A Question from a Christian

[thelastpirate]

Whatever helps you sleep Nazi.

What's the rule regarding the amount of time it takes for one party in an Internet Argument to accuse another party of being a Nazi?

I think it's admirable that it wasn't until page three of this thread that somebody snapped and went Nazi-stupid.

Godwin's Law: as an online discussion continues, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

[seabee]

Godwin's Law: as an online discussion continues, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

That's the one! Couldn't remember the name, and google failed to help me within 45 seconds, so I gave up looking.

[seabee]

Yes, I agree and have a tendency to see religion as it's own parody of it's pretended essence. So when the parody is parodied, is it not a double negative which becomes a positive?

Do you think it is like the movie *Scream* then? Like a horror movie that is also a parody of a horror movie?

[seabee]

The amazing thing to me, a Christian, is that anyone - Christian or non - would dedicate this much time to proving or disproving anything at all. What is leading you to do such? Just your "sense of humor (or humour, as the British – who, with such an irritating irreverence to real English continue to misspell this word…lol)?”

I think I am most bewildered by the assertion that anything is not worth proving or disproving. The more I think about this, the more positive I am that this is the most basic and elemental function in our lives. What's real, and what's not? What's valid, and what's not?

We're talking about knowledge and wisdom, and the pursuit thereof. We're talking about critical thinking, and we're talking about "An unexamined life is not worth living." We're talking, "I think, therefore I am." We're talking about your own beliefs versus mine. We're talking about voting and democracy.

We're talking about AMERICA. (Yea, it is a concept so holy that I mustcanshould resort to the ALLCAPS. Yahooey.)

We're talking about the potential, and the obligation to grow and to challenge your old beliefs, and move on and become a different person. We're talking about the possibility for you to evolve and become smarter and better, faster and stronger. We're talking about organic and spontaneous versus stagnant and ... awful. Terrible? Yes, terrible.

We're talking about your right to change your mind. (While it is, indeed, your prerogative, I say to Shania Twain, to hell with thee. It is not just a woman's right; it is a human right.)

You should, must, question everything that comes your way in life. Think for yourself! Demand citations that be needed! Think for yourself! Think for yourself! Vote! Think for yourself! You have opposable thumbs, for crissakes! Think for for yourself! We are the stewards of the universe, and we have been blessed with self-awareness and neuroticism, intelligence and skepticism. Think for your effin self, goddammit!

Gentle reader, your life should be dedicated to proving and disproving everything and anything at all.

It seems to me that you are overly concerned with things that do not concern you.

Wha? Fha-wha? Blargin floogin whatsin?

Let me ask you a question, please. If you do not care whether or not a person believes in God, and by God, I include the Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then why do you insist on driving people away from Him?

I reject your premise, on one condition. I do not care whether or not your person worships Jesus. I do care, passionately, however, when Jesus worshippers become strong enough in number, and loud enough in voice, to affect public policy, politics, education, foreign relations. At that point, I think it is detrimental and deleterious to our society.

At that point, I believe it is my obligation as a US citizen to say that your religion is poisoning my country, and so, if it pleases you, to hell with your religion!

But, if I may be so bold as to speak on behalf of the FSM community, I would would then like to reiterate that we do not care who you whoreship, or who you revere as The One True God, and we will never, nay ever, drive anybody away from your god.

How can Jesus hurt the people who do not believe in Him?

Assuming that by "Jesus," you mean modern Christians, then I submit for your approval, the Inquisition. Abstinence Only sex education. The Crusades. Discrimination against gays. The Salem Witch Hunt. The damnation of all non-believers to hell.

The targets of these figurative and literal slaughters are all people who "do not believe in him."

I am positive that you anticipated this response, too, because you don't seem, from your grammar and sentence structure, to be stupid. Why would you leave yourself open to such a refutation?

If you do not believe, then do not believe, fine. The problem with all this FSM mess is that you are leading people who may have become good and powerful Christians astray.

I think you might be confusing FSMism with a religion that competes with Christianity. FSMism is not a religion. I would go so far as to say it is a non-religion. The movement has its origins in denouncing giving Christian Origin mythology unfair and undue attention in science classes in public schools.

I was an atheist for a few years, and looked at all the theories, facts, and theories (I repeated the word twice, don’t think it was by accident) and the thing I found was that no one has a clue where we really came from. Yes, Darwin has great ideas, and those ideas have been perpetuated throughout the last century and a half to show more of the same. But the fact is, no one knows, and to be honest – the facts just DO NOT support evolution, and if you really look, with an open mind, you will see that what I say is true.

There are really no records of history that go beyond Biblical times, and I kept coming back to that fact. If we have been around for Millions (perhaps Billions) of years, where is the documentation, stone or otherwise? Why is it that over the last 2000 years our civilization has become so advanced… so advanced that I can type these words on a screen, as never before? I do not have an answer for these questions, nor does anyone – although someone surely thinks they do.

Previous posters in this thread have satisfactorily addressed this silly, silly claim and line of reasoning.

Back to my original question, in paragraph three, what is the reason for this whole movement? Why are some so concerned with what others believe…to the point of calling those who do believe in God idiots? Why is it offensive that there might be another possibility other than evolution? Are you not the “open-minded” people you claim to be? Can there be NO other possibility… really? Since there is no proof, do we have to limit our schools to one possibility; and not let the students decide? This is not math, there is not a law that tells us how exactly things work.

Don't get me wrong. Believing in God is idiocy. (But it is a strange, separate, and unique idiocy. There are may smart, intelligent, decent people who believe in God. It is an anomaly that I have yet to understand.) But you are entitled to your idiocy. It is your God given right!

You pray to your god in the evenings and worship him in the mornings. I will feed my dog in the evenings and walk him in the mornings. Blessings on everyone, and peace upon mankind. Amen. Woof woof.

I used to live a path inverse to yours. You said you were once an atheist. I was, in my youth, a devout, Bible-thumping Christian. And even as such I happily accepted evolution, because even at 15 years old I knew that there could be no such thing as a literal interpretation of the Bible, and so I did not believe that creation happened in seven days, but that evolution was the means through which God chose to develop, direct and create life.

What I mean to say is that I don't think your religion has to preclude science.

And, incidentally, your wording here seems to imply a misconception of the technical definitions of scientific law, and scientific theory. Not condescendingly, do you understand why the Law of Thermodynamics is a law, and the Theory of Gravity is a theory?

Oh, but science is so advanced now, we know what is going on…really? Scientists used to think that the earth was flat, scientists used to think that the sun rotated around the earth, scientists used to think that drilling into a human’s skull would help them work their problems out (as a matter of fact, the best group of scientists in the world gave Egas Moniz the Nobel Peace Prize for the Lobotomy in 1949…just 59 years ago). Oh how times have changed. What idiots we were, drilling into a skull…wow! But back in the 1800’s Darwin came up with evolution and that is still respected? We cannot prove nor disprove this flawed science.

I think you have hit on a major selling point of science, a major reason why it is a superior belief system: it is self-correcting. I challenge you to find as many theological issues that the Church has as readily and happily accepted as incorrect, and in need of reevaluation and redefinition.

But to give credit where it is due, modern science was born of the ancient Church. Obviously. The Church used to be the only authority on the universe, its workings, and its marvel. Science had to take what it understood as truth (ie, the sun revolves around the sun, the ocean is full of monsters, Earth is 6,000 years old, the universe was created in seven days, slaves and women are inferior to men, etc) and go from there.

But, moreover, how dare you try to dig up dark chapters in the annals of scientific progress? Sure there's Egas Moniz and his lobotomies, and there are the countless horrors committed by the nazis in old Germany, and there is electroshock therapy, and more. But this all pales in comparison to the horrors and terrors committed by the Christian church over the centuries.

Your church's closet is full of several many more skeletons than that belonging to science, ya chump.

The one thing older than 2000 years that science has never been able to prove, or DIS-prove is the existence of, creation by, and subsequent sacrifice of - God Himself, no matter how hard they try. And by the looks of this website, and others just like it…there have been those that have been trying VERY hard.

Logical error!

Science does not have to disprove anything. You have but to PROVE a thing. This is the basis of FSMism. In the spirit of not being able to disprove a thing, one's worship of a flying spaghetti monster is every bit as valid as your worship of a ... bearded white guy on a cloud.

If you would like to read philosophical accounts of God’s existence – read Pascal, Kant, C.S. Lewis, or even Einstein.

Einstein was an atheist. His references to God were actually in reference to a more abstract god, as in the way of the universe, or the way of nature.

If you would like scientific accounts of God’s existence, sorry it can’t be done.

Amen. RAmen. Woof woof.

And this is where we get into the thing that the FSM creators have most made fun of… faith. And that’s fine. I was told I would be made fun of, I was told people would laugh; I was told I would be beaten, possibly stoned to death - for my belief in the Son of God. If all YOU can do is create a website, I can deal with that all day. Heck, I will post my picture, my family’s picture, my email, my phone number, my address, and my work address if that’s all you will do - create a funky little website called, “ The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.”

Please have more discretion than that. That's more stupider than believing in God.

Here's a personal anecdote, though. I grew up in southern Alabama, in the midst of the Bible belt. I knew at a very early age that I did not believe in the Christian god (for reasons I can go into in another post). So if you want to talk about being shouted at, cursed, shunned, or hated because of one's religious beliefs, then I encourage you to contact me for further discourse.

How awesome is that? I can tell you all that I believe, and all you will do is laugh at me and pat me on my little retarded shoulder while you wink at your friends. “He’s a stupid one.” You will say…“He really thinks there is a God…ha, ha.” And just leave me alone, right? We will see. I’m afraid the truth is I will be hated, mocked, made fun of, and threatened with violence.

I will certainly mock you and make fun of you. I will NEVER threaten you with violence or hate you. Because this is America, Mr. Paranoid.

But, I have faith in God; therefore I will test this theory. My name is Scott Wickstrum, and my email is [email protected]. Let me know how you feel.

Ballsy.

Once again, the intertubes is a wonderfully anonymous place. No need to get so personal. I hope you aren't actually going to post your family portrait after this.

Finally, I would like to say this: Make fun all you like, but the Bible still cannot be disproven, and there are no other documents as revered – yet more thoroughly tried to be proven false - as the Bible. And IF…by the small chance (according to science) IF…the Bible IS the true Word of God – then read and contemplate these words… Romans 1:18 – 25 ------

No documents as revered? That is either terribly biased, or terribly ignorant, or both. There is also the Koran, the Torah, the Bhagavad Gita, the Tarvunti, the Tao, the Book of Marvin, and the Principia Discoria. Get over yourself.

And if you are truly open-minded, truly after knowledge, truly wanting to discover the truth… you will read this…if for no other reason than to make fun of it…otherwise, you are just as closed minded as the Christian idiots that you make fun of…

Amen. RAmen. Woof woof.

18For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness, 19because that which may be known of God is manifest in them, for God hath shown it unto them. 20For from the creation of the world the invisible things of Him are clearly seen, being understood through the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse. 21For when they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God, nor were thankful, but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
22Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, 23and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man, and to birds and fourfooted beasts and creeping things. 24Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies among themselves. 25They changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshiped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

1. And these came to be known as the Laws of Marvin, which were as by Magic marked upon the walls of the bathrooms of the Priests of the Spirit Mallet, and they were seven in number:
2.Be thyself, for if thou dost not, thou art not.
3. Do that which makes thee glad, for sadness is the great oracle of the death of the soul.
4. Measure your progress in life by the rustiness of the gates through which you pass.
5. Remember the Pueblo.
6.Avoid he who has no mind, for if he has none himself, he shall surely demand thine of thee.
7. Learn that which others can teach, and teach that which others can learn.
8. Consider that the only entity who entirely occupies his world is Marvin, and He is lodged in an oak tree.
9. And such are the Laws of Marvin.

Oh, lookie! I can quote scripture too! Yippee! Yahooey! Yahweh!

[Clifford]

Just your "sense of humor (or humour, as the British – who, with such an irritating irreverence to real English continue to misspell this word…lol)?”

Oi not a nice place to start. Now I feel offended. As for the rest we're not trying to dissprove anything, we're just making a point that our FSM is just as valid as your "Creator"

[swickstrum]

Geez, I post two little posts and go away for a month and then there are 50 posts to read...I'll take some time and try to respond to as much as I can. Hope y'all didn't think I ran, I was just really busy.

Scott Wickstrum

[swickstrum]

My opening argument:
The burden of proof is on the believer in something, not the skeptic. If I told you that a dragon lived in my garage, but he was invisible, passed through matter, could float, and couldn't be detected by any instruments known to science, you would likely think I was mad (Haha- your comment on "humour" is making me type with a British accent). While it cannot be proven that I have that dragon in my garage, it can't be disproven. Does that mean everyone should accept that I have a dragon in my garage? Of course not! Skepticism is the logical stance until there is evidence one way or another on something. Science is not claiming to know everything; if we don't understand, we take the reasonable (agnostic) stance, and don't bias ourselves one way or the other.


Okay, I’ll start here. The burden of proof is on me to prove to atheists and or agnostics that God exists, that that God is the God of Christianity, and that Jesus existed and was the Son of said God – I agree. The problem I have with the FSM experience is that I believe it has the potential (and the intention) to lead those who were Christians astray, keep Christianity (or any form of religion for that matter) out of schools, and to systematically secularize the world. To that I say, “The burden of proof shifts to you.”

To the believer, the burden of proof is a difficult thing, because as you stated, God is not a visible being that can be detected by science. But – also to the believer, the burden of proof is something that does not bother him (I’m going with male pronouns because I am male and for the sake of shortening my post) unless he is questioning his faith, which I have in fact dealt with. Because I have dealt with it I can only say what most former agnostics/atheists now Christians have told me and what I, myself, have felt.

The burden of proof is a non-factor when you KNOW in your heart God exists. To us, there is no reasonable stance other than to believe because we have tasted agnosticism and remembered the feeling that came with it – a small little tinge of knowing that we are denying the existence – for the sake of being “reasonable” to the intelligent people around us. Once we accept that what God thinks of us is more important than what the smartest of men thinks – we are happy with the tag of “unreasonable,” “fundamentalist,” “Bible Basher,” or anything else used to degrade Christians.

[swickstrum]

Scientists have a tendency to be curious about the world we live in.That is why we try to discover things.

I beg to differ – Scientists are curious about the world we live in – true. After the Darwinian Theory came about, however, scientists began turning their back on any possibility that was not evolution. As time has gone on, it seems that science no longer searches for possibilities, but rather for evidence to prove the one theory. A true scientist would do no such thing! Yes, a non-evolution creation is probably more far fetched than evolution is, yet it is still possible. To completely ignore any other possibility is simply closed-minded. Must I remind you that the scientific community rewarded Antonio Moniz the Nobel Prize for the lobotomy less than 60 years ago? Thank God Science didn’t stop with that little gem, and looked for other possibilities to deal with psychosis.

It seems to me that you are overly concerned with things that do not concern you. Let me ask you a question, please. If you do not care whether or not a person believes in God, and by God, I include the Son, our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, then why do you insist on driving people away from Him?

Firstly, you misunderstand our (my) goals. My main concern is keeping any religion not based on scientific fact from being taught as science. Also, we (I) am scared of an automatically accepted dogma for any group of people, and because 80% of the USA is religious, this is a big concern. The Xian dogma (btw, don't be offended by x instead of Christ. The reason that was started was because x is in Greek the letter "Chi" which stands for "Christ") has strong stances on gay marriage and abortion (lets not get into arguing these topics), while the majority of non-Xians take the polar opposite stance. Any group having too much power is scary. I also dream of a world where everyone bases their beliefs on reason and not faith. Addressing your main point in the above paragraph, we DO care whether or not a person believes in God.

Thanks for the Greek lesson…lol, although I must tell you that if it deals with Christianity, I most likely have heard about it. If not, I promise to ask. My point is that by not teaching anything but the evolutionary theories leads to schools not leaving any other possibility open. As you said, any group having too much power is scary indeed, and the secular scientific community has removed any possibility but their possibility. And to think, 80% of the U.S. is religious…you’d think it the other way around considering saying the name Jesus could almost get one kicked out of school these days. It seems the powerful ones are not the majority in this case. I’ll get back to your “reason and not faith comment” at a later date – it will take an immense amount of explanation and I do not have time at present.

[swickstrum]

I was an atheist for a few years, and looked at all the theories, facts, and theories (I repeated the word twice, don't think it was by accident) and the thing I found was that no one has a clue where we really came from. Yes, Darwin has great ideas, and those ideas have been perpetuated throughout the last century and a half to show more of the same. But the fact is, no one knows, and to be honest – the facts just DO NOT support evolution, and if you really look, with an open mind, you will see that what I say is true.

Firstly, you seem to not understand what a theory is. You are confusing it with the word hypothesis. A theory is something regarded as a fact. The only difference between a theory and a fact is, the theory is a conclusion based on a fact. Ex. I have a substance. This substance flows freely over itself at room temperature, but stays firmly in place at cool temperatures. When heated, it is no longer visible. I have three hypotheses; It is a solid at room temperature, it is a gas at room temperature, and it is a liquid at room temperature. An analogue to this would be Evolution created variation in species, one of religion's Gods created variation in species, a magic unicorn used its paintbrush horn to paint every animal... To support one hypothesis over the others, we see what the facts point to. Based on the facts, my substance is a liquid.
Also, where did you get the idea that the facts do not point to evolution? Evolution is an fundamental observable principle, just like gravity.
Fact 1: There is competition between animals. If a bacteria cell were to divide at the rate of once per minute, in two hours, there would be more germ cells than molecules on the earth. (2^120=2600000000000000000000000000000000000 bacteria cells) This obviously doesn't happen, therefore, not all offspring live.
Fact 2: There will be variations or mutations in a species. The animals aren't identical. This is obvious.
Fact 3: The 'best' animals are more likely to survive than the 'worst' animals.
Tada! That is evolution.

I do understand what a theory is, but you seem to forget the word “regarded” in your definition. By the way, I find that in a quick search there are seven definitions of “Theory” that are currently “regarded as fact”:

1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
3. Mathematics. a body of principles, theorems, or the like, belonging to one subject: number theory.
4. the branch of a science or art that deals with its principles or methods, as distinguished from its practice: music theory.
5. a particular conception or view of something to be done or of the method of doing it; a system of rules or principles.
6. contemplation or speculation.
7. guess or conjecture
There are many theories that once thought impermeable that have been proven to have flaws. One such theory is your example – gravity. Even gravity is not the flawless theory that many think it to be. Newton’s theory has been proven to have problems in certain situations due to errors that were found in the late 19th century by more modern technology. The errors are over my head, but basically state that gravity is based on spacetime curvature instead of force – as Newton thought. Even the superseding theory – that of relativity is not perfect.

Sure, the errors are small, and not likely to change much anything that the layman would be dealing with in terms of an apple falling from a tree. To the top physicists however, any such flaws could prove disastrous. Imagine the same type of error, this time in the theory of evolution, having the effect of destroying an eternal soul, no, millions of eternal souls – unlikely to you, yet more than probable to me.

And the fact is that there are some scientists that do not entirely agree with the theory of evolution. I must ask that if one piece of it has flaws, then what gets those who believe to look past those flaws. Faith, of course, and if you would like to hear it from a scientist I’ll quote Dr. Michael Ruse an ex-Christian who is now an evolutionist in an article entitled, “Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians.” Written in 2000.

Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion – a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and ex-Christian, but I must admit that in this one complaint…the literalists are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution today.

It seems the very people at the base of the evolution theory are just as faithful to their religion as are the Christians.

[thelastpirate]

Contrary to popular belief, a law is not a theory which has been accepted as fact, rather it is a theory with particular mathematical uses (eg. Charles' Law of Gases, which allows us to mathematically calculate the change in volume of a gas as temperature changes). The theory behind the mathematical "law of gases" remains just that: a theory. Anyone who says that evolution must be weak since it is still "just a theory" and has never become law is (probably wilfully) misrepresenting what the scientific method is all about.

Science is an unwilling process of iteration. You search for absolute truth, but never reach it: you only get incrementally closer each time a theory is falsified and a new one proposed. If you think this is an unsuitable way to gain knowledge, you should immediately abandon everything in your life which has had scientific input in its design.

Lastly, and most importantly, science cant prove anything; not a single theory in the history of science has been proven. They have only been not disproven by various experiments, and account for observed data in accordance with falsifiability (hypothetically an experiment could prove it wrong) and parsimony . If you think evolution is unsuitable because it remains unproven, then again you'd better abadon anything with scientific input since the theory behind that remains unproven.

To properly understand the scientific method, to understand why an unproven theory is accepted, you have to understand the role of parsimony. The original wording is, from Occam's razor:

"Numquam ponenda est pluralitas sine necessitate", or "entities are not to be multiplied without necessity"

This can also be interpreted as:

"While complexity may be a necessity, it is not a virtue"

"all other things being equal, choose the explanation which makes fewest assumptions (creates the fewest entities)
hence, "When confronted with multiple theories of equal explanatory power, choose the one which makes fewest assumptions."

At this moment in time, and to the best of my knowledge, evolution is that theory with the most explanatory power and which makes the fewest assumptions; creationism, with equal explanatory power, assumes God's existence and in so doing creates an entity.

[ilovepasta]

Okay, I’ll start here. The burden of proof is on me to prove to atheists and or agnostics that God exists, that that God is the God of Christianit[color=#80FF00]y, and that Jesus existed and was the Son of said God – I agree. The problem I have with the FSM experience is that I believe it has the potential (and the intention) to lead those who were Christians astray, keep Christianity (or any form of religion for that matter) out of schools, and to systematically secularize the world. To that I say, “The burden of proof shifts to you.”

If the FSM site has caused a Christian to be lead astray, and to suddenly convert to spaghetti monsterism, perhaps their faith was already in question. I have been taught that the best way to make your faith stronger is to question it (as you have). Although new to this site, it seems to me that the intention is not to lead Christians astray. I think the FSM is just fine and dandy with whatever you believe. And I believe that Christianity and FSMism can peacefully coexist. But neither should be required teaching in a public school classroom.

As to the above, where you state "the burden of proof shifts to you", I do not follow your logic. Because the FSM wants to keep Christianity classes out of the public schools, they must prove that God does not exist - is that what you are saying??

I applaud your faith, and your willingness to stand up for it. It helps your case that you are literate, and have given this matter considerable thought. Much more effective than the typical "you must believe or you will burn in hell" fallback.

As for me, I'm a fallen away Christian who is raising my kids as Christians.......just in case.

[swickstrum]

I said:
There are really no records of history that go beyond Biblical times, and I kept coming back to that fact. If we have been around for Millions (perhaps Billions) of years, where is the documentation, stone or otherwise? Why is it that over the last 2000 years our civilization has become so advanced… so advanced that I can type these words on a screen, as never before? I do not have an answer for these questions, nor does anyone – although someone surely thinks they do.
Origami Said:
Surely I am misunderstanding you; there is myriad proofs that the earth is older than biblical times. Look at carbon dating, radiometric dating, rock layers, fossils, and light from galaxies millions of light-years away, for starters. Please correct me if I am being thick and misunderstood your argument. Anyway, the industrial revolution was ~~200 years ago, and that is when we started getting REALLY advanced. Using your logic, the earth is 200 years old. BTW, I would say growing an eyeball is getting more advanced

My response:

You are indeed misunderstanding me. What I said, and what I meant, was that there are no records of history that go beyond Biblical times. Meaning, there are no historical documents that go beyond the six or seven thousand years that the Creationists, myself included, believe that man has been in existence.

Now, there are stone and/or clay tablets that have been found in Ebla at Tel Mardikh in Syria that date back to 2250 – 2300 B.C. that parallel with the early chapters of Genesis in the Bible, even going as far as naming some of the Patriarchs of the Bible. There are even descriptions of the Great Flood (that most non-believers espouse as fiction) in those tablets. This is documentation outside of the Bible that corroborates its authenticity.

But there is more! In the ancient manuscript, Shu Jing (The Book of History) Chinese emperors recited texts of praise during worship ceremonies. The translated text reads:
Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements (planets) had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine. In the midst thereof existed neither forms nor sound. Thou, O spiritual Sovereign, camest forth in Thy presidency, and first didst divide the grosser parts from the purer. Though madest Heaven; Thou madest earth; Thou madest man. All things with their reproductive power got their being.
This was written near or around 2205 B.C. still in line Biblically with Creation, and more importantly, in line with the scattering of nations by God after the flood. (All of this information comes from Ava Ford, M.D. in the November issue of Acts & Facts Volume 37, No. 11 - ICR, Dallas, TX)

So there are two separate cultures that have independently corroborated the Bible, with no possible knowledge of one another other than the historical relation documented in Genesis.

As far as the carbon based dating, radiometric dating, etc… I cannot begin to explain why, or how these dates may be incorrect because I do not know enough about them. I do know, however, that some scientists dispute the methods used and the results due to

1. influx of sodium and other chemicals into the ocean;
2. depletion of the land by leaching;
3. sedimentation rates;
4. build-up of helium in the atmosphere;
5. disintegration of comets;
6. influx of meteorites and their nickel-iron contents on the earth; and
7. efflux of water from earth's interior by volcanism.

Again, I do not pretend to understand these methods, or the problems brought to my attention about them. I simply understand that there are problems with yet another scientific theory that supports evolution.

As to your statement that, Anyway, the industrial revolution was ~~200 years ago, and that is when we started getting REALLY advanced. Using your logic, the earth is 200 years old. BTW, I would say growing an eyeball is getting more advanced
I agree with you that we have become really advanced in the last 200 years, greater than ever before, but this still does not explain why we, only 5 or 6 thousand years ago became smart enough to write and document. I would say that the advances made in the last 200 years are more in line with us discovering oil than any change in real intelligence. If we took our technology from today and showed it to an ancient Sumerian, would he not be able to learn it? Of course he would. But at what point does that intelligence level stop according to non-believers? If you say right around 6 thousand years ago, that fits in nicely with Biblical timelines. If you say any earlier, and I will question why then, did those people not leave us documentation of their intelligence?

[swickstrum]

Oh, but science is so advanced now, we know what is going on…really? Scientists used to think that the earth was flat (Because the bible told them so), scientists used to think that the sun rotated around the earth(Because the bible told them so), scientists used to think that drilling into a human's skull would help them work their problems out (as a matter of fact, the best group of scientists in the world gave Egas Moniz the Nobel Peace Prize for the Lobotomy in 1949…just 59 years ago)(Because the bible told them it would open their brain up to God). Oh how times have changed. What idiots we were, drilling into a skull(Because the bible told them so)…wow! But back in the 1800's(oh, 200 years ago is out, but 2000 years ago is in? Okay...) Darwin came up with evolution and that is still respected? We cannot prove nor disprove this flawed science.(Because the bible... err wait; wrong argument . See my above comment on evolution.)

Okay, I skipped a small portion that you wrote that I will get back to later. I really, really wanted to get to this wonderful argument of yours. I just have a few questions for you before I can really get down to business, and since you are obviously a Biblical scholar, I’ve chosen you to be the one to show me these scriptures:
1. Please show me which scripture tells us that the earth was flat.
2. Please show me which scripture tells us that the sun rotated the earth.
3. And most, most importantly please show me which scripture tells us that drilling into the skull would “open their brain up to God.”
Are you kidding with these, or are you truly that ignorant to what is in the Bible? That’s one of the biggest problems I have with agnostics/atheists is the lack of knowledge that they have, while they purport to be experts. Seriously, this is hilarious.

By the way, the earth was discovered to be round by (maybe not first, but most notably) by Aristotle, although many believed that it was flat until Columbus sailed in the late 1490’s.

Aristotle ALSO was the author the geocentric universe, and where is he in the Bible again? The discoverer of the Heliocentric Solar System was (most famously) Galileo, and even he had some erroneous theories regarding the tide, and other things but that does not take away from the man in any way.

My point with the 200 years it’s been since Darwin’s theory is that there have really been no changes to the theory, as I have previously stated, simply searching for evidence. I’m not real sure what your comment about 2000 years being okay. I’ve never claimed that the Bible is a science book; just that it is the Word of God. I’m sure that science has improved over the last 200 years, so why is it that the secular scientific community has not improved upon the evolutionary theory? The Bible does not need to be improved upon, it is, like I said, not a science book it is an instruction manual.

[nicci :)]

Hello *smile*

Er, if you press the "quote" button in the top right corner of someone's post it'll give you a way to quote them without using colours or nothing at all. Just replace lines you dont need to quote with "..." If you look at the text before and after their quote then you'll soon see how to break up quotes so you cn address issues individually. ... The way it is now is kind of hard to read.

My point with the 200 years it’s been since Darwin’s theory is that there have really been no changes to the theory, as I have previously stated, simply searching for evidence.

You didn't look very hard then. Sorry if that sounds rude but it's true. 'Darwinism' has been through many revisions. Look up social dariwnism, that should give you some more outdated ammunition. Never heard of Richard Dawkins? Ever looked at a wiki page? Oh and evolution and darwinism are two different things. The idea originated (in popular history books) with Darwin, but Dawkins and others have provided the theory that oyu dismiss as 200 years old. The method dawkins describes is sound & valid philosophically/logically/empirically and that is supported by evidence from all different disciplines. Attacking Darwin is a little pointless.

p.s. I can't believe you used the eyeball argument. Really, you should just visit a web page or two. It's pathetically easy to counter that argument and has been proven time and again.

[thelastpirate]

I said:
There are really no records of history that go beyond Biblical times, and I kept coming back to that fact. If we have been around for Millions (perhaps Billions) of years, where is the documentation, stone or otherwise? Why is it that over the last 2000 years our civilization has become so advanced… so advanced that I can type these words on a screen, as never before?

What exactly do you define as biblical time? How many thousand years ago did it begin? I need to know what youre saying before I know whether I agree with you.

I do not have an answer for these questions, nor does anyone – although someone surely thinks they do.
Origami Said:
Surely I am misunderstanding you; there is myriad proofs that the earth is older than biblical times. Look at carbon dating, radiometric dating, rock layers, fossils, and light from galaxies millions of light-years away, for starters. Please correct me if I am being thick and misunderstood your argument. Anyway, the industrial revolution was ~~200 years ago, and that is when we started getting REALLY advanced. Using your logic, the earth is 200 years old. BTW, I would say growing an eyeball is getting more advanced

My response:

You are indeed misunderstanding me. What I said, and what I meant, was that there are no records of history that go beyond Biblical times. Meaning, there are no historical documents that go beyond the six or seven thousand years that the Creationists, myself included, believe that man has been in existence.

What do you mean by a document? There is some archaeological evidence that certain cities have been inhabited for more than 6000 years (eg. Damascus, Syria - the oldest inhabited city in the world with archaeological evidence of human habitaion ~12,000 years ago).

Now, there are stone and/or clay tablets that have been found in Ebla at Tel Mardikh in Syria that date back to 2250 – 2300 B.C. that parallel with the early chapters of Genesis in the Bible, even going as far as naming some of the Patriarchs of the Bible. There are even descriptions of the Great Flood (that most non-believers espouse as fiction) in those tablets. This is documentation outside of the Bible that corroborates its authenticity.

The major question relating to the flood remains unanswered; where does the huge ammount of water go when it's not in flood? Where is it now? I dont doubt that there was some natural disaster at that time, a tsunami perhaps, which gave rise to the myths of a flood which covered the entire surface of the earth, but I seriously doubt that the great flood is literally true.

Furthermore, the people of Ebla were polytheists, and did not revere Yaweh; surely they were killed by the great flood, as the bible says. If so, how did they write the account of the flood?

But there is more! In the ancient manuscript, Shu Jing (The Book of History) Chinese emperors recited texts of praise during worship ceremonies. The translated text reads:
Of old in the beginning, there was the great chaos, without form and dark. The five elements (planets) had not begun to revolve, nor the sun and the moon to shine. In the midst thereof existed neither forms nor sound. Thou, O spiritual Sovereign, camest forth in Thy presidency, and first didst divide the grosser parts from the purer. Though madest Heaven; Thou madest earth; Thou madest man. All things with their reproductive power got their being.
This was written near or around 2205 B.C. still in line Biblically with Creation, and more importantly, in line with the scattering of nations by God after the flood. (All of this information comes from Ava Ford, M.D. in the November issue of Acts & Facts Volume 37, No. 11 - ICR, Dallas, TX)

Firstly, you should always be cautious when citing a publication by an authority which admits its own bias, eg the ICR.

What you have described is the creation story of roughly every culture and religion, monotheist and otherwise. Does the Bible add weight to the Chinese Emperor's account?

So there are two separate cultures that have independently corroborated the Bible, with no possible knowledge of one another other than the historical relation documented in Genesis.

Neither has corrobarated "the Bible"; one has agreed with a single specific event in general terms, and the other has no corroboration beyond agreeing with creationism, abliet by a different God(s).

As far as the carbon based dating, radiometric dating, etc… I cannot begin to explain why, or how these dates may be incorrect because I do not know enough about them. I do know, however, that some scientists dispute the methods used and the results due to

1. influx of sodium and other chemicals into the ocean;
2. depletion of the land by leaching;
3. sedimentation rates;
4. build-up of helium in the atmosphere;
5. disintegration of comets;
6. influx of meteorites and their nickel-iron contents on the earth; and
7. efflux of water from earth's interior by volcanism.

Again, I do not pretend to understand these methods, or the problems brought to my attention about them. I simply understand that there are problems with yet another scientific theory that supports evolution.

If you dont understand the theory behind radiometric dating, theres no point in refuting your specific criticisms. Suffice to say that nobody is claiming radiometric data to be 100% accurate; it is used as a rough guide more than anything, but there is no reason why dates beyond 4000BCE should automatically be regarded as wrong.

As to your statement that, Anyway, the industrial revolution was ~~200 years ago, and that is when we started getting REALLY advanced. Using your logic, the earth is 200 years old. BTW, I would say growing an eyeball is getting more advanced

I'm not sure why that logic makes the earth 200 years old, rather it explains why previous civilisations may not have left "documents".

As to the eye, there are many explanations available, including
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_the_eye

I agree with you that we have become really advanced in the last 200 years, greater than ever before, but this still does not explain why we, only 5 or 6 thousand years ago became smart enough to write and document. I would say that the advances made in the last 200 years are more in line with us discovering oil than any change in real intelligence. If we took our technology from today and showed it to an ancient Sumerian, would he not be able to learn it? Of course he would. But at what point does that intelligence level stop according to non-believers? If you say right around 6 thousand years ago, that fits in nicely with Biblical timelines. If you say any earlier, and I will question why then, did those people not leave us documentation of their intelligence?

Petroleum was discovered in 1546, 462 years ago. I think that the rapid increase in technology over the past ~200 years, which is unprecedented, is due to a huge and complicated variety of factors.

Also, the advent of written records was also IMO not a change in "real intelligence" - there are still remote tribes who leave no record of their existence beyond word of mouth; do you question their existence, or "real intelligence"?