignorant of science.

answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp for example has alot of reasons for example the earth is young, based on science.

See? You've been tricked into thinking AiG is scientific. Maybe you should read their faith statement, then us how exactly they are scientific?

rmwilliamsll · Jun 11, 2005

regarding the book evolution smasher

here is their argument from genetics about mutations

OVERVIEW OF THE SITUATIONMutations generally produce one of three types of changes within genes or chromosomes: (1) an alteration of DNA letter sequence in the genes, (2) gross changes in chromosomes (inversion, translocation), or (3) a change in the number of chromosomes (polyploidy, haploidy). But whatever the cause, the result is a change in genetic information.

Here are some basic hurdles that scientists must overcome in order to make mutations a success story for evolution: (1) Mutations must occur quite frequently. (2) Mutations must be beneficialat least sometimes. (3) They must effect a dramatic enough change (involving, actually, millions of specific, purposive changes) so that one species will be transformed into another. Small changes will only damage or destroy the organism.
...
Mutations are random, wild events that are totally uncontrollable. When a mutation occurs, it is a chance occurrence: totally unexpected and haphazard. The only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. This we can know as a result of lengthy experiments that have involved literally hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and other small creatures.

Evolution requires purposive changes. Mutations are only chance occurrences and cannot accomplish what is needed for organic evolution.
...
EC322.jpg (234919 bytes) CLICK TO ENLARGE

(3) NOT HELPFULEvolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.

"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

(4) HARMFUL EFFECTS(*#2/21 Mutations are Always Harmful*) Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.
...
Here are 28 reasons why it is not possible for mutations to produce species evolution:

1 - NOT ONCEHundreds of thousands of mutation experiments have been done, in a determined effort to prove the possibility of evolution by mutation. And this is what they learned: NOT ONCE has there ever been a recorded instance of a truly beneficial mutation (one which is a known mutation, and not merely a reshuffling of latent characteristics in the genes), nor such a mutation that was permanent, passing on from one generation to another!

Read the above paragraph over a couple times. If, after millions of fruit-fly mutation experiments, scientists have never found one helpful and non-weakening mutation that had permanent effects in offspringthen how could mutations result in worthwhile evolution?

"Mutations are more than just sudden changes in heredity; they also affect viability [ability to keep living], and, to the best of our knowledge invariably affect it adversely [they tend to result in harm or death]. Does not this fact show that mutations are really assaults on the organisms central being, its basic capacity to be a living thing?"*C.P. Martin, "A Non-Geneticist Looks at Evolution," in American Scientist, p. 102.

2 - ONLY HARMThe problem here is that those organisms which mutations do not outright kill are generally so weakened that they or their offspring tend to die out. Mutations, then, work the opposite of evolution. Given enough mutations, life on earth would not be strengthened and helped; it would be extinguished.

from: http://evolution-facts.org/Ev-Crunch/c10a.htm

here is their TofC

1 - History of Evolutionary Theory How modern science got into this problem.

2 - The Big Bang and Stellar Evolution Why the Big Bang is a fizzle and stars cannot evolve out of gas.

3 - The Origin of the Earth Why the Earth did not evolve out of a molten state.

4 - The Age of the Earth Why the Earth is not millions of years old.

5 - The Problem of Time Why long ages cannot produce evolutionary change.

6 - Inaccurate Dating Methods Why the non-historical dating techniques are unreliable.

7 - The Primitive Environment Why raw materials on earth cannot produce life.

8 - DNA and Protein Why DNA and protein could not be produced by random chance.

9 - Natural Selection Why natural selection only makes changes within species.

10 - Mutations Why mutations cannot produce cross-species change.

11 - Animal and Plant Species Why the species barrier cannot be broken.

12 - Fossils and Strata Why the fossil/strata theory is a hoax.

13 - Ancient Man Why there is no evidence humans have evolved from anything.

14 - Effects of the Flood What actually happened after the Flood.

15 - Similarities and Divergence Why similar structures are not an evidence of evolution.

16 - Vestiges and Recapitulation You have no useless or unnecessary structures inherited from earlier life-forms.

17 - Evolutionary Showcase The best examples of evolution have proven worthless.

18 - The Laws of Nature The laws of nature oppose the evolutionary theory.

19 - Evolution, Morality, and Violence Evolutionary theory is ruining modern civilization.

20 - Tectonics and Paleomagnetism The truth about plate tectonics and paleomagnetism.

21 - Archaeological Dating Egyptian, and other, dates correlate archaeological finds with the Bible.

22 - Evolutionary Science Fiction Fabulous fairy tales which only tiny children can believe.

23 - Scientists Speak Evolutionary scientists say the theory is unscientific and worthless.

24 - Utterly Impossible Things evolution could never invent.

chapters 2-6, 20, 21 have nothing to do with evolution.

Their mutation argument is simply that mutations can't bear the load of changing the genome to create new species. but no evidence given, just bold assertions, often in CAPS or bolden, a sign of persuasive thinking *grin*. dont' forget "Underlining generally indicates a special evidence disproving evolution. This helps you more quickly grasp the key points."

but mutations are mostly neutral not bad.
and we have observed a large number of mutations that do contribute to the fitness of creatures, contrary to their proposal.

but note that they clearly believe that mutations add to information, i sure wish AiG and they would have a little talk about that.

references generally are to philosophic works, i don't see anything newer than 1970, but i didn't find the copyright date yet. No reference to primarily scientific data that i can see.

as far as cost.
just $1 each by the 16 book case, what a deal.
appears to be a synopsis of a 3 volume encyclopedia
which is described here
http://evolution-facts.org/encypreface.htm

Frumious Bandersnatch · Jun 11, 2005

TIG said:
Lol, "no science supports YEC" and you say im ignorant!

Im young? how old do you think i am? I didnt post the piece originally quoted in this thread, i just thought id post the link to the evolution cruncher book which was mentioned.

In your ignorance you belive what you are taught about the issue that supports evolution.

Some of us actually work in science and don't just rely on "What we are taught"

Do you belive that any scientist who has concluded there is a Creator because of his science not inspite of it is also acting in ignorance?

The question in my mind and that should be in yours is not whether or not their is a creator but whether the earth was created only 6-10 thousand years ago and that their was a global flood 4.5-5 thousand years ago as AiG claims. The Creator can never be falsifed. The young earth and global flood were falsified long ago.

As for your recomendation about reading non creationist text instead id like to mention i do, aswell as creationist material, The scientific evidence supports creation much more soundly then it does evolution.

What you may not understand is that many of us have read a lot of YEC literature. I expect that I have been reading YEC literature longer than you have been alive.

I see and the Staff at AIG have no knowledge of science? Take Dr. Jonathan Sarfati for example -
He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry with two physics papers substituted (nuclear and condensed matter physics). His Ph.D. in Chemistry was awarded for a thesis entitled A Spectroscopic Study of some Chalcogenide Ring and Cage Molecules. He has co-authored papers in mainstream scientific journals on high temperature superconductors and selenium-containing ring and cage-shaped molecules.

Would you claim he has no knowledge of science?

I have read a lot of Sarfati's web pages and his book Refuting Evolution. I can point to errors of both fact and logic that are widespread in his polemics. Either he has insufficient knowledge of the things he writes about or he is often deliberately deceptive. Neither option speaks very well for him.

Here is an article by a geologist refuting some of Sarfati's totally bogus Flood Geology. Sarfati's true orgin article has errors of science and or logic all through it and Henke only discussed some of the them. We can discuss others if you want.

His humans took animals to Australia explanation for biogeography is totally laughable as I point in post 2 on the Biogeography Thread

In addition to its other mistakens and distortions his article on Bird Evolution is very deceptive in its description of the origin of feather keratins, which is now fairly well understood. He discusses the difference between feather keratins and alpha keratins but fails to mention that feather keratins are closely related to the specific type of beta keratins that are found in the scales of birds and are now known in birds closest living relatives the crocodillians. I have done some reseach on mammalian keratins so I knew that he was not telling the whole story as soon as I saw what he wrote.

Also your claim that the content on their website can easily be refuted is also not true, while others may try to interpret the same evidence according to there naturalistic theory the evidence still is better explained by the YEC model.

This links bellow is a good eg, the last one is a refutation of a refute, all done with science.
answersingenesis.org/docs/4005.asp
icr.org/headlines/humphreys_to_hanke.pdf

You can look here for a review of Humphreys bogus reply to Henke written by a creationist. Henke has also replied on TalkOrigins

Here is a quote
Dr. Humphreys' reply raises even more questions about the quality and accuracy of his work, including his ability to distinguish an intrusive igneous rock (biotite granodiorite) from a partially veined strongly foliated (metamorphic) gneiss. The chemistry of the light and dark layers of this gneiss do not even resemble a granodiorite. By sampling zircons from multiple lithologies, Dr. Humphreys has undermined the veracity of his creationist "model."

YEC young earth arguments are from what we all call the PRATT list meaning Points Refuted a Thousand Times. The young earth was abandoned by science more than 200 years ago and the global flood more than 150 years and all of the data collected by science since that time has shown that abandonment to be correct.

FB

Split Rock · Jun 11, 2005

rmwilliamsll said:
regarding the book evolution smasher

here is their argument from genetics about mutations

(3) NOT HELPFULEvolution requires improvement. Mutations do not help or improve; they only weaken and injure.

"But mutations are found to be of a random nature, so far as their utility is concerned. Accordingly, the great majority of mutations, certainly well over 99%, are harmful in some way, as is to be expected of the effects of accidental occurrences."*H.J. Muller, "Radiation Damage to the Genetic Material," in American Scientist, January 1950, p. 35.

(4) HARMFUL EFFECTS(*#2/21 Mutations are Always Harmful*) Nearly all mutations are harmful. In most instances, mutations weaken or damage the organism in some way so that it (or its offspring if it is able to have any) will not long survive.

LOL! I love the reference they give for how all mutations are bad. Muller from 1950! Muller did research on large-scale mutations in fruit flies that produced many deformed individuals. We know a lot more about mutations today, and we can actually pinpoint mutations to individual basepairs. Muller did not have such technology.

Mechanical Bliss · Jun 11, 2005

TIG said:
I find it amazing that many of you all assume instantly that anyone who belives the YEC theory must be ignorant of real science, id say thats being ignorant.

It's not an assumption--it's a fact, generally speaking, that YECists are ignorant of the relevant sciences.

Ignorant means to lack knowledge and comprehension of a given subject. In my own experiences in these debates, I have only come across one or two out of dozens of YECists who even have a basic understanding of geology. The remainder use arguments to support YECism that illustrate that they don't even know the difference between clastic and chemical sedimentary rocks.

Everyone is ignorant about something, and usually about more than about that which they are knowledgeable. It's more intellectually honest to admit that and learn, if interested, than to pretend like one already knows more than people who have spent decades studying and working in their field.

And that's what YECists tend to do, as they come across as if they know more than professional scientists, and yet, they lack even the most basic understanding of geology or biology, for examples, and use arguments that someone who had taken Geology 101 or Biology 101 would not use because they would know better.

I dont agree with all the evidence put forth that supports a young earth but much of it i do.

On what basis?

answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/young.asp for example has alot of reasons for example the earth is young

It's pretty useless to just point to a gateway site, especially when its AiG and you post it as if we've never seen it before.

It doesn't demonstrate that you actually understand the arguments they use because you are not pointing to specific arguments and not using any supporting discussion in your own words to demonstrate that. If you don't understand their arguments, then how can you actually judge whether their arguments are valid or not?

Furthermore, it's not like anyone is going to sit here and refute every single link on that page. That's unreasonable to just point to a bunch of links and say, "there." Here's a link to refutations of AiG's most popular young earth arguments that has already been done on this forum:

http://www.christianforums.com/t866228-refutations-of-young-earth-arguments-aig.html

...based on science.

Nothing AiG does is based upon science. Science is a method, and that's something important to understand.

In science, one does not set a preconceived, fixed conclusion and assume that conclusion to be unfalsifiable and infallible and then try to fit the data into that explanation.

In real science, the data dictates what the conclusion is. Creationism puts the cart before the horse, so it isn't scientific.

For AiG, for example, they require their professional creationists to sign and adhere to a statement of faith that includes the statement:

Answers In Genesis said:
By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record.

Source: http://answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp

In other words, they throw out the evidence they don't like. That is not science, nor is it honest.

Mechanical Bliss · Jun 11, 2005

TIG said:
Lol, "no science supports YEC" and you say im ignorant!

It's a fact that no science supports YECism.

Scientists disproved YECism almost two centuries ago. Its resurgence is a recent movement, largely political more than anything else.

And those scientists who disproved YECism were Christians who were creationists trying to substantiate that the earth was old and its geology was determined by a global flood. They realized that they were wrong and had the intellectual honesty to admit that, and move on.

I see and the Staff at AIG have no knowledge of science?

Some of them might be somewhat knowledgeable about science, but they do not use science so that's the primary problem.

Take Dr. Jonathan Sarfati for example -
He obtained a B.Sc. (Hons.) in Chemistry

His degree is in chemistry, and that is really not relevant to issues like the age of the earth, a global flood, or evolution.

We're talking about people knowledgeable about science in relevant fields and work with the relevant topics with scientific integrity. Professional creationists do not fit the bill.

Additionally, I debated Sarfati on an internet board and he was notorious for doing nothing but insulting people. He was soundly refuted on every geological topic he tried to debate regarding the earth's age. He did not know what he was talking about (which is not surprising because he is a chemist and has emotional problems with the conclusions of modern science.)

Also your claim that the content on their website can easily be refuted is also not true,

It is true that it is all easily refuted, otherwise there would not be refutations of their claims not only all over this forum, but also all over the internet.

What does your scientific educational background entail that illustrates that your statement is credible?

while others may try to interpret the same evidence according to there naturalistic theory the evidence still is better explained by the YEC model.

No, it's not, otherwise YEC would not have been refuted two centuries ago.

Again, what has your scientific educational background been such that your assertion deserves to be taken as credible?

enlightenment · Jun 11, 2005

Beware of insane irony meter. In their essay titled "The god of an old earth," AIG attempts to portray an OECist god as an unloving and uncaring god because he allowed so much extinction, while maintaining that a YECist god of fire and brimstone and judgement is a loving and caring god.

Sagan is not the only one to recognize the true nature of the god of an old earth. Irven DeVore, a Harvard anthropologist, said:
I personally cannot discern a shred of evidence for a benign cosmic presence I see indifference and capriciousness. What kind of God works with a 99.9 percent extinction rate? 6

DeVore recognizes that the fossil record is one of massive extinction. If this has stretched over millions of years, enormous numbers of creatures have become extinct without such a reason as a Flood judgment on mans wickedness. What kind of god would create such a scenario? The god of an old earth cant be a loving God.

Duhh.....huh?

platzapS · Jun 11, 2005

Same old PRATTS, even some rejected by AIG. They use the moon dust argument, the "no transitional fossils" claim, and this little gem:

Website said:

Evolutionary theory presents humanity with no uplifting standards, codes, norms, or values..

Click to expand...

Well of course it doesn't! It's a scientific theory, like germ theory or heliocentricism.

How is this part of a ministry? Since when is lying to unsuspecting people an action supported by God?
:doh:

Humanista · Jun 11, 2005

Smidlee said:
It's a dog eat dog world but this is what we should expect from people who believe they are nothing but animals.

We don't *believe* we are animals, we know it. It's an observable, empirical fact of the natural world. That your ego cannot endure the concept, that you must, in order to feel special and immortal, reject your own biological reality is your problem.

Steve_SandbachBaptist_UK · Jun 16, 2005

It just ain't funny, AEA.

I don't see why someone bothered to post it, but then I don't see why so many people who are firm non-believers bother to post on here at all. Each to their own I guess

Steve_SandbachBaptist_UK · Jun 16, 2005

MartinM said:
Most people find the idea of lying to young children rather unpalatable.

And you know its a lie, do you? I'm not saying they are right, but firstly, they believe they are right and secondly can you prove that it isn't true?

If the last one didn't make you cry, this will.

GondolierAce

GondolierAce

Member

GondolierAce

bel esprit

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

Well-Known Member

Veteran

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

avid reader

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

enlightenment

Guest

Expanding Mind

Empirically Speaking

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads