How has darwinism contributed to the world?

[Sauron]

No doubt people take evolution without any proof but doubt the Bible.

Totally wrong - at least for me, anyhow.  I accept evolution because I have studied the proof for years.

I doubt the bible for the same reason - there are too many historical, archaeological, and scientific mistakes in it.  In addition, there are internal inconsistencies and mistakes.

 

In a court in America, you can be sent to jail with one witness' testimony.

No, you cannot.

You can commit a crime and i can pick up a hobo to testify against you, and the judge will see that as solid evidence.

No he will not.

Then why do you refuse to believe the multiple accounts in the Bible and even one in the koran? You don't want to accept this despite good evidence. What is that, pride?

Because:

* you are trying to use circular reasoning, which is a logical fallacy;

* there are way too many historical, scientific, and archaeological errors in the bible to accept it at face value;
* there are also internal inconsistencies;
* the account in the Koran contradicts the account in the bible;

I'd bet anything for you to find an honest historian who denies Christ's existence.

That's easy:  Earl Doherty is such a historian.  Given 20 minutes, I'm sure I could find a dozen others. 

Do you honestly believe that the new era could've been started in honor of an imaginary man? What do you think "BC" means?

Wow.  So many bogus assumptions, it's hard to know where to start. 

In the first place, the new era was only in the West, not over the rest of the world. 

In the second place, that "new era" didn't even start until several hundred years later, when they revised the calendar.  During the first century, nobody went around saying, "Wow!  This is a new era, how cool it is!"  The Church changed the calendar system much later on.  The fact that they changed it centuries later doesn't qualify as any kind of evidence for Christ.

In the third place, the Chinese have 12 different years: Cat, Dog, Horse, Rabbit, etc. By your silly argument, you must also believe that these astrological signs and symbols are real, right?  I mean, do you think that a billion people would start each new year in honor of imaginary spirits or forces?

In the fourth place, the Islamic era started when Allah guided Muhammed from Mecca to Medina, and miraculously preserved the small community of believers from harm. By your lame argument, you also have to accept the Koran and all its claims as true, because a new era started.

Again, eye witness reports from hundreds of people, and also people of importance in Israel.

You have zero eyewitnesses.  If you think you do, then bring them forth. 

Oh, and just to save you some effort:  a written claim saying, "there were eyewitnesses" is not evidence; it is third-hand hearsay without any proof to back it up.

 Doubting Jesus' existence is like doubting Aristotle's or Plato's existence. I can't believe how thick you appear.

Nonsense.   The claims around Jesus are extraordinary.  THe claims around Aristotle are not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

Furthermore, there are many people (christian and non-christian) who believe that Jesus existed, but that he was only a teacher. That position is easier to prove (but still not an airtight case).

 

I'm sure the testimony of PBS overrules the Bible. Yeah.

it does as far as evidence is concerned. Either you have it, or you don't. 

You claimed at one time to have it - I guess you're backpedaling from that now.  Smart move - I don't blame you.

The above quote is false. Think who killed Paul (he was a Roman citizen) for preaching the Gospel, "Good News", of Christ. Romans, that's right.

My statement is not false; it's quite true.  Furthermore, there are numerous Roman records to demonstrate this.  Of course, you never even bothered to look at the link or the evidence;

And there is no conclusive evidence for Paul being killed for preaching anything. 

 

Yes, but they died for things they saw with their eyes.

No proof.

Just as there is little evidence for the holocaust. Is that what you mean?

There is vast evidence for the holocaust.

* First person witnesses
* Second person witnesses
* photographs
* videos
* written testimony of first-hand and second-hand participants, corroborated by multiple individuals
* physical buildings
*forensic evidence such as bones, clothes, etc.


There is no such evidence of this high quality for the bible's claims.

Says the Bible, the Word of God. If you don't accept that, fine. I don't accept your Mein Kampf.

I have no idea what you're talking about. 

 

That's what i think of your babbling.

I don't care what you think - your opinions of me are irrelevant.  All that matters is what you can prove about your claims..  The bottom line is that, as far as anyone can see, you can't prove anything you have claimed here.

I doubt you even read my response. I won't answer these a second time.

I read your response.

And I would just be happy if you answered a FIRST time.  Throwing a bunch of claims together and posting them to the forum is not a response.

What do you think many cults do today?

The same thing christians do:  ignore the facts and evidence, and believe whatever they want.

Their members learn to read palms and look into crystal balls. Some pray directly to satan. One of my mom's friend's daughter got interested in black magic, and she barely made it. Satan doesn't wish to release people who have been fooling around with his power. Just research that.

I have a better idea - why don't you research all these claims you've made here, and provide some proof for them?  Instead of ducking and dodging, and trying to distract the conversation?

Now you prove what you said -- that everyone believes in ghosts.

As soon as you back up the several hundred unproven assertions that you have already spouted, then I'll do that.  But since you threw out all those assertions first, you're going to have to prove yours first.

 

[Jerry Smith]

Like i said to Jerry above, you're mixing up letters. The one you mean was written to the President. The one i quoted was to the Pastor of the Baptist Church. Oh yeah, if i'm misquoting it, so are about five thousand websites.

Alex, you provided your references, so we cannot accuse you of dishonesty in misquoting the remark by Jefferson. That is good. The fact is, that Jefferson didn't write 2 letters. He wrote one & it was addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association. The web-sites are misquoting it. It may be a matter of an honest mistake somewhere down the line. Kent Hovind's web-site:

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=30

has the "separation sentence", and then some remark's of Hovinds:

Here is the context of that letter: "The First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state." (notice the end quote punctuation) That wall is a one dimensional wall. It keeps government from running the church, but it makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government.

It may well be that someone, somewhere along the line, accidentally dropped the quotation mark that separates Jefferson's remarks from Hovind's remarks. Once they published their misquote on the web, other web-sites may well have copied from them.

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by alexgb00
Well, yeah. That's what i'm trying to make clear, Chris. It's kind of hard arguing on this side of the opinion, though. 

Jerry, here's what the letter from the link you put up says. It's addressed to "Mr. President":

Mr. President

To mess? Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem & approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man & his god, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.

Is this the full text?

Hold on, i have to talk to Sauron.

 

 

[alexgb00]

Originally posted by Jerry Smith


Alex, you provided your references, so we cannot accuse you of dishonesty in misquoting the remark by Jefferson. That is good. The fact is, that Jefferson didn't write 2 letters. He wrote one & it was addressed to the Danbury Baptist Association. The web-sites are misquoting it. It may be a matter of an honest mistake somewhere down the line. Kent Hovind's web-site:

http://www.drdino.com/cse.asp?pg=faq&specific=30

has the "separation sentence", and then some remark's of Hovinds:
It may well be that someone, somewhere along the line, accidentally dropped the quotation mark that separates Jefferson's remarks from Hovind's remarks. Once they published their misquote on the web, other web-sites may well have copied from them.

Well, i went to Kent Hovind's web site a long time ago (a year ago, i think.) and he had a link to www.wallbuilders.com from his site. I don't know what to think anymore. So confused...

 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by alexgb00

What do you mean "imposing" and "infringing?" That's widely used jargon, but do you know what it means?

I gave an example.  Was it not clear enough?

Would i be infringing on your rights if stood up in a restaurant and quietly prayed for my food? What rights are those? 8th amendment? 

I gave an example.  Was it not clear enough?

Would i be imposing my faith on you if you happened to overhear me talking about the Bible with my friend on the corner of a street?

I gave an example.  Was it not clear enough?

You're right. There is not phrase "equality before the law." It is implied by two amendments -- the sixth and the fourteenth. But this phrase isn't ever used in arguing someting.

Totally false.  The principle of equality before the law is used all the time to argue for civil rights, for reduction of prison sentences, etc.  It's also used to show why rich people and lower class people should not get different sentences for the same crimes.

Moreover, the entire body of the law in the US is not contained in the Constitution. There is another body of law which is the US Title Code. And there are also the various court decisions, the writings of judges, legal precedences from state and circuit courts, etc.  All of these are used to make decisions

Your overly simplistic view of the law shows how much you do not know about this topic.

"Separation" is used frequently by people who don't know what it means even. Question: "Why can't i bring a Bible to work?" Reply: "Separation of Church and state."

Wrong.  No one said you can't bring a bible to work. Show me a case, or a law.  You can't do it.  Your example, just like your argument, is busted.

Question: "Where do you get that?" Reply: "United States Constitution." People are grossly misled about this topic.

And you happen to be one of those grossly misled people.

Like i said to Jerry above, you're mixing up letters. The one you mean was written to the President. The one i quoted was to the Pastor of the Baptist Church. Oh yeah, if i'm misquoting it, so are about five thousand websites.

I am not mixing up the letters.  There is only one letter. 

5000 websites don't prove anything.  Anybody can put up a website; that doesn't make them an authority. The fact that 5000 ultra-conservative websites are all quoting the same bogus text from David Barton only shows how gullible such people are.

I can't agree with you. This is your interpretation of it.

Uh, wrong. It is what the Founders intended, and it is also the national law. 

And it's a confused one, too. You should really read the Founders' and Framers' books on what they believed.

Uh, no. The fact that you don't like what separation of church/state means, doesn't make me confused. 

And I have read far more about what the Founders intended than you have.

What's wrong with you, man? You just shrug off everything i work hard to compile and post here. 

That's because none of it contains any evidence. 

I already know your opinions - why do you keep repeating them?  Opinions are a dime a dozen.  All I care about is what you can prove.  But you have evidently decided to try and substitute more opinions and unproven claims for actually doing some research and finding some facts.

So don't blame me that I reject your postings. There's no facts contained in them - it's just you, repeating your previous viewpoints. I'm not impressed by viewpoints that don't have any facts to go with them.

Everything you say i take heed of and mull it over. I think about it and reply.

Evidenlty you do NOT think about what I say, since you still haven't gotten around to providing any proof for your claims.  All you do is sit down and type up a slew of new claims and assertions.

You just completely ignore my points and pick-and-choose "mistakes" to criticize. You're like a little kid.

If you want me to pay attention to your posts, then you're going to have to get some evidence and facts to back up your opinions.

That must be about the fiftieth time I have said that; did it sink in yet?


 

 

[Jerry Smith]

Alex,

I visited wall-builders and searched the site for the quote as it is rendered on the web-sites you referenced. I could not find it there. If they did have it at one point, they have likely removed it.

It is true that the words "Mr President" appear at the top of the letter, but the address is to a committee of the DBA. It is possible that the Mr President refers to the president of the Association. In 1802, Jefferson was the President. I don't think he was writing a letter to himself.

Anyhow, it is obviously an honest mistake on your part, and not to be held against you.

This discussion really belongs in "News and Events", as it has nothing to do with science. But that, too, is "beside the point."

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by alexgb00
What's wrong with you, man? You just shrug off everything i work hard to compile and post here. Everything you say i take heed of and mull it over. I think about it and reply. You just completely ignore my points and pick-and-choose "mistakes" to criticize. You're like a little kid.

 

So I've thought this over, and I feel a little guilty coming down on you with so much data and force. 

The reason I am slamming you so hard is because not only did you throw out dozens of bogus assertions, but you also came out swinging, looking for a fight. 

You made all kinds of statements about what evolutionists, atheists, etc. believe, and it was obvious that you didn't have a flipping clue what you were talking about.

So I figured that someone needed to teach you a lesson. 

Now if you'd like to take the intensity down a few notches, I might be persuaded to back the truck up, and walk you through some of the evidence, principles, etc. that I have been talking about. 

Or, if you insist on continuing with your bogus assertions, then we can go back to this hopelessly one-sided sparring match.

Let me know what you want to do, Alex.

 

[npetreley]

Originally posted by alexgb00

I know for a fact that there were no "fishnoo" followers among the Founding Fathers, man.

Alex

I was just kidding about the Catholic thing. IMO the prohibition of a nativity scene, etc., is ridiculous.

So what if fishnets or whatever worked for the government, and put up a fishguts symbol on the lawn? There are lots of ways for the local people to deal with the issue if it offends anyone. But let's not pretend there's a constituional amendment that prohibits it.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

This is pointless, because you wouldn't accept anything but a verse like:

1 Bogus 5:10 "The Bible is entirely without grammatical, factual or spelling errors, so says God, whose original signature follows, call (000) 555-0000 for a notarized copy of this statement or order you copy online at www.proofthebibleiswithouterror.org."

Besides, I don't know why you even want such a verse. That would be the Bible testifying about itself, which would be meaningless.

No, quite the opposite. If there was such a verse I would have to give up my faith due to the factual errors in the bible {ie: rabbits chew cud, bats are birds, there is a mountian where all nationd can be seen at one time ect}. What I do not like is those who pretend there is a verse like that.

There are lots of verses that talk about inspiration and purety. But just because something is inspired and pure does not mean that it is a science book or that it is wothout error.

 

[Morat]

  Sauron: I don't have the luxury of searching right now, but I'm about 95% sure that the Madison quote Alex gave was one of Burton's forgeries.

 

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by LewisWildermuth


There are lots of verses that talk about inspiration and purety. But just because something is inspired and pure does not mean that it is a science book or that it is wothout error.

Reminds me of a quote I heard once. 

"I don't care if your holy book is *inspired*.  All I care about is if it's true.   *Inspired* is not a substitute for true.  If a book is true, then it doesn't need to be inspired.  The only books that need inspiration are the ones that can't stand on their own two feet in the truth."

 

[Sauron]

Originally posted by Morat
  Sauron: I don't have the luxury of searching right now, but I'm about 95% sure that the Madison quote Alex gave was one of Burton's forgeries.

 

I expected at much.  David Barton is to US historical research what Duane Gish is to biology:  half deliberate fraud, half carnival freak.

 

[bumpas10]

He made people think.