The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Morbert · 03-08-2009 12:29am

J C wrote: »

...I have emboldened the critical point in my original post that you seem to have missed.

It is correct that minor changes to non-critical sections of protein chains only reduces functionality because of built-in redundancy (another aspect of ID) ... but critical sequences are just that ... and ANY change to these sequences renders the protein completely useless, probably because they have lost their original built-in redundancy.

...all of which is explained by degraded redundancy!!!

...the competitive nature of breeding may cause sexual and natural selection of pre-existing genetic information ... BUT the supposed evolutionary mechanism for producing new information (Mutagenesis) is so destructive of genetic information, that a very long list of chemicals have been banned on safety grounds because of their mutagenic effects ... and I don't hear of any Evolutionists campaigning for their un-banning!!!:pac::):D

I will ask again for scientific evidence affirming your claim that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins.

marco_polo · 03-08-2009 4:22am

wolfsbane wrote: »

Here's one that is both:
The Specified Complexity of Retinal Imagery
http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

Shouldn't his ''Peers' have pointed out that the eyes do not simply send a picture to the brain pixel by pixel ala his deeply flawed analogy? On that point alone it is epic fail, one of the worst articles you have posted to date and that is saying something.

J C · 03-08-2009 9:16am

Morbert wrote: »

Your response to kiffer's post has not addressed the point raised in kiffer's post. A structure may be irreducibly complex in the context of a specific function, but that does not mean it is irreducibly complex in the context of all possible functions.

...the only problem with that idea, is that functionality is highly specific and localised, in the case of living systems...so, for example, if the putative pre-cursor of Rhodopsin (which is a key component of the Eye Retina) was actually in some creature's big toe ... it would NEVER become functionally useful, even if by some miracle, Rhodopsin were ever to be formed within the toe, in the first place.

The only way that a structure which is irreducibly complex in the context of a specific function, may not be irreducibly complex in the context of all possible functions is by the appliance of further INTELLIGENCE ... thus a scissors may be INTELLIGENTLY 'recycled' for use as a tea stirrer ... or INTELLIGENTLY re-engineered for any number of possible other new uses!!!!

....but without the appliance of ADDITIONAL intelligence it remains a functional scissors DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY for cutting things!!!!:pac::):D

....you do seriously need to study ID....

... if you have a moral objection to learning from Creation Scientists about ID ... you could talk to a friendly local Theistic Evolutionist COLLEAGUE!!!!

... you could jointly explore HOW the Intelligent Design of all living organisms indicates the appliance of intelligence ... and you could then take it from there ... possibly saving BOTH of your eternal lives in the process!!!!;):eek::)

J C · 03-08-2009 9:19am

Morbert wrote: »

I will ask again for scientific evidence affirming your claim that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins.

....and I have ALREADY told you that it is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY due to the effective infinity of 'wrong' combinations and the very small number of functional combinations!!!!:pac::):D

...go FIGURE!!!:)

J C · 03-08-2009 9:24am

marco_polo wrote: »

Shouldn't his ''Peers' have pointed out that the eyes do not simply send a picture to the brain pixel by pixel ala his deeply flawed analogy? On that point alone it is epic fail, one of the worst articles you have posted to date and that is saying something.

...it sends it 'cone cell by cone cell' and 'rod cell by rod cell' instead (which is analagous to - but much more sophisticated than pixel by pixel)... so what exactly is your point?

:)

Based only on the number of rods and cones (to say nothing of the billions of individual cells within these structures) the Human Eye is the sensory equivalent of a 126 Mega-pixel camera ... which puts a conventional modern 10 mega-pixel pocket camera into perspective!!!:D

Our God is truly a God of infinite omnipotence and omniscience!!!!:D

....and He loves YOU (yes, YOU AS AN INDIVIDUAL Human Being) so much that He took on the Human Condition and died so that you might live eternally ... and all He asks is that you believe on Him to Save YOU.

...and the following extract from Wikipedia illustrates the inordinate specified complexity of just one SMALL aspect of the biochemistry of sight ... indicating the inordinate appliance of Intelligent Design thereto:-

Rhodopsin consists of the protein moiety opsin and a reversibly covalently bound cofactor, retinal. Opsin, a bundle of seven transmembrane helices, binds retinal, a photoreactive chromophore, in a central pocket. Retinal is produced in the retina from Vitamin A. Isomerization of 11-cis-retinal into all-trans-retinal by light induces a conformational change in opsin that activates the associated G protein and triggers a second messenger cascade.

Rhodopsin of the rods most strongly absorbs green-blue light and therefore appears reddish-purple, which is why it is also called "visual purple". It is responsible for monochromatic vision in the dark.

Several closely related opsins exist that differ only in a few amino acids and in the wavelengths of light that they absorb most strongly. Humans have four different other opsins beside rhodopsin. The photopsins are found in the different types of the cone cells of the retina and are the basis of color vision. They have absorption maxima for yellowish-green (photopsin I), green (photopsin II), and bluish-violet (photopsin III) light. The remaining opsin (melanopsin) is found in photosensitive ganglion cells and absorbs blue light most strongly.

The photoisomerization of rhodopsin has been studied in detail via x-ray crystallography on rhodopsin crystals. A first photoproduct called photorhodopsin forms within 200 femtoseconds after irradiation followed within picoseconds by a second one called bathorhodopsin with distorted all-trans bonds. This intermediate can be trapped and studied at cryogenic temperatures. Several models (e.g. the bicycle-pedal mechanism, hula-twist mechanism) attempt to explain how the retinal group can change its conformation without clashing with the enveloping rhodopsin protein pocket.......

....enough said for anybody, except the most dogged of Materialists!!!:D:eek::D

Zombrex · 03-08-2009 10:46am

kiffer wrote: »

I read this one... well most of it... blech...
To sum up... there are lots of rods and cones... if you do the wiring randomly the eye should just see static... assume everything happens at once, the chances of this happening in millions of steps is the exact same as it happening in one ... blah blah blah ... God did it.

Try harder guys.

What I don't get is that the mere fact that Creationists keep putting forward these nonsense arguments that actually argue exactly the opposite of evolution as evolution it MUST mean that they know they are lying and misdirecting? The argument that they just don't understand evolution only hold the first say 10 time they put forward a complete misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.

And if they know that how can they actually believe what they believe?

How can you believe you are correct if you have to lie to make that case?

It is bizarre.

J C · 03-08-2009 1:19pm

Wicknight wrote: »

What I don't get is that the mere fact that Creationists keep putting forward these nonsense arguments that actually argue exactly the opposite of evolution as evolution it MUST mean that they know they are lying and misdirecting? The argument that they just don't understand evolution only hold the first say 10 time they put forward a complete misrepresentation of evolutionary theory.

And if they know that how can they actually believe what they believe?

How can you believe you are correct if you have to lie to make that case?

It is bizarre.

...what ARE you talking about??

:eek:

...as Christians, could I remind you, we take our inspiration from the Author of TRUTH ... The Holy Spirit of God ... and we totally reject the 'Father of Lies'!!!

... so WHAT are these 'lies' you keep talking about???

Morbert · 03-08-2009 1:24pm

J C wrote: »

...the only problem with that idea, is that functionality is highly specific and localised, in the case of living systems...so, for example, if the putative pre-cursor of Rhodopsin (which is a key component of the Eye Retina) was actually in some creature's big toe ... it would NEVER become functionally useful, even if by some miracle, Rhodopsin were ever to be formed within the toe, in the first place.

The only way that a structure which is irreducibly complex in the context of a specific function, may not be irreducibly complex in the context of all possible functions is by the appliance of further INTELLIGENCE ... thus a scissors may be INTELLIGENTLY recycled for use as a tea stirrer ... or INTELLIGENTLY re-engineered for any number of possible new uses!!!!

....but without the appliance of ADDITIONAL intelligence it remains a functional scissors DESIGNED SPECIFICALLY for cutting things!!!!:pac::):D

....you do seriously need to study ID....

... if you have a moral objection to learning from Creation Scientists about ID ... you could talk to a friendly local Theistic Evolutionist COLLEAGUE!!!!

...at least you will probably get an 'acceptable' answer (to you) to the question "Do you believe in Evolution and all its useless works and all it's empty promises?":pac::):D

...and from that 'positive' start and 'common ground' ... you could jointly explore HOW the Intelligent Design of all living organisms indicates the appliance of intelligence ... and you could then take it from there ... possibly saving BOTH of your eternal lives in the process!!!!;):eek::)

Functionality is not as highly specified as you say. Evolutionary paths for structures declared "irreducibly complex" have been discovered, and IDers haven't tendered a method for identifying irreducibly complex structures.

....and I have ALREADY told you that it is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY due to the effective infinity of 'wrong' combinations and the very small number of functional combinations!!!!

...go FIGURE!!!

You have been corrected on this before. Where is the scientific evidence that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins? Your incorrect mathematical assertions about spontaneous generation are irrelevant.

MatthewVII · 03-08-2009 2:55pm

J C wrote: »

but critical sequences are just that ... and ANY change to these sequences renders the protein completely useless, probably because they have lost their original built-in redundancy.

Right, but the number of critical sequences in a given protein code are so small in comparison to non-critical sequences that it rarely causes a problem. In fact, the chances of damaging a critical sequence are so small that you would probably term it a mathematical impossibility in the way you are so fond of completely misunderstanding the laws of probability.

J C · 03-08-2009 3:05pm

Morbert wrote: »

Functionality is not as highly specified as you say. Evolutionary paths for structures declared "irreducibly complex" have been discovered, and IDers haven't tendered a method for identifying irreducibly complex structures.

You have been corrected on this before. Where is the scientific evidence that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins? Your incorrect mathematical assertions about spontaneous generation are irrelevant.

...dream on!!!

...such denial may allow one to live in a 'Fools Paradise' ... but, I want to (eventually) live in the Real Thing!!!!:eek::pac::):D:eek:

J C · 03-08-2009 3:16pm

MatthewVII wrote: »

Right, but the number of critical sequences in a given protein code are so small in comparison to non-critical sequences that it rarely causes a problem. In fact, the chances of damaging a critical sequence are so small that you would probably term it a mathematical impossibility in the way you are so fond of completely misunderstanding the laws of probability.

... they are quite large ... indeed these are the functionally critical areas of the sequence ... and that is why EVERYONE avoids Mutagenesis!!!!

... could I gently remind you that changes to non-critical sequences have no effect ...
... so please note that NS cannot effectively select from this type of change!!!!

... and changes to critical sequences often kill the organism ... thereby permanently eliminating any progress with ALL other putative evolving proteins with these individuals!!!

NS is conceptually and observationally an information conservation mechanism ... and it is NOT an information production mechanism!!!!:)

Morbert · 03-08-2009 4:56pm

J C wrote: »

... they are quite large ... indeed these are the functionally critical areas of the sequence ... and that is why EVERYONE avoids Mutagenesis!!!!

... coud I gently remind you that changes to non-critical sequences have no effect ...
... so please note that NS cannot effectively select from this type of change!!!!

... and changes to critical sequences often kill the organism ... thereby permanently eliminating any progress with any other putative evolving proteins with these individuals!!!

NS is conceptually and observationally an information conservation mechanism ... and it is NOT an information production mechanism!!!!:)

You have been corrected on this before. Natural selection of mutations accounts for the increase in molecular information, as described by molecular information theory.

Your "Fool's paradise" response to me was irrelevant. You must tender scientific evidence for your assertions.

J C · 03-08-2009 5:21pm

J C · 03-08-2009 5:30pm

Morbert wrote: »

You have been corrected on this before. Natural selection of mutations accounts for the increase in molecular information, as described by molecular information theory.

...NS can only select ... from existing expressed genetic information.

It cannot create the information, in the first place.

The task of producing the information from which NS selects is accorded to Mutagenesis by Materialists and to an Omnipotent Intelligence by Creationists.

....and as I have ALREADY told you, it is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY to produce Functional Information using undirected processes, like Mutagenesis, because of the effective infinity of 'wrong' combinations and the very small number of functional combinations!!!!

...go FIGURE!!! :pac::):D:eek:

J C · 03-08-2009 6:11pm

Morbert wrote: »

Your "Fool's paradise" response to me was irrelevant. You must tender scientific evidence for your assertions.

...this was a Theological comment ... and NOT a Scientific one !!!:D

...I too lived in a 'Fools Paradise' when I was an Evolutionist ... and before I was Saved ...

... now I look forward to living in the REAL Paradise ... for ever!!!:):D

Morbert · 03-08-2009 6:22pm

J C wrote: »

...NS can only select ... from existing expressed genetic information.

It cannot create the information, in the first place.

The task of producing the information from which NS selects is accorded to Mutagenesis by Materialists and to an Omnipotent Intelligence by Creationists.

....and as I have ALREADY told you, it is a MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBILITY to produce Functional Information using undirected processes, like Mutagenesis, because of the effective infinity of 'wrong' combinations and the very small number of functional combinations!!!!

...go FIGURE!!! :pac::):D:eek:

You have been corrected on this before. Natural selection and Mutations can and do increase molecular information. Here is a journal detailing such changes.

http://mutage.oxfordjournals.org

Your assertions regarding mathematical possibilities is irrelevant.

As for your list of creation articles: Which of these provides scientific evidence for your claim that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins?

DiarmaidGNR · 03-08-2009 6:31pm

J C wrote: »

...this was a Theological comment ... and NOT a Scientific one !!!:D

...I too lived in a 'Fools Paradise' when I was an Evolutionist ... and before I was Saved ...

... now I look forward to living in the REAL Paradise ... for ever!!!:):D

Wow.

How can people make such bold statements without any evidence of any kind?!

Show me your "REAL Paradise".

It amazes me the way people leave logic and reason at the door when it comes to the religious end of the debate.

J C · 03-08-2009 6:32pm

Morbert wrote: »

You have been corrected on this before. Natural selection and Mutations can and do increase molecular information. Here is a journal detailing such changes.

http://mutage.oxfordjournals.org

Your assertions regarding mathematical possibilities is irrelevant.

....your referenced Journal ...
http://mutage.oxfordjournals.org/current.dtl
....seems to be one long list of DEFECTS and DISEASE caused by Mutagenesis. Very important to study and publish the results of this research ... but it provides no support to the wild idea that 'Microbes evolved into Men' ... with nothing added but time!!!!:D:)

J C · 03-08-2009 6:39pm

Morbert wrote: »

As for your list of creation articles: Which of these provides scientific evidence for your claim that proteins could not have evolved from simpler proteins?

...I haven't submitted a Paper on it ... but this Paper touches on the central issues invoved, including the impossibility of undirected processes producing functional information :-

http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

I was particularly interested in the following aside, in the above paper, which expresses my views succinctly:-
As another example of how random chance fails to produce complexity, Thompson (1990) presented the “monkeys typing all the books in the British Museum” statement of Huxley and concluded that this is nonsense. The interesting part of Thompson’s answer about reversing the question and asking how many words could actually be produced by the monkeys, leads to another remarkable find. If one replaces Huxley’s six monkeys with all the atoms in a 30 millimeter ball bearing (lots of atoms) and each atom “types” at the speed of light for 20 billion years, there are less than 40 specified characters that result from all that effort. But the astounding part is that if we expand the problem to include the entire size of the supposed evolutionary universe (20 billion light-year radius, e.g.) and fill it with atomic computers, we get less than three times the number of characters produced by the 30 millimeter ball bearing. Adding more time and space to random-chance scenarios does virtually nothing to help the probabilities.

One just does not have the time or the population base in “evolutionary history” to produce any kind of complex functioning visual system based on random processes. Only a Creator could impart the information needed to provide meaningful sight, and that information would need to be available from the beginning, not acquired randomly by trial and error.

May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be with you all.

J C · 03-08-2009 6:45pm

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

Wow.

How can people make such bold statements without any evidence of any kind?!

...such reservations certainly haven't constrained Materialists, when it comes to making "bold statements without any evidence of any kind"!!!!

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

It amazes me the way people leave logic and reason at the door when it comes to the religious end of the debate.

...the guys who are ACTUALLY abandoning logic and ignoring the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (for the Intelligent Design of life) are ironically the Materialists ... who with 'a wave of the hand' pronounce that Microbes became Men through a series of happy MISTAKES (AKA Mutations)!!!!:eek::D:)

...while SIMULTANEOUSLY showing a (wise) aversion to undergoing Mutagenesis THEMSELVES!!!:D

J C · 03-08-2009 6:55pm

DiarmaidGNR wrote: »

Show me your "REAL Paradise".

...this reminds me of a certain conversation which took place on a hill outside Jerusalem almost 2,000 years ago:-

Lu 23:39 And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
40 But the other answering rebuked him, saying, Dost not thou fear God, seeing thou art in the same condemnation?
41 And we indeed justly; for we receive the due reward of our deeds: but this man hath done nothing amiss.
42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise.

...I guess some guys will ... and some guys WON'T!!!!

...some guys need a lot of love ... and some guys DON'T!!!:pac::):D

Morbert · 03-08-2009 7:04pm

J C wrote: »

....your referenced Journal seems to be one long list of DEFECTS and DISEASE caused by Mutagenesis. Very important to study and publish the results of this research ... but it provides no support to the wild idea that 'Microbes evolved into Men' ... with nothing added but time!!!!:D:)

The referenced journal is not one long list of defects and diseases caused by mutagenesis. The journal is a collection of research regarding mechanisms for genetic change, and nowhere is it shown that mutagenesis could not be an agent of evolution.

A related journal, Molecular Biology and Evolution, deals with the actual evolution of molecular information.

http://mbe.oxfordjournals.org/

DiarmaidGNR · 03-08-2009 7:10pm

J C wrote: »

...such reservations certainly haven't constrained Materialists, when it comes to making "bold statements without any evidence of any kind"!!!!

...the guys who are ACTUALLY abandoning logic and ignoring the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE (for the Intelligent Design of life) are ironically the Materialists ... who with 'a wave of the hand' pronounce that Microbes became Men through a series of happy MISTAKES (AKA Mutations)!!!!:eek::D:)

...while SIMULTANEOUSLY showing a (wise) aversion to undergoing Mutagenesis THEMSELVES!!!:D

You obviously know nothing about evolution.

Morbert · 03-08-2009 7:12pm

J C wrote: »

...I haven't submitted a Paper on it ... but this Paper touches on the central issues invoved, including the impossibility of undirected processes producing functional information :-

http://creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/43/43_1/retinal_imagery.htm

I was particularly interested in the following aside, in the above paper, which expresses my views succinctly:-
As another example of how random chance fails to produce complexity, Thompson (1990) presented the “monkeys typing all the books in the British Museum” statement of Huxley and concluded that this is nonsense. The interesting part of Thompson’s answer about reversing the question and asking how many words could actually be produced by the monkeys, leads to another remarkable find. If one replaces Huxley’s six monkeys with all the atoms in a 30 millimeter ball bearing (lots of atoms) and each atom “types” at the speed of light for 20 billion years, there are less than 40 specified characters that result from all that effort. But the astounding part is that if we expand the problem to include the entire size of the supposed evolutionary universe (20 billion light-year radius, e.g.) and fill it with atomic computers, we get less than three times the number of characters produced by the 30 millimeter ball bearing. Adding more time and space to random-chance scenarios does virtually nothing to help the probabilities.

One just does not have the time or the population base in “evolutionary history” to produce any kind of complex functioning visual system based on random processes. Only a Creator could impart the information needed to provide meaningful sight, and that information would need to be available from the beginning, not acquired randomly by trial and error.

May the love and peace of Jesus Christ be with you all.

Specified complexity cannot be applied to evolutionary biology, and I could not find anything regarding the impossibility of evolutionary biological information. Could you please highlight specifically where the above paper shows that that evolution cannot account for the development of biological information.

Zombrex · 03-08-2009 8:57pm

J C wrote: »

...what ARE you talking about??:eek:

...as Christians, could I remind you, we take our inspiration from the Author of TRUTH ... The Holy Spirit of God ... and we totally reject the 'Father of Lies'!!!

... so WHAT are these 'lies' you keep talking about???

I'm talking about Creationists groups and individuals continually and consistently lying about what the theory of neo-Darwinian biological evolution states.

Not disagreeing with it. Not saying it is wrong. Not saying it can't explain certain things. Not saying it couldn't work. But actually lying about what it says. Knowingly making up or repeating that it says something that it doesn't say.

It would be like a non-Christian claiming they have rejected Christianity because the Bible says that Jesus slept with prostitutes and then had them executed. A bewildered Christian would just be standing there going "No it doesn't..." and be particularly surprised if the non-Christian kept claiming this after being correct and trying to get Christians to reject Christianity by telling them that this is what the Bible says.

What ever about rejecting Christianity after reading the Bible and understanding it, rejecting it and using a complete fabrication as justification would be just silly, especially after the 20th time a Christian has pointed out that the Bible does not state anywhere that Jesus slept with hookers and then had them executed. If this person knew that the Bible doesn't say that, and yet continued to state it does, he must know that he is trying to get people to believe a lie, and what does that says about his own beliefs.

So what exactly are Creationists doing? Why lie about what Darwinian evolution states?

If Darwinian evolution is false because the Bible says so why would it be necessary to lie about what it says? What purpose does that serve, particularly when they must know they are lying since they have been corrected so many times?

marco_polo · 03-08-2009 10:08pm

J C wrote: »

...it sends it 'cone cell by cone cell' and 'rod cell by rod cell' instead (which is analagous to - but much more sophisticated than pixel by pixel)... so what exactly is your point?:)

Based only on the number of rods and cones (to say nothing of the billions of individual cells within these structures) the Human Eye is the sensory equivalent of a 126 Mega-pixel camera ... which puts a conventional modern 10 mega-pixel pocket camera into perspective!!!:D

Eh no it doesn't, the amount of visual information that is sent to the brain is a meer fraction of the amount that hits the eye so that sensory overload is avoided, this compression is by a factor of at least one hundred. And the amount of the information that is stored in memory is a fraction of this again.

Now I don't know the criteria by which an omnipotent 'designer' works, but one would think that he could create a system to process streaming video, without having to compress the quality to less than 1%.

Sam Vimes · 04-08-2009 10:56am

J C wrote: »

...I did say that a scissors was a SIMPLE device.

....and if you want to cut something, rather than stirrring you tea with it - or skewering something with it, (which ALMOST ANYTHING WILL ALSO DO) a scissors MUST have two knives with ninety degree sharp edges that can interact with each other, a fulcrum and a finger holder on each knife.

...and a blunt scissors ISN'T a functional pliers.

The plain fact is that a functional (cutting) scissors is irreducibly complex ... and ditto for a specific functional protein!!!!:D

Yes a specific functional protein is irreducibly complex, so until it becomes that specific protein it does different functions. to prove irreducible complexity there is no point proving it can't perform that very specific function, we know it can't, you must prove it can't perform any function

Sam Vimes · 04-08-2009 11:14am

Wolfsbane, I was writing out a big response to your post but I actually have no interest in it anymore. If people can't look at the insurmountable evidence against creationism that's already out there and come to the conclusion that it's nonsense then there's very little chance of me changing anyone's mind.

I have explained how the eye evolved, I have explained how natural selection works, contrary to the way creationists think it does, I have provided evidence of increases in complexity and beneficial mutations. In short, I have provided conclusive proof that evolution exists and it has not been accepted. Anything else I say would simply be repeating myself

marco_polo · 04-08-2009 12:04pm

J C wrote: »

...the only problem with that idea, is that functionality is highly specific and localised, in the case of living systems...so, for example, if the putative pre-cursor of Rhodopsin (which is a key component of the Eye Retina) was actually in some creature's big toe ... it would NEVER become functionally useful, even if by some miracle, Rhodopsin were ever to be formed within the toe, in the first place.

Like alpha-crystallin?, which bends light and as a result of it high refractive index, enables the lens of the eye to focus light on the retina. Of course because in the case of living systems functionality is so highly specific and localised it could never become functionally useful elsewhere.

Except as a heat shock protein in all eukaryotic cells and many bacteria of course. :rolleyes:

Buster2009 · 04-08-2009 12:48pm

Soul Winner wrote: »

Yeah, and while you're at it, make sure to teach them the difference between these two words won't ya? There's a good lad.

Tolerance:

A fair, objective, and permissive attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry

Intolerance

Lack of toleration; unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

Just because someone has a "belief" doesn't make it true. Ignorance is bliss, but indoctrinating children into ignorance is wrong.

We discuss politics and sport freely in society, but for some reason the discussion on religious belief is taboo, but thankfully the times times they are a-changin'.

Religion is, and always has been, a BUSINESS built on pure bull****.

The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

Comments