The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 1)

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

I can give my opinion in relation to your perception of His obscurity, but as I am not God, I can not profess to be able to give you His exact response to your question. Firstly I completely disagree that God has made Himself obscure. He has set up churches all around the world and the message of the gospel is preached far and wide. The Christian movement is massive with the Bible being available in massive supply.

What a coincidence, the Buddha has set up Temples all around the world and the message of the Noble Eightfold Path and the 4 noble truths is practiced far and wide. The Buddhist movement is massive with various Buddhist documents being available in massive supply.

What a coincidence, Allah has set up Mosques all around the world and the message of the Koran is preached far and wide. The Islamic movement is massive with the Koran being available in massive supply.

What a coincidence, Lord Krishna (and his 329,999,999 other gods have set up temples all around the world and the messages of the Śruti ("revealed") and Smriti ("remembered") texts are taught far and wide. The Hindu movement is massive with scriptural texts being available in massive supply.

What a coincidence, Guru Nanak Dev and his 9 successors have set up temples all around the world and the message of the Gurū Granth Sāhib are taught far and wide. The Sikh movement is massive with the Gurū Granth Sāhib being available in massive supply.

What a coincidence, Bahá'u'lláh has set up temples all around the world and the message of the various texts of the Bahá'í literature are taught far and wide. The Bahá'í movement is massive with the Bahá'í literature being available in massive supply.

What a coincidence, Mahavir has set up temples all around the world and the message of the Tattvartha Sutra is taught far and wide. The Jainism movement is massive with the Tattvartha Sutra being available in massive supply.

What a coincidence, Haneullim has set up temples all around the world and the message of Cheondoism is taught far and wide. The Cheondoism movement is massive with the various religious texts being available in massive supply.

The largest religion in the world is Christianity, but of course you don't include Catholics so you gotta take off a billion, leaving Christianity in 3rd place.

So technically Islam is the worlds largest religion, followed by Hinduism and Buddhism.

Leaving Christianity with 1.1 - 1.2 billion if you include all the different sects, churches into one but as you yourself pointed out a few pages back, 'real' Christians must be creationists so that just about takes away 95% of Christianity's figure and thats been generous.

He has made Intelligent Design perfectly clear in creation

Who ? Allah ?

Islam teaches us that Evolution is a Christian trick to attack the virtue of the Muslim youth.

Our own dna shows a very complex programming of creation itself.

No it doesn't as has been shown to you a hundred times.

Thats just like saying that a computer operates without computer programming

No its not as has been shown to you a hundred times.

He now has to convince people that this is not Allah, Buddha, Krishna etc. and that it is The God of the Bible.

He can't do that ? He doesn't have the power to convince us ?

We can look at the historical, fossil, geological and astronomical record.

And we learn about Evolution, a very old Universe and Earth and countless stars and planets.

Just one observation of many that exist and can be absolutely proven.

So prove it. You haven't given any evidence so far.

Some will argue this statement and say that it all depends on how the facts are interpreted, but nevertheless, the facts remain.

No they don't. You haven't shown a single fact to even suggest any of what your saying is true.

His Spirit in the earth is wanting to align itself with the very consciousness given to you from birth. So how will you ever really know? Ask Him (even if it be a hypothetical prayer) He promises this - Seek and you will find. The following link explains this perfectly:
http://brentbarnett.blogspot.com/2009/01/seek-and-you-will-find.html

I tried but Buddha answered me, did I do it wrong or did your* god change address recently ? Perhaps he was evicted.

Getting back to what I was talking about, a battle rages for the souls of man.

Since Humans have existed for 100,000 - 150,000 years and Christianity has only been around for 2,000 years and it still only has about 2 Billion followers (including Catholics, Eastern Orthodox etc) then it would seem that your god is really losing this battle badly now doesn't it ?

Satan has gone to extreme lengths to sow doubt into the minds of men all over the world.

So he cares more about this battle then your god ?

He has infiltrated science with misinterpretation and has instigated thousands of religions to make man feeling completely bewildered and confused, not knowing what to believe.

Why can't god stop him ? Busy ?

*For any real Christians reading this, I am not talking about your god, I am talking about manofFaiths idea of god.

Morbert

wolfsbane wrote: »

I note your faith in the impeccability of scientists - at least, those in line with establishment views.

From what I have seen in their internecine spats, that is not as solid as you make out. And when it comes to their impartiality with regard to science that would tend to support creationism or even ID, then your faith is entirely misplaced. Not only egos are at stake, but consciences and careers.

Back to the snapshots - here's part of an article that captures my main criticism:
Ardipithecus kadabba
A few months after Orrorin tugenensis was announced, another early hominid candidate, from Middle Awash, Ethiopia, called Ardipithecus ramidus kadabba, dated to between 5.2 and 5.8 Ma, was described in the journal Nature.25 The name of this specimen was, in 2004, elevated from subspecies status to a separate species, Ardipithecus kadabba, based on the recovery of additional fossil teeth.26 In kadabba (as in Orrorin) the fossil finds consisted of some postcranial bones, teeth, and jaw fragments, and so it is not known what the head of these creatures looked like.

The kadabba specimen is interpreted as a biped based on the characteristics of a single toe bone (a proximal foot phalanx), in particular the dorsal orientation of the proximal joint surface.27 The argument is that the toe bone’s joint surface is tilted upwards in a human-like manner, whereas in chimpanzees it tilts downwards, and so it is supposedly evidence that kadabba ‘toed off’ in a human-like manner when walking.28 However, as pointed out by Begun,

‘the same joint configuration occurs in the definitely non-bipedal late Miocene hominid Sivapithecus , and the length and curvature of this bone closely resembles those of a chimpanzee or bonobo’.29
Amazingly, the toe bone is dated several hundred thousand years younger than the rest of the fossils, and was found in a locality 16 km away from the rest, making even famous hominid hunter Donald Johanson dubious about categorizing the toe bone with the rest of the fossils.30


From the few (eleven) fossil scraps, belonging to at least five different individuals, from five different locations,25 it seems amazing that they can all be designated as belonging to the same subspecies, and later, on the basis of finding some additional teeth,26 that the fossils can be assigned to a new species. According to Balter and Gibbons, ‘The Orrorin and Ardipithecus teams assert that each other’s fossils could represent an ancestor of chimps or other apes, rather than one of our early human ancestors or cousins.’31 Perhaps both teams are partially right, as there is little doubt that both hominids were mere apes.

Full article:
Fossil evidence for alleged apemen—Part 2: non-Homo hominids
http://creation.com/fossil-evidence-for-alleged-apemenpart-2-non-homo-hominids

As we have seen from my response to chozometroid's Wells reference, creationists are not always honest when it comes to regurgitating facts from scientific papers. I would urge you to actually read the ardi papers to get the full set of facts. Ardi is still very new, so I am waiting for a thorough research effort to finish before I am confident in defending it.

Zombrex

monosharp wrote: »

Actually in fairness I'd see that as proof against evolution. Its definitely not evolution.

True, if a dog gave birth to a cat biologists the world over would be seriously re-evaluating their theories.

What I mean was that Wolfsbane appears so close minded I doubt he would believe evolution happens even if the thing that he claims would prove it to him was witnessed.

Turtwig

man of faith wrote: »

I am sure we all agree, whether Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Muslim, Buddhist etc that the minds perception of what appears to be common sense is flawwed.

Indeed.:)

If you want to understand the truth, you have to seek it with your all your heart, not just your mind.

Morbert

man of faith wrote: »

His fingerprint is all around us, the biggest kicker being us (the pinnacle of His creation). Our own dna shows a very complex programming of creation itself. Evolution claims to give a perfectly acceptable explanation for this. Thats just like saying that a computer operates without computer programming - no offence intended to anyone who accepts evolution. It requires the intelligence and creativity of something outside of the computer itself which is a computer programmer, for the computer to perform the application of the desired function.

Once again, this isn't true in the slightest. Evolution is a theory of emergent development and complexity. The information in DNA is emergent, as discovered by evolutionary biologists. Why is this so hard to understand?

I have repeatedly referenced an evolutionary journal for you to look at, to help you understand why scientists (both Christian and non-Christian) accept evolution. If that is too much to ask then perhaps this is more appropriate.

man of faith

Morbert wrote: »

Once again, this isn't true in the slightest. Evolution is a theory of emergent development and complexity. The information in DNA is emergent, as discovered by evolutionary biologists. Why is this so hard to understand?

I have repeatedly referenced an evolutionary journal for you to look at, to help you understand why scientists (both Christian and non-Christian) accept evolution. If that is too much to ask then perhaps this is more appropriate.

Then show me the missing link. Out of the literally countless billions of fossils discovered, the transitional macroevolutionary proof remains unfound. Surely it would have been found by now. Evolutionists have tried hard, trying to use fragments and somehow trying to put them together to match the imagined transition ie the pig tooth. Claims that the link has been found, can only be taken as biased interpretation, as no complete link exists. Show me complete fossils, not fragments. Ida is the latest interpretation, but there is absolutely nothing to say that this is nothing more than an extinct primate. If you wish to accept evolution as absolute fact, then go ahead. Just remember that you can only do so by faith, the same way I believe that God created each species individually by faith in the Bible. Even if I'm wrong, it doesn't really change anything. For all those Christians out there that believe in evolution, I say believe it if thats your choice. Just make sure that you don't compromise on the most important part of the Bible which you must take literally - the sacrifice of Jesus Christ to save you from an eternal hell.

Turtwig

man of faith wrote: »

Then show me the missing link.

Which Missing Link??

man of faith

Morbert wrote: »

Once again, this isn't true in the slightest. Evolution is a theory of emergent development and complexity. The information in DNA is emergent, as discovered by evolutionary biologists. Why is this so hard to understand?

I have repeatedly referenced an evolutionary journal for you to look at, to help you understand why scientists (both Christian and non-Christian) accept evolution. If that is too much to ask then perhaps this is more appropriate.

Malty_T wrote: »

Which Missing Link??

Exactly!!

And Morbert, can you please post your link again on emergent dna? I will read it as I am interested.

Here is some great articles to read:
This one talks about dna -
http://sublimewill.blogspot.com/2005/07/part-4-proof-that-god-exists.html
This one talks about the big bang -
http://sublimewill.blogspot.com/2005/07/part-3-big-bang-perfect-event.html

Turtwig

man of faith wrote: »

Exactly!!

???
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#

We're obviously never going to have a 100% complete record but come on the picture is really bloody clear!
We have more than enough at this stage to confirm evolution with pure ease.

Btw, that link I gave you only refers to a few fossils.
I chose it because it gives a nice illustration and you view the skulls in 3-d .

More Complete List Here.

man of faith

Malty_T wrote: »

???
http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#

We're obviously never going to have a 100% complete record but come on the picture is really bloody clear!
We have more than enough at this stage to confirm evolution with pure ease.

I will read your article in a minute, but I just want to pose this to you. We have focussed so closely on the evidence we have (such as fossils) which is only open to interpretation which represents some major problems. Why don't we shift our focus onto the evidence that we don't have and the questions that we can't answer to bring the evidence that we do have into a proper, fair and unbiased perspective. The very questions that science has no way of answering. Because if we just leave the unknowns in the too hard basket, then how will we ever advance?
Heres another great link:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

I will read your article in a minute, but I just want to pose this to you. We have focussed so closely on the evidence we have (such as fossils) which is only open to interpretation which represents some major problems. Why don't we shift our focus onto the evidence that we don't have and the questions that we can't answer to bring the evidence that we do have into a proper, fair and unbiased perspective. The very questions that science has no way of answering. Because if we just leave the unknowns in the too hard basket, then how will we ever advance?
Heres another great link:
http://cosmicfingerprints.com/infotheoryqa.htm

Your article seems to simply be asserting that information can only come from a mind as if it's self evident but I don't seem how that is. To pick one example from the article: "If I arrange pebbles on the driveway to spell your name, those pebbles represent you. As such they now encode information, and possess a property they did not possess before I spelled your name with them. They now contain information."

But what about if clouds form in such a way as to spell out your name. Is a god required for that to happen?

edit: or the way constellations appear to look like things, hence astrology. Did god do that too?

man of faith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your article seems to simply be asserting that information can only come from a mind as if it's self evident but I don't seem how that is. To pick one example from the article: "If I arrange pebbles on the driveway to spell your name, those pebbles represent you. As such they now encode information, and possess a property they did not possess before I spelled your name with them. They now contain information."

But what about if clouds form in such a way as to spell out your name. Is a god required for that to happen?

That all depends on whether you give the word god a capital 'G' or chance a capital 'C'.
Heres a great analogy I heard once:
If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

Now this is not meant to be my dig at evolution, but it does clearly expose the limitations of chance. And its the reason why I give chance a lower case 'c' and God a capital 'G'.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive

Ah I see it's the old "life can't come from non-life. Proof:cos I say so".

Well it was done a few months ago: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/05/ribonucleotides

And that doesn't really answer what I said. I said: if a cloud forms in such a way as to spell out your name that is encoded information as much as if I spell out your name in pebbles. So is a mind required for a cloud to spell out your name?

Morbert

Exactly!!

And Morbert, can you please post your link again on emergent dna? I will read it as I am interested.

Here is some great articles to read:
This one talks about dna -
http://sublimewill.blogspot.com/2005...od-exists.html
This one talks about the big bang -
http://sublimewill.blogspot.com/2005...ect-event.html

The following is a sample from the online journal "Evolutionary biology". These are some of the areas of research into how life evolves and develops, from a genetic and Darwinian point of view.

http://www.la-press.com/testing-the-accuracy-of-eukaryotic-phylogenetic-profiles-for-predictio-a874
http://www.la-press.com/a-model-for-protein-sequence-evolution-based-on-selective-pressure-for-a1608
http://www.la-press.com/evolution-of-the-influenza-a-virus-some-new-advances-a502
http://www.la-press.com/phylogenetic-study-of-the-evolution-of-pep-carboxykinase-a453
http://www.la-press.com/structural-evolution-of-the-abc-transporter-subfamily-b-a421
http://www.la-press.com/selection-effects-on-the-positioning-of-genes-and-gene-structures-from-a393
http://www.la-press.com/hedging-our-bets-the-expected-contribution-of-species-to-future-phylog-a376
http://www.la-press.com/evolution-of-proteins-and-proteomes-a-phylogenetics-approach-a187

In less technical detail, DNA sometimes develops "mistakes" in the sense that it will not produce an identical copy of itself. This mistake has consequences on the development of proteins, and hence the phenotypes related to that organism. If such modified phenotypes are beneficial to the survival of the organism, that new version of DNA will propagate through the population. This slow and gradual process is what gives rise to the development of DNA and function in life. In fact, DNA itself evolved from simpler self-replicating chemicals similar to RNA and peptides.

Creationists on this thread (there is only one left:wolfsbane ; JC is just taking the piss) might try and argue that this type of evolution of complexity does not count as "specified complexity" (A term coined by the ID movement). Specified complexity is unrelated to biological function and complexity.

As for "missing links", every fossil is a missing link on the continuum of evolutionary history. Some of the interesting ones linking large groups can be found here.

Morbert

And regarding your two links. The first is just a rehash of your assertion that information can emerge through evolution, which is not supported by the evidence.

The second link assumes a simple thermodynamic beginning to the big bang in the absence of quantum gravity. Until we have a theory of quantum gravity we cannot confidently say anything about the probabilities related to the beginning of the universe.

Zombrex

man of faith wrote: »

That all depends on whether you give the word god a capital 'G' or chance a capital 'C'.
Heres a great analogy I heard once:
If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

Now this is not meant to be my dig at evolution, but it does clearly expose the limitations of chance. And its the reason why I give chance a lower case 'c' and God a capital 'G'.

No matter how many times you flip a coin it will never find its way to the sea. Therefore rivers are an inherent impossibility. Except they aren't, because a coin isn't a river so the inability for a coin to find its' own way to the sea has got nothing to do with a river's ability to do the same thing.

And a coin isn't a self replicating molecule either :rolleyes:

It is kind of sad in this day and age of universal education such a blinkeringly obvious statement has to be pointed out to some people

Turtwig

man of faith wrote: »

That all depends on whether you give the word god a capital 'G' or chance a capital 'C'.
Heres a great analogy I heard once:
If I flip a coin, I have a 50/50 chance of getting heads. To get five "heads" in a row is unlikely but possible. If I flipped the coin long enough, I would eventually get five in a row. If I flipped it for years nonstop, I might get 50 or even 100 in a row. But this is only because getting heads is an inherent possibility. What are the chances of me flipping a coin, and then seeing it sprout arms and legs, and go sit in a corner and read a magazine? No chance. Given billions of years, the chances would never increase. Great periods of time make the possible likely but never make the impossible possible. No matter how long it's given, non-life will not become alive.

Now this is not meant to be my dig at evolution, but it does clearly expose the limitations of chance. And its the reason why I give chance a lower case 'c' and God a capital 'G'.

Gotta learn probability matey

Here's a good illustratory example.

monosharp

man of faith wrote: »

Then show me the missing link.

I doubt you understand what the word means, please define what you mean by "missing link"

Out of the literally countless billions of fossils discovered, the transitional macroevolutionary proof remains unfound.

Every single fossil, every single living organism is a 'transition' from something to something else. Please explain why this is not good enough for you ?

What exactly is a 'transitional fossil' to you ?

Ida is the latest interpretation, but there is absolutely nothing to say that this is nothing more than an extinct primate.

We are extant primates.

If you wish to accept evolution as absolute fact, then go ahead. Just remember that you can only do so by faith, the same way I believe that God created each species individually by faith in the Bible.

Evolution is a fact supported by mountains of evidence, it is not a faith. This has been shown to you a hundred time with countless amounts of evidence which you have just ignored.

Your nonsense is not even supported by the majority of Christians, are they all wrong and therefore not Christians ?

Even if I'm wrong, it doesn't really change anything.

Of course it doesn't. Because scientific fact means nothing to you, you will continue to believe your nonsense regardless of the evidence presented to you. Thats what fundamentalism is.

man of faith

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Your article seems to simply be asserting that information can only come from a mind as if it's self evident but I don't seem how that is. To pick one example from the article: "If I arrange pebbles on the driveway to spell your name, those pebbles represent you. As such they now encode information, and possess a property they did not possess before I spelled your name with them. They now contain information."

But what about if clouds form in such a way as to spell out your name. Is a god required for that to happen?

edit: or the way constellations appear to look like things, hence astrology. Did god do that too?

In further response to the question about the clouds, clouds can form in an exponentially high number of formations and variations. So if they write 'man of faith' then of course no, a god is not required for this to happen. Even though the chances are extremely unlikely and you may have to wait billions of years for it to happen, if the chance is an inherant possibility, then it cannot be ruled out. But I am sure you would agree with me that the chances for this not happenning massively outweigh the chances for it actually happening. I could also wait for eternity (something that transcends the constraints of time and space) for it to happen, and there is still a massive chance that it wouldn't happen. The chances for it not happening still far outweighs the chances for it happening. So here is what this exercise tells me to do in relation to the origin of the universe - Do not rely on random chance and put my faith in God.

And as far as the constellations are concerned, the above demonstrates all the more reason for me to believe that God was the one who did this. It is understood that God communicated through the stars before the Bible was written.

Turtwig

Proof that the Stargate is Real!!:eek:

Surely this couldn't have happened by chance :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

In further response to the question about the clouds, clouds can form in an exponentially high number of formations and variations. So if they write 'man of faith' then of course no, a god is not required for this to happen.

Right so all "information" does not have to come from a mind contrary to what your link said.

man of faith wrote: »

Even though the chances are extremely unlikely and you may have to wait billions of years for it to happen, if the chance is an inherant possibility, then it cannot be ruled out. But I am sure you would agree with me that the chances for this not happenning massively outweigh the chances for it actually happening. I could also wait for eternity (something that transcends the constraints of time and space) for it to happen, and there is still a massive chance that it wouldn't happen. The chances for it not happening still far outweighs the chances for it happening. So here is what this exercise tells me to do in relation to the origin of the universe - Do not rely on random chance and put my faith in God.

Did you not read my explanation of how evolution is not random chance and is in fact a process of random mutations directed by natural selection? Remember the analogy I gave with rolling a dice and trying to get ten 6's in a row?

man of faith wrote: »

And as far as the constellations are concerned, the above demonstrates all the more reason for me to believe that God was the one who did this. It is understood that God communicated through the stars before the Bible was written.

So you believe that god put the star Betelgeuse exactly where it is 640 light years from earth so that it would look a bit like a part of a belt?

What about stellar drift which means that those constellations looked very different thousands of years ago?

Flamed Diving

JC and Wolfsbane have gone fierce quiet...

MrPudding

Flamed Diving wrote: »

JC and Wolfsbane have gone fierce quiet...

Not sure how to explain it but it seems to me that there has been a change in tempo, for want of a better phrase, recently. It was almost like the whole thing was heading towards some kind of climax. Probably not, but that is the feeling I got.

MrP

Flamed Diving

MrPudding wrote: »

Not sure how to explain it but it seems to me that there has been a change in tempo, for want of a better phrase, recently. It was almost like the whole thing was heading towards some kind of climax. Probably not, but that is the feeling I got.

MrP

I do hope my displaying of their common belief of biological limits with one of the 20th centuries most reviled characters didn't upset them too much...

man of faith

MrPudding wrote: »

Not sure how to explain it but it seems to me that there has been a change in tempo, for want of a better phrase, recently. It was almost like the whole thing was heading towards some kind of climax. Probably not, but that is the feeling I got.

MrP

I think they have come to the conclusion that there time would be far better spent actually talking to people that are open to believing. Time is running out, and I feel that my efforts would be better redirected elsewhere.
If you're all choosing to allow intellectual pride and ego dominate your life, then you are walking a very dangerous road.
I Corinthians 3:19:
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/3-19.htm

Goodbye all.

Sam Vimes

man of faith wrote: »

Time is running out, and I feel that my efforts would better redirected elsewhere.
Goodbye to all.

You keep saying that but then you keep posting. Tbh I think your efforts would be better directed towards learning a bit more about the subjects you're talking about instead of reading creationist websites and accepting them as fact because you want them to be.

MrPudding

man of faith wrote: »

I think they have come to the conclusion that there time would be far better spent actually talking to people that are open to believing. Time is running out, and I feel that my efforts would be better redirected elsewhere.
If you're all choosing to allow intellectual pride and ego dominate your life, then you are walking a very dangerous road.
I Corinthians 3:19:
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/3-19.htm

Goodbye all.

Good quote. Basically stop asking awkward questions and believe what I say? If that is your outlook on life then it is little wonder you believe the creationist rubbish.

MrP

Sam Vimes

MrPudding wrote: »

Good quote. Basically stop asking awkward questions and believe what I say? If that is your outlook on life then it is little wonder you believe the creationist rubbish.

MrP

It's genius I think. What better way to get people to believe a book than to say that anything that contradicts it is by definition wrong because human wisdom is foolishness...........Though it's wise enough to know which holy book to believe in apparently.

monosharp

Flamed Diving wrote: »

JC and Wolfsbane have gone fierce quiet...

JC always goes quiet when there are questions put to him but in fairness I think he actually told us he is gone on vacation or something so maybe hes just a bit busy at the moment.

Wolfsbane will just believe any rubbish with a creationist sticker on it, while actually pronouncing that he doesn't understand it all that well but it must be true because it agrees literally with the Bible.

Than again I'm pretty sure there are thousands of literal parts of the Bible that he doesn't agree with either, hes just picking and choosing.

man of faith has put me on ignore I believe and is refusing to try to save my soul anymore. Hes probably the worst of the three because he has actually stated several times that it doesn't matter if Evolution is (factually) correct or not because the Bible is 100% correct because its the Bible because its the Word of God because its the Bible ... etc etc.

At least JC and Wolfsbane have the common decency to deny the evidence and desperately look for some psuedo-scientific nonsense for their 'faith' and at least PRETEND that its not all about religion and belief.

MrPudding

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I do hope my displaying of their common belief of biological limits with one of the 20th centuries most reviled characters didn't upset them too much...

Let's hope not.

Sam Vimes wrote: »

It's genius I think. What better way to get people to believe a book than to say that anything that contradicts it is by definition wrong because human wisdom is foolishness...........Though it's wise enough to know which holy book to believe in apparently.

Remindes me the the "Credit where Credit is Due" thread on the other forum... Probably best not to link to it here.

MrP