Please understand that I'm genuinely curious and I mean no offense by my questions.

How did God communicate with you?

Thats fine Vile, I'm sure you seen me go through this before on here.
I dont mind and if I did I would have left by now.

It was through understanding. I just knew and not all at once but over time.

I wish I could explain better, but I cant. I just let it happen and the knowledge came.

I think that is what makes this so hard. When one cannot explain the experience or have proof of the event just your say in it. It is not that I don't believe you that you experienced euphoria it that the mind is capable of doing this on its own. A sudden surge of seratonine a feeling good chemical in your brain could have been released based on your mere belief in this being not that the being actually existed but your belief in it made it real enough to trigger an altered state of the mind.
I have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder and things that are not a true life threatening situation will trigger adreniline in my body because my mind percieves it as a real threat. A loud noise for example or a flashback of a traumatic event in the past. THe memory is not real but he mind thinks it is and my body goes into flight or fight mode and I am truly scared to death without a real threat around.

Thats fine Vile, I'm sure you seen me go through this before on here.
I dont mind and if I did I would have left by now.

It was through understanding. I just knew and not all at once but over time.

I wish I could explain better, but I cant. I just let it happen and the knowledge came.

Ok. One last question. :)

Have you explored possible alternative explanations for your experience?

Ok. One last question. :)

Have you explored possible alternative explanations for your experience?


Actaully I did, which is another story that I think involves God.

I was thinking what Warrior is saying, because I am bipolar and euphoria is something that goes hand and hand with bipolar disorder.
Its also, unexplainable as well. Because I am bipolar on the depressive side and the knowledge I was getting was part of the good feelling I was having.

The feelling, just kept giving me knowledge and I knew it was from God. I was able to understand things I couldnt before.
Which made me wonder, if this is my bipolar disorder I should find out what is triggering it and see how often I can duplicate it.
So I went to a free clinic.
http://www.cnsmi.org/cnsweb/
Where I went to be exact.

Through orientation I discovered that the change in my bipolar disorder was rare.
Specially without the aid of drugs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder

I made an appointment to see a psychiatrist, who was pleased to tell me I didnt need drugs.

"Mind you, the reason I was cold and went into the church in the first place, was becasue I stopped taking my drugs for my bipolar disorder and the depresive state I was in took me to the course of being homeless."

But, the psychiatrist suggested I go to a place known as a Club House, where I could socialise with other people who had bipolar disorder.
While I was there the staff was impressed with how many people I wound up helping. One thing led to another and soon they became aware of the fact that I wasnt taking any drugs.
Which prompted them to ask me to become a volunteer. Which I did and still do.
I have helped countless people with a mental dissability, some that have overcome thier dissability.
I'm still gaining knowledge.

Regarding "hell"...

I think it's silly to think, as most fundamentalist christians do, that hell is a literal "lake" of literal "fire". I'm so tired of hearing that from christians. The reference to hell as a "lake of fire" is found only in Revelation, the most symbolic book in the bible. That same book of Revelation also describes something called the "sea of glass". It's strange how people take the phrase "lake of fire" literally, yet in all my years in fundamentalist christianity, I never once heard anybody apply a literal interpretation of the phrase "sea of glass". How they do interpret that phrase varies, but it is almost always seen as figurative. Why would two very similar phrases, both in Revelation, be interpretted in two totally different ways? It doesn't make sense.

In my view, if there is a hell, it is not a literal "place" at all. Rather, it is a state of existence. The word "fire" is used many times in the bible in reference to God Himself. It says "Our God is a consuming fire". Then there was the account of God appearing to Moses as fire in a burning bush. There are many other such references to God as fire. When the bible describes unbelievers as destined for "fire", what that means is that they are destined to exist right smack dab in the middle of the presence of God. Only, unlike believers, to whom the presence of God is their natural element, unbelievers have to exist in that presence, but without participating in it. To them it burns, sort of like the feeling you get when you know you've done something wrong and your conscience stings because of it. Only it is much worse than that feeling, since in that state all men will clearly see the depths and ugliness of their own sin on the one hand, and also clearly see the purity and beauty of God on the other. Yet they are powerless to rid themselves of their guilt and shame. They are stuck with it. And although they can see the blissfulness of the presence of God and the lot of those who have been sanctified by Him, yet they are powerless to join in. That will only make their sufferning even more painful. Yet in all this, there is never any actual fire burning them. That is clearly meant as a metaphor for their immersion in, yet exclusion from, God's holy presence.

One other thing about fire. Throughout the bible, fire is also used as a symbol of purification. Many times the bible speaks of gold purified by fire. Purification is a temporary condition. I do not believe that hell, in the bible, has to be understood as being "eternal". There are several reasons why I believe that which I won't go into right now, but "eternal hellfire" is by no means a slam-dunk.


Of course, I no longer give much credence to the bible exclusively. In my opinion, the bible is no more or less inspired than any other holy book. They are all a mixture of genuine intuitive insight and man-made dogma. For me, the safest approach consists of taking those intuitive insights that are universally affirmed in all major religions, and rejecting the rest. That is my "straight and narrow path".

And what, above all else, is universally affirmed? It's what christians call the Golden Rule - do unto others as you would have others do unto you. Such beautiful words! All religions have their own version of this. In my opinion, truly living one's life by that one universal principle is all the religion anyone ever needs.

Well your name doesn't exactly have M or F by it so I can tell what the fuck you are!


Gosh, Glenda, I'd sure do that, but I'm in enough trouble with the law as it is. Thanks for the tip tho.......



To show thanks for your gracious thoughtfulness, here's a pretty picture you can meditate on and calm yourself with when those nasty pills the doctors give you don't work. It's not a religious pic, but it was drawn by a 4 year old who's, uh, kindly.

The fact that it looks exactly like the "artwork" you try to (spam) suckers to buy at laughably exorbitant prices should make little difference. Direct any lawsuits to my parole officer.

God Bless you~~

Rendova


http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/6514/bunnyslippersandeasteretn9.th.jpg

Wow, this thread went way downhill overnight... Thats kinda disappointing, I was having a decent convo =\

Gosh, Glenda, I'd sure do that, but I'm in enough trouble with the law as it is. Thanks for the tip tho.......



To show thanks for your gracious thoughtfulness, here's a pretty picture you can meditate on and calm yourself with when those nasty pills the doctors give you don't work. It's not a religious pic, but it was drawn by a 4 year old who's, uh, kindly.

The fact that it looks exactly like the "artwork" you try to (spam) suckers to buy at laughably exorbitant prices should make little difference. Direct any lawsuits to my parole officer.

God Bless you~~

Rendova


http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/6514/bunnyslippersandeasteretn9.th.jpg



I can't help but giggle.

I can't help but giggle.
Giggle, hell... I'm ROFLMAO.

Christ was a good guy. I have nothing bad to say about the guy. I do not know if I believe he is the son of god but I would listen to his lectures.

How very open-minded of you, warrior.


I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: 'I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God.' That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic -- on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg -- or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to. – Mere Christianity, pages 40-41.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? - Mere Christianity

Just another thought, expressed much more clearly than I could ever express it.

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?A crooked line can consist of crooked and straight parts. Likewise I can say that what is happening in Darfur or North Korea is cruel and unjust by comparison to those countries such as my own which are not so "crooked".

A crooked line can consist of crooked and straight parts. Likewise I can say that what is happening in Darfur or North Korea is cruel and unjust by comparison to those countries such as my own which are not so "crooked".


But how do you know that it's cruel and unjust, Blob? Against what standard do you hold that opinion? And where did that standard come from? Of course what is happening in Darfur is cruel. No one is denying that, but why do we think treating each other that way is cruel? Where does that sense of fairness come from?

But how do you know that it's cruel and unjust, Blob? Against what standard do you hold that opinion? And where did that standard come from? Of course what is happening in Darfur is cruel. No one is denying that, but why do we think treating each other that way is cruel? Where does that sense of fairness come from?As I explained, from comparison with other, better places.

We actually seem to agree that comparison may be a major factor in making opinions. The difference is you seem to feel a need for an "Ultimate Yardstick", and I'm guessing that in your mind this yardstick is some personal deity or other that you believe in.

As I explained, from comparison with other, better places.

We actually seem to agree that comparison may be a major factor in making opinions. The difference is you seem to feel a need for an "Ultimate Yardstick", and I'm guessing that in your mind this yardstick is some personal deity or other that you believe in.

No, what I'm saying is that in order to make a comparison, in order to have an opinion, you have to have an idea of what is "better." And where do you get that idea? Who or what has taught you that it is better to share what we have rather than take everything from someone weaker? Or maybe life should be lived by the rule that only the strongest survive?


What is beautiful? What is good? What is bad? What determines those points of view?

smartmouthwomen, atheist don't believe in god!!!

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so" Mark Twain

smartmouthwomen, atheist don't believe in god!!!
Quite the contrary, AFT5. I'm beginning to believe atheists think they ARE God!

:)
SMW

Quite the contrary, AFT5. I'm beginning to believe atheists think they ARE God!

:)
SMW


Heck, with all I've read on these boards I'm beginning to think they have no clue as to what they really believe at all. I think they just make it up as they go along.

No, what I'm saying is that in order to make a comparison, in order to have an opinion, you have to have an idea of what is "better." And where do you get that idea? Who or what has taught you that it is better to share what we have rather than take everything from someone weaker? Or maybe life should be lived by the rule that only the strongest survive?

What is beautiful? What is good? What is bad? What determines those points of view?The quote you cited at the top of the page says you need to be able to make a comparison to know cruelty and injustice. For the sake of discussion I can agree with that much. I only disagreed that a second line (or "alien world") is needed to know crookedness (or "cruelty and injstice"), because a single line can contain crooked and straight parts.

However now you seem to be now saying that comparison is not enough after all. If that is so, what was the point of your quote in the first place?

Heck, with all I've read on these boards I'm beginning to think they have no clue as to what they really believe at all. I think they just make it up as they go along.That's a fair view.

We have no Bible, and no party line to adhere to. We are free to learn, reflect, correct ourselves, entertain alternative perspectives and to grow where ever it may lead us. Theists call us Gods for this.

Well personally I don't believe Jesus ever existed but it when people say what a great guy he was I don't think they have actually read the bible. Jesus never said anything worthwhile that had not already been said before him. Oh, he gave us hell. He instituted no social programs. Being "omniscent," why didn't he give us advances in science and medicine? No first-century writer confirms the existencs of Jesus. The bible is full of contradictions and historical errors. All those supposed miracles and other outrageous claims consist mostly of borrowed ideas from pagan religions. And of course he created evil according to the bible anyway. Of wait that was god that did that. Wait they are one in the same alone with the holy spirit. 1+1+1=3 not 1. And saying that jesus was peaceful and compassionate yet he said"Think not that I am come to send peace:I came not to send peace but a sword."(Matt.10:34) "But those mine enemies,which would not that I should reign over them,bring hither, and slay them before me." But the most appalling aspect of his character was his promotion of eternal hellfire. Does not sound like a good way for someone called the Prince of Peace to get his point accross. The bible is full of contradictions. How could it be the infallible word of god?

That's a fair view.

We have no Bible, and no party line to adhere to. We are free to learn, reflect, correct ourselves, entertain alternative perspectives and to grow where ever it may lead us. Theists call us Gods for this.
LOL at having no bible... I've read more bible verses quoted by atheists here than I've read in my entire life!

(see AFT5's post for an example)

Yep, I know that a lot of atheist have read the bible and studied it a lot more then many christians! Does not mean that it is their bible of course!

LOL at having no bible... I've read more bible verses quoted by atheists here than I've read in my entire life!
It's possible that a big factor that keeps many casual Christians religious is not reading much bible. Just a theory. A lot of Christians apparently deconvert after reading much bible.

What is the problem with atheists being knowledgeable about the bible anyway? Study and belief are very different things.

The quote you cited at the top of the page says you need to be able to make a comparison to know cruelty and injustice. For the sake of discussion I can agree with that much. I only disagreed that a second line (or "alien world") is needed to know crookedness (or "cruelty and injstice"), because a single line can contain crooked and straight parts.

However now you seem to be now saying that comparison is not enough after all. If that is so, what was the point of your quote in the first place?

What the quote was saying was that unless you have some idea of right and wrong from somewhere, how can you even begin to judge something?

Just because a line can contain both crooked and straight parts, means nothing in this discussion. You wouldn't know it was crooked OR straight, unless you had prior knowledge of lines.

If you say something is wrong to do, where did that knowledge come from?

Blob, WHY is it wrong to kill someone?

I know that a lot of atheist have read the bible and studied it a lot more then many christians!"No one knows the Bible better than the devil" I was once told.

I think I understand why atheists tend to read the Bible more than Christians. (Although I still think it's a paradox for an atheists to believe what the Bible says.)

Babies are not born believing in God... we are taught to have faith in a higher power. I remember sitting in my mother's lap and singing along to Jesus Loves Me and Jesus Loves the Little Children -- and the accompanying feeling of being loved and secure. If nurtured, that faith stays with one their whole life.

If you didn't get that as a child, I think you grow up questioning why so many other people seem to feel something you don't feel.

Many Christians I know believe it is a form of blasphemy to question God. They believe it's not our place to understand everything (especially as it relates to current times). Many believe it's a bad idea to even allow themselves to be in the COMPANY of atheists. Obviously those of us who believe in God and still hang around here at Allforums don't share that belief. *wink*

Faith is not something you learn by gathering all the facts you can find and making an intelligent decision. It's a decision you make with your heart... not your head.

SMW

I think I understand why atheists tend to read the Bible more than Christians. (Although I still think it's a paradox for an atheists to believe what the Bible says.)

Babies are not born believing in God... we are taught to have faith in a higher power. I remember sitting in my mother's lap and singing along to Jesus Loves Me and Jesus Loves the Little Children -- and the accompanying feeling of being loved and secure. If nurtured, that faith stays with one their whole life.
If you didn't get that as a child, I think you grow up questioning why so many other people seem to feel something you don't feel.

Many Christians I know believe it is a form of blasphemy to question God. They believe it's not our place to understand everything (especially as it relates to current times). Many believe it's a bad idea to even allow themselves to be in the COMPANY of atheists. Obviously those of us who believe in God and still hang around here at Allforums don't share that belief. *wink*

Faith is not something you learn by gathering all the facts you can find and making an intelligent decision. It's a decision you make with your heart... not your head.
SMW


Good point my friend.

I don't know if you've ever been asked this SMW, you probably have, but not by me. Why is your god THE god? What makes him better than all the others?

What the quote was saying was that unless you have some idea of right and wrong from somewhere, how can you even begin to judge something?

Just because a line can contain both crooked and straight parts, means nothing in this discussion. You wouldn't know it was crooked OR straight, unless you had prior knowledge of lines.The quote says you need knowledge of straightness to know crookedness. It says you need two lines, one straight one crooked. Then you can know crookedness.
Blob, WHY is it wrong to kill someone?Sometimes it is wrong sometimes it is not.

I offer no bite-size answers to such questions. In fact I don't know the answers. The important thing is that we base our values and decisions about how to live on what we know - however "crooked" our "line" may be. You and I both agree without hesitation that Darfur and North Korea are cruel and unjust - so let's compare them with places that are freer and fairer, and see what we can do to keep things that way.

What do you think should be the basis for our values and how we live?

I think I understand why atheists tend to read the Bible more than Christians. (Although I still think it's a paradox for an atheists to believe what the Bible says.)

Babies are not born believing in God... we are taught to have faith in a higher power. I remember sitting in my mother's lap and singing along to Jesus Loves Me and Jesus Loves the Little Children -- and the accompanying feeling of being loved and secure. If nurtured, that faith stays with one their whole life.

If you didn't get that as a child, I think you grow up questioning why so many other people seem to feel something you don't feel.I've never read the Bible and know little about it. In my experience those Bible-knowing atheists are almost invariably former Christians.
(Although I still think it's a paradox for an atheists to believe what the Bible says.)The old "if-then" stumbling block.

Compare "If what the Bible says were true then such-and-such" with "What the Bible says is true and so such-and-such". The former is what atheists say, the latter is what you seem to hear.

I don't know if you've ever been asked this SMW, you probably have, but not by me. Why is your god THE god? What makes him better than all the others?
Good question, P.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know what GOD looks like. I don't know whether he's more like Buddists, or Catholics, or Baptists, or Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses. (If it's the latter, we're ALL in deep sh*t!)

I'm not opposed to people who believe (like Native Americans) that He's actually the wind... or the rain (wait, don't say rain), or the earth. I can even relate to people who believe the In Search of Ancient Astronauts theories since I've personally seen actual cave drawings like the one's they depict and have to admit... they are strange and mysterious.

As long as people believe that some sort of devine power exists, I respect their belief.

It's those who think we're all just a bunch of molecules that happened to get together and form into human beings AND that as such, we have nobody to answer to but ourselves... those are the people I have a problem with.

The quote says you need knowledge of straightness to know crookedness. It says you need two lines, one straight one crooked. Then you can know crookedness.
Sometimes it is wrong sometimes it is not.


How would you determine when it is wrong and when it is not? In your personal code of how Blob lives, how would you make that decision? What would you base that on?


I offer no bite-size answers to such questions. In fact I don't know the answers. The important thing is that we base our values and decisions about how to live on what we know

But exactly what do we know? Do you mean, be law-abiding? Follow the laws of society? Or do only exactly whatever we want to do?

It's not a bite-size answer, it's a question about how people, all people, determine right and wrong.

Good question, P.

I'll be the first to admit I don't know what GOD looks like. I don't know whether he's more like Buddists, or Catholics, or Baptists, or Muslims or Jehovah's Witnesses. (If it's the latter, we're ALL in deep sh*t!)

I'm not opposed to people who believe (like Native Americans) that He's actually the wind... or the rain (wait, don't say rain), or the earth. I can even relate to people who believe the In Search of Ancient Astronauts theories since I've personally seen actual cave drawings like the one's they depict and have to admit... they are strange and mysterious.

As long as people believe that some sort of devine power exists, I respect their belief.

It's those who think we're all just a bunch of molecules that happened to get together and form into human beings AND that as such, we have nobody to answer to but ourselves... those are the people I have a problem with.

Ok, you respect others that believe in a god of some sort, and by what you say you don't respect atheists? Isn't atheism just another form of belief, rather than non-belief?

You kinda avoided my original question here though, why are you a Christian? Why aren't you a Buddhist, or Islamic, or anything else? Was Christianity the religion in your family, or was it a decision you made on your own? And if so, why?

By the way, as I've said before, I'm agnostic.

Babies are not born believing in God... we are taught to have faith in a higher power. I remember sitting in my mother's lap and singing along to Jesus Loves Me and Jesus Loves the Little Children -- and the accompanying feeling of being loved and secure. If nurtured, that faith stays with one their whole life.

I don't think just because a kind of faith is taught to a young child it will stay with them their whole life. One reason why I say this is because after we've matured enough to use reason, most of us will take personal experience over a belief when the two conflict with each other.

For example, teach a child to have faith that he can walk through fire unscathed, you may very well succeed in nurturing a child who believes just that, but the day this child tries to walk through fire and gets hurt, it's a lot more likely that he's going to lose this faith. Now you can go as far as to say that if the child is faithful enough, he can convince himself that his senses are deceiving him, so that he's not actually hurt. Now that's really a stretch, but happens everyday and we call that blind faith.

So what a lot of nonreligious people here are saying is that you may have faith in god. That god exists, that god is just and good and mighty, all of that. But as we look around us the world doesn't seem nice enough, surely a god like that could have and would have done better? Maybe there's some problem with that faith then. It's very reasonable. I will agree with you though that if you are taught from a young age not to even question, then it's difficult to see things this way.

msmary, I feel you are repeating the same basic questions.
How would you determine when it is wrong and when it is not? In your personal code of how Blob lives, how would you make that decision? What would you base that on? Like your original quote, I think comparison is an important mechansim in establishing right from wrong. These comparisons come from what we know - i.e. the world (or "crooked wire" in your quote). Often cases are unambiguous and you and I can agree Darfur and North Korea are cruel and unjust without hesitation or discussion.
But exactly what do we know? Do you mean, be law-abiding? Follow the laws of society? Or do only exactly whatever we want to do?We know the world and our experience in it - "the crooked wire" in the words of your quote.
It's not a bite-size answer, it's a question about how people, all people, determine right and wrong.That was my point. I offer no silver bullets, I'm simply saying that such answers should be informed by what we know (i.e. the world, or "crooked wire").

I'd be interested to know what answer you offer to the questions you have asked me. Just a guess but is it "God" by any chance? You speak like someone trying to push a specific answer rather than having any interest in what I am actually saying.

Ok, you respect others that believe in a god of some sort, and by what you say you don't respect atheists? Isn't atheism just another form of belief, rather than non-belief?

You kinda avoided my original question here though, why are you a Christian? Why aren't you a Buddhist, or Islamic, or anything else? Was Christianity the religion in your family, or was it a decision you made on your own? And if so, why?

By the way, as I've said before, I'm agnostic.
Well, you actually asked me why is MY God THE God -- what makes him better than other Gods.

I don't know the answer to that, because I don't have the capacity to understand why others believe in THEIR God.

I know it's confusing... but just let me say this -- I believe in A God. I believe He created the universe and everything in it... including us. I believe he instructed men to write the Bible so we would have a written account of how things came to be... as well as to know what's expected of us. I also believe he laid down the law on what we should NOT do... then gave us free will to do what we want.

I do not take the bible literally. I think the main mission of any church is to translate God's word into lessons we can understand.

Look at it this way. If you and some of your buddies sat down a wrote an 'instruction for living' book right now... in 2007. What do you think people who read it in the year 4007 would think of YOU and your ideas?

I can see why people question things like the parting of the Red Sea... turning water into wine, etc. But I can also see why it's written in the bible, "All things pass, God never changes."

I don't disrespect atheists... but I feel sorry for them, because they're missing out on one of the most fulfilling parts of life -- faith.

But saying atheism is a religion is like saying bald is a haircolor.

:)
SMW

I don't think just because a kind of faith is taught to a young child it will stay with them their whole life. One reason why I say this is because after we've matured enough to use reason, most of us will take personal experience over a belief when the two conflict with each other.

For example, teach a child to have faith that he can walk through fire unscathed, you may very well succeed in nurturing a child who believes just that, but the day this child tries to walk through fire and gets hurt, it's a lot more likely that he's going to lose this faith. Now you can go as far as to say that if the child is faithful enough, he can convince himself that his senses are deceiving him, so that he's not actually hurt. Now that's really a stretch, but happens everyday and we call that blind faith.

So what a lot of nonreligious people here are saying is that you may have faith in god. That god exists, that god is just and good and mighty, all of that. But as we look around us the world doesn't seem nice enough, surely a god like that could have and would have done better? Maybe there's some problem with that faith then. It's very reasonable. I will agree with you though that if you are taught from a young age not to even question, then it's difficult to see things this way.

"Train up a child in the way that he should go, and, when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6)

This of course doesn't mean someone won't stray but the foundation will always be there.

"Train up a child in the way that he should go, and, when he is old, he will not depart from it." (Proverbs 22:6)

This of course doesn't mean someone won't stray but the foundation will always be there.


As a child, I was forced to attend church. Now I firmly believe that organized religion is the worst thing man has invented. Before you ask, yes, that includes nuclear weapons.

As a child, I was forced to attend church. Now I firmly believe that organized religion is the worst thing man has invented. Before you ask, yes, that includes nuclear weapons.

Well I would never talk about nuclear weapons but I'll be sure to store that with the rest of the info I've learned here.

:thumbs:

As a child, I was forced to attend church. Now I firmly believe that organized religion is the worst thing man has invented. Before you ask, yes, that includes nuclear weapons.
Moderate, mind if I ask you which church you were forced to attend?

Moderate, mind if I ask you which church you were forced to attend?

Baptist.

One thing I have a hard time understanding.

Just what is it about Christians that makes atheists hate them so? I mean, I could understand it if there was pressure being put on nonbelievers, but every church I've ever been involved with takes no action other than praying for people who don't believe. That, in addition to visiting sick people and feeding the hungry and clothing the poor and providing safe refuge for people who have no place to go.

Where is the threat?

Baptist.
Having been raised Baptist myself... I can understand. Although I was baptized in the Baptist church, I no longer consider myself a Baptist.

However, throwing away ALL belief in God because one doesn't believe the teaching of ONE denomination seems to be like throwing the bath water out with the baby. (No pun related to baptismal rites intended.) *wink*

However, with respect to those who are Baptists, let me say this... none of them ever did one hateful thing to me. My choice to seek out other denominations was made strictly out of curiosity -- and I found several other groups I felt more comfortable with.

Did you try others or were your experiences so bad, you now equate all Christians with being worse than the nuclear bomb?

Having been raised Baptist myself... I can understand. Although I was baptized in the Baptist church, I no longer consider myself a Baptist.

However, throwing away ALL belief in God because one doesn't believe the teaching of ONE denomination seems to be like throwing the bath water out with the baby. (No pun related to baptismal rites intended.) *wink*

However, with respect to those who are Baptists, let me say this... none of them ever did one hateful thing to me. My choice to seek out other denominations was made strictly out of curiosity -- and I found several other groups I felt more comfortable with.

Did you try others or were your experiences so bad, you now equate all Christians with being worse than the nuclear bomb?

I have not thrown away my belief in God, nor did I say such a thing. I threw away my dependence upon ORGANIZED RELIGION. There is a major difference.

I have not thrown away my belief in God, nor did I say such a thing. I threw away my dependence upon ORGANIZED RELIGION. There is a major difference.
Believe it or not, darlin... there's MAJOR differences in demoninations, too.

So, are you saying you're actually a 'believer' -- just not a church-goer?

Believe it or not, darlin... there's MAJOR differences in demoninations, too.

So, are you saying you're actually a 'believer' -- just not a church-goer?

Yes, I know. I not only looked into different denominations, I looked at different religions. I found them ALL to be more concerned with control, their investment portfolio's, and the size of their Church, Temple, etc, than with God.
Sorry, I don't need ANYONE to tell me how I should live my life, or what I must do to be reverent to God.
I most definitely believe in God, but He's not what is portrayed in any of the Christian bibles, or any other book I ever found.

One thing I have a hard time understanding.

Just what is it about Christians that makes atheists hate them so?

For the most part atheists don't hate Christians. That is a misperception on your part.

Now I firmly believe that organized religion is the worst thing man has invented. Before you ask, yes, that includes nuclear weapons.Does it include liquorice? I mean, *blurk*.

Does it include liquorice? I mean, *blurk*.


Whats wrong with liquorice? It flavors liquor just fine.

Yes, I know. I not only looked into different denominations, I looked at different religions. I found them ALL to be more concerned with control, their investment portfolio's, and the size of their Church, Temple, etc, than with God.
Sorry, I don't need ANYONE to tell me how I should live my life, or what I must do to be reverent to God.
I most definitely believe in God, but He's not what is portrayed in any of the Christian bibles, or any other book I ever found.

I completely agree Moderate. If there is a god and the jury is still out for me on that one. It isn't a god in a book written by humans.

I completely agree Moderate. If there is a god and the jury is still out for me on that one. It isn't a god in a book written by humans.

I, believe in God, warrior. But He's a creator, and an observer. He is not vindictive, cruel, controlling, or demanding. Nor has he ever singled out one group of people for special treatment, directed anyone to kill non-believers, or restricted entry into heaven (what ever that is) to those who believe only one specific way.

I like your god :)

I like your god :)


If only more people did.

Whats wrong with liquorice? It flavors liquor just fine.Surely you mean "chills".

Surely you mean "chills".


No I mean it "flavors".

lic·o·rice (lkr-s, -sh) KEY

NOUN:


A Mediterranean perennial plant (Glycyrrhiza glabra) having blue flowers, pinnately compound leaves, and a sweet, distinctively flavored root.
The root of this plant, used as a flavoring in candy, liqueurs, tobacco, and medicines.
A confection made from or flavored with the licorice root.
Any of various similar plants.

I, believe in God, warrior. But He's a creator, and an observer. He is not vindictive, cruel, controlling, or demanding. Nor has he ever singled out one group of people for special treatment, directed anyone to kill non-believers, or restricted entry into heaven (what ever that is) to those who believe only one specific way.

Right on!

Licorice is the devil if there ever was one.

Anyways, I agree mostly with what Moderate said. I take a more scientific approach however. The only force in the universe that is present in every corner, every facet, every nook and cranny, and holds the universe together would be gravity. Perhaps gravity is god. Or perhaps god is a behind the scenes kind of guy, what he does we don't ever see, but if he wasn't doing it the universe could not exist. Think of it as Windows for the universe. Or god could simply be a math equation. Perhaps god is non-existent and science is the only thing worth believing in. Science has done infinitely more good for the people of Earth than any religion has. Or maybe, his is Jesus, or Allah, or any of the others. Which if that were the case, most of the world is already doomed.

Licorice is the devil if there ever was one.


If licorice is bad, how about anise?

Yes, I know. I not only looked into different denominations, I looked at different religions. I found them ALL to be more concerned with control, their investment portfolio's, and the size of their Church, Temple, etc, than with God.

Try the Unity school of Christianity. They're the most open-minded bunch I've found. Fundies consider them a cult, which probably means they're on the right track :)

They welcome everyone, and don't tell anyone what to believe. Their bookstores are filled with books, not only about christianity, but about all sorts of paths one might wish to choose.

It's a church for seekers and thinkers. And it's a great place to meet fascinating people with fascinating stories.

Just throwing that out there.

I agree, godsandmen... Unity is the closest thing I've found to a denomination I can relate to as well. I really liked standing up during the service, being handed a carnation... and thereby becoming a member of the church. You mentioned their bookstores -- I always find something absolutely fascinating there too.

Thanks for bringing up Unity. It really is a good alternative for people who have grown jaded of other organized religions.

:)
SMW

Licorice is the devil if there ever was one.

Anyways, I agree mostly with what Moderate said. I take a more scientific approach however. The only force in the universe that is present in every corner, every facet, every nook and cranny, and holds the universe together would be gravity. Perhaps gravity is god. Or perhaps god is a behind the scenes kind of guy, what he does we don't ever see, but if he wasn't doing it the universe could not exist. Think of it as Windows for the universe. Or god could simply be a math equation. Perhaps god is non-existent and science is the only thing worth believing in. Science has done infinitely more good for the people of Earth than any religion has. Or maybe, his is Jesus, or Allah, or any of the others. Which if that were the case, most of the world is already doomed.
Phyrex, your comment about gravity is interesting. I watched a documentary on the science network over the weekend and the commentator was saying that out of all the forces on earth, gravity is actually the WEAKEST one of all! Scientists believe that the reason for that weakness could be because gravity is actually shared between us... and other parallel universes that science 'thinks' may exist!

Parallel universes opens up a whole new can o'worms, doesn't it?

What I found to be the most interesting tidbit these genius scientific types have come up with are mathemetical formulas that can 'prove' a sequence of events leading all the way from the BIG BANG to present day.

Would be totally impressive if only they knew the answer to the question, "Who created the elements necessary for the BIG BANG?"

Guess that question leads us back to "Hello" doesn't it?

:)
SMW

Try the Unity school of Christianity. They're the most open-minded bunch I've found. Fundies consider them a cult, which probably means they're on the right track :)

They welcome everyone, and don't tell anyone what to believe. Their bookstores are filled with books, not only about christianity, but about all sorts of paths one might wish to choose.

It's a church for seekers and thinkers. And it's a great place to meet fascinating people with fascinating stories.

Just throwing that out there.
Does the Unity School of Christianity, believe that all religions teach the truth?

Yes, I know. I not only looked into different denominations, I looked at different religions. I found them ALL to be more concerned with control, their investment portfolio's, and the size of their Church, Temple, etc, than with God.
Sorry, I don't need ANYONE to tell me how I should live my life, or what I must do to be reverent to God.
I most definitely believe in God, but He's not what is portrayed in any of the Christian bibles, or any other book I ever found.
The Bible is wrong in it's portrayal of God?
Would you give the correct portrayal of God?

I, believe in God, warrior. But He's a creator, and an observer. He is not vindictive, cruel, controlling, or demanding. Nor has he ever singled out one group of people for special treatment, directed anyone to kill non-believers, or restricted entry into heaven (what ever that is) to those who believe only one specific way.
How do you know?

Phyrex, your comment about gravity is interesting. I watched a documentary on the science network over the weekend and the commentator was saying that out of all the forces on earth, gravity is actually the WEAKEST one of all! Scientists believe that the reason for that weakness could be because gravity is actually shared between us... and other parallel universes that science 'thinks' may exist!

Parallel universes opens up a whole new can o'worms, doesn't it?

What I found to be the most interesting tidbit these genius scientific types have come up with are mathemetical formulas that can 'prove' a sequence of events leading all the way from the BIG BANG to present day.

Would be totally impressive if only they knew the answer to the question, "Who created the elements necessary for the BIG BANG?"

Guess that question leads us back to "Hello" doesn't it?

:)
SMW

Yeah, gravity is the weakest, when compared to the strong and weak nuclear forces. On a large scale however, gravity is what holds the universe together, or at least as together as it can be seeing as the universe is expanding at near the speed of light. The nuclear forces hold all the atoms and molecules and such together. Their bond is significantly stronger, I mean look at what happens when you split just one atom. (Atomic bombs)

Anyways the universe, according to most scientists started as a singularity, basically the entire universe was smaller than an atom, and all matter and energy that exists today, and will ever exist, was packed into the singularity. It was the only thing that existed (there was nothing else, and nothing in the strictest sense, absolutely nothing. Not even blank space, its hard to imagine.) Something caused that singularity to explode, thus the big bang. As for what caused it to happen, and how that singularity that became the universe got there, I don't have a clue. However I believe that if you were to travel in a straight line to the edge of the universe and keep going you'd eventually just end up where you began. I think the universe is a closed system and there is nothing outside of it. But for those of you who read this and know what the string theory is, that is pretty interesting as well. Look it up if you don't know, It has a lot to do with the multiple universes thing SMW mentioned.

Anyways, lesson over. Dismissed :)

How do you know?

No one KNOWS, thats why its called faith.
My God is what ever I BELIEVE him to be. Just as your's is what ever you BELIEVE.

you can't try to tell them about perspective moderate you either right or wrong and in this case your wrong because you can possibly have more credibility that a man 2,000 years ago who claimed to be inspired about god and wrote what god was about. Because it is in the bible and the bible is the infailable truth you sir are just wrong. No way that you can make up stuff about what you want your own god to be about!! That is completely unacceptable.

Does the Unity School of Christianity, believe that all religions teach the truth?

Like I said, they don't tell anyone what to believe. Having said that though, I would say they generally believe that all religions have a piece of the truth, and all religions also share a lot of falsehood. The key is to cut through all the dogmatic crap and get to the true heart of it.

They definitely don't like fundamentalism - in any religion, not just christian fundamentalism. I think most of the people who are attracted to Unity are people who were raised in traditional christianity and have become disillusioned and put off by it. Unity is the perfect place for people who believe in God, but not the kind of God that they were taught about. They want spirituality in their lives, but aren't sure what kind of spirituality. So they go to Unity to seek out a kind of spirituality that they can live with. Unity simply gives them many different options that they can explore.

Unfortunately, I haven't been to a Unity church since I moved to my current location. There isn't a Unity church within 150 miles of me. Occasionally I'll get down to Minneapolis and stop at their bookstore. The bookstore, rather than the church, has always been the main attraction for me anyway.

Like I said, they don't tell anyone what to believe. Having said that though, I would say they generally believe that all religions have a piece of the truth, and all religions also share a lot of falsehood. The key is to cut through all the dogmatic crap and get to the true heart of it.

They definitely don't like fundamentalism - in any religion, not just christian fundamentalism. I think most of the people who are attracted to Unity are people who were raised in traditional christianity and have become disillusioned and put off by it. Unity is the perfect place for people who believe in God, but not the kind of God that they were taught about. They want spirituality in their lives, but aren't sure what kind of spirituality. So they go to Unity to seek out a kind of spirituality that they can live with. Unity simply gives them many different options that they can explore.

Unfortunately, I haven't been to a Unity church since I moved to my current location. There isn't a Unity church within 150 miles of me. Occasionally I'll get down to Minneapolis and stop at their bookstore. The bookstore, rather than the church, has always been the main attraction for me anyway.
Good post, G&M. I'd go one step further to say Unity goal is to blend the bests of all religions into one. Some of the 'refrains' that are spoken remind me of Catholics and although hymns may sound familiar, they actually have different words than they did when we sang them in a Baptist church.

Of all the churches I've visited, I think Unity comes closest to filling a need to belong to something larger than oneself without being forced to agree to covenants you may not be comfortable with.

One of my favorite sayings from Unity tends to put things into perspective... IT DOESN'T MATTER JUST BECAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER. When it comes down to it, most things we get so wound up in... don't.

:)
SMW

Christians can provide no evidence whatsoever as their reasoning is of a circular type known as Petitio Principii.

What dogmas do you believe? Those found in the Bible, the Word of God.
How do you know its true? The Bible says its God's Word.
What evidence do you have that the Bible is True? The Bible itself says its true.
How do you know that the Bible is not just a collection of writtings, doctored, edited and revised SOLELY by men who had no concept of modern standards of objective reporting and had considerable a priori bias? Tradition says otherwise!

or another type of argumente circulaire.

The Bible is God's Word.

How do you know?

God said so!

Where?

In the Bible, stupid!

It's like the famous logical snafu committed by Jesus in the book of John with its exact opposite found just a chapter or so later.

"If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true."

"Even tho' I bear witness of myself, my witness is true."

Will you please make up your mind!!!

I admit it. I accept the existence of God on faith.

What evidence do you have of one species evolving into another, Nighthawk? Of all the millions of fossils has there ever been on found that is an intermediary stage between species A and species B? If Darwinian Evolution is true how do you explain the explosion of new species during the Cambrian Period? Darwin based his premise on Galapagos Finches. The only problem is, they are still all finches. Not a single one turned into a mouse or lemur.

Many things are accepted on faith. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I am secure enough in mine to not feel it necessary to ridicule you for holding yours. You do not seem to have that same security concerning your beliefs.

I admit it. I accept the existence of God on faith.

What evidence do you have of one species evolving into another, Nighthawk? Of all the millions of fossils has there ever been on found that is an intermediary stage between species A and species B? If Darwinian Evolution is true how do you explain the explosion of new species during the Cambrian Period? Darwin based his premise on Galapagos Finches. The only problem is, they are still all finches. Not a single one turned into a mouse or lemur.

Many things are accepted on faith. I have my beliefs and you have yours. I am secure enough in mine to not feel it necessary to ridicule you for holding yours. You do not seem to have that same security concerning your beliefs.

You know I've been thinking about that. Readin up on more evolution theories and whatever I could find relating to.
I notice every single time there is a change in the theory, its due to lack of evidence and not newly generated evidence.

I realise that that sounds bias. I dont think I would have brought it up had I not seen so many flaws in what is known about the fossil evidence we have.
For instance Lucy is highly debated. Several things that didnt fit right and its not by apologist as I'm sure someone would be quick to bring up.
Its by some of the people who are dedicated to evolution.

All of a sudden we go to the size of the skull to the ability to walk up right, when around roughly the same time Lucy was found some guy digs up the tooth of a pig and because its a muller its human and just from the tooth the guy desribes tribes of people with huts and fences.
Only later to find out its a pigs tooth. Had it not been found out we would be generating information about evolution from a pigs tooth.

Then evolutionist will be the first to admit that its not exact, but its all we got.
Whats the point of that?

Personally I don't really care about the philosophical implication of evolution concerning the question of origin. What's important is the practical uses of the theory in advancing technology and medicine, as well as game theory, sociology, economics, zoology/botany, and meriad other fields. The benefits and advances are real and can be easily googled...I'm sure as knowlegeable as Frogger or Inviolable are, you already know that. Richard Dawkins probably mentioned some effects and practical uses of evolution in his books too (I only read Selfish Gene). I think that's what matters.

In any case flexible religious denominations have always known to alter their doctrines to suit the times (an application of evolution? ha, ha.), and that's why a lot of Christians don't see evolution as being in conflict with their belief.

Personally I don't really care about the philosophical implication of evolution concerning the question of origin. What's important is the practical uses of the theory in advancing technology and medicine, as well as game theory, sociology, economics, zoology/botany, and meriad other fields. The benefits and advances are real and can be easily googled...I'm sure as knowlegeable as Frogger or Inviolable are, you already know that. Richard Dawkins probably mentioned some effects and practical uses of evolution in his books too (I only read Selfish Gene). I think that's what matters.

In any case flexible religious denominations have always known to alter their doctrines to suit the times (an application of evolution? ha, ha.), and that's why a lot of Christians don't see evolution as being in conflict with their belief.

Thats a good point Dio and everything you said is important.
That should be what they teach in school and not an idea that is still generating debate.

Watched a documentary over the weekend about Christianity vs Science. Very interesting stuff including one segment on new studies called Neuro Theology. Seems the human brain has strong reaction (that can be followed on brain scans) when one is praying... in the same area of the brain known to be active during times of high emotions. Also interesting to note that it doesn't seem to be prevalent in ALL human brains... leaving researchers to question whether there is indeed a BIOLOGICAL reason some people believe in God and others don't.

Question of evolution seems to come down to one unanswerable question -- where does the sense of 'right & wrong' come in? If we simply evolved from apes, how could we have acquired that 'humans only' trait that separates us from animals?

SMW Humans did not just evolve from apes! The theory of evolution just says humans and apes shared a common ancestor!

Afinertouch,

The Darwinian Theory of Evolution as oppossed to the general theory of evolutiion says that one species evolved into another. This is supposed to have been a slow process. There is no evidence of that having happened.

Millions of fossils have been discovered but not a single one intermediary between two species. Darwinians try to say that these fossils just haven't been found yet or that they were soft bodied and so didn't fossilize. It would be strange beyond belief to think that those intermediary stages just haven't been found yet when we have found not hundreds, not thousand, but hundreds of thousands of fossils. We have even found many soft bodied fossils. We just haven't found any intermediary stage fossils.

Darwinians also say evolution is a slow process. How then do they explain the Cambrian Explosion? During the geologically eyeblink called the Cambrian thousands of new species suddenly appeared, not as intermediary stages but as full blown species.

Evolution happens. Its affects can be seen all around us. Dogs evolve, wheat evolves, just about everything evolves. However, they all evolve within their particular species. Darwin's Finches evolved to fill particular niches on their several islands but they all remained finches.

There is no more evidence for Darwinian Evolution than there is for the existence of God. In fact there is less but that doesn't stop people from accepting it on faith. Why is it so beyond belief that others can accept the existence of God through the same faith?

Afinertouch,

The Darwinian Theory of Evolution as oppossed to the general theory of evolutiion says that one species evolved into another. This is supposed to have been a slow process. There is no evidence of that having happened.

There's plenty of evidence that this has happened.


Millions of fossils have been discovered but not a single one intermediary between two species. Darwinians try to say that these fossils just haven't been found yet or that they were soft bodied and so didn't fossilize. It would be strange beyond belief to think that those intermediary stages just haven't been found yet when we have found not hundreds, not thousand, but hundreds of thousands of fossils. We have even found many soft bodied fossils. We just haven't found any intermediary stage fossils.

A common error.

"It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Although transitional fossils elucidate the evolutionary transition of one life-form to another, they only exemplify snapshots of this process. Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail. However, progressing research and discovery managed to fill in several gaps and continues to do so. Critics of evolution often cite this argument as being a convenient way to explain off the lack of 'snapshot' fossils that show crucial steps between species.

The theory of punctuated equilibrium developed by Stephen Jay Gould and Niles Eldredge is often mistakenly drawn into the discussion of transitional fossils. This theory, however, pertains only to well-documented transitions within taxa or between closely related taxa over a geologically short period of time. These transitions, usually traceable in the same geological outcrop, often show small jumps in morphology between periods of morphological stability. To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil


Darwinians also say evolution is a slow process. How then do they explain the Cambrian Explosion? During the geologically eyeblink called the Cambrian thousands of new species suddenly appeared, not as intermediary stages but as full blown species.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion


There is no more evidence for Darwinian Evolution than there is for the existence of God.

Just because you dismiss the mountains of scientific evidence that supports the theory of evolution, doen't mean it doesn't exist. To suggest that there is no more evidence than that which proves the existence of God is absurd, and destroys your credibility on this topic. You may as well be saying you believe the Earth is flat, or that the Sun revolves around the Earth.


In fact there is less but that doesn't stop people from accepting it on faith.

A completely unsupportable statement. I understand that it probably bothers you that there is no scientific evidence to support the existence of God, but to suggest that the theory of evolution has less evidence to support it is both laughable and sad.


Why is it so beyond belief that others can accept the existence of God through the same faith?

Because "faith" has nothing to do with evolution, and you make yourself look ridiculous by suggesting that it does.

Your own defense of Darwinian Evolution admits that there are no interspecial fossils and tries to explain that fact away by saying fossilization is a difficult process.

Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail.


This argument would have more weight were there not so many hundreds of thousands of fossils. The odds that out of those hundreds of thousands not one, not a single transitional fossil has been found are too great to be calculated if such organisms existed.

"It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature. A common creationist argument is that no fossils are found with partially functional features. It is plausible, however, that a complex feature with one function can adapt a wholly different function through evolution. The precursor to, for example, a wing, might originally have only been meant for gliding, trapping flying prey, and/or mating display. Nowadays, wings can still have all of these functions, but they are also used in active flight.

Notice the word plausible in the above piece cited by Vilepagan as proof of Darwinian Evolution. In this case plausible means, we don't have any proof whatsoever but we would like to think this is what happened.

To explain these jumps, Gould and Eldredge envisaged comparatively long periods of genetic stability separated by periods of rapid evolution."

Gould and Eldredge envisaged something. They had no proof of anything. They simply envisaged it just like those who believe in Intelligent Design envisage a Great Architect of the Universe.

There is no more proof for Darwinian Evolution than there is for Intelligent Design yet the Darwinians like to claim that theres is more than a simple theory while their opponents are wild eyed claimants to a silly theory that cannot be proven. They are in effect saying, "Our unproven theory trumps your unproven theory", why, "Because we say so."

Humans did not just evolve from apes! The theory of evolution just says humans and apes shared a common ancestor!


You're right. We as humans do share a common ancestor with apes and everything else....God.

I have to agree with Frogger. Its an idea not evidence. It would be far better to just point out what Dio has, then to live under an assumption.

You have to be shouting in your head right now, Youre a Christian! All you do is live under an assumption.

But I am a Christian, thats what I'm suppose to do. Its not science and science is suppose to be quite different. When it comes to evolution, it isnt.

Your own defense of Darwinian Evolution admits that there are no interspecial fossils and tries to explain that fact away by saying fossilization is a difficult process.

It says nothing of the kind. Are you deliberately trying to mislead people or did you simply miss this paragraph?

"Though the evolution of the horse and its relatives, as Othniel Charles Marsh assembled surviving fossils in his reconstruction of the evolution of horses in the form of a single, consistently developing lineage with many "transitional" types, is often cited as a family tree with a number of clear transitional fossils, modern cladistics gives a different, multi-stemmed shrublike picture, with many dead ends: see evolution of the horse. Other specimens cited as transitional forms include the "walking whale" Ambulocetus, the recently-discovered lobe-finned fish Tiktaalik, with many tetrapod characteristics, and various hominids considered to be proto-humans."

It also says this.

"It is commonly stated by critics of evolution that there are no known transitional fossils. This position is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of what represents a transitional feature."


Due to the special circumstances required for preservation of living beings, only a very small percentage of all life-forms that ever have existed can be expected to be discovered. Thus, the transition itself can only be illustrated and corroborated by transitional fossils, but it will never be known in detail.


This argument would have more weight were there not so many hundreds of thousands of fossils. The odds that out of those hundreds of thousands not one, not a single transitional fossil has been found are too great to be calculated if such organisms existed.

Again Frogger, transitional fossils have been found. Your assertion that they haven't is simply false.


Notice the word plausible in the above piece cited by Vilepagan as proof of Darwinian Evolution. In this case plausible means, we don't have any proof whatsoever but we would like to think this is what happened.

Notice Frogger twist the argument in a vain attempt to mislead. The "piece" wasn't offered as proof of Darwinian Evolution, it was offered to rebut your argument about transitional fossils. You don't know what a transitional fossil is, so I guess I shouldn't be surprised you claim there aren't any.


There is no more proof for Darwinian Evolution than there is for Intelligent Design yet the Darwinians like to claim that theres is more than a simple theory while their opponents are wild eyed claimants to a silly theory that cannot be proven. They are in effect saying, "Our unproven theory trumps your unproven theory", why, "Because we say so."

What an amazing collection of nonsense. My understanding is that you were in the educational field and had some responsibility for drawing up science curricula for elementary students. What did you teach them?

You are right about one thing. Evolution is a theory. A theory under the following definition.

"A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena."

Evolution is accepted because it has been repeatedly tested and verified. Please show me where the theory of Intelligent Design has been tested and verified.

Vilepagan,

Eohippus was a horse, not a geranium or a canary but a horse. I am not disputing that horses have changed over the eons. I am disputing that horses became something else. To quote Mr. Ed, A horse is a horse is a horse of course.

There has been and there most likely will continue to be a great deal of evolution and change within species. I am not arguing with you about that. What I am saying is that one species doesn't become a different species.

Since you seem to think you know so much better than I do what a transitional feature is perhaps you would like to explain it in simple enough terms for a layman to understand, remembering all the while that I am certified to teach science and in fact was in charge of all elementary and junior high science for one of the largest suburban school districts in the country.

You say evolution is a theory that has been repeatedly tested. That is simply not so, especially when considering Darwinian Evolution. Testing means replicating and no scientist has ever replicated evolution in a laboratory. Instead of testing we have assuming. Not the same thing at all.

There has been and there most likely will continue to be a great deal of evolution and change within species. I am not arguing with you about that. What I am saying is that one species doesn't become a different species.

Or, maybe it does.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiktaalik_roseae

What would you call this creature?


Since you seem to think you know so much better than I do what a transitional feature is perhaps you would like to explain it in simple enough terms for a layman to understand,...

One example would be a lobe-fin. You quoted the passage where it was explained what a transitional feature might be.


...remembering all the while that I am certified to teach science and in fact was in charge of all elementary and junior high science for one of the largest suburban school districts in the country.

I ask again...what did you teach them regarding evolution?


You say evolution is a theory that has been repeatedly tested. That is simply not so, especially when considering Darwinian Evolution. Testing means replicating and no scientist has ever replicated evolution in a laboratory.

Ever hear of Genetics?


Instead of testing we have assuming. Not the same thing at all.

You're the one doing all the assuming Frogger.

There has been and there most likely will continue to be a great deal of evolution and change within species. I am not arguing with you about that. What I am saying is that one species doesn't become a different species.
Species is a man-made distinction. What makes you assume nature would follow man's nomenclature? It doesn't make any sense.

There is no more evidence for Darwinian Evolution than there is for the existence of God. In fact there is less ..........

The amount of "evidence" that exists for this "god" entity that you imagine is zero.

Hence, there is nothing for which *less* evidence exists.

To argue --and you have done so repeatedly-- that the accumulated evidence for the existence of a particular "god" is greater than the amount of evidence that has been gathered to support the theory of evolution borders on insanity.

Sad.