Atheist Richard Dawkins Tells Playboy: We Are ‘Apes,‘ Evidence for Jesus’ Existence ‘Is Surprisingly Shaky’ & Christ Dying for Humanity‘s Sins Is a ’Truly Disgusting Idea’
- Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:16pm by
Billy Hallowell
- Print »
- Email »
Famed atheist Richard Dawkins sat down with Playboy Magazine to discuss “the simple beauty of evolution, the improbability of God and why the pope should be arrested,” among other subjects. As usual, Dawkins took a provocative approach in the interview — one that people of faith will surely find offensive. These contentious anti-religious views appear in the September issue of Playboy.
Atheist scientist Richard Dawkins (Photo Credit: FILE)
Toward the beginning of the interview, Dawkins was asked to weigh in and explain why, in the past, he has called himself a “tooth faith” agnostic. His explanation essentially frames his overarching views on God’s existence. Here’s how the dialogue unfolded:
PLAYBOY: You’ve described yourself as a “tooth fairy” agnostic. What is that?
DAWKINS: Rather than say he’s an atheist, a friend of mine says, “I’m a tooth fairy agnostic,” meaning he can’t disprove God but thinks God is about as likely as the tooth fairy.
PLAYBOY: So you don’t completely rule out the idea of a supreme being. Critics see that as leaving an opening.
DAWKINS: You can think so, if you think there’s an opening for the tooth fairy.
While it’s unlikely that the Lord exists — at least in Dawkins’ mind — if given the opportunity to ask the creator (in the unlikely event he’s real) a question, the famed biologist said he’d ask, “Sir, why did you go to such lengths to hide yourself?”
When it comes to the individuals Dawkins associates himself with, he admitted not having any “deeply religious friends.” In addition to separating himself from those who believe in a higher power, Dawkins took a swipe at the intellectual capacity of those who embrace God.
“It’s not that I shun them,” he said of the religious. “It’s that the circles I move in tend to be educated, intelligent circles, and there aren’t any religious people among them that I know of.”
Photo Credit: Playboy Magazine
Of course, many intelligent and educated people do, indeed, embrace the existence of a higher power. However, it seems Dawkins either avoids or simply hasn’t encountered these people.
As for the Bible and Jesus Christ — central tenets of the Christian faith — the famed non-theist didn’t have many favorable accolades to share. On the sociopolitical front, he believes that the holy books associated with Christianity, Judaism and Islam will prevent peace from ever coming to fruition in the Middle East.
“There’s not much hope to the extent that the most influential protagonists both base their hostility on 2,000-year-old books that they believe give them title to the land,” he explained.
Rather than staking the claim that Jesus Christ was merely a historical figure, but that he simply wasn’t the son of God as many other atheists have done, Dawkins seems to cast doubt on his existence.
“The evidence he existed is surprisingly shaky,” he told Playboy. “The earliest books in the New Testament to be written were the Epistles, not the Gospels. It’s almost as though Saint Paul and others who wrote the Epistles weren’t that interested in whether Jesus was real.”
Famed atheist Richard Dawkins (Photo Credit: FILE)
“Even if he’s fictional, whoever wrote his lines was ahead of his time in terms of moral philosophy,” he added.
Dawkins called the idea that “Jesus died for our sins” “barking mad.” At the center of his angst over the salvation story is the notion that God found the need to torture himself to the point of death. He called the entire story “a truly disgusting idea.”
While he holds these intense views, he did admit that he hasn’t read the entire Bible, but that he believes his knowledge of it is more profound than “most fundamentalist Christians.” Despite not having read the entire book, the evolutionary biologist said that the book of Ecclesiastes is his favorite.
Dawkins also criticized the Pope and made the case against his alleged cover-up of crimes that were committed by clergy. He also went on to address evolution and his view that human beings are essentially “apes”:
PLAYBOY: Let’s turn to evolution, which many people misunderstand, such as believing we descend from apes.
DAWKINS: We are apes. We descend from extinct animals that would have been classified as apes. We are not descended from modern chimps or bonobos or gorillas. They’ve been evolving for exactly the same length of time as we have.
PLAYBOY: So what makes us human?
DAWKINS: We are a unique ape. We have language. Other animals have systems of communication that fall far short of that. They don’t have the same ability to communicate complicated conditionals and what-ifs and talk about things that are not present. These are all unique manifestations of our evolved ape brain, which some evidence suggests came about through a rather limited number of mutations.
These, of course, are only the highlights. While Dawkins has shared many of these views before, he reiterated, clarified and intensified his stance on non-belief and theism in his Playboy dialogue.
–
RELATED:
Popular Stories
MSNBC Host Snaps in Heated Segment: ‘What in the World Is Riskier Than Being a Poor Person in America?’ 688 Comments
Does Misstated Marathon Claim Prove Paul Ryan Is Dishonest? (POLL) 657 Comments
‘Jumah at the DNC’ Speaker: ‘Muslims Visited America Prior to Columbus’ & ‘It Was a Muslim’ Who Guided Him to the ‘New World’ 524 Comments
Obama: RNC Like Watching ‘Black-and-White TV’ Because Romney ‘Did Not Offer a Single New Idea’ 361 Comments
Roseanne Barr: Most Billionaires ‘Violent Pedophiles’ & ‘Heartless’ Cocaine Addicts 322 Comments
Faith
This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 199 Comments- Pakistani Muslim Cleric Accused of Framing Disabled Christian Girl in Koran-Burning Case Read More
- ‘Made Up Religion’: TV Historian Enrages Muslims, Receives Threats After Producing UK Documentary Questioning Islam’s Beginnings 221 Comments
Meet the Controversial German Imam Accused of Brutally Beating His Wife & Pushing Sharia Law Read More
‘Self-Proclaimed Messiah’ & Unification Church Leader the Rev. Sun Myung Moon Has Died — Here’s His Life Story Read More
Business
‘Imperial President’: In Case You Missed it, President Obama Issued This Major Executive Order Last Week Read More- Germany’s Upcoming Court Ruling Will be Huge for the EU Read More
Ford Looks to Beat Toyota for Best-Selling Car in 2012 With This Model 147 Comments
Bernanke & QE3: Here’s What You Need to Know Read More- ‘Extortion’: Why Did the Labor Department ‘Drop the Hammer’ on Oregon Farmers? 300 Comments
Technology
- This Is the Creationists‘ Response to Scientist Bill Nye’s Viral Pro-Evolution Video Claiming They Harm Children 199 Comments
‘TaserDrone’: Hackers Weaponize Quadcopter With Actual ‘Shocking’ Technology Read More
Ever Heard of the Wild ‘Burning Man’ Festival in the Middle of the Nev. Desert? Here’s Your Primer Read More
Stanford Develops Technology ‘Better Than Steroids’ for Athlete Recovery Read More
Have You Pretended to Know What ‘the Cloud’ Is? You’re Not Alone Read More
Submitting your tip... please wait!
Comments (804)
ronin_6
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:53pmDidn’t that guy host family feud?
Report Post »What an arrogant self centered donkey. Atheism is a religon unto itself with its own canon, prayers, and clergy. This guy is nothing more than a wanna be Pope still born and without the funny hat.
Edohiguma
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:34pmNo it’s not. I don’t believe. Not believing is not a religion.
Report Post »Granny58
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:56pmEdohiguma – no it is not a “religion,” but it is a faith.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:34am“With time, we realized that wearing the hide of animals permitted us to travel further North into the cold. These two actions (shedding hair and donning animal hide) are unrelated from an evolutionary perspective.”
Right, so what explains the loss of bodily hair? Not mentioning that the rudiments of hair we have , it’s direction, conform more to an aquatic form of life than land based. Our hair direction patterns are very different from apes. Based on that solely, we’d be related to otters, not apes. Moreso, the period of life in aquatic environment would have to be long, since otters retain their hair thus far. Seals and walruses did not–assuming they were aquatic for a longer time.
It seems that the morphological correspondence not always equals relation. Point in case, some marsupials are very similar to their mammal variants, but they are quite unrelated. We are built how we are because we are bipeds, with oposable thumbs. Other creatures that are partial bipeds and with oposable thumbs may look somewhat as we do, but that does not implicate a relationship or common ancestry. Though DNA of apes seems to be closer (<9% for chimps) than any other group, the difference is a world of difference.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:23amFor starters:
Report Post »http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100608135043.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/06/100608135043.htm
M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:24amPosted the link twice by accident – now, here is the (wait for it)… missing link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/19/science/why-humans-and-their-fur-parted-ways.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm
Report Post »spikebu
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:25amIsn’t there something in the Bible about all their “knowledge” making fools of them? I believe it’s coming true on many fronts. When you put your faith in the science God created, rather than in the God who created it? Not a good idea.
Report Post »Dr Vel
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:13am“While it’s unlikely that the Lord exists — at least in Dawkins’ mind — if given the opportunity to ask the creator (in the unlikely event he’s real) a question, the famed biologist said he’d ask, “Sir, why did you go to such lengths to hide yourself?”
I think ultimate irony would be God answering with the words: “to keep the dogs and whoremongers away from My temple”.
Lucky for them it is His will all be saved so the true answer is salvation must come through faith alone therefore He must hide Himself or there would be no room for faith, leaving no room for salvation.
Report Post »t00nces2
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:49amHe is right. Atheists are apes.
Report Post »Danthebugman
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:32amGod has used the simple things of this world to confound the wise. The two most extreme “peas in the pod” have to gain credibility from each other……….pornagraphy and atheism. The two stand side by side.
Soon……………there will come a day when Hefner and Dawkins will stand and give an account for misleading the people of the world. Christ, in all of His glory and power will remind these two of His grace and mercy, and then show them the severity of His judgement and wrath to come!
To whom much is given, much is required!
Report Post »Quiata
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:00am@EDOHIGUMA In an interview, the late Michael Crichton discussed environmentalism as a “religion” because it fulfills the following anthropological parameters:
Crichton stated:
“A religion is a collective set of beliefs…it has a leader (or leaders) who promote the beliefs among the followers. The followers make some kind of contribution or change in their lifestyle based on the religious belief. The religious belief gives them a total view of the world in terms of how the world is structured: what’s right, what’s wrong, what’s good action, what is bad action….”
Sound a just a little bit familiar? Leaving a higher power (i.e. God) out of it, modern atheism does in fact constitute a religion, led by Pope Richard Dawkins Ape 1st (not to be confused with the late Richard Dawson, the lovable and charming game show host).
Here is the interview: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vv9OSxTy1aU
Feed your mind.
Report Post »jcldwl
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:10am“It’s not that I shun them,” he said of the religious. “It’s that the circles I move in tend to be educated, intelligent circles, and there aren’t any religious people among them that I know of.”
First he says this, basically I am smarter than everyone else and then he says this.
“While he holds these intense views, he did admit that he hasn’t read the entire Bible, but that he believes his knowledge of it is more profound than “most fundamentalist Christians.”
Not a real bright statement for someone who thinks he is smarter than everyone else. He has never read the entire bible but believes his knowledge of it is more profound than people who read it and study it daily. What a fool.
Report Post »poorrichard09
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:28am1 Cor. 1:18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.
Report Post »old white guy
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:32amdawkins will die like the rest of us. i prefer believing that there is a life after death secured by Christ. many people believe that the grave is the end. it is so much better to think otherwise and there is no way to prove Christ was wrong.
Report Post »johnjamison
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:36amedohiguma,
Report Post »You can no more disprove the existence of God as I can prove his existence. That me means you‘re belief structure is on faith that God doesn’t exist. Further more you and others who follow your faith in godlessness are constantly trying to get others to believe as you do. That’s all it takes to make it a religious sect.
Lotus4115
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:54amRichard is correct in what he states. BeckTards need to wake up.
Report Post »rangerp
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:14amLotus4115
WOW!! what amazing debate skills you have. Your mom must be so proud.
Report Post »Quiata
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:01amLOTUS4115 is actively fulfilling his/her role as a follower in that set of beliefs known as “atheism”; he/she is protecting and reinforcing the dictums of his/her leader.
Report Post »TexasHunter
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:08amBless your Heart Dick. May the light blind your eyes but wait until your feet start feeling hot. Hold up! Do you believe in hell or is it only heaven you choose to “knock” because you do not grasp the concept.? Interesting?? I never here you denounce the devil…
Report Post »Leader1776
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:10am@Twobyfour
Report Post »The first comment I’d have made was two questions to DICK. (1) Do you believe in the scientific method and the rules it demands; and (2) “When will the Theory of Evolution be proven?” Belief in a THEORY is a form of faith. Therefore, DICK is preaching his faith, not to be confused as fact or proven position.
I support God's Israel!
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:17amSo explain to me, Richard Dawkins, if we are all from apes,
then HOW DID WE GET SO MANY *** DIFFERENT*** NATIONALITIES AND COLORS??????
Mmmmmmmm, sounds like he is not so well-educated afterall.
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:20am@spikebu:
You are correct. Since God allows FREE WILL to choose what each person wants to believe or not believe, PLEASE STOP GIVING THESE PEOPLE THE TIME OF DAY and they will just go back in their holes. LET GOD SORT THEM OUT ON JUDGEMENT DAY.
Push onward Christian soldiers of Christ, IN PEACE AND LOVE AND THE TRUTH because THE TRUTH DOES INDEED, SET YOU FREE FROM PEOPLE LIKE THIS!
Report Post »scootervanneuter
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:46amYes, ignoring the overwhelming evidence of a creator requires a hundred-fold the faith of a believer.
Report Post »Atheism is indeed a religion, comprised of individuals absolutely desperate to justify their unrepentant wickedness, and proclaiming themselves gods.
Unfortunately for them, these self-proclaimed “intellectuals” were created by a God who doesn’t force anyone to spend eternity with somebody they choose to ignore. In the end I guess they’re not so smart after all…
LakeHartwellSailor
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:51am@Twobyfour
I must be an exception, I’m one hairy son of a gun.
Report Post »getalong
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:26pmMr. Dawkins says he moves in a circle of very intelligent people………where do they think they got their intelligence from….an ape? I suggest when he gets together with his highly-intelligent circle of people that they get a few copies of Lee Strobel’s “A Case for Faith”, and “A Case for Christ”, and chew on them for awhile. That would be a good start for this circle of highly intelligent people.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:39pm@TwoByFour: You have yet to post ONE credible link or reference supporting any of your claims. And no, this anonymous “geneticist friend” of yours doesn’t count as one. If he or she is a credentialed knowlegeable geneticist, have them provide you with reputable, credible verifiable sources for your assertions.
Second, your erroneous insistenc on claiming human and chimp DNA is not 98% but 95% is hilarious because even 95% similarity would sustain my point. The most common percentage similarity given is 98% and 99%. The reason the value differs in different sources is because most reference a study that deteremined that the similarity was between 96 and 99 percent. It hardly matters whether it’s 95% or 99%; either way it’s a nightmare for creationists.
You’re dead wrong about macroevolution being insufficently evidenced and stand in opposition to the overwhelming consensus of mainstream science. This isn’t a zealous, atheistic position; some of the most credentialed proponents of the fact of macroevolution are devout Christians (such as biologist Ken Miller, who utterly devastated the pseduo science of ID at the famous Dover trial, and Francis Collins, who led the human genome project and in fact was the head of the team that determined the similarity of human and chimpanzee DNA to be between 96% and 99% in 2005; I provided the link earlier).
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:52pmYet another link:
Report Post »http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/06/5993/what-makes-us-human-studies-chimp-and-human-dna-may-tell-us
jerimiah41
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:03pmI pray for mercy on his soul. These comments are way out considering there is no proof of any theory he puts forth. Now he conjectures maybe a space alien seeded the first humans on the earth. So then who provided the life for the alien. I will pray that he sees the light and has the opportunity to do so. If not I feel pretty certain where I will be going once I die in this life. I suspect he has permanent death unless the aliens are atheist also and come an collect his remains. I feel so sad for those that have nothing to look forward to with their wild positions. There is a great amount of proof on Jesus and who he was and remains. Plenty of witness’s exist. Where is any witncess’s to his theories? I do not need to be angry to express my theories.
Report Post »NewtonsAmbit
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:12pmAtheists become disjointed when they find out they have a religion too. Check it out. There are Atheists groups registered as religion to get tax benefits. Their just poor sould addicted to argument who were bullied in school and now want to practice bulling on others that have faith.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:12pm@ DL…you are wrong in reguards to why the percentage varies from one study to the next. The reason the studies vary is because some do not include what they “think” are nonessential or unexpressed genes. However, newer information is showing that the genes, while not producing a specific protien are very important in gene regulation. In a recent article, David A. DeWitt cited a study which found that the two species are only 95% identical when insertions and deletions are considered, showing that the estimate of divergence depends mainly on what type of DNA is being compared. A number of differences between humans and chimps were named that are difficult to quantify in an estimate of sequence divergence (that is, the differences in bases between the human and chimp genomes), including shorter telomeres in humans, a 10% larger chimp genome, and great differences in chromosomes 4, 9, 12 and the Y chromosome, for example. Indeed, DNA similarity estimates ‘do not adequately represent fine changes in genome organization. Also, a 95% difference is actually quite substantial as it removes the likelyhood of a common ancestor in the time frames typically associated with “human” evolution from apes. Thank you ahead.
Report Post »Drives Like Jehu
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:00pmthe famed biologist said he’d ask, “Sir, why did you go to such lengths to hide yourself?”
Proverbs 25:2 It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings is to search out a matter.
For someone who claims to be so smart regarding his partially read Bible, dawkins is certainly stupid.
Report Post »Leader1776
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:04pm@M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:52pm
“Yet another link: http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2010/06/5993/what-makes-us-human-studies-chimp-and-human-dna-may-tell-us”
If asked of Dr. Pollack: Through gene mapping and splicing if you replaced in a chimp egg and sperm the 5% of “DNA” that is different with that considered consistent with **** sapien sapien, implanted the fertilized egg in either human or chimp …. carried to term …. what would the resultant animal look like? The first words out of her mouth: ‘well, its much more complicated than that.’ And it is ….. MUCH more complicated. Get it? 5% may as well be 80%
But the question is an opportunity to discuss the likelihood of producing man from a lower primate. And the mechanics of doing the gene spicing is quite simple these days. But talk is quite cheap.
Let’s for a moment agree with M.L.’s position that we are sooo close to chimps. Could you produce a bouncing baby girl or boy from the gene manipulation? Does that make the egg/sperm donors any more human? Of course not. If those same two donors were left alone with only environmental pressures how many millenia will it take for the chimps to evolve into what we are today? Would they ever? As a scientist Dr. Pollack can’t answer any of these questions. Let alone M.L. They couldn’t ethically, if they claim to really know.
And saying we LEARN from the chimps is preposterous. All we learn is what the chimps do that is similar to us. T
Report Post »BuzzardSays
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:09pmI have debated drivel from RD many times. The argumentation that he is using presumes he knows something that he can not. That we all used to have animal coats and gradually shed the need for such through the wearing of animal pelts. Which is b.s. Why wear the animal pelts if we ourselves had thick luxourious fur coats built right in??? Oh! I see because we went further north than our traditional range and fur allowed for and thus animal pelts and thus we came under the umbrella of evil-lution. Good Lord Jesus! These atheists and their B.S. is so angering I pray the Lord Jesus strike them all with permanent laryngitis.
Atheists PAAHHH!
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:10pmI find it extremely interesting and revealing that creationists attempt to denigrate evolution by calling it a ‘religion’ and a ‘matter of faith’. Now, of course, this is sheer nonsense because what distinguishes a scientific idea like evolution from a religious belief is that it is based on EVIDENCE. But what does it say about creationists, psychologically, that they would employ the words “religious” and “faith” to paint evolution as dubious? Oh, how very telling indeed.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:18pm@SleezyHippos: You’re seriously citing David DeWitt from Answers In Genesis? ROFLMAO! That‘s like quoting Louis Farrakhan to argue that Osama Bin Laden wasn’t behind 9-11. DeWitt and AIG have zero credibility and are not taken seriously by any serious scientist, including religious scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins. You basically just broadcast the fact that you’re a total ignoramus.
[Incidentally folks, AIG is the same crackpot creationist organization behind the so-called "Creation Museum" in Kentucky, which is presently the laughing stock of the Western world.]
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:31pm@LEADER
Report Post »Through gene mapping and splicing if you replaced in a chimp egg and sperm the 5% of “DNA” that is different with that considered consistent with **** sapien sapien, implanted the fertilized egg in either human or chimp …. carried to term …. what would the resultant animal look like? The first words out of her mouth: ‘well, its much more complicated than that.’ And it is ….. MUCH more complicated. Get it? 5% may as well be 80%
——-
That’s because there are no scientifically-proven “transitional forms.” The missing link is still missing, despite genome sequencing. Regardless of percentage, evolutionists have been unable to prove that a clear and verifiable transitional process from simpler to more complex forms occurred. If they want to theorize based on process, then they must demonstrate it. Until they do, their speculation is as good as any other.
DLV
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:40pmM.L.- don’t be idiotic. If someone brings up a good point against something just because they are from an organization you disagree with doesn’t mean they should be discounted. If Sleazy cited someone with a good point. It should be heeded. I’m a christian but I admit atheists have a fairly good grasp on evolution and what not. They just have blinders on and discount anything anyone says that is against them. Just sad. You can’t debate and only make fun/name call. Sad. Sad. Sad.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:16pm@M.L.
“…including religious scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins. You basically just broadcast the fact that you’re a total ignoramus.”
—–
Right back at you. What is a “religious scientist?” A cross between a scientist and a believer?
Claiming that you can be an evolutionist (not scientist) and a Bible believer is total idiocy. Evolutionists can call themselves what they like. But don’t use it as an argument for evolution. That’s stupid. Evolution IS without doubt a “zealous, atheistic position.”
Go back and reread your replies. Most of your arguments are flawed by appeal to authority, ridicule, ad populum and mind projection. Case in point:
“Where do you get your info from, Answers In Genesis? Your incoherent response sounds like a mangled version of an equally incoherent talk given by AIG‘s Gary Parker that’s been on the net for years. It’s sheer nonsense. Not only have you failed to address my point, you couldn’t even parrot the AIG propganda correctly.”
Talk about a bad case of regurgitation.
Report Post »scarebear83
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:35pm@ Dr Vel you know there is only one place in the Bible that mentions “faith only?” I recommend reading James the 2nd chapter with emphasis on verses 14-26 (verse 24 being the verse that describes “faith only”).
Report Post »Enquirer
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:41pmRonin.. you have no argument.. you revert immediately to name calling. You reveal your ignorance.
Report Post »There is no such thing as “atheism”, except may be in your mind.. There is no religion or movement called “atheism”, just a lot of intelligent and respectable people who have no belief in a higher power per se.
Enquirer
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:43pmGranny.. “atheism” is neither a religion nor a faith.
Report Post »ChongRRMC
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:46pmEdohiguma….It IS a religion. It’s called Satanism.
Report Post »louie louie
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:50pmIt takes faith to be an atheist because you have to believe in something that can never be proven. God could reveal himself anytime he chooses and prove his believers right. But atheists can never prove the negative that God does not exist. Their faith is without hope.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:34pm@ ML….Just committed the fallacy of appeal to the character of a group and infering error or nontruth as well as the fallacy of distraction and ad hominem all the while hypocritically calling me ignoramous…Irony? Where is the factual counterpoint my friend. Can you not argue the information? Go ahead give it your best shot and we shall see who knows what better. Thank you…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:11pm@ ML…..Evolution (macro) is based on evidence? Well it is a theory meant to explain evidence so in that sense all theories are based on evidence however, whether those theories actually explain relaity and reflect truth determine if they are storng or weak theories. To suggest that evolution is based on “evidence” and therefore true is circular reasoning and very illogical my friend. If evolution is based on the evidence then tell me why SJG proposed punctuated equilibrium? What reason did he give for espousing this theory? If you can answer this question then I have another one for you. Thank you…..
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:34pm@SleezyHippos: The DeWitt article you referenced comes directly from the Answers In Genesis website. It dates from 2003. I have already posted at least a half a dozen references, all from reputable sources (unlike AIG), including Francis Collins’ work with the Human Genome project, dating from 2005 through 2011 that utterly refute the nonsense in DeWitt‘s ’paper’, which couldn’t even get accepted for publication in credentialed, reputable peer reviewed journal.
But here is yet another referenced source that refutes DeWitt’s nonsense specifically:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB144.html
Also, there is no such thing as “the fallacy of appeal to the character of a group”, and you forfeited any right to complain about adhominem attacks here a long time ago (almost all of your posts are loaded with them).
And incidentally, anyone familiar with the Dover case knows that Behe was utterly humiliated. He was forced to admit that by his definition of science (which he had to tweak to include the pseudoscience he peddles, astrology would also be a science). PWND. It’s a matter of public record, and the links have been posted here.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:54pm@DLV: What’s sad is actually your inability to follow this thread. Sleazy posted some nonsense from AIG’s DeWitt that I had already debunked exhaustively with oodles of references from impeccable, universally acknowledged and respected sources in sn extensive exchange with a much sharper and more civil poster here. So I was hardly ignoring his claim or answering it simply by saying DeWitt is an AIG kook (though he is). Answers in Genesisis is not a reputable organization, and, as I’ve said repeatedly here, this is not an atheistic claim. The world reknown biologist and devout Christian Ken Miller of Brown University (the guy who devastated ID at the Dover trial) and devout Christian geneticist Francis Collins (of Human Genome Project fame) are both unapologetic advocates of evolution and common ancestry of human and chimps and both denounce ID and AIG as pseudoscientific charlatans.
Creationism is the lunatic fringe.
Now, you seem to be relatively polite, so I really have no problem having a civil, agree-to-disagree discussion with you if you like. The aptly named “Sleazy” however has been behaving obnoxiously. My policy (I try to stick to it at any rate – not always successfully) is to be civil with those who are civil and pissy with those who are pissy. You seem pretty cool, twobyfour is pretty cool – sleazy, not so much ;)
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:21pm@SleazyHippos: Actually, believe it or not, I believe I owe you an apology. I’m sorry – There are so many posts here, and I‘m using an iPad and it’s a somewhat tortuously tedious process. In short, while I do disagree with you, and have addressed the points you raised (the DeWitt stuff etc.), I was wrong to insult you. I thought it was you was being obnoxious. It wasn’t; it actually is Kryponite who is the obnoxious one. You have actually been EXTREMELY civil – far more civil than I. You even end all your posts thanking in advance! I like that. I disagree with you, but you’re a good person. My bad;)
So, yeah, sorry about that. I am more willing to have a civil discourse with you. Krypto, not do much;)
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:32pm@SleazyHippos: Just a quick typo correction of my last sentence above there, lest there be some confusion. I meant to write:
I am more THAN willing to have a civil discourse with you. Krypto, not SO much;)
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:57pm@QUIATA
Your own quote contradicts your argument. You say:
“The religious belief gives them a total view of the world in terms of how the world is structured: what’s right, what’s wrong, what’s good action, what is bad action….”
Please tell me how Environmentalism fulfills this. What does the environmentalist say about respecting your father and mother? What do they say about stealing? What do they say about murder? What do they say about crime and punishment? What do they say about giving to charity? I could go on…
Environmentalism does not provide a “total view of the world” in terms of right/wrong, good/bad. It provides it ONLY in terms of what is/what is not “environmentally friendly”.
Report Post »MensaMan
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 1:49amThe self-styled ‘atheists’, ‘agnostics’, and ‘nones’ have the same problems as the self-styled ‘liberals’ and ‘progressives’ . . . for most it is simply insufficient education . . . and for some that is accompanied by a self-blinding arrogance. Read anything Dawkins for an excellent example.
An in-depth and comprehensive education — in physics, biology, astronomy, history, philosophy and theology cannot fail to convince the honest seeker of the existence of a living God who loves us as His children, of the immortality of the soul and of our fully conscious and aware lives that will continue through all time and throughout eternity.
Report Post »sophillyjimmy
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 2:42amJudging by Dawkin’s eyebrows, he is an ape and he should be interviewed by Dr Leaky for his next book, Gorillas In The Mist Part II.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 5:00am@M.L.
I am devastated to learn that as self-appointed judge of character on this thread you find me unfit for civil discourse. Fortunately for me, I have undisputable evidence as to who deserves the title of “most obnoxious commenter on this thread.” Before I lay it out, I must confess that the liberal compulsion to deflect blame never ceases to amaze me.
My first serious comment on this thread was directed to you @6:50am. I addressed the topic, although at the end I made a biting reference to liberals, prompted by your condescending, uncivil replies to those willing to debate you.
YOU:
Report Post »-Where did you get your info from, some stupid [implied] website?
-your incoherent response
- [your response] sounds like a mangled version of an equally incoherent talk
- You parrot propaganda.
- You couldn’t even parrot (the propaganda) correctly.
-You are a total ignoramus.
-You… just broadcasted (the fact that you’re a total ignoramus).
kryptonite
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 5:06am@M.L. (CONT.)
ME @6:16pm
Claiming that… is total idiocy.
That’s stupid.
Talk about a bad case of regurgitation
Given your analytical skills, you can easily recognize that those three replies correlate directly with your most vicious attacks. Moreover, you will notice that all your attacks are leveled directly at the commenter (“you/your”), and that some even contain lengthy, embedded insults. All of it unwarranted.
I saved the disclaimer for last, since it epitomizes liberal duplicity. You said, “My policy… is to be civil with those who are civil and pissy with those who are pissy.” Uh, no. That would be MY policy. Yours is just to be pissy.
Report Post »RamonPreston
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 6:49amThat was Richard Dawson and he’s dead.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:23am@Krytonite: Incidentally, there is another aspect to my ‘policy’. On any thread, but particularly a large one like this, I do not respond to each post or every poster (obviously, not pheasable or practical). So, in general, I will respond in cases where a particularly egregious misconception must be addressed, or a particularly interesting point is being discussed, and occasionally if something amusing presents itself. I don’t waste my time with people who are clearly off their rocker, or trolling, or who are simply too irrational and uninformed or, frankly, dim witted to have a productive discussion with. I also don’t engage posts that, from their grammar and content, indicate the poster is by a young kid who clearly doesn‘t ’get‘ what’s being discussed. I don’t engage posts I simply find boring, or to just say “I agree!” I don’t respond to posts making a point I addressed elsewhere (no need to repeat yourself). I post to enough people to make my views known.
More than most here, I have here elaborated my position on several issues in my own words and provided numerous and varied references to back up my arguments or statements, or which refute specifically the arguments and/or posted quotes/links/references if others.
In your case, a few such instances apply. You raise issues I already addressed. You are woefully uninformed and inarticulate, you are boring, and most egregious of all, you are obnoxious.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:41am@Kryptonite: For your general edification, I will provide you with a specific example of why you are the sort of person I usually would not waste time with.
You wrote:
@M.L.
“…including religious scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins. You basically just broadcast the fact that you’re a total ignoramus.”
—–
Right back at you. What is a “religious scientist?” A cross between a scientist and a believer?”
This sort of comment reflects a gross level of abject ignorance. Even most (probably all) the religious people on the board here would acknowledge there are religious scientists. Even many of the most extreme creationists like to talk about religious scientists from the past, such as Isaac Newton.
There most certainly are religious scientists, even religious evolutionary biologists. To deny this brute fact is extremely ignorant. Either you are too dim witted to appreciate the glaringly obvious fact that there are religious scientists, or you are so dim witted you are confused by seeing the two terms together, and think it’s referencing something that is different from or a combination of religion and science.
Look, it’s not that hard. A religious scientist is a scientist who is religious. There are religious scientists just as there are religious doctors and policemen and teachers etc.
I could give many examples of your incivility, but for brevity will simply note that before I ever mentioned your name, you called me a “mutant
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:47am@ ML…..First of all Dewitt didn’t produce the research article he cited it my friend you may want to check out the original research. because you do not understand what you are even addressing. Second, I was not arguing anything Dewiit said or didn’t say I was referencing the article he did that pointed out the percentage between chuimp and man is dependent on what genes are and are not considered active in the comparison. Third, you can‘t argue the point because you don’t understand the science thats why all you can do is post websites that have nothing to do with the points I am arguing.
Report Post »You also need to learn about how logic works my friend and that if you try to argue that your point is right by elevating your sources and demeaning other’s sources you are committing a logical fallacy of appeal. You must simply argue the points and information. If it is so bogus and easily discredited then argue it, quit posting sites that again don’t even address the very spevific point I made. You think by posting sites and citing other’s intelligence it somehow makes your case true or strong (not.
If you think that I have committed the fallacy of ad hominem then I’m not sure you know what that means because I most assuredly have not. You can not list one ad hominem yet you say I have filled my posts with them. The posts speak for themselves my friend. If you think that pointing out illogical arguments is ad hominem then like I stated I don’t think you understand t
SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:50am@ ML….Finally, again you have trouble staying on point because I neevr argued whether Miller or Beher won or lost. I simply pointed out that it is truly insignificant to our discussion at hand because it is proof of nothing concerning our discusion. I illustrated this by pointing to a fallacy Miller committed during that event. You see you keep wanting to point to others intelligence, or the debate “victory” to make your case and it simply does not work that way. You have yet to address one single bit of information. You have simply distrated, appealed, and posted site after site which any googler could do for both sides of the argument. I am still waiting for YOU to argue the points that have been very specifically addressed by myself. I also still await your absolute strongest “proof” for your position. Again, you are not exposing me at this point, you are only exposing your weak argument. Thank you…..
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:59am@ ML….I have just read your last post to me and I thank you very much. I am sorry if my last post showed a hint of frustration as I had not read your final post to me before posting the last 2. I know it is easy to get confused. When I read you thought I had committed ad hominem I must admit I got personally frustrated and it probably showed through my comment for that I apologize. I do realize that this forum is somewhat difficult to discuss meaty subject matter as well. Thank you again for your humility and comment I hope you receive my apologies as well. Have a good day. Thank you…
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:29amM.L.- trust me I’m following the thread fine. I generally read what Sleazy posts on any story because he is a very intelligent person. As for the whole AIG thing Sleazy explained it well above me and my point stands. Don‘t discount it just because it’s a source you don’t agree with.
Thanks I try to be polite as for sleazy I can personally say that he has never really been rude and when he feels that he has he apologizes. He never name calls and if you fell there is some hint of that it’s probably because he is getting frustrated reiterating his points, as anyone would be as well as people who don’t address the issue at hand. The worst thing he seems to say is “you don‘t know what you’re talking about” that’s not name calling, he is just pointing something out. I would suggest that you calm down a little, read what Sleazy posts and you’ll see he is anything but rude he just tries to stick to the issue at hand.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:08pmSleazy- Btw, there is a post I addressed to you in the middle of the page. It might interest you.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:24pm@DLV: Did you not see my comments to Sleazy just prior to your last post addressed to me? I acknowledged that I had erred in characterizing him as uncivil and insulting him and apologized, which he graciously accepted. As I indicated, I got him mixed up with another poster. I agree Sleazy is a good person, probably the most civil and respectful here (though we do obviously disagree about the issues here).
I don‘t really object to what you’re saying here, but I do find it odd inasmuch as I had already apoloogized to Sleazy. I can only assume you didn’t see my post (?).
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:40pmM.L.- Ah so, you did, I must have missed that with you and kryptonite…..
Report Post »The Jewish Avenger
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:55pmLOL
Richard SAWSON
And yes, athiests are sadly mistaken.
Report Post »But they are still blessed.
… and their money is just as good.
conservative beckhater
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 3:59pmDawkins is highly intelligent and to claim otherwise demonstartes your lack of intelligence. Too much pot when you were 12?
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 6:51pmconservative beckhater- that statement itself is ignorant. Congrats.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:47pm@ DLV….I read your post (I always do) further up and thank you for the compliment, but I am not worthy of it I assure you. God bless my friend and may you have a great day….
Report Post »FR33D0MF16HT3R
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 3:12amI LOVE these people; first sign of trouble and its “GOD help me!”
Report Post »iampraying4u
Posted on August 30, 2012 at 9:59amWounder what he will say when he stands before God
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:46pmHmm…Trying to figure out why nature evolved us into what we are…We happen to be the weakest non tree-dwelling mammal on the planet. We shed all our fur…and for what? So we could make our own?? We can’t run down anything, we can’t run from anything, we are slow as hell.
If our brains *evolved* bigger so we would be smarter…Then you‘d think we’d be smart enough to have never left the damn trees.
The only conclusion I get from people like Dawkins, is that we are a freak of nature…And yet these same people say that nature doesn’t make mistakes…I’m confused…But I guess that‘s because I’m a freak.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:54pmMr Dawkins, speak for yourself. Just looked in the mirror and I didn’t see an ape looking back at me.
Poor little commie. He’s convinced all of his followers that they are apes. What a sad existence. Maybe its a stretch but I think Dawkins has a god complex.
May Almighty God have mercy upon Dawkins decrepit, seductive little soul.
Report Post »BlazingBob
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:04pmDawkins inflammatory comments are equally suspicious as TODD AKIN’s inflammatory BUT scripted comments about rape! These guys are way too smart to make calculated comments without knowing their cash value. ($) ($) HELLO
Report Post »mmmmarilyn
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:16pmWe ARE apes.
Report Post »There are hundreds of species.
It’s not that we are the MOST evolved, we evolved from other, long extinct, species.
Do you ever read or go to museums?
We HAVE found their remains.
watersRpeople
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:27pmI’ll agree with Richard Dawkins that humans are a unique ape, but that we as humans are also afforded a unique focus of thought and reason, self awareness {also called earth} that all other species are not – but that awareness comes from the soul. However it seems that many people don’t have an awareness of self, because if an “I” then there must be a “Thou.” People must be a type of ape which is why wearing shoes and boots helps stimulate athletes foot, and why some underwear on a hot day can help cause a rash. But looking at some people‘s hygiene I don’t want to sit in a chair someone’s naked hind-end was just sitting in.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:28pmThe soul evolves the flesh – that’s the way it works.
Report Post »Exrepublisheep
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:36pmDog whistle pandering. Ignore him.
Report Post »Fatheroftwo
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:37pmJust goes to show you that education and intelligence doesn’t mean you know everything!
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:44pm@KICKIN “We happen to be the weakest non tree-dwelling mammal on the planet.” That is laughable considering the power of a human arm combined with an opposeable thumb and the awareness of the power of sharp objects. We shed our fur because we began to find it sexually unattractive.. If you get a bunch of hairy people to keep breeding, they will produce more hairy people than average.
Report Post »watersRpeople
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:46pmMaybe someone should ask Dawkins if there isn’t a God, then why is it as time goes by people move from the idea of self sacrifice to sacrificing animals – then they finally regress to the point of sacrificing humans as with crucifixion? Whereby an Atheist does indeed regress indicative in an Atheist’s embracing of the human ape idea – and we all know scientists love experimenting on monkeys which is nearly the same as crucifixion which has begun to happen in Egypt. If you don’t believe in God Richard Dawkins then why has the importance of human life been downgraded in your heart the same as the Muslims crucifying people in Egypt?
Report Post »IMPrepared
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:56pm@mmmmarilyn-Show me a link with the complete evolution of mankind from ape, and I’ll send you $10!
Oh, enjoy your ape-ness.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:57pmWhoa holy crap, I didn’t see it at first-
Richard Dawkins just called the prophet Mohammed an ape! And expressed his doubts about the mental capacity of those who believe in Allah!
This guy has some serious balls! I thought he was a coward but this dude is hardcore. I’m gonna make sure I post this to Facebook and express my support of his taking on Islam too!
Way to go Richard!
Report Post »AndYetItMoves
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:58pmAll oppressed, ignorant, and otherwise disenfranchised people are theists.
All remotely (and I do mean remotely) intelligent people are atheists.
All exceptionally intelligent people are agnostics.
The exceptionally intelligent people and oppressed people have something in common: they sense that a moral imperative exists in the world that cannot be explained through materialism. The masses think the conversation about morality ended in a bronze age desert, the intelligentsia thinks that we need to start the conversation over.
Hopefully this clarifies things.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:59pmYou’re extremely confused. First of all, humans are far from the “weakest non-tree dwelling mammal” on the planet. There are certainly animals humans can run down or from, and humans have better long distance endurance than many animals. Pre-historic hunters (and modern day primive tribes) would stalk prey all day, following it, and driving it to exhaustion befoe killing it. Human ancestors left trees long befote they became modern humans. Why you think it would be ‘smarter’ to stay in the trees anyway makes no sense. And humans are not the only hairless (or, relatively hairless) mammal. In case you hadn’t noticed, apes have considerably less fur than most mammals, and if you can’t notice the obvious morphological similarity between humans and the great apes, you’re in denial.
Genetically, humans are more similar to chimpanzees (about 98% of our DNA is the same) than chimps are to gorillas or orangutans. Any other animals that closely related in the animal kingdom would be considered the same ‘kind’ of animal, so it’s not unreasonable to consider humans a type of ape. But whether you like Dawkins calling humans apes or not, the close relationship genetically and shared ancestry remain. What’s in a name?
Of course, Playboy isn’t a scientific journal, so any interview they do with Dawkins is going to be spun and edited to be as controversial seeming as possible. Dawkins tends to be a bit provocativ; that’s the only reason Playboy is interviewing a biologist
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:20pm@IMPREPARED: A “complete evolutionary tree” isn’t necessary to conclude reasonably that humans and apes have a common ancestor and that humans and apes are closely related. There is more than enough evidence in both the fossil record and the striking similarity of human and ape DNA to establish this beyond a reasonable doubt.
Interesting that you only put $10 dollars up. I’ll give you $10,000,000 if you could provide a better explanation of the fossil record and similarity in DNA than modern evolutionary biology.
If it’s just the “humans are apes” bit that bothers you, so be it. Nobody’s ordering you to call yourself an ape. In fact, biologists actually don‘t classify humans as ’apes’. But the fact remains humans and apes share a common ancestor and have very similar DNA. There are of course still some rather significant and obvious differences between apes and humans. So, I think we could justifiably say humans are not apes (especially considering we’re the ones doing these clasifications in the first place). I don’t necessarily have a problem with you objecting to the characterization of humans as apes (though a reasonable case could be made); if however you’re denying evolution or the obvious similarity between humans and apes, you’re seriously misinformed.
Dawkins is being a bit of a wiseguy here also, since he most certainly does have religious associates and colleagues. He’s even – heaven forefend – friends with, or at least friendly with some
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:24pmChimps are built for climbing trees, and a full grown 200 lb chimp has the strength of 10 Arnold Schwarzeneggers (in his prime!). Seen anybody swinging limb from limb in trees lately?
Chimps are also quadrupeds. Yes they can move on two feet, as gracefully as we do on four. And a chimp at a dead run can do doughnuts around Usain Bolt any day.
As for apes being relatively hairless…Dude, I don‘t know what you’re smokin’ but pass that $^!@ over here, I want to hit that!
Report Post »Hollywood
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:29pmDawkins is a DINK!
Report Post »Christhefarmer
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:44pm…… I have pretty much given up on talking to the other side as they are incapable of thoughts of their own, so this might be more for those on my side.
Report Post »Single Cell in the ooze: The first life form…. For something to live, it’s “body” must allow it to live, being evolution teaches us it’s all luck with unlimited tries we manage to get an organism that can survive longer then a second. So magically we have something that evolved into a living cell from none organic material. (Happens all the time right?) Now this single cell for some reason decides it wishes to make more of itself because that would help it….how? Anyways this single cell decides it needs more like itself so it can compete with them for the limited food source of rocks? Which is what evolution teaches us, animals adapt to make it harder to live right? Yeah…. reproduction… is not beneficial to anyone or anything…. But lets skip that. So bunch of single cells eating rocks then each other, mutate, mutate, mutate… “I know what I should do, I should grow lungs and move on to land.” says the sea dwelling animal. Makes sense, you adapt to surroundings you haven’t ever been to….right? Well they did so there. Blah blah blah man!!! Yes we gave up our strength, and speed for intelligence, because we adapt to what would happen in the future when we built machines to do all our hard work. We did this several thousand years ago, for what happened in the last 200, cause we haven’t evolved in a long
M.L.
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:50pm@KICKINBACK: I didn’t say chimps were relatively hairless (I said humans are relatively hairless). I said apes have condiderably less fur than most mammals. Their faces and chests are largely hairless, and the fur on the rest of their bodies is generally thin.
Your other comments (that they swing from trees, are stronger than humans, and are quadripeds) are true but irrelevant. They still bear remarkable morphological similarities to humans and our DNA is, in the case of Chimps, 98% identical (we’re genetically more similar to chimps than chimps are to gorillas or orangutans). Obviously, there are significant differences between humans and chimps (I mention some in another post here), but that doesn’t negate the striking similarities, or the evidence of a common ancestor.
Report Post »Christhefarmer
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:13pm@M.L. “There is more than enough evidence in both the fossil record and the striking similarity of human and ape DNA to establish this beyond a reasonable doubt.” Not how it works…. sadly…. Our sun and a star a billion light years away are very similar. They look alike, their composition is similar, and they might be birthed from the same “junk” but they are only related because they exist within the same plane. Because evolution states we came from non organic material (since there was none) then we evolved from the same thing the sun did, thus we are descendents of the sun… Fossil record to show this is sub atomic but it’s there.
Report Post »“Interesting that you only put $10 dollars up. I’ll give you $10,000,000 if you could provide a better explanation of the fossil record and similarity in DNA than modern evolutionary biology.”
Well…. sigh….. So your asking for us to come up with an idea better then the one that is mathematically impossible. You understand that right, you believe something that is without a doubt impossible under what you believe in… Makes you insane my friend. Science: Present a theory, try to disprove it… right? Why do all those that try to disprove these two theories get scoffed at evolution, creation? That in itself should be worth putting a theory out about, these theories are about trying to disprove a creator, being they are reacted to differently then someone trying to disprove gravity that should tell us something.
mamatango
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:30pmAnd Dawkins is supposed to be a scientist! HA! Have a look at what other scientists have discovered that Dawkins hasn’t…
What We Still Don’t Know: “ARE WE REAL?”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM&feature=related
Report Post »mecanic
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:40pmhow come theres no naked people walking out of the jungle and want to know where wal-mart is to buy clothes, is evolution over????????? me thinks richard is looney.
Report Post »Claudius
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:42pmEvolution has some major holes in it. I find it extremely unlikely that humans would be the only species to evolve to this intelligence. If evolution happed then why doesn’t our planet have a range of species with intelligence. Look at Star Wars – lots of different species with intelligence – not considered animals. Evolutionaries are on very shaky ground but they can‘t do much about it since it’s basically the only offered theory for those who’ve rejected God. Funny how they always try to present the THEORY as facts. I may not have scientific evidence for the existence of God but I have felt His love in my life and seen His hands guide me.
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:51pmClaudius, I think there were certain other members of the human family such as cro magnon and Neanderthals that **** sapiens (us) met along the way.
They may have been bred with, plagued, or killed by **** sapiens, but we may never know. This was before God reached out to us through his prophets, long before the ancient tribes of Israel began their ascent from darkness.
Report Post »brewers97
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 10:02pmAll can KISS my US NAVY………….Irish American ASS!
Report Post »Mary Magdelene is the Holy Grail………..The Gaels are here becauser of the blood of jesus
Christhefarmer
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 10:04pmBesides creation itself…. So mathematically impossible the equation used in explanation has 2 infinities. (Size of universe and number of universes or “dimensions”) The only other thing to use to rational point to a “designer” is the reaction to the thought. Like I said before no scientist would have problems with me poking holes in the theory of gravity but many many have problems with you poking holes in big bang or evolution. No matter how logical your arguments are they write you off as a religious dope who believes in the tooth fairy. Dawkins even stated before as a explanation to how we came about that it could have been aliens seeding the earth with lifeforms. He was not considered a dope even though the aliens would of had to come from somewhere, but say it’s a “god” and your a ignorant hillbilly. Thus giving believers something to point to, deception.
Report Post »Big bang: We ask how something came from nothing. Got the higs recently as an explanation, we asked where it came from…. Just so all my fellow believers know this is the newest presented argument against our question of how something comes from nothing. “Since we have never seen this so called ”nothing” we can not believe it was ever a state that was in existence.” So now the big bangers believe in something that always was, and always will be, something with no beginning and no end. Funny that’s what we think too.
booger71
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 10:07pmThe geologic record is full of species that lived, died and evolved. Funny thing is try as they might, scientists have never found any bones or fossils of any so-called “missing link” species that have a common link between man and ape.
Report Post »Christhefarmer
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 10:11pmIf all life started in the seas: Then wouldn’t life in the seas be more advanced? The life that traveled on to land had to slow down their advancing evolving to evolve for the land, while the sea life were already evolved for their surroundings. Cataclysmic events to the planet would effect the vast vast seas less then it would the land walkers, so land animals would be set back again. Like Claudius said where are the fish people, cat people, elephant people. Why are the land walkers the most evolved and why are only the monkeys kid’s fancy as we are?
Report Post »TEXAS-T
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 10:57pmThe FOOL hath said in heart, there is no God. Psalm 14:1
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:15pm@ChrisTheFarmer: First if all, you seem to be conflating organic matter with living matter. They’re not necessarily the same thing. When it comes to the origins of life, life is believed to have arisen from nonliving organic matter (i.e. carbon based, self replicating protiens).
But again, the validity of evolutionary theory does not depend on explaining how life first arose. Even without an explanation of how the first living cells arose, the evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
Your comments about stars have no relevance to the matter at hand whatsoever.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:17pm“Genetically, humans are more similar to chimpanzees (about 98% of our DNA is the same)”
No, not true.
1. The genetic variance amongst humans is 3.5%. From that follows that you surely aren’t closer to a chimpanzee than to your neighbor. Alrighty, maybe you are, I haven’t seen your DNA, nor morphology.
2. The 98% figure was derived form now very obsolete method of genetic comparison. In a nutshell, the DNA was unzipped, and broken down to codons level, and then two distinct DNAs were shaken in a tube to see what recombines. In order to find out the genetic distance, you need to compare chromosome by chromosome, codon by codon. Anything else is meaningless. Current estimate of the human/chimpanzee DNA divergence is at 8%, but more genomes have to be compared to derive at a more accurate figure. Needless to say that if you scramble 8% of someone’s DNA, the viability of that individual would be near 0.
We have only 46 chromosomes as opposed to 48 for apes. It looks like chromosomes 2 and 3 were spliced together (for the lack of a better expression). This does not appear anywhere else, it is unique to us. Interestingly enough, Sumerian “myths” hint at us being a “designed” species, by means of genetic manipulation.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:32pm@TwoByFour: Where do you get your info from, Answers In Genesis? Your incoherent response sounds like a mangled version of an equally incoherent talk given by AIG‘s Gary Parker that’s been on the net for years. It’s sheer nonsense. Not only have you failed to address my point, you couldn’t even parrot the AIG propganda correctly.
Report Post »mauijonny
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:42pmEvolution is about adaptability, not about “losing the monkey tail.” If you look at just climate change through the eons, you‘ll see that Nature’s God changes things dramatically and frequently (in geologic terms), and each time that happens, life on Earth changes – sometimes a lot, sometimes a little, depending on how big the change was. I don‘t know how that’s so threatening to anyone, when even our Founders so powerfully acknowledged Nature and Nature’s God… Doesn’t mean I believe they were theists – and…I’ll just leave it at that.
Report Post »Raging_Waters
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:43pmWhenever I consider the times we’re living in, this comes to mind:
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.
For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away.
For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
–2 Timothy 3:1-7
When I think of Dawkins, the “ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” part comes to mind.
Report Post »woodyl1011fl
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:48pmUnfortunately Dawkins academic perspective reigns supreme in our alleged educational system and in the broader wicked and depraved evil embracing culture and we are now reaping the fruits of the evil we have allowed to flourish like a virile cancer. Just look at who and what we have elected as leaders. the “Destructors” have come and we the people put them there. Only Almighty God can help us now and we and our leaders spit and shake our collective fists in his face everyday. His help shall only come when this nation repents and returns to the Biblical principles that guided us for so long. Hope can be realized only after we defeat this Fascist Marxist and his totalitarian corrupt gand\gsta party. Other wise our impending collapse will accelerate like a runaway train at full throttle coming down a mountain grade and great and total will be it destruction.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:49pmML, show me “carbon based, self replicating protiens [sic]”
In fact, one would suffice.
You apparently haven’t a faintest how proteins are replicated. You should try get some insight into molecular biology, you’d be humbled. I’d use the word miracle, for a “technology” that is so advanced that it reminds of pure magic.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:04amM.L,
I don‘t know what’s AIG, nor I know Gary Parker. I read journals related to microbiology and genetics.
On your quip that I did not address your point, you stated that 98% of human DNA matches chimps DNA.
I replied specifically, stating that the figure is
1. incorrect.
2. was derived at by means now considered inaccurate and obsolete.
3. stated what the present assumptions are.
How’s that incoherent? If you said incomprehensible to you, I’d take it. Your prof told you 98% and that’s basta for you. Have it your way, but then you sound like an ignoramus.
Report Post »DENNISKOUPALJR
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:41amWell said “Kickin.”
Report Post »The contradictions in the conclusions one must ultimately arrive at while refusing to critically assess the the overwhelming evidence in favor of God’s existence is clearly the type of “evidence” Hawkins would suggest is nonexistant. Your observations are a perfect example of “proof (of God’s existence) through contradictory conclusions.”
VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:07am@KICKINBACK
Your inability to understand Evolution is not evidence that it is wrong.
All the questions and claims you pose have answers or corrections to match.
We can’t run down anything?
We are marathon runners. Go watch native nomadic Africans hunt – they still do it the same our ancestors did. They jog at pace for many many miles and kill their prey through exhaustion. We can sweat, and this makes us unique. So while we cool ourselves off, our prey can’t, it overheats, and dies.
We lost hair to make clothes?
It is believed the hairless trait was chosen for aesthetic reasons. In the same way Peacocks have colorful feathers to attract mates, so too was the hairless body desired. With time, we realized that wearing the hide of animals permitted us to travel further North into the cold. These two actions (shedding hair and donning animal hide) are unrelated from an evolutionary perspective.
If we‘re so smart why didn’t we stay in the tree?
Clearly coming out of the tree was advantageous as is evident in our being the dominant species and more than tripling our average lifespan. Smarts wins.
Lastly, nature doesn‘t make mistakes because it doesn’t make “decisions”. Evolution occurs in all directions simultaneously and the toxicity of the environment “determines” which direction is “best” for a given species.
If you have different questions just let me know. If you require further explanation on the answers provided I can direct you to additi
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:19am@TWOBYFOUR
You are right, 98% is now considered incorrect to account for all differences between Apes and Humans. I read it was somewhere just under 95%, but even that could be old news.
However, your claim that the genetic variance among humans is 3.5% seems even more inaccurate. I am curious where you found this figure. The largest difference I can find claimed is 0.5%.
Anyway, I am actually even more interested with getting to the base of your point. Lets start at the foundation and work up; are you arguing for Creationism? Your post is ambiguous to me and I want to make sure I understand you before I berate you.
Report Post »DWilliams08
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:51amCrucifixion isn’t sacrifice, it’s capital punishment.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:56am“I read it was somewhere just under 95%, but even that could be old news.”
Yes, it seems that the figures are being revised the more insight we get into genome maps.
“However, your claim that the genetic variance among humans is 3.5% seems even more inaccurate. I am curious where you found this figure. The largest difference I can find claimed is 0.5%.”
I got both figures form a discussion with a friend that is a researcher at one of the genome companies. I am taking somewhat for granted that he knows what he ‘s talking about. I note these are current assessments, subject to change or refinement.
“Lets start at the foundation and work up; are you arguing for Creationism? Your post is ambiguous to me and I want to make sure I understand you before I berate you.”
I am not arguing for creationism, nor for evolutionism. Both are based on principles of faith (thus far). There are “anomalies” that do not conform with either.
I was told when still in young impressionable age that the moment you accept a scientific theory as an article of faith, it ceases to be science. If you have evidence that does not conform to the theory, you don’t sweep the evidence under the rug, or if you haven’t any, you don’t make it up. You modify your theory or present it as tentative. My beef is with the system that proclaims evolution (macro) as fact, while it is far from it. It closes off avenues of thinking or exploration.
Report Post »DWilliams08
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:58amHa! Ha! Somebody wrote **** sapiens on here and it edited the **** part as a bad word.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:45am@Cesium
Report Post »We shed our fur because we began to find it sexually unattractive.
——
Really? I thought those Hollyweird broads loved fur. Maybe you descended from PETA apes, which are a different mutation from other liberal apes.
M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:01am@VoteBushIn12: The 98% figure remains correct ( see some of the links I posted in response to twobyfour). There is a lot of research currently trying to understand the mystery of why chimps and humans have such strikingly different phenotypes given the extremly similar DNA. [It goes without saying of course that there are obvious morphological similarities.] The links address this in part as well.
I don’t know where you standbon this ( feel free to say). TwoByFour is obviously hostile towards evolution and seems to have absorbed a lot of both Intelligent Design propoganda as well as some of the older, more simplistic, Dr. Dino/Kent Jailbird Hovind sort of creationist canards (e.g. microevolution yes, macroevolution no, etc.).
The thread pretty much says it all. I’m still waiting for him to provide one link or reference from a reputable source to back up his dubious assertions.
Otherwise, he seems a nice enough person.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 3:57amML, I had to google Hovind and other names you mention to see what you are talking about.
1. I am not claiming micro-yes, macro-no. I am saying that micro–sufficient evidence, marcro–insufficient evidence. As simple as that. Please don’t put words into my mouth.
2. Since about 2002, the 95% figure for match between human/chimp DNA is mentioned in numerous papers and generally accepted. If you check the methodology by which that figure was derived at, you’d see that your 98% figure can’ stand. Since then, a decade went by and more research was done. I can’t point you to a source for 92% figure at present, because the results haven’t been published yet. But the moment they are published, sometimes in the middle of next year. I surely won’t forget to mention it
3. I am not a creationist, nor evolutionist. In my book, there is not enough evidence either way. I consider a macro-evolution a tentative hypothesis with a lot to be desired in the realm of evidence. Creationism has it’s own set–not insubstantial–of problems.
My bone of contention can be stated simply–I resent that both sides indulge in orthodoxy and zealotry. It may be somewhat understandable as creationists go, but it is inexcusable coming from the camp that claims to be working on scientific principles. Don‘t tell me that’s not true, the list of frauds/hoaxes in support of evolution is sizable and colorful. That indicates a belief system in play, rather than scientific principles.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:08amGranted, in some cases, it is a result of wishful thinking or a substantial bias.
Report Post »Godzgrl247
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:03amYou made some good points.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:59amML, just for the sake of completion…
You’ve mentioned ID (Intelligent Design). You consider it a “sneaky” creationism of sorts, but for me it is another hypothesis. ID-ers do not state who/what the designer may be. It may as well be some super-duper intelligent race of aliens, an idea that RD does not seem to be opposed.OTOH, some people do not have a problem seeing evolution as a mechanism put in place by God.
Some proponent of ID do have some compelling arguments, but I am not convinced. However, the counterarguments by evolutionsts, in some more prominent cases, are rather feeble and reductionist to a fault.
As for myself, I could be called an agnostic theist.
Report Post »The agnostic part–there is not enough evidence to prove or disprove existence of God. I would not bet my house on a chance that there ever be enough evidence either way.
Theist part–based on subjective experiences. These provided me with a compelling evidence for me personally. But don’t rejoice, church-goers. In older times, I’d be considered a heretic, and burned at a stake!
kryptonite
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:50am@M.L.
Evolution is your interpretation of reality. You call it science because you allegedly restrict your observations to the natural realm, but the fossil record does not show transitional forms for complex invertebrates, and you can only speculate regarding so-called “transitional forms” of complex vertebrates, among other things, because the soft anatomy is not there. Evolution (and plse don’t harp on adaptation) is not verifiable, so from a scientific viewpoint, it is at best an educated guess and at worst pseudoscience.
=> “[N]o real evolutionist…uses the fossil record as evidence in favour of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation.” (Mark Ridley, Oxford University).
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 7:25amM.L. (CONT.)
Even if it is true that human and ape DNA has ~ 98% similarity, you cannot make a leap of logic and say it proves we share a common ancestor. You decry ID because it cannot be proven, yet your “findings” are based on your supposition – not proof — that evolution is the only plausible explanation. That is a classic case of circular logic. MY paradigm posits a common Creator. Thus having a similar DNA simply means God is so awesome He can use matter to create an infinite number of discrete species. In other words, it is not a common ancestor; it is a common Creator.
Some evolutionists conveniently dismiss origins, but without origins the controversy boils down to your view vs. mine, and I vastly prefer Intelligent Design to drab folk tales such as, “Why Humans Lost Their Fur.” I’d much rather get an explanation on why you mutant apes have such inflated egos. I’ve never figured that one out.
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:17amKrypto, tell us how you really feel! Hehe.
As for chimp/human DNA match, 98% is not true, really, take my word for it. You can dismiss that figure with a reckless abandon.
I got an email from my geneticist friend where he outlines how the 92% figure was obtained. I need to crash, it’s way past my bedtime, but will get to it sometimes tomorrow once translate it from genotech lingo. One surprising finding — if one lines up the genomes so the sequences match letter-by-letter (and dismissing a need to realign once every while to bridge interruptions and gaps) only 76% matches.
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:09am@MMMARILYN…..You have stated a belief, but you have not engaged in science. You can no more prove that we evolved from the remains of dead creatures than I can prove the moon is made of cheese. Now if you want to believe that, your welcome to, but please do not call that science. It is NOT science it is a belief in something. There is NO emperical proof of evolution at this time. “Lucy” and her other close “relatives” are not proof of anything. According to Richard Leakey, who along with Johanson is probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of paris”. Leakey even said in 1983 that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to. Can you prove that they even reproduced? As far as Neanderthals, we aren’t even sure who the Neanderthal were! Their remains are found alongside those considered to be modern man in Israel. There is evidence from a recently discovered child’s skeleton that they may have simply been a family group or related group with some distinct features which intermarried with others. If that is the case, they never died, they simply got absorbed into the larger population. Even famed biologists have clearly stated that those “missing links” are not missing links. So what evidence do you think you possess for Macro-evolution & chemical evolution….Thank you ahead…
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:09am@ MMMARILYN…..‘Biologists would dearly like to know how modern apes, modern humans and the various ancestral hominids have evolved from a common ancestor. Unfortunately, the fossil record is somewhat incomplete as far as the hominids are concerned, and it is all but blank for the apes. The best we can hope for is that more fossils will be found over the next few years which will fill the present gaps in the evidence.’ The author goes on to say: ‘David Pilbeam [a well-known expert in human evolution] comments wryly, “If you brought in a smart scientist from another discipline and showed him the meagre evidence we’ve got he’d surely say, ‘forget it: there isn’t enough to go on’.”
Report Post »—Richard E. Leakey, The Making of Mankind, Michael Joseph Limited, London,
rangerp
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:21ammmmmarilyn
“we have found their remains”
Haaaa, what a hoot. And how many times in the last hundred years were we told by the scientists that they found the new missing link, only to find out they were lying again, and had attempted to fool people with something they created, or mispepresented?
Piltdown man?
Hahnhöfersand Man ?
Nebraska Man? (from a pig tooth)
“A five million-year-old piece of bone that was thought to be a collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib…The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone.” – Dr. Tim White (anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley). As quoted by Ian Anderson “Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphin’s rib”, in New Scientist, 28 April 1983, p. 199[23]
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 9:28am@ ANDYET…Your statement seems to be highly illogical, you have made a fallacious appeal to a specific group asserting that truth is reflected by the character of who holds a certain position(s). That is a fallacy and illogical assertion (bandwagon fallacy and appeal to authority fallacy). I would put my IQ score up against many I debate with all the time, but since this means nothing to me with regard to the reflection of truth or the validity of an argument I don’t even bring it up (I only did here not in a boastful manner, but simply to demonstrate a point). I have been charged with arrogance when I have been able to argue my points well and with confidence as if it were somehow a bad thing only to then see atheists make an unsubstantiated claim about the intelligence of those who hold their position. It is really just an illogical position to even argue. Thank you….
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 10:04am@ M.L…….”There is more than enough evidence in both the fossil record and the striking similarity of human and ape DNA to establish this beyond a reasonable doubt.” This statement is completely rooted in belief, but is in no way factual. The only thing “striking” about the fossil record is its lack of hominid evidence. Se my previous post to MMMARILYN. Despite the superficial similarities between human and ape chromosomes, there are important differences on the molecular level. There are many protein coding genes in humans that are distinctly human and are not found in chimps. Perhaps more significantly are the differences in genes that don’t code for proteins. Genes have been described which code for microRNA (miRNA). The miRNA molecule is not translated, but acts directly to control gene expression. A single miRNA can regulate the expression of dozens or even hundreds of genes. A study of miRNAs expressed in the brain found 51 of 447 new miRNAs were distinctly human and 25 were only found in the chimp. The idea that so many genes were altered so that they are expressed in the proper concentration according to cell type and can effectively control the many different genes they regulate is not what we would expect of chance processes. David A. DeWitt cited a study which found that the two species are only 95% identical when insertions and deletions are considered, showing that the estimate of divergence depends mainly on what type of DNA is being evaluated..tha
Report Post »RobbieTLHughie
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:13amwhy is everyone who disagrees with you a commie?
Report Post »Quiata
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:28am@VOTEBUSHIN12 (aka FADINGBUSHBUMPERSTICKER, no offense…) A little play on your own statement: “Your inability to understand Evolution is not evidence that it is wrong” becomes…
“Your inability to understand God is not evidence that He doesn’t exist.”
By the way, belief in God is not irreconcilable with a respect for material science (and as an artifact of the limited human senses and perception upon which it is based, science’s own finite ability to model the inexplicable).
Report Post »Quiata
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:37amScience is only as good as the cane which the blind person uses to see.
Report Post »I support God's Israel!
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:17pmWhat all of you fail to mention is that IF THERE IS A GOD, THEN THERE MUST BE AN ANTI-GOD (Satan). And who better to try to persuade mankind that there is no God, but Satan himself then Satan has you in his power because to NOT CHOOSE GOD/JESUS, IS TO CHOOSE SATAN.
AND, the only people who will lose are those who believe what Satan says.
Very sad that ANY soul should believe Satan’s lies, BUT THERE ARE MANY WHO DO and this is why we, as followers of Christ have very little time left to pray for these poor souls.
Eternity is a very very very LONG time to spend with Satan. IT MEANS NEVER BEING ABLE TO SAY YOU’RE SORRY YOU BELIEVE THAT LIE.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:59pm@TwoByFour: [This was posted above earlier by mistake, reposting here.]
@TwoByFour: You have yet to post ONE credible link or reference supporting any of your claims. And no, this anonymous “geneticist friend” of yours doesn’t count as one. If he or she is a credentialed knowlegeable geneticist, have them provide you with reputable, credible verifiable sources for your assertions.
Second, your erroneous insistenc on claiming human and chimp DNA is not 98% but 95% is hilarious because even 95% similarity would sustain my point. The most common percentage similarity given is 98% and 99%. The reason the value differs in different sources is because most reference a study that deteremined that the similarity was between 96 and 99 percent. It hardly matters whether it’s 95% or 99%; either way it’s a nightmare for creationists.
You’re dead wrong about macroevolution being insufficently evidenced and stand in opposition to the overwhelming consensus of mainstream science. This isn’t a zealous, atheistic position; some of the most credentialed proponents of the fact of macroevolution are devout Christians (such as biologist Ken Miller, who utterly devastated the pseduo science of ID at the famous Dover trial, and Francis Collins, who led the human genome project and in fact was the head of the team that determined the similarity of human and chimpanzee DNA to be between 96% and 99% in 2005; I provided the link earlier).
Yet another link: http://www.ucsf.edu/
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:01pm@ ML….Miller didn’t destroy anything at the Dover trial???? An “evidence” Miller gave for evolution is the alleged merger of two ape chromosomes during evolution to form human chromosome 2. But Miller didn’t mention that chromosome 2 contains unique information not on ape chromosomes—and evolutionists have never shown how such information can originate by chance. Miller also argued that one can be “a person of faith” and an evolutionist at the same time, citing Francis Collins’ recent book, The Language of God. Miller argued that God wouldn’t “fool us” with evidence for evolution, yet apparently does not recognize the uniformitarian, unbiblical assumptions that must be made in order to interpret the so-called “evidence” within an evolutionary paradigm. Thank you….
Report Post »Twobyfour
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:07pmOkie dokie, ML. No point in presenting the methodologies and data here at this point, because you’d refuse to accept it, which I do understand, and because the study is not complete (the final figure may even be actually a tad lower I am told). I’ll wait a year for the paper published/reviewed and then we can discuss it.
Report Post »kryptonite
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:26pm@TWOBYFOUR
Okie dokie, ML. No point in presenting the methodologies and data here
—-
I replied to your post, earlier but my comment was blocked over at Kingdom Blaze (who rules there?)
You said: “One surprising finding — if one lines up the genomes so the sequences match letter-by-letter (and dismissing a need to realign once every while to bridge interruptions and gaps) only 76% matches.”
Yes, I read something along those lines, but it was sketchy. I look forward to your friend’s scientific data. Don’t let a mutant ape stop you, bud.
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:47pm@TwoByFour
Well I respect your perspective on not viewing Evolution as “law”, but I think disregarding as easily as you disregard Creationism (or even placing it into the same category for consideration) is a gross mistake.
I don’t know what macro biological systems you are referring to that, you think, can’t be explained by Evolution, but I encourage you to read further. I have seen many blogs claiming “Arteries” or “Feathers” and admit that I too thought, “Yeah, those do seem irreducibly complex”, however there are pretty simple examples that demonstrate an evolutionary drive resulting in flight. If you’d like to see such videos just let me know.
Anyway, my point can be summarized thus. Theodosius Dobzhansky (an evolutionary biologist) once said, “Nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution.” And I have yet to see a concise argument that cannot be explained, at least in some part, by evolution.
@QUIATA
“By the way, belief in God is not irreconcilable with a respect for material science (and as an artifact of the limited human senses and perception upon which it is based, science’s own finite ability to model the inexplicable).”
What do you mean?
Are you saying God is evidenced in tangible things?
Or are you saying Science’s perspective is limited and God, therefore, exists in the limits beyond?
I take exception to both arguments, but I’ll let you clarify first.
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 7:09amLast comment…Show me the proof naysayers…I believe you don’t have it…yeah, always that seed of doubt…It just bugs you to no end doesn’t it?…
Evolution (according to you) had dinosaurs around for MILLIONS of years…yet they died off as…dinosaurs..
Why didn’t evolution evolve them with superior brains?? I mean, us so called *monkeys* have only been around for a couple hundred thousand years or so, yet we evolved to be smarter than the dinosaurs…Oopps…Perhaps we are a mistake….Waiting….
Report Post »VoteBushIn12
Posted on September 1, 2012 at 10:07pm@KICKINBACK
“Evolution (according to you) had dinosaurs around for MILLIONS of years…yet they died off as…dinosaurs..”
Modern Birds, Alligators, Lizards, Sharks all evolved from, or exist currently, in evolutionary states traceable to dinosaurs.
“Why didn’t evolution evolve them with superior brains??”
If the environment does not favor the intellectuals of a species then intelligence does not evolve. For some reason, apes that were smarter than their peers (either in their ability to communicate socially and form language, or what have you) had an advantage over other ape species. Evolution has no “end goal” that it tries to achieved. There is no hand guiding its path. I am sure every species gives birth to an “intelligent” trait all the time, but if that trait does not produce itself at a time where it can be harbored and passed down, then it dies out with the trillions of other would-be advantages.
Maybe the food supply wasn’t stable enough to support the increased brain capacity (that is our most energy consuming organ after all). Maybe there wasn’t pressures that necessitated a “smarter” outlook and so competitor genes didn’t die off.
If there isn’t an environmental NEED that allows a specific trait to flourish over all others, then that gene will never take hold. If you mate only the tallest people, the kids will be tall. If you keep mixing in short people you are going to remain average.
Make sense? Ignorance is no excuse for denial.
Report Post »The Gooch
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:46pmWow. What a shocker. Hell, many of the posters on this forum could have spun this interview from whole cloth and been fairly close to the actual exchange.
Report Post »Birds of a feather flock together? Who knew!?!
Gotta love the logic argument: I’m super-smart (by self-report) and have faith in nothing spiritual, ergo, all smart people are atheists… like me. Case closed.
M.L.
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:37pmDawkins really isn’t opposed to the existence of any sort of god. His objection really is limited to the gods who are credited with writing books. He’s given lectures, some of them readily available on YouTube, in which he speculates about what sort of ‘god’ might exist. Basically, he doesn’t believe in a personal creator god or any of the gods of the organized religions, which he believes are man made superstitions. But he doesn’t rule out the possibility that there may exist forms of life or forms of conscious that may be far more interesting than the gods dreamt up by ignorant Iron Age desert dwellers. The bottom line for him is that he would want to see compelling evidence for the existence of any such entity before actually thinking it existed.
I don’t think Dawkins is the best spokesperson out there so far as the voices critical of traditional religious belief go. He can be a bit sloppy in his arguments at times and is a bit of a media whore. He likes his closeups, ya know? I think of the better known “celebrity atheists” (for lack of a better word), Sam Harris is probably the least confrontational and most articulate.
Report Post »otoko
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:45pmOne day he will stand before him and I would like to see him explain himself in the face God. Ah, but um, well ah, you know, eh, cough, cough, etc etc! And to answer his question: is only those who are wicked cannot see the glory of GOD ALL AROUND THEM.
Report Post »starman70
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:53pmProverbs: It is better to thought of as a fool than open your mouth and prove it. (Paraphrased)
Report Post »AmericanBorn
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:55pmThe way I understand it, he won’t get the opportunity to explain himself. Denial of His Son (and ultimately God) is an express elevator to the furnace room.
Report Post »Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:02pmThere will be no explaining from him and all of those who have rejected God; even among the professed people of God who in their hearts have sold Him out and eternity of life as well; as the good book says:
“Every knee shall bow; every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.”
Report Post »TROLLMONGER
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:44pmMan invented god. The invented god will destroy man.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:50pmAnd if you are wrong, are you cool with eternal damnation?
Report Post »Lord_Frostwind
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:01pmMen turned from their God, then slaughtered each other wholesale in the war to claim his throne. Humanity’s destruction is an inevitability, whether done in the name of God, or another man.
Report Post »mmmmarilyn
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:18pm100% correct.
Report Post »They could not not explain the unexplainable.
Now we can.
Edohiguma
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:35pmWhich god? Currently we have roughly 8 million gods active on this planet. So which one is the right one? And no, they’re not all the same.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:47pm@TRONINTHEMORNING ahahahahaaha…. and you people call atheists the cowards!!!! ahahahahahahahahah I’ll take damnation for 1000 alex!
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:04pmHey genius
You’ll be dealing with Allah before you ever have to wonder what happens when you find out there is but one truly amazing God. Allah will get your head right.
Eternal damnation for 1000? You got it man!
Report Post »TROLLMONGER
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:42pmAll religious primitives are afraid to die. Thats why religion was invented by man in the first place.
Report Post »HOOT_OWL
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:57pmWhat are you mumbling about.
Report Post »otoko
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:58pmAgain the same question
And if you are wrong, are you cool with eternal damnation?
Report Post »mmmmarilyn
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:19pmEternal damnation?
Report Post »Haven’t you ever heard of a divorce?
ModerationIsBest
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:19pm@Otoko
Yup, I hear hell has a heated pool. Who wouldn’t want that?
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:08pmIf you’re not afraid to die- take on Islam. Coward.
Report Post »otoko
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:40pmIt is funny for so many who claim God is not real spend so much of their life talking about him.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:56pmThis is what Dawkins is talking about when he says he spends his time with intelligent people… If you were surrounded by a population full of Satanists, you’d spend a lot of time trying to fight against them… Essentially christian’s are satanists. Christians believe satan exists. Not atheists..And we have to address that fact and protect human intellect from such drivel so we can protect sanity. It is the enlightenmentelists the secularlists that gave us the modern world… All Religious people should stop using computers and facebook.. These are inventions of atheists and not for the pious..
Report Post »stumpy68
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:10pmIf they truly believed that GOD doesn‘t exist trying to prove He doesn’t
Report Post »would be a colossal waste of their time.
stumpy68
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:17pmAnd you sir if you live in the U.S should leave
Report Post »it was created by religious people and i also believe you would be
surprised at how many deeply religious people had a
hand in creating computers and the internet id like to believe your a troll
But its more likely your just an idiot child.
Jhooks
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:33pm@Cesium Why do you waste your time with us “Believers”? Could it be Science lacks explanation for your question; ‘Why am I here?’ You are seeking God. Accept him.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:09pmPointless observation. Look at all the creationists who don’t believe in evolution yet talk about it ceaselessly.
Report Post »Jhooks
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 10:25pm@M.L. Comparing Creation to Evolution is like comparing apples to oranges. One is not a substitute for the other. Wise up.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:22pm@JHooks: You‘re the one who needs to ’wise up’. I was responding to someone complaining about atheists talking about something they don’t believe in, so I pointed out that this would also apply o creationists talking about something they don’t believe in, evolution.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:47amML creationists believe in evolution just not macro evolution
Report Post »SLEAZYHIPPOs ILLEGITIMATE OFFSPRING
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:48am@ ML….what is your most compelling evidence for chemical evolution? Since this is the precursor to biological evolution it must be emonstarted by some evidence since it is foundational to the biological theory of evolution. Thank you…..Hint: you won’t be able to give me any.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 4:37pmSleazy- Just in case you didn’t notice, Moderationisbest is commenting a few below us here on how evil God is by making sinful people and then sending them to hell. Since you are really good debating I just thought I should let you know since you didn’t get to last time. You’re probably better at debating than I am. haha.
Report Post »Uechi
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:39pmThis pos can hate God all he wants. I would love to be a fly on the wall when this garbage is dying a slow painful death from Cancer and see what he thinks of God then. He is a pathetic human being who will find out all too late what his machinations yield.
Report Post »see.pee.aye
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:54pmNice! Guess you attended church this morning?
Report Post »GodHatesFigs
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:05pmWow. First, Dawkins doesn’t believe in God, so he can’t hate God. Second, you want to watch someone die slowly from cancer? You are a terrible person, and I wish more people would call out the truly vile like you. You are the pathetic one.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:22pmIt’s the psychopathic mentality that is a religious person.
That being said, I think that if a religious person had to actually witness someone getting tortured eternally that they would choose to no longer worship their so called “loving” God.
Report Post »Edohiguma
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:36pmWhich god?
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:00pmThat’s the thing.. Dawkins has absolutely about as much hatred for God as he does for Darth Vader or Skelator
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:10pmGod doesn’t believe in atheists.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:13pm@SLAPTHELEFT
When was the last time your God typed a response to you on a message board?
Much like your religion. It doesn’t matter what you “believe”, it matters what is real.
Fact is, there is more evidence that I am real then there is that your God is real.
Deal with it.
Report Post »Raven249
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:12am@Moderation
Perhaps this will help clear things up on the matter of hell. Hell is nothing more or less than eternal separation from God. Since all goods things are of God, then it stands to reason that a place separated from him would lack anything good, and be everything we imagine hell to be. Hell was never meant for humans, but for the angels that rebelled against God and with Lucifer, attempted to usurp His throne. When we sin, we are rebelling against God, essentially saying that we’ finite creatures though we be, know better than he does, and attempt to take authority for ourselves. In that moment, we are enemies of God for the same crimes the angels that sided with Lucifer committed. Jesus came in order to offer us a way out of that judgement. So you see, it‘s not a ’you didn’t believe in me, so I‘m punishing you to hell’ so much as you’re already under the gun, and you refuse to be helped. Because we have freedom of choice, He respects that, even though it pains Him.
Report Post »Pontiac
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:57amVivid imagination Raven249 but the muddled fairy tales by bronze age middle eastern David Koresh‘s and Marshall Applewhite’s are long past their expiration date.
Report Post »ModerationIsBest
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:25am@RAVEN249
Oh so it’s a “love me or go to hell.”
Essentially what you’re saying is
We are born sick. We are born guilty. We are born worthy of an eternal torture
We are offered a perfectly fair offer, “believe in me, and you‘ll escape this eternal torture you’re worthy of. If you don’t accept this fair offer, i’ll let you be punished eternally.”
And this is the “loving God” you people speak so fondly of?
It’s flat out disgusting that anybody could accept this stuff while also calling it moral, righteous, justice and “love.”
I didn’t ask for a savior. One was supposedly thrust upon me
I don’t want a savior. I don‘t think I’m born inherently sick and worthy of an eternal punishment.
I couldn’t accept a human sacrifice on my behalf. It’s vile in my eyes.
I would have to fight against it and say I don’t want it. That is the only moral answer.
I could never worship anything that subjected BILLIONS of people to an eternal torture.
Of course, this is all assuming that what you say and what Christianity or any religion says is actually true…..which I don’t think any of it is.
Would you care if a Muslim came up to you and started talking to you about Allah? Would you worry that by not accepting Allah you would be tortured eternally?
I could care less what any Muslim, Christian, Jew, Mormon or any other crackpot says will happen to me after I die. None of you have proven anything to me.
Report Post »DWilliams08
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:07amI’d say he has a lot less hate than you do. Your god must be awful proud of you. Maybe he‘ll bless you with being a ’fly on the wall’ for his torture session.
Report Post »brother_ed
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 1:41pm@MODERATIONISBEST
Good to see you, hope all is well.
The nice thing about being LDS is, we don’t worry about what religion anybody is, we are more concerned with their character.
If a neighbor of mine has never heard of God, or was given a copy of the rule book, it is possible that there is a way for him to get a copy before he is judged. If he tends toward being a good person, he may accept it. If he tends towards evil, he may not. It is not right for a person to be judged on rules he had no knowledge of.
That being said, we would love to have the opportunity to share the Gospel with people, that is our command. But we are not so concerned if you don‘t think it’s for you, as some of our brothers and sisters of other faiths do. We believe that God prepares a way for everyone to be able to hear the Gospel and in His own time, it will be taught to every man, women and child.
We do not hate atheists, nor do we condemn them to hell.
We love everyone, to the best of our abilities, as God would love them.
Again, great to see you! And ignore the haters.
Report Post »DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:36pmSomeone forgot to tell worms about evolution.
Report Post »An inability to attract mates is what creates atheists, not evolution.
mmmmarilyn
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:20pmAll species to aspire ti be humans.
Report Post »Is there something wrong with you?
What about horse and elephants.
DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:52pmWhat about “horse and elephants”?
Report Post »You’re what they call…..“slow”, right?
Pontiac
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:41pm[Someone forgot to tell worms about evolution.]
No. Someone forgot to teach you evolution…
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLCC1EE539274B4461
Report Post »DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:43amPONTIAC – your playlist proves my point. A bunch of ugly men who can’t find suitable mates, making videos to p*ss everyone else off. Poor worms. Missed the boat.
Report Post »Berbel73
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:36pmSo Dawkins wants to ask GOD why he hides himself? Hides himself? For a supposedly educated man he sure is dumb. GOD is all around us and in everything, and he can’t see that? His arrogance is what truely blinds him from the truth, and the saddest thing is that that arrogance will forever separate him from GOD for all eternity. I pity him.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:53pmWhat a wasted life for a so called intelligent man. Yes, pity is the only thing one can feel for someone who loves himself too much to be able to see God.
Report Post »WEBWITHDEB
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:25pmYeah, what I find really hilarious is that this self-important, so-called genius differentiates the human “strand” of apes from apes by saying, “They don’t have the same ability to communicate complicated conditionals and what-ifs and talk about things that are not present.” ! ROTFLMAO HIDING much in that gem, Mr. Dawkins?
I agree that what makes us different from apes is our intelligence (evidenced by complicated communicational conditions;), but that is due to GOD GIVING US our intelligence — not because somewhere along the line the ape-apes didn’t mutate, but because the man-apes were given a different life experience.
Report Post »Edohiguma
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:38pmWhich god? 8 million gods active on this planet right now. So which one is the true one? And they’re not all the same. Not even the monotheist gods are the same. Allah is significantly different from the Judeo-Christian god, and even the Jewish god isn’t exactly the same as the Christian god.
More importantly, we primates on the third planet of a completely irrelevant sun in the rural areas of a galaxy that is one of, likely, billions, we have the true god? Really? Religion is the best proof for human hubris as it makes people arrogant about their 100% trivial existence (by cosmic dimensions.)
In this vast universe our entire solar system is as important as a fart in a hurricane.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:10pm@BERB God is all around us? That’s your answer? Man, if everyone though with that type of logic there would be no science and no modern world to allow you to use a computer.. First conceptualized by Alan Turing.. an atheist.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:44pmYou keep shooting off the 8 million gods thing. Thanks again and again and yet again. Great. What exactly is your definition of active god?
Don’t bother you sorostitute.
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:31pmEDOHIGUMA…YHVH…is the Name. The one and only. All others are cut of whole cloth or are ‘angels’
Report Post »with God complex. There are a bunch of those. Don‘t feel bad that you can’t understand. You were probably never equipped to do so. The God you doubt has shown mercy on you and left the deeper thought to others. Back to bed, now…Go on.
Berbel73
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 10:19pmWell cesium if you can not see GOD in all of creation then you too are blind to the truth. Men like Dawkins, and based on your response perhaps yourself, have faith in only man made constructs anymore. Math and science were created by man to reach and find the truth. The truth of how the universe was created, and how everything in it works. They were not created to disprove the existence of GOD but to understand him and therefor should coexist side by side with religion. So yes when I see pictures from the curiousity rover on Mars I see GOD. When I see pictures from Hubble or Chandra of other galaxies or nebulas I see GOD. And every morning when my alarm clock goes off and I smell the fresh coffee brewing, and I turn on the TV to catch the morning news and then turn on my laptop to check out The Blaze, I see GOD in it all. If you don‘t then I feel sorry for you because you obviously can’t see the forest for the trees.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:51am@BERB Yea but I don’t see God in everything.. It is funny you assume I’m blind. It is when I used to believe in God I saw god in everything. and now that I perceive myself as “unblinded” I do not see god in everything anymore.. I see the possibility that the universe could arise without a god, I see a lot of unanswered questions that I cannot concede the answer to be simply god. I feel that is a cop out of intellect.. I see subatomic particles in everything, I see mysterious quantum characteristics in everything and the unification of Time and energy as one of the same but I don’t see god in it.. I’ll see god when god makes me see… as is described in this article I guess I am like Jacob and god should have no problem with my disbelief in him http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444270404577607242416148280.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
Report Post »The_Big_O
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 6:06am@ BERBEL73 – “Men like Dawkins, and based on your response perhaps yourself, have faith in only man made constructs anymore. Math and science were created by man to reach and find the truth.”
First of all, and I mean this with the utmost respect, religion is a man-made construct. If God exists, he might not be, but the version of him that exists in the hearts and minds of believers is very much man-made. I agree with you on the second part though.
” I see GOD in it all.”
I‘m pretty sure that’s not true. You see God where you want to see God–in the good things. I don’t see God in those places. To be fair, when my friend’s pro-life ex-boyfriend left her and their kid after emotionally blackmailing her to “choose life” (he was very religious), I didn’t see God there either; all I saw was a selfish hypocrite. I’m agnostic, and if God exists, I’m not going to blame him for the bad in the world, but in that same vein, I’m not going to praise him for the good either.
The world is a big and complicated place, and it would be arrogant to assume when or where God is (or isn’t). You can’t have it both ways. God is either a part of everything in the world–good and bad–or a part of nothing at all.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 5:33pmThe Big O- ahhhh that’s where you are wrong. God can be in the God and not in the bad. How? Because God is fully good with no evil. Evil came into the world as a result of people disobeying God. god didn’t cuase that people did. Yet you can credit God for the good because he is the source of all good. You can do that for numerous instances. Like let’s take the government force known as the police. You can credit the institution for doing it‘s job by moping up criminals but you can’t blame the police as a whole when something bad happens and abuse their power so that you say “well let’s get rid of the police force.” The cops job is to take down criminals but when cops are corrupt you can;t blame the institution and order it to be taken down because cops are being corrupt. That is people in general and not the the purpose of what the force was designed to do. Same difference. You can credit God for being the source of all good but since he isn’t evil at all, you can’t blame him for evil can you?
Report Post »The_Big_O
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 10:31am@ DLV – “You can credit God for being the source of all good but since he isn’t evil at all, you can’t blame him for evil can you?”
If I believed in the Christian god? Of course I can. According to the Bible, God is the source of everything (Genesis 1:2-5). Nothing was bad or good until God specifically defined it, and no one was capable of doing good or bad until God gave them the authority to. For example, say I had two kids, and before I go to work one day, I give one of them a knife and say, “Use this ONLY to make PB&J sandwiches. Nothing else.” If one of them got hurt while I was gone, would it be my fault? Of course. I should have known better.
In the same vein, I definitely hold the entire police force responsible for the actions of corrupt cops. Corrupt cops are criminals, and if they exist within the institution, it means the institution is flawed. The police force would only be free from blame if every single member in it were good cops and the public was the only source of criminal activity. I wouldn‘t blame the police for things they can’t control, but I would definitely blame them for any damage they cause.
Applied to God, I wouldn’t blame him for human actions like rape or murder, but I would blame him for natural disasters, babies born addicted to crack, and cancer in adolescents, etc. because those are things that only God would be responsible for. That said, I don’t know if he exists, so I don’t blame or praise him for anything.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:10am“If I believed in the Christian god? Of course I can. According to the Bible, God is the source of everything (Genesis 1:2-5). Nothing was bad or good until God specifically defined it, and no one was capable of doing good or bad until God gave them the authority to. For example, say I had two kids, and before I go to work one day, I give one of them a knife and say, “Use this ONLY to make PB&J sandwiches. Nothing else.” If one of them got hurt while I was gone, would it be my fault? Of course. I should have known better.”
Report Post »The good of which you speak of is being obedient to God aka don’t touch the bad fruit. You‘re right Adam and Eve didn’t know the difference between good and evil until they ate but that’s not really the issue. The only law God gave them was don’t eat the fruit. Like I said Adam and Eve were capable of doing bad if they disobeyed God which really covers the realm of his laws since every sin we do is disobedience to God, just saying. Adam and Eve just didn’t know the rest of the laws (the rest didn’t apply to them) until they ate the fruit.
The knife thing would work but they are only kids and can’t be expected to always be safe. Adam and Eve were perfect, smart, human adults. If anyone could be trusted with anything it would have been them. God doesn’t take responsibility for human freewill. Cont.
DLV
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:21am“Applied to God, I wouldn’t blame him for human actions like rape or murder, but I would blame him for natural disasters, babies born addicted to crack, and cancer in adolescents, etc. because those are things that only God would be responsible for. That said, I don’t know if he exists, so I don’t blame or praise him for anything.”
Report Post »No, the natural disasters and the rest are the fallen world we live in would be under the same category as human actions, SIN. God doesn’t directly control natural disasters, that is nature taking its course as any scientist would tell you. Again it’s the fallen world in which we live and sin is to be blamed, not God. Simple.
DLV
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 11:30am“In the same vein, I definitely hold the entire police force responsible for the actions of corrupt cops. Corrupt cops are criminals, and if they exist within the institution, it means the institution is flawed. The police force would only be free from blame if every single member in it were good cops and the public was the only source of criminal activity. I wouldn‘t blame the police for things they can’t control, but I would definitely blame them for any damage they cause.”
Report Post »I would agree here at the first part. Yes, I would blame people like the police chief for not running a good police force but what you can’t do is blame the institution of the police force as a whole. You can‘t say well because these cops are bad we just shouldn’t have a police force. The institution as a whole is a good thing. They are meant to protect citizens and enforce the law. THAT is good and that is what I was addressing. Meaning because God created humans and humans are bad, God must be bad. That is flawed reasoning. A God doesn’t control humans and make them do bad things. B we have free will to an extent. Don’t blame God because his creations decided to rebel against him.
The_Big_O
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:12pm@ DLV – “You‘re right Adam and Eve didn’t know the difference between good and evil until they ate but that’s not really the issue”
How is that not the issue? Adam and Eve were clearly not perfect or else they would not have been capable of doing wrong. That’s what being perfect is. Physically Adam and Eve might have been adults, but mentally, they were basically children. Even if God gave them a direct order, they had no previous experience, no context, and had never done anything bad before. What did you think would happen?
I’ll use another analogy: If I had kids and raised them into adulthood in my home, never letting them outside (but had the occasional play date), provided for them, kept them safe, never given them any rules to break so they’ve never been punished. One day, I’m boiling water on the stove, but I need to run back to the store, so I tell one of them, “I’m making soup, but it’s not done yet. Watch the pot while I’m gone, but don’t touch anything,” and left them with a friend.
If, while I’m gone, they get bored, and their friend tells them they should taste it. They say no, but their friend mentions that I’ve always tasted things before they were ready, and that I’ve never let them get hurt before, so why would I let it happen now? I probably just didn’t want them messing it up, but they‘re adults and it’s not a big deal. Would I be angry if I came home to burnt tongues? Of course. I would yell at them, but I wouldn’t kick
Report Post »The_Big_O
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 7:40pmThey were wrong not to listen, but at the end of the day, I’m the one who was supposed to protect them, and I’m the only one who knew better. Sure, they had the choice of touching or not touching the stove, but I was the one who heated the water and left it there, knowing that they would be faced with that decision.
I get that free will exists, but God is supposed to be a father figure, right? If purposefully directing your kids’ attention to something dangerous, leaving them alone with it knowing that they’ll probably hurt themselves with it, and subsequently kicking them out of the house for hurting themselves isn’t a prime example of bad parenting, I don’t know what is.
Also–what? How do natural disasters and birth defects the same thing as sin? Even if God doesn’t directly control stuff like that, he could still protect people from it but chooses not to. Take Job, for example. Even though Satan was technically responsible, he was only able to hurt Job because God let him. I get that Job never cursed God, but honestly–if there was a baby inside a burning building and someone outside in a full-body, fireproof suit just standing there and watching it happen while people are screaming at them to save the baby, but he didn’t, wouldn‘t you blame the kid’s death on him just a little bit?
(cont.)
Report Post »The_Big_O
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 8:05pmAs far as the police force goes, of course I can blame them. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and all of that stuff. Even if the institution was created with the intention of protecting citizens and enforcing the law, if they fail to achieve those goals or they end up hurting more than they help, then yes–they are bad. While I might not say, “Because these cops are bad, we shouldn’t have a police force,” I probably would say, “Because so many cops are bad, we should disband the current police force and replace it with something/someone better.”
My logic wasn’t, “God created humans. Humans are bad. Thus, God is bad.” I don’t think God is bad, and I don’t blame him for anything. I’m just not going to give him blanket praise for everything that is good in the world, especially if I have to pretend like he didn’t at least have a hand in the things that are bad. The topic was originally about where a person can see God. Like I said, I’m agnostic, so I’m not going to pretend that I see him everywhere, like Christians do. I’ll hold people responsible for their own actions, but when it comes to things that no one can control, if I were to see God in the good things (like birds singing, children laughing, etc,), then I’m definitely going to see him in the bad as well (like natural disasters and early onset Alzheimer’s).
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:15am“How is that not the issue? Adam and Eve were clearly not perfect or else they would not have been capable of doing wrong. That’s what being perfect is. Physically Adam and Eve might have been adults, but mentally, they were basically children. Even if God gave them a direct order, they had no previous experience, no context, and had never done anything bad before. What did you think would happen? ”
Yes, they were perfect. In the bible it clearly states they were perfect. Perfection means they are perfect mentally as well, you will need to state why they were mentally children because I’m not seeing it. Look, Adam and Eve knew who God was, they knew he created the earth they knew he was all powerful so they knew the context perfectly. They were not sinful they only used free will. Free will in itself isn’t sinful but using free will to do sin is sinful. Get my point? Therefore, my previous statement holds.
Cont.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:17am“If, while I’m gone, they get bored, and their friend tells them they should taste it. They say no, but their friend mentions that I’ve always tasted things before they were ready, and that I’ve never let them get hurt before, so why would I let it happen now? I probably just didn’t want them messing it up, but they‘re adults and it’s not a big deal. Would I be angry if I came home to burnt tongues? Of course. I would yell at them, but I wouldn’t kick
They were wrong not to listen, but at the end of the day, I’m the one who was supposed to protect them, and I’m the only one who knew better. Sure, they had the choice of touching or not touching the stove, but I was the one who heated the water and left it there, knowing that they would be faced with that decision.”
Your story is nice. Yes, it’s your fault and should have known better because children are children no matter what and even the most disciplined kid in the world will still slip. If you’re comparing this to Adam and Eve again, they aren’t children and were fully aware what God had said who he was and that they would die. However, Satan placed enough doubt in their mind to make them eat the fruit. I still fail to see how this is God’s fault. There was only free will involved and no matter what example you give people will always slip but that cannot be blamed on God.
Cont.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:19am“Also–what? How do natural disasters and birth defects the same thing as sin? Even if God doesn’t directly control stuff like that, he could still protect people from it but chooses not to. Take Job, for example. Even though Satan was technically responsible, he was only able to hurt Job because God let him. I get that Job never cursed God, but honestly–if there was a baby inside a burning building and someone outside in a full-body, fireproof suit just standing there and watching it happen while people are screaming at them to save the baby, but he didn’t, wouldn‘t you blame the kid’s death on him just a little bit?”
Again, Adam and Eve were adults with freewill doing the decision making. The equivalent would be blaming parents who raised their kid well but then as the kid goes into adulthood and starts using drugs. You cannot blame the parents. They brought the kid upright but the kid as an adult decided to go down the wrong path. Adam and Eve were the adults making the bad decision. God gave them the rules, “raised them well” so to speak. He was with them, explained it to them and they failed. Simple as that you cannot blame God for adult freewill. It’s simple as that. Your argument breaks when you treat Adam and Eve like children.
Report Post »Natural disasters and birth defects are part of the curse known as sin that’s how. Human behavior from the beginning has caused things like this. Cont.
DLV
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:20amI don’t pretend to know everything about God. I’ll tell you that now. Christians will be the first to admit God is mysterious. Why he doesn’t just swoop down and all the suffering and madness, I’m not sure. I have educated guesses but ultimately, none of this changes that humans brought all of this on THEMSELVES! Here is my educated guess. Humanity has rejected God since the beginning which is most likely why he doesn’t just swoop in and erase everything and start over. Therefore, I think part of this is punishment on the human race for rejecting him. That said, he still loves humanity and is willing to save us from our own destruction hence Christ. Additionally, I think the reason why he doesn’t just start over is a learning experience for us. We are at fault and must learn from our mistakes. Ultimately, God wants us to see the sin and turn to him that is why I think he keeps things the way they are. He wants people to see that that every burning person, every birth defected baby, every murder, rapee etc, we need to return to him. This is humanity as a whole and he wants to gather as many people as he can. The rest reject him and have already made their choice. Very tough love more or less. I hope I’m explaining well enough because I am doing the best I can. Bottom line is that this mess is our fault. Hurt and suffering is OUR fault and we are to fix it. Even natural disasters are our fault to an extent. Cont.
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:21amEven if most of everyone believed in Christ and were good but still sinful, natural disasters would hardly be a problem. Even so, I think if the majority of humanity accepted God and turned to live for him, I personally believe he would bail mankind out if people turned to him and begged for a new beginning. We seem to like to live in our own filth.
Report Post »“As far as the police force goes, of course I can blame them. “The road to hell is paved with good intentions,” and all of that stuff. Even if the institution was created with the intention of protecting citizens and enforcing the law, if they fail to achieve those goals or they end up hurting more than they help, then yes–they are bad. While I might not say, “Because these cops are bad, we shouldn’t have a police force,” I probably would say, “Because so many cops are bad, we should disband the current police force and replace it with something/someone better.””
I agree completely but that still doesn’t make the institution bad now does it? Only the corrupt cops. You pretty much said what I’ve been saying all along. In this case God is the institution, the “idea” of a police force. The people are the bad cops. You can’t blame the institution for the bad cops or else you would be advocating on getting rid of the police force entirely which is just lunacy. No, you reform it like you said.
Cont.
DLV
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:23amMy logic wasn’t, “God created humans. Humans are bad. Thus, God is bad.” I don’t think God is bad, and I don’t blame him for anything. I’m just not going to give him blanket praise for everything that is good in the world, especially if I have to pretend like he didn’t at least have a hand in the things that are bad. The topic was originally about where a person can see God. Like I said, I’m agnostic, so I’m not going to pretend that I see him everywhere, like Christians do. I’ll hold people responsible for their own actions, but when it comes to things that no one can control, if I were to see God in the good things (like birds singing, children laughing, etc,), then I’m definitely going to see him in the bad as well (like natural disasters and early onset Alzheimer’s).
Well if God is the author of all the good in the world but the opponent of all the bad you would have to give him praise for all the good otherwise you are not acknowledging the author of good. It’s like not giving J.K. Rowling praise for the HP books. You have to acknowledge her as the author. It’s not a great example because if the books are bad you would have to blame her for the books being bad. But God is not the author of sin, therefore you can’t blame him for it. Simple.
Breath* LASTLY
Report Post »DLV
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 1:23amThe only thing you could remotely blame him for is why doesn’t he stop all the crap in the world. However, God has no obligation to bail humanity out of its problems so it’s still not his fault. Not to mention he has given us all the time and warnings to come back to him. It’s like if you told your adult soon from childhood a billion times that drugs are bad then he goes into it, you have no obligation to bail him out. You might do it because you love him and God did bail us out in a way with Christ but that doesn’t mean he has an obligation to end the suffering. I hope I’m being clear. Personally, I respect Agnostics far more than atheists because they at least acknowledge that they can’t prove a negative and not believing God exists is having faith that he doesn’t exist because you can’t prove a negative. There is no proof that God doesn’t exist. Pretty funny actually.
Report Post »MODEL82A1
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:36pmDawkins (and all militant Atheists) have no idea how similar their beliefs and actions are to adherents of organised religion: They have complete, unshakable “faith” in their beliefs. They form organizations where they meet to discuss and re-enforce those beliefs. They feel the need to “preach” their beliefs to anyone who will listen and they look at those with whom they disagree as missing the Great Truth. Atheism has actually BECOME their religion.
Report Post »QuieroUSA
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:16pmI guess when Dawkins is laid to rest in his very expensive suit and tie, he will be like all the rest of his fellow atheists………..all dressed up and no place to go. His life will simply be a waste of a human soul.
Report Post »momrules
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:36pmWhat a pompous, ignorant jerk. God will judge him harshly not only for his own unbelief but for teaching and preaching his brand of apostasy. I wonder how many *intelligent* people he has led astray.
Dawkins can call himself an ape, I am a human being. I thank God that I believe in Him.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:06pmif he led them astray it’s god fault for making them that stupid. I’ve questioned god my whole life.. He made me smart enough to get through higher education but too stupid to acknowledge his existence.. this is not my fault
Report Post »JACKTHETOAD
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:19pmSo now, you’re blaming God for making you too stupid to believe in Him? I must admit CESIUM, I am impressed. You’ve finally started your Journey. The first step is always the hardest.Good job. buddy!
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:16pm@JACK I must be too stupid to believe in him.. millions and millions do but I don’t… I can’t figure it out.. I’m stupid..
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:19pmMomrules, I think the educated and elite have been very effective at creating a culture of sophisticates which assumes that only stupid people believe in God. Man attempts to elevate himself to being his own god once again. If God doesn’t exist, then people can have varying degrees of value (usefulness), and messy decisions for power-hungry leaders aren’t so messy. Not only are people themselves de-valued when God is taken out of the equation, but sin has no meaning. Interesting how this article appeared in Playboy…
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:34pmHe can join Nietzsche in he11 and the can worship a polished shoe together.
Report Post »Tri-ox
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:33pmWhy would anyone imperil their immortal soul by refusing to acknowledge the existence of God?
Report Post »antitheist
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:06pmWhy would anyone imperil their immortal soul by refusing to acknowledge the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
Report Post »momrules
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:19pmTri-Ox………….Ignorance, arrogance, self love and pride…….. paves the road to Hell for people like Dawkins.
Report Post »Edohiguma
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:40pmProof to me your soul exists. Wait, you can’t. Proof to me your god is real. Wait, you can’t. There are 7,999,999 other gods active on this planet right now. So which one is the true one?
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:03pmI know I will be in paradise someday where the pasta is always al dente
Report Post »The_Cabrito_Goat
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:48pmThere’s nothing wrong with the spaghetti monster myth. But has the spaghetti monster ever said to love your neighbor more than yourself? Did the flying spaghetti monster conquer the world without ever raising a kitchen knife? Has it improved people’s lives beyond being a punch line? I doubt it.
Report Post »M.L.
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:03pmDo you fear your ‘immortal soul is imperiled’ by the fact that you don’t believe in Islam? Of course not. Well, to anyone not indoctrinated in your belief system, the purported risk to their purported soul sounds just as ridiculous. You find the writings of ignorant Iron Age desert dwellers compelling, despite the lack of any compelling evidence to back up their truth claims. That sounds like some pretty perilous ground to base your world view upon to some people. They might say you were wasting your short life believing in Iron Age fairy tales and pinning your hopes on an afterlife that probably doesn’t exist, and even if one did exist there is no evidence it is anything like that imagined by Iron Age desert dwellers.
Report Post »DWilliams08
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 2:11amProve to me that I don’t get 7 virgins for suicide bombing.
Report Post »Jhooks
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:31pm“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” John 3:16 “Mutations” were not mentioned in the cited verse
Report Post »oldguy77
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:38pmWho would be better off,a beliver who dies and there is nothing,or a non beliver who dies and there is something?
Report Post »Jhooks
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:24pm@oldguy If a tree falls in the forest and no one is there to hear it fall, does it make a sound falling. You may need to spend some time thinking about what Faith is.
Report Post »toiletclogga
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:29pmWhat next Richard? Penthouse? Hustler? OUI? Fatties? Cherry?
Report Post »MAX0O1
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:28pmI TRULY,TRULY pity you. AND sadness,not hate or disdain,is what all GOD’S CHILDREN
Report Post »should feel for you. AS SARAH PALIN would say.BLESS YOUR HEART!
Sirfoldallot
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:27pmRichard Head Dawkins spills hate & no hope , bright idea numb nutz.
Report Post »NHwinter
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:27pmI’m so tired of hearing their opinions. Please come out with some debunking of Islam. See how long you live after that.
Report Post »SacredHonor1776
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:34pmBut isn’t he in agreement with Islam? I mean in Islam, Jesus was just another prophet, and he didn’t “die”, and didn‘t die for anyone’s sins… Last I heard Muslims find the idea that Jesus died for people’s sins to be digusting and blashphemous idea!
Report Post »kickagrandma
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:25pmJESUS died for you, Richard Dawkins, before you were even named or known on this earth.
I am so glad HE CHOSE TO DIE for me. I’m sorry you missed the point.
Report Post »mmmmarilyn
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:23pmWHat do YOU say to devout religious people who don’t worship YOUR so called son of god?
Report Post »Enlighten us.
KickinBack
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:44pmmmmmarilyn..
We say, God Bless you.
Report Post »SLAPTHELEFT
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:59pmKickin you forgot-
May God have mercy on your soul.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:12pmI am not impressed Jesus died for me… he was God so I don’t find that impressive.. even if the physical pain was the same the fear could not be. I’d be more impressed by a full mortal human dying for my sins..
Report Post »JACKTHETOAD
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:57pmYou know CESIUM, I wouldn‘t die for anyone’s sins anymore than I’d expect them to die for mine, save for One. I’d give up my life trying to protect a complete stranger if things happened that way. That’s as close to Jesus as we can come, I’m afraid.
Report Post »Max jones
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:05pm“ I will send great delusion”.
Report Post »I would have asked him what about Satan, do you believe in Satan exists? Dawkins is going to enjoy the rest of his life: what he’s got of a life, anyway.
Texas.7
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:08pmCesium, the problem is that you can’t earn your own way, and nobody can suffer enough to grant you entrance into heaven. Spirit alone passes through the wall safely, thru Christ, who has made Himself our doorway. All else burns in the presence of God.
It wasn’t so much the act of suffering (though that was truly an offering of love), but it was the act of overcoming death, which was required. Jesus entered into our world, and into our death, only to burst down the gates of hell on our behalf. And when He enters into us, through re-birth, we are with Him already, and where we go, He goes; and where He goes, we will follow. He gave us Himself, like Adam gave up rib for the making of Eve. He took on our flesh and bone so that we could take on His Spirit, and once joined, the two cannot be unravelled. We have safe journey, because God gave Himself for us, through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ. And His offering is available to any who will accept that great love and reconciliation with God Almighty.
No man would have been worthy or able to accomplish this for us. No beast had the power in it’s blood to truly cleanse sin, never mind bring eternal life. Nobody can give what they don’t themselves have. He had and still has infinite power, purity and life- and He gave us so much. I am very grateful for that great love which quenched my own soul, and is available for all, while there is time.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:22pm@TEXAS Why didn’t you just type “blah blah blah blah blah…” If I‘m not highly agnostic I’m also raised jewish.. Good luck trying to convince us jews Christ was Lord.. It violates the second commandment
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 9:34pmCesium,
The Jews have the most reason of all to believe that Jesus was the Messiah. The purpose of Christ, and the description of what He did, is embedded on every page of the Old Testament. We who come from different heritages study the Jewish Scriptures in depth to learn more of Christ. In what way do you feel that believing is against the Bible? God said, “Let Us” make man in our own image. Now, I fully agree that God is One- Father, Son and Spirit, 3-in-1.
But I’m confused now. Do you believe that God tells you there can be no Christ, or do you believe there is no God? You might find the answer if you ask God directly about Christ, for through Christ, God can truly be known.
Report Post »Cesium
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:11pm@TEXAS Well lets pretend I believe in the supernatural for a moment and buy into what humans have been preaching for 1000s of years… If that is true than the second commandment states : “Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth, Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;” Now Jesus made unto himself a likeness of that from heaven… Christians violate this commandment blatantly.. Judaism is also more profound than christianity and the torah is not our sole text. The definition of the messiah is not satisfied by Jesus and this is not mentioned in the torah.. The word “mashiach” does not mean “savior.” The notion of an innocent, divine or semi-divine being who will sacrifice himself to save us from the consequences of our own sins is a purely Christian concept that has no basis in Jewish thought. … secondly tried what you said, I directly asked god but all I hear is the sound of the fan next to me and no response. I hear background noise and thoughts in my head but I don’t hear a response from god. sorry.
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:12pmCesium, you said:
“Now Jesus made unto himself a likeness of that from heaven…”
But Jesus, coming to us in the form of man, by divine conception merely completed His own creation. He was the Creator God who took dust and spirit to make Adam. And He was the Creator God who took dust (human) and Spirit to become the Christ (Annointed One).
As to whether or not the mission of Christ was on Hebrew thought, here are a few:
“Living waters” used for ritual cleansing meant “running water” (Numbers 19:17- Chay)- but Jesus described Living water as coming from Him, in a way that only a Jew or one who knows scripture can understand.
Is 53:5 But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities; The chastisement for our peace was upon Him, And by His stripes we are healed.
Is 7:14 “Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, the virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and shall call His name Immanuel.*
Is 35:4 Say to those who are fearful-hearted, “Be strong, do not fear! Behold, your God will come with vengeance, With the recompense of God; He will come and save you.”
Zech 12:10 “And I will pour on the house of David and on the inhabitants of Jerusalem the Spirit of grace and supplication; then they will look on Me whom they pierced. Yes, they will mourn for Him as one mourns for his only son, and grieve for Him as one grieves for a firstborn.
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:26pmCesium, in response to “let’s pretend” you believe… you say that Jesus didn’t fulfil anything for the Jews, and that Jesus came in a way that the Jews wouldn’t have even thought of. That is so true. All scripture does come true, yet it is seldom exactly as we would expect. Usually, God surprises us in the way what we couldn’t imagine coming to be unfolds in front of our very eyes. Large numbers of Jews did recognise Him for who He was and is.
If He come to the Jews in a way that was unexpected, why would that stop someone from believing, if it fulfilled prophecy, they could see the miracles, and the Spirit testified that it was true? Pride? Convention? The power of the Sanhedrin was at stake and posed an issue for sure.
But other than that, there was no reason not to believe Jesus. Many did, and many more will, before the Lord returns. And that revival among the Jews might just be what He is waiting for, though He is waiting for all who will come to Him to be saved, so that none of His own are left lost, and outcast in the end. He is waiting for all of His to seek Him, to find what they already deep inside know to be true- that Jesus Christ is the Messiah.
Mal 3:1 “Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. (John the Baptist) And the Lord, (God) whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming,” Says the LORD of hosts.
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:16amMal 3:2 “But who can endure the day of His coming? (God) And who can stand when He appears? For He is like a refiner‘s fire And like launderers’ soap.
Mal 4:2 But to you who fear My name The Sun of Righteousness shall arise With healing in His wings; And you shall go out And grow fat like stall-fed calves.
Jhn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.2 He was in the beginning with God.3 All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. 5 The Light shines in the darkness, and the darkness did not comprehend it. 6 There came a man sent from God, whose name was John. 7 He came [fn5]as a witness, to testify about the Light, so that all might believe through him. 8 He was not the Light, but he came to testify about the Light.
Mal 4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet Before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the LORD.
Ez 11:19 “Then I will give them one heart, and I will put a new spirit within them,* and take the stony heart out of their flesh, and give them a heart of flesh,
After Job accused God of not understanding, and claimed that God is judging him falsely, because he was a “righteous man”, Job repeatedly asked God to show Himself, so that he could stand face-to-face with Him. Job wants a hearing, justifying himself and accusing God of unrighteousness.
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:40amJob believed that he didn’t need redemption, because he was pure. But God tells:
Rom 3:10 As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one.
Job his case:
Job 27:6 My righteousness I hold fast, and will not let it go; My heart shall not reproach me as long as I live.
He argues that God is the unjust One:
Job 19:6 Know then that God has wronged me, And has surrounded me with His net. 7 “If I cry out concerning wrong, I am not heard. If I cry aloud, there is no justice.
21:4 “My complaint is with God, not with people. I have good reason to be so impatient.
He begs God that he can meet with Him to present his case (while begging Him not to terrify and destroy him):
Job 13:18 “Behold now, I have prepared my case; I know that I will be vindicated. 19 “Who will contend with me? For then I would be silent and die. 20 “Only two things do not do to me,
Then I will not hide from Your face: 21 Remove Your hand from me, And let not the dread of You terrify me. 22 “Then call, and I will answer; Or let me speak, then reply to me. 23 “How many are my iniquities and sins? Make known to me my rebellion and my sin. 24 “Why do You hide Your face
And consider me Your enemy?
Job 16:21 Oh, that one might plead for a man with God, As a man pleads for his neighbor!
Insisting on pleading his case, Job has no clue that he himself needed redemption and forgiveness- ever arguing how much he is an asset to God…
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:51amJob 23:2 “Even today my complaint is bitter; My hand is listless because of my groaning. 3 Oh, that I knew where I might find Him, That I might come to His seat! 4 I would present my case before Him, And fill my mouth with arguments. 5 I would know the words which He would answer me, And understand what He would say to me. 6 Would He contend with me in His great power? No! But He would take note of me. 7 There the upright could reason with Him, And I would be delivered forever from my Judge… 15 Therefore I am terrified at His presence; When I consider this, I am afraid of Him.
Elihu steps in, scolds the friends for their own self-righteousness, and speaks to Job:
Report Post »33:4 The Spirit of God has made me, And the breath of the Almighty gives me life. Job 33:5 If thou canst answer me, set [thy words] in order before me, stand up. 6 Behold, I [am] according to thy wish in God’s stead: I also am formed out of the clay. 7 Behold, my terror shall not make thee afraid, neither shall my hand be heavy upon thee. 8 Surely thou hast spoken in mine hearing, and I have heard the voice of [thy] words, [saying], 9 I am clean without transgression, I [am] innocent; neither [is there] iniquity in me. 10 Behold, he findeth occasions against me, he counteth me for his enemy, 11 He putteth my feet in the stocks, he marketh all my paths. 12 Behold, [in] this thou art not just: I will answer the
Texas.7
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 12:59amJob 33:13 Why dost thou strive against him? for he giveth not account of any of his matters. 14 For God speaketh once, yea twice, [yet man] perceiveth it not. 15 In a dream, in a vision of the night, when deep sleep falleth upon men, in slumberings upon the bed; 16 Then he openeth the ears of men, and sealeth their instruction, 17 That he may withdraw man [from his] purpose, and hide pride from man. 18 He keepeth back his soul from the pit, and his life from perishing by the sword. 19 He is chastened also with pain upon his bed, and the multitude of his bones with strong [pain]: 20 So that his life abhorreth bread, and his soul dainty meat. 21 His flesh is consumed away, that it cannot be seen; and his bones [that] were not seen stick out. 22 Yea, his soul draweth near unto the grave, and his life to the destroyers. 23 If there be a messenger with him, an interpreter, one among a thousand, to shew unto man his uprightness: 24 Then he is gracious unto him, and saith, Deliver him from going down to the pit: I have found a ransom. 25 His flesh shall be fresher than a child’s: he shall return to the days of his youth: 26 He shall pray unto God, and he will be favourable unto him: and he shall see his face with joy: for he will render unto man his righteousness. 27 He looketh upon men, and [if any] say, I have sinned, and perverted [that which was] right, and it profited me not;
Report Post »Texas.7
Posted on August 28, 2012 at 1:30amJob 33:28 He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light. 29 Lo, all these [things] worketh God oftentimes with man, 30 To bring back his soul from the pit, to be enlightened with the light of the living. 31 Mark well, O Job, hearken unto me: hold thy peace, and I will speak. 32 If thou hast any thing to say, answer me: speak, for I desire to justify thee.
34:5 For Job hath said, I am righteous: and God hath taken away my judgment.
35:2 Thinkest thou this to be right, [that] thou saidst, My righteousness [is] more than God’s? 3 For thou saidst, What advantage will it be unto thee? [and], What profit shall I have, [if I be cleansed] from my sin?
Cesium, I hope that you have taken the time to read these. To answer your question, I wanted to show you that Jesus is in every single OT book. He, like Elihu came to us in God’s stead, not to terrify us, but to justify us. He gave His live to redeem us, be one must know how much His gift is needed. Job answers the “what about good people” question. Without Christ, we are dust. And death is deserved. Once Job realised this, he was restored, and was told to pray for his friends.
40:3 Then Job answered the LORD, and said, 4 Behold, I am vile; what shall I answer thee? …
42:6 Wherefore I abhor [myself], and repent in dust and ashes. 7(The Lord scolded Job’s friends): for ye have not spoken of me [the thing that is] right, as my servant Job [hath].
Jesus is the answer
Report Post »KickinBack
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:24pm“All modern men are descended from a worm-like creature, but it shows more on some people.” –Will Cuppy
Report Post »barber2
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:23pmRichard Dawkins and Playboy : a match made in….
Report Post »NancyBee
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:46pmHe}}……………..
Report Post »Bluesurf
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:23pmaNOTHER SAD MAN, VERY MUCH LIKE cHRISTOPHER hITTCHENS
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:35pmyou‘re cap’s lock is on
Report Post »randy
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:06pm@FLIPPER1073
And you misspelled your.
Now pay attention
Your
: of or relating to you or yourself or yourselves especially as possessor or possessors
, agent or agents
, or object or objects of an action
you’re
contraction of you are.
If you‘re not sure exactly what you’re allergic to, you can talk to your doctor about getting an allergy test.
Now, both in one sentence.
If you‘re not sure exactly what you’re allergic to, you can talk to your doctor about it.
Next week we’ll be going over there, their, and they’re.
Report Post »flipper1073
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 8:45pmRANDY
Report Post »You’re Right !
DEMOCRATS.ARE.EVIL
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:40amRANDY – trolling for spelling errors. What a man!
Report Post »SovereignSoul
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 11:13amThe best way to avoid those errors is to refrain from using contractions. Type your words fully and make the message clear and concise.
Report Post »“You are caps lock is on.”
See, is not that much more better?
flipper1073
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 12:42pmbut then it would be
Report Post »Your Caps lock is on
not You are.
SovereignSoul
Posted on August 27, 2012 at 8:39pmSorry, I forgot to type out SARCASM!! My apologies.
Report Post »TRONINTHEMORNING
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:21pmHey Dawkins. Now seriously; do you actually believe all that crap that crawls out of your mouth? I guess so. Poor man.
Report Post »RLTW
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:58pmWhat do you expect from someone who had sexual relations with Ms. Garrison?
Report Post »www.TopTheNews.com
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:20pmNot really sure how this is news…
A known atheist that nobody on here cares about, gives an interview to Playboy. Let’s get back to RNC coverage or a Brandon Raub follow up…
Report Post »oldguy77
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 6:43pmHas anybody else on here ever read the history of the jews by Josephus? He was born and lived in the same time frame as Jesus.
Report Post »RetiredAmericanNavyTaxpayer
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 7:33pmJesus of Nazereth is also mentioned in Roman records of that period.
NOBAMA
Report Post »**2012**
Solexander
Posted on August 29, 2012 at 4:31amYeah, it’s not really new news…
Report Post »FireRose
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:12pmGoodness, to be honest, that‘s not going to make anyone see God’s love.
Report Post »FireRose
Posted on August 26, 2012 at 11:53pmSay a prayer that he doesn’t and instead, sees the love and truth of God.
Report Post »