Dawkins Admits that they are working on it.

[Avatar]

I'd hold out for a henchman position; it looks better on a resume.

No, I'm not worthy.

I wonder, are his appendages noodley?

 

[BrainHertz]

Indeed.



Hopefully, he wouldn't be convinced.

[/size][/font]

There's a big difference though. Thor doesn't have nearly the backing that God does.
[/size][/font]

1. Where are Thor's followers?
2. What nation was built around Thor's written words?

This earth has seen two superpowers emerge, both collectively claiming the existence of Jehovah --- and both in existence and going strong today. Can Thor top that?

​

soo... an assertion without any evidence should not be convincing, unless there are lots of people who believe it?

 

[MoonLancer]

And yet twice more --- from Posts 57 and 89:

the evidence is dishonest if you have to change it to fit your assumptions. thats really what you mean. when you say align you mean, misrepresent and change. thats dishonesty to its core.

 

[Wyzaard]

My bad.You are way more awesome than Mother Theresa!!!!!

Yes... we are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQejG7-sGk4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RG0TfZJ7mis&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2KXc_YtgkxU&feature=related

(This is a good program, take a look, everyone)

 

[MoonLancer]

1. Where are Thor's followers?

killed or converted by Christians.

1. What nation was built around Thor's written words?

burned by Christians

Generations later you use an argument that basically that its a popularity contest and thats why god exists. because he has followers... is that all?

well look at history and see how following was asserted and your bound to see not gods will but the intolerance and curlty of man.

Its only after Christians burned all of religions works or followers that they got to claim that these other gods don't exist. So i suppose god needs us to believe in him to exist right?

 

[AV1611VET]

Its only after Christians burned all of religions works or followers that they got to claim that these other gods don't exist.

Get the door, MoonLancer --- it's Nero ---

According to Tacitus, the population searched for a scapegoat and rumors held Nero responsible. To diffuse blame, Nero targeted a sect called the Christians. He ordered Christians to be thrown to dogs, while others were crucified and burned.

 

[MoonLancer]

Get the door, MoonLancer --- it's Nero ---

so burn and burn alike then?

how awfully... Christian of you.

 

[Elduran]

No, I'm not worthy.

I wonder, are his appendages noodley?

Now THERE's a personal question...

 

[IrishRockhound]

IrishRockhound, no offense, but for all practical purposes you're a newbie here. I see you joined well before I did, but I have a feeling you haven't read all my posts, and really don't know me well enough to speak for me. But for the record, and I don't know how many times I've said this before, we hold science up to a higher Standard than atheists do. This means we recognize God as the Author of science. This means that [true] scientists and medical doctors, etc. are a gift from God.

And yet, I have been here some time and I have read many posts by you. I believe I stated your position accurately. You do not debate in good faith. You continually repost arguments that have been refuted. You ignore parts of posts that show how you are wrong. You ignore the scientists here, who know far more than you do about their respective fields, when they emphasise that there is no interpretation of the evidence that fits your particular version of an old holy text.

I never suggest abandoning science; rather I always suggest that the data be reinterpreted to align itself to what the Bible says. I have always challenged someone to tell me what they can do in a laboratory that I cannot do if I had the same training as they.

I'll even throw in my favorite example for about the third time, just to show you I'm a nice guy:

1. "Evidence" says the Egyptians existed before the Flood.
2. The Egyptians still exist today.
3. Therefore the Flood was not a global flood.

Now the Bible's take on it:

1. Since the Egyptians came from Mizraim, who was Noah's grandson, the Egyptians came after the Flood, not before it.
2. The Egyptians still exist today.
3. And the Flood was a global flood, as depicted in the Bible.

Reinterpretation is not possible, AV, when it does not fit the evidence. The evidence says there was no global flood - and I am speaking as a geologist here, nevermind Egyptian history. That race was run over a hundred years ago, and the bible sorely lost.

Invoke miracles if you will, but as the evidence stands now, there was no global flood. If you continue to assert that there was, you are holding your mere book above the evidence in the rock itself.

Good --- and I applaud him for that. Those here that know me, and have been through debates with me, know that I know very little about science - very little.

But what I don't applaud, is someone who throws the Bible out, then claims they don't know something, when it's right there --- in writing --- from the One Who was there.

I see no reason why I should take your word for it that your particular version of an old holy text is the true and accurate word of God. Especially when I can see how it does not reflect reality.

There is no other standard applied to research other than the scientific standard. Your 'higher standard' is nothing more than an attempt to force your religious beliefs into science, and it is doomed to failure. Is it our fault, then, that the bible fails when it is examined like any other research? No, because science is cruel in that way. There is no protection for our pet theories; every last one either explains the current evidence and predicts future evidence, or it does not, and no 'higher standard' can shuffle a hypothesis around this. The bible failed, and unlike other hypotheses you will not change it to better explain and predict evidence - unlike, I might add, the theory of evolution.

We, as scientists, can only tell you what we know from our years of study. What we know, without a shadow of a doubt, is that the evidence we have cannot be reinterpreted to fit the bible without invoking magic. If you continue to assert that it can, regardless of your ignorance of science, then you are holding the bible above reason and years of scientific endeavour.

 

[speakout]

Look guys, These guys are trying to get away with murder and the more we discuss side issues with them they cannot face their sins.

The Master cannot give us even a clear concept of what happened but he wants us to stop telling our kids about how God says he createdthe world.

Some of you seem to thrive on ignorance, Dawkins has claimed that teaching your kids about God is child abuse.

You guys are a joke.

 

[Baggins]

Look guys, These guys are trying to get away with murder and the more we discuss side issues with them they cannot face their sins.

The Master cannot give us even a clear concept of what happened but he wants us to stop telling our kids about how God says he createdthe world.

Some of you seem to thrive on ignorance, Dawkins has claimed that teaching your kids about God is child abuse.

You guys are a joke.

And you are a poor parody

Be gone

 

[ChordatesLegacy]

Look guys, These guys are trying to get away with murder and the more we discuss side issues with them they cannot face their sins.

The Master cannot give us even a clear concept of what happened but he wants us to stop telling our kids about how God says he createdthe world.

Some of you seem to thrive on ignorance, Dawkins has claimed that teaching your kids about God is child abuse.

You guys are a joke.

The key words here are GOD SAID, there is not a single shred of evidence that god wrote anything, but plenty of evidence man wrote everything.

If god did write the bible he did an extremely poor job of it. Whereas if man wrote the bible he done a pretty good job of it, considering Bronze Age mans limited knowledge of his place in the universe.

Well done Bronze Age man for a good attempt at explaining the universe, but alas the modern scientific community has done a much better job, mainly because we now know a great deal more about the world we live in.

 

[Patashu]

I wasn't posting those verses to "show where everything comes from." I posted them to show you that I know how the universe is expanding.

But but but but -- I thought the big bang was atheistic!

 

[Nitron]

Look guys, These guys are trying to get away with murder and the more we discuss side issues with them they cannot face their sins.

The Master cannot give us even a clear concept of what happened but he wants us to stop telling our kids about how God says he createdthe world.

Some of you seem to thrive on ignorance, Dawkins has claimed that teaching your kids about God is child abuse.

You guys are a joke.

You kind sir haven't replied to my PM yet.

 

[AV1611VET]

We, as scientists, can only tell you what we know from our years of study. What we know, without a shadow of a doubt, is that the evidence we have cannot be reinterpreted to fit the bible without invoking magic.

I always like it when a "scientist" comes on here and gives me a lecture using the most respectful terms when it comes to explaining things scientifically, then uses terms like "magic" and "poof" when explaining the things of God.

Whenever I'm talking creatio ex nihilo with someone, and they start using the word "poof," that's a sign to start shutting the conversation down. "Poof" is onomatopoeia employed in cartoons associated with magic, and God showed His superiority over magic in Pharaoh's court.

And I don't mind saying up front that I have no respect for "scientists" (or anyone) who talk that way.

Your quote says:

We, as scientists, can only tell you what we know from our years of study.

Then finishes with:

... the evidence we have cannot be reinterpreted to fit the bible without invoking magic.

Is that how you're taught to talk in college? If so, don't whine to me about "respect."

Instead, beware the mirror.

 

[Naraoia]

God showed His superiority over magic in Pharaoh's court.

No, God showed his superior magic

"Magic" is just another word for supernatural feats, I'm afraid. I think I've quoted Merriam-Webster's Online for a thousand times on this, but once again, "magic" is "1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces"

Are your God's means believed to have supernatural power over natural forces? (Straight yes or no answer please )

 

[atomweaver]

I always like it when a "scientist" comes on here and gives me a lecture using the most respectful terms when it comes to explaining things scientifically, then uses terms like "magic" and "poof" when explaining the things of God.

Whenever I'm talking creatio ex nihilo with someone, and they start using the word "poof," that's a sign to start shutting the conversation down. "Poof" is onomatopoeia employed in cartoons associated with magic, and God showed His superiority over magic in Pharaoh's court.

Ya know, for a guy who plays so free and loose with his word definitions, you get awfully pouty when someone uses a common, accepted definition of 'magic' as a term synonomous with creatio ex nihilo...

Main Entry: 1mag·ic Pronunciation: \ˈma-jik\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English magique, from Middle French, from Latin magice, from Greek magikē, feminine of magikos Magian, magical, from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian maguš sorcerer Date: 14th century 1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b: magic rites or incantations
2 a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b: something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment

And I don't mind saying up front that I have no respect for "scientists" (or anyone) who talk that way.

... my four year old would add a "*humpf!" to the end of that sentence, and stamp his foot with his arms crossed over his chest.

 

[AV1611VET]

No, God showed his superior magic

"Magic" is just another word for supernatural feats, I'm afraid. I think I've quoted Merriam-Webster's Online for a thousand times on this, but once again, "magic" is "1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces"

Are your God's means believed to have supernatural power over natural forces? (Straight yes or no answer please )

Yes.

 

[Naraoia]

Yes.

Thanks. So they are, by definition, magic.

 

[AV1611VET]

Ya know, for a guy who plays so free and loose with his word definitions, you get awfully pouty when someone uses a common, accepted definition of 'magic' as a term synonomous with creatio ex nihilo...

Main Entry: 1mag·ic Pronunciation: \ˈma-jik\ Function: noun Etymology: Middle English magique, from Middle French, from Latin magice, from Greek magikē, feminine of magikos Magian, magical, from magos magus, sorcerer, of Iranian origin; akin to Old Persian maguš sorcerer Date: 14th century 1 a: the use of means (as charms or spells) believed to have supernatural power over natural forces b: magic rites or incantations
2 a: an extraordinary power or influence seemingly from a supernatural source b: something that seems to cast a spell : enchantment



... my four year old would add a "*humpf!" to the end of that sentence, and stamp his foot with his arms crossed over his chest.

If the words are so interchangeable, why don't you use "miracles"? God makes a distinction between magic and miracles, and so do I.

What would your four-year-old say if it was his birthday and you told him you were going to have a magician at his birthday party to perform miracles?

I think society as a whole makes a clear distinction between "magic" and "miracles."

And by the way, can a magician perform an ex nihilo creation or walk on water? If not, I submit that magic and miracles are two different things.