The atheist's journey - Religious Debate for the mature

[game and kirby]

Yup, Christianity is , in essence, a farcical religion. Almost all of it is simple moral gratification for those not strong minded enough to succeed. Still, though , I have to disagree with Kokichi. Basically, you have to acknowledge and be grateful that Jesus died FOR YOUR SINS. According to many christians, that gratitude and acknowledgement means that if you, sin, you aren't grateful, and it's the hot dark place for you. Still, non christians, according to the bible, go STRAIGHT to Satan's domain, no chance, no excuses. That's christianity for you. I guess I'm goin there too. Oh, dear, the big bad man's coming for me...

 

[Sirus011]

Atheisim

Bazooka Ive taken a moment to reply to your orginal post.

Our general intent is to enlighten the human race as a whole so as to cause reason and logic to govern our thinking instead of foolish superstions that inadvertenly cause many a problem with there sphere of influence.

My stance is this: Relgion is a disease as is ignorance.

The two go hand in hand.

Those who follow a path blindly are ignorant regardless of their actual intelligence. Simply by following said path you have allowed yourself to become blind and as such have no right to claim themselves human you are simply sheep, many may be offended by my reasoning and may choose to curse my name to various deitys.

To them I have only this to say,


You are contributing to the degradation of the human species.

Your actions however noble they may be, allow for a mind-set that pits myth and legend against accumulated knowledge.

Shame on you, shame on you for failing your legacy as part of the human species and forefiting your mind to follow a group instead of using your own mind to govern your actions.

SHAME ON YOU.

 

[game and kirby]

Excellent points, Sirus, except I don't believe that religion is a disease , like ignorance. Rather, religion is the product of ignorance, coupled with weak mindedness. When people don't know the fundamental truths of the world, they must revert to their most basic instincts of survival and aggression. What little of civilisation is instilled in them transforms these urges into religion, directing their violence and tenacity into a false cause. This indeed does contribute to the general degradation of the human species, but in a moral, not physical or intellectual sense. Anyways, cheer up, Sirus, Religion is losing steam fast. People are realising, in their quest for ever quicker gratification, that religion only provides a false sense of security and one upmanship, which is wholly unnecessary in this day and age. Religion is fading in the modern countries, and soon it will only be a vestige of what it once was. This is quite what I want, since the sooner humanity disassociates itself from their animalistic roots, they will become superior beings, mentally and morally. The future might look dark in terms of world politics, but the humanity which survives the conflicts coming will become more acquainted with the truths of humanity.

Why have no Christians responded here?

 

[Mr. G & W]

I find it pathetic that all the atheists here are degrading Christians for trying to force their beliefs down someones throat, and yet they are constantly saying that religion is horrible, and it is a detriment to society, and what not. Bit hypocritical, aren't you?
I am Christian, and I don't believe you have to just say you believe in Christ to go to heaven. Nor do I believe that you are going to **** if you aren't Christian. If god was perfect and loved his children, would he have them EVER go to such a bad place like ****?
I have seen the types of Christians you are all talking about. The kind that sit around in a circle and sing Christian songs and play Christian games, and they think that the only thing that can EVER be true is the Bible...and they make me sick. I don't think you should EVER let your faith blind you to whats obvious, such as science. Nor do I believe that religion is a disease and that it should be stopped. I believe it's something that you can have it you want it, but you aren't going to suffer forever for not having it.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

wtf?

how can you be a Christian and not believe non-believers are bound for ****? Jesus himself said that that was the only way! If you believe in Jesus, surely you don't believe he lied to you? And yeah, the Bible claims to be the inerrant word of God, so...if you're a Christian, you kind of do have to believe it to be true.

Your messed up happy belief system aside, please point out the hypocrisy in atheists saying religion is bad. We don't have religion. Do you know the meaning of hypocrisy? If not, look it up.

-B

 

[jameslocke]

i dont know if this has been brought up yet, if it has i'm sorry, i dont really wanna sift through all these posts right now. anyway...


from what i've seen (and believed at one point), one reason athiests dont like christianity is because christians claim to have a monopoly on truth. most christians assert that God's existence is 100% certain, and athiests claim there's no factual backing to that. however, athiests believe that its a 100% certainty God doesnt exist, and there's no factual backing for that claim either. sure, you could disprove the bible and point out its contradictions all you want, but that doesnt mean God, in one form or another, doesnt exist. disproving the bible merely means that one human interpretation of God and his work is partially erroneous. so isnt the athiest position somewhat hypocritical? i personally think no one can prove God 100% either way, making everyone, at the core, agnostics. questions?

 

[game and kirby]

ohh, locke and G&W, you are in for a beating! Okay, starting with G&W, you may say that your belief systems are not as extreme as the christians who sit in christian circles and bless themselves every time they see a dog, and that your belief is just as valid, but let me explain . To be christian, you have to :
A.Believe that Jesus died for your sins.
B. There is no B.
Now by that logic, your beliefs would be just as valid, however, it would be hypocritical of YOU to believe that Jesus died for your sins, then not believe any of the bible, simply because it's troublesome for you to do so. I could go around killing and ****** and still go to heaven as long as I believe that Jesus died for me. So please, the hypocrisy is in religion, and atheists, surrounded by the pious who try to shove the religion down their throats, have to struggle to maintain their beliefs.

On to locke: This is very short and easy. All scientists, physicians, philosophers and generally informed people will tell you that something is NOT true unless it is proven to be true. That is why the legal system is what it is, and that's why if I told you that a pink unicorn was following me around, you wouldn't believe me. The christian argument that god can't be DISPROVED is one of the most hashed up argument that I've ever heard , so please, come up with something better.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

combination

The answer is a combination of both, G&K and locke.

Being an atheist is stupid, if you completely throw out the possibility of God's existence. In this sense, yes, the only smart way is agnosticism. However, atheists refer to themselves as such because agnosticism tends to be taken to mean something else. Agnosticism in society, among those who even have any idea what it means, is defined more along the lines of "there's a pretty good chance that some god exists" or "A god exists, bust His nature is unknown to man". It tends to be looked at as the viewpoint of someone who does not believe our universe could have come to be on it's own, and had a creator, but that there's no reason to believe any of the major religions. A valid viewpoint, certainly, and one I've occasionally skirted on thinking. If you say "I'm an agnostic", then, people assume that you believe in a god of unknown nature. In reality, you believe no such thing. You believe there COULD be a god...just like there could be invisible unicorn fairies, to use the popuar example. Atheists know, however, that there is no proof for such a thing and thus assume that a god does not exist. A reasonable athiest, confronted with proof of a god's existence, would no longer be an atheist. Atheists that you speak of, that just discount the existence of one no matter what, do exist, but they are few and far between.

And Locke, it is possible to prove or disprove God 100%. I completely disprove Him all the time. It isn't possible to do the same for "a god".

So yeah, you guys are just misinformed. G&W is misinformed on what makes someone a Christian, and you are misinformed on what defines an atheist. No big deal.

For the record, when I really want to get technical I describe myself as an atheistic agnostic. This gets both meanings across- by saying agnostic, I acknowledge that I'm certainly open to the possibility...on the other hand, I modify with atheistic to clarify that of course I don't currently believe in one. I prefer to be called an agnostic over an atheist but I usually actually say atheist because the vast majority of people are too stupid to understand if I just say agnostic. For instance spanish class we went off topic and discussed religion in public schools and they were complaining that they couldn't have a christmas tree in the room and I said that that was good because some of us don't share those beliefs and it's rude to force them upon us...and then somebody explained why I would have this perverted viewpoint that we should be fair to everyone. "He's an atheist", they said. (Oh, that explains the caring about people's feelings. Now I get it) Of course, I tried to clarify, and say "actually, I'm an agnostic", but of course I was then asked "Oh, well that means you believe in something, right?" of course I don't. It was a terrible experience as it is one of the few times when I have intentionally broadcast my views to a crowd, and the results were not good. There was some sort of silence in the room like wtf is wrong with him how could he believe that. Strange looks from everyone. Yeah, you don't even know what it's like to be singled out until you say you're an atheist among a crowd of brainwashed Christians...I guess this relates to the original topic because I'm demonstrating the ostracism atheists experience because people are blinded by religion...which is why we fight against it.

If only Christians were as tolerant as their religion told them to be...

-B

 

[jameslocke]

game and kirby: On to locke: This is very short and easy. All scientists, physicians, philosophers and generally informed people will tell you that something is NOT true unless it is proven to be true. That is why the legal system is what it is, and that's why if I told you that a pink unicorn was following me around, you wouldn't believe me. The christian argument that god can't be DISPROVED is one of the most hashed up argument that I've ever heard , so please, come up with something better.

my point is, an athiests assertion that "There is no God" is just as invalid as the christian claim "There is only my God." There's no way you can say there isnt a god, unless you think you know everything in the universe? and "thats just a hashed up arguement" isnt a valid arguement. tell me why its hashed up.


And BBT, you're right. You are an agnostic because you can admit that you dont know everything about the universe. good. i'm only trying to say that no one can claim to be 100% about the existence of God. disprove christianity all you want, but the dogma isnt what determines the existence of a supreme being.

conclusion: the athiest claim of "No God" is invalid. Agnostic should be how people who dont believe in God define themselves.

 

[game and kirby]

BBT: No no nonono... An atheist is exactly what I am. I am someone who is convinced that there is no God, regardless of nature. An agnostic is someone who believes that it's not possible to prove either way. There could be a God, or not. Who knows? That's not me. As I said, and am saying again, all scientists and respectably intelligent people, and I'm sure you'll agree, BBT, say and know that NOTHING is true until proven so. That does not mean that things that aren't proven 'could or couldn't ' be true, they are NOT true until proven true. There is no grey area. That's why, if God parted the clouds and talked to me, and I was not mentally ill, I would be a god fearing Christian/muslim whatever. But until then, I know that God does not exist.

Locke, it's a hashed up argument because a lot of people, including you, can present no intelligent proof that God exists, so you resort to try to debase my opinions by saying that there's no proof that God doesn't exist. That whole line of thinking is skew. Still , it was rude of me to berate you like that, sorry.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

I dont buy it

Scientists ASSUME that which is not proven to be untrue...but that doesn't mean that it definitely isn't. It means that it could be true, but because there is no proof of it science will assume it to be false. Now, assuming something to be false and just saying it's false hands down are almost exactly the same...but the point is that anything CAN be true and it would be stupid to think otherwise. Smart people just assume that which has no proof to be wrong. You said it yourself- nothing IS true until proven so....but anything still COULD be true. I am convinced that there is no God, too, but that doesn't mean that there isn't an infintesimally small possibility.
Whatever, it doesn't matter. I'm fairly sure our religious views are EXACTLY the same and we're just arguing our personal versions of semantics. I still think my semantics kick your semantics' ***, though.

It's still perfectly ok for someone to say definitively "There is no god". When you have an asusmption with that level of certainty, it's fine to make a broad statement like that. But technically, there is a wee chance of it that you just ignore.

-B

 

[game and kirby]

okay fine, I'll restate . My beliefs are: I believe that there IS no god. I believe that there COULD be a God, if definitive proof comes about, but until then, he doesn't exist, and therefore, there IS no God. Ha! My semantics rule!

 

[smashattack]

Hiya,

Wow, was I surprised to find a religious debate on Smash Boards! But that's what I love about vBulletin boards and those who utilize them... anything can become a topic.

So... this topic. I haven't read the whole thread, as it has 15 pages' worth of replies. I am understanding the gist of it, so here I go.

Atheism is a religion.

Okay, that was a stupid statement. Let me get to the good stuff. I am a Christian, and I play Super Smash Brothers Melee. So I am here, on this thread.

To all of you, I must suggest a certain video seminar. The lecturer is Dr. Kent E. Hovind. He is amazing. This will easily disprove many theories about evolution and such. It will give plenty of the much-desired evidence needed to prove God's actual existence.

The first video (yes, there is more than one video that disproves many conventional, somewhat foolish theories!) is called Dinosaurs Creation Evolution and is very interesting. Should challenge any atheist or evolutionist's beliefs. And create a firmer belief in God for those of us who particularly follow that path.

Uh... I am a Christian, but I'm not a cliche Christian. In fact, I don't like other Christians too much. I love their adherence to the big J.C., but I can't stand it in church when they're the fire and brimstone type, or even when they just use the terminology that we Christians are "supposed to use". For instance, constantly saying "Amen!" to whatever the pastor says, or using fluid statements like, "Washed by the blood of the lamb!" or "Let us follow the righteous path, given to us so graciously by our Father who Art in Heaven." Well, jeez laweez, why don't we all speak Latin?

But at least I'm involved with these people rather than cruel, evil, villainous monstrosities of innate human nature.

So, anyway, check out Kent Hovind! Some really good points appear in there, and he even provides a very solid theory on the end of the dinosaurs!

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

unfortunately

I'm willing to bet anything Dr. Kent's video's cost money. And I'm not willing to waste my money on something I'm pretty sure is a crock. I've seen ads for Xian videos that were supposed to be scientific and just from the summaries I could tell they weren't scientific at all and lied in numerous places. Instead of telling us to watch a video that we never will, it would be better if you would summarize the ideas he has. Maybe on just one subject, if that would take too long. That way we can debate it, because your points don't exist unless you show them to us. I checked out a website selling his videos and just for hahas I'll tell the other members some of the laughable claims these videos make:


The Bible teaches that God created the universe in six literal days about 6000 years ago. Could this be true? Can it be scientifically demonstrated that the earth is not billions of years old? This tape gives scientific evidence that the Bible is scientifically accurate. It also shows the follies of the big bang theory and that evolution is actually a religious belief.

Giving scientific evidence to prove a literal six-day creation, Dr. Kent Hovind refutes evolution’s proposition that the earth has evolved over billions of years. The first of seven in the seminar series, The Age of the Earth, uncovers the follies of the Big Bang theory as well as exposing the religious beliefs of evolution.

Learn how the environment of the original creation vastly differed from ours today, and how this allowed men to live over 900 years, produced huge plants and animals, and provided conditions for the growth of dinosaurs. Also, discover the undisclosed facts about cave men. 1 hour.

Explaining the existence of Dinosaurs has long troubled Christians because their very existence appeared to discredit the Biblical account of creation. Trace the historical and biblical references to dinosaurs and learn about the few that are still alive today. Watch this tape to see interviews with people who claim they've seen living dinosaurs. 2 hours.

Evolution is a religion? I couldn't get over that he tries to actually scientifically state that there were environmental reasons that people lived to be 900 instead of just saying it was a divine miracle. No matter what environment you have, organs still eventually get old and stop functioning. There are "diseases" that are caused by inner factors and not outer. This is ridiculous. Even if there were some environment that would not allow people to die early, there would be no way to show it through science. Ridiculous.

I think the guy's credibility was probably well down the ****ter before I read this particular sentence, but if there was any semblance of it left, it was eradicated:

"This godless theory resulted in the rise of such philosophies as communism, humanism, and Nazism. The acceptance of the gap theory opened the floodgates for these ideologies, which have caused untold suffering as well as hundreds of millions of deaths in the last two centuries."

The guy is trying to say that the "theory" that the Earth is older than 6000 years gave rise to Nazism? WTF? Hitler was Christian. If this is what his videos are like, I hate to say it smashattack but you are about as duped as a person can be.

But here, let's talk about some more stuff on his site. This is about a hypothetical discovery of remains of Noah's Ark.

It would confirm that the entire surface of the planet had been covered by water within the last 6000 years.
It would confirm the factual basis for the flood legend which is present in every human culture on the planet.
It would again confirm the reliability of the early Biblical record of the human race.
It would mean that every land animal (including humans) has descended from the inhabitants of the ark.
It would take more faith than ever to cling to the theory that man descended from ape-like creatures.
The fossils would have to be interpreted as mainly a result of this flood, not the result of slow accumulation over time.
The alleged ark is yet to be discovered by a qualified team of scientists, but many seemingly reliable sources have claimed to have seen it. For more information on Noah's ark an excellent technical resource is: Noah's Ark: A Feasibility Study by John Woodmorappe.

WTF? flood legend in every culture? My ***! Most cultures do not have a flood myth. He makes stuff up. Why would you believe this man? Just because he has "Doctor" before his name?
He then goes on:

Not every "kind" of animal needed to be on board. According to the Biblical text, neither insects nor amphibians would have been taken on board. Only those animals which could not have survived a year long flood needed to be on board. Furthermore, every minor variation of animal (species) was not present. Wolves, foxes, coyotes, and dogs could have come from an original dog kind.
Making the generous assumption that the average animal size is as large as a sheep, and between 2 and 7 of each kind of animal were taken, 50,000 sheep-size animals would have been on board. This would include every known living and extinct type of mammal, bird, amphibian, and reptile.
This was no small boat. Noah and his family had over 100 years to construct a vessel longer than a football field and three stories high. The total space available was equivalent to 522 railroad stock cars. A stock car holds 240 sheep so the ark could have held 125,000 animals.
At most, only 40% of the total space was needed for all of the animals!(1) The remainder would be used for food storage.
The account of Noah's flood is similar to many other Biblical stories. They make perfect sense if you assume they mean exactly what they say and take time to study them carefully.

The first one uses evolution, something the guy doesn't believe in, to explain narrowing down the number of species. The guy picks an arbitrary number of 50,000 for the number of animals. There are billions of species in the world, not 50,000. He says that insects wouldn't be needed because only things that couldn't survive the flood would need to be on. Of course, insects can't fly non-stop for 40 days. Nor can non-sea-faring birds. Thus all insects and birds would need to be on the boat as well.

Basically this guy relies on you not actually checking his facts because all you're looking for is some kind of support so you can keep living in your dreamworld. If you actually try to confirm what he says, it will come out wrong. But not many Christians are willing to do that.

Hopefully, we can cure you of that Christianity soon. It might take some time but once you realize the load of BS Kent is feeding you maybe it won't be so hard.

Oh, and lastly, atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of one. You were right when you said that was a dumb statement.

-B

 

[Gora_Nova]

I would like to say something to the atheists and evolutions. We all know the moon is moving farther away from the earth. By the laws of physics, if we went back about 50000 years, the moon would be so close to the earth it would flood the entire earth two times a day. Nothing on land would survive.

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
It's still perfectly ok for someone to say definitively "There is no god".

Why is it ok for someone to say there is no God, then when someone says there is a God they get bashed? Why is that Bumle Bee Tuna and Gamer4Fire? Does our Religion scare you because there might be someone you have to answer to, who is mighter than anything you can imagine? To Mr. Gamer4Fire do you have to call all Christians "morons" and other names? This just shows your intelligence. So do not call other people names just because of their beliefs. If you do not want to discuss a subject like an adultTHEN GET OFF!

 

[Gamer4Fire]

After reading the last three posts, I re-assert myself: You christians are foolish.

I've read "Christian Proofs" of how the world came to be and find them laughable. Anyone with even a small background in science would be able to rip them apart. The book I read had "the latest theories of the 1980s to disprove science," most of which had already been proven false by 2001, when I read the book. Of course using science to disprove science, isn't that contradictory? Post hoc ergo proctor hoc. Works for them.

You guys seem to grasp at straws, blinded but your "faith" into believing whatever is set in front of you as long as it coincides with your beliefs. But, you neglect to acknowledge anything else, regardless of the proof behind it. So, you christians are also obtuse.


As for the moon, I can't assume that even acceleration is contant, because velocity obviuosly is not. If you graphed out and calculated the change is acceleration of the moon with the change in distance, I'm pretty sure the moon is somewhere in relation with the earth. If you follow the graph far enough, you might come to a point where the earth meets the moon or the moon moved towards the earth before comming into orbit. :D

Oh, yeah. PS: As long as you keep doing stupid things, like claiming the bible is perfect and claiming there is no basis for the BigBang Theory, I will have to continue to make snide remarks towards you as individuals/groups. Please make a note that I'm pointing you people out specifically. Not the christians who are openminded enough to recognize the proof inside the pudding. :D

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Even though you're incapable of understanding...

Originally posted by Gora_Nova
I would like to say something to the atheists and evolutions. We all know the moon is moving farther away from the earth. By the laws of physics, if we went back about 50000 years, the moon would be so close to the earth it would flood the entire earth two times a day. Nothing on land would survive.

You cannot assume the moon is moving at a constant rate. In fact, on Dr. Kent's page in arguing against a different kind of science he criticizes this exact method. Learn about satellites before you try and argue about them.

Why is it ok for someone to say there is no God, then when someone says there is a God they get bashed? Why is that Bumle Bee Tuna and Gamer4Fire? Does our Religion scare you because there might be someone you have to answer to, who is mighter than anything you can imagine? To Mr. Gamer4Fire do you have to call all Christians "morons" and other names? This just shows your intelligence. So do not call other people names just because of their beliefs. If you do not want to discuss a subject like an adult THEN GET OFF!

It is logically ok to say there is no God because there is no proof of God. It's the same as saying "There are no pigs living inside the sun". The only proof is proof against, so it's quite logical to assume God does not exist, and to assume pigs do not live inside the sun. Meanwhile it's downright foolish to say that God exists for the same reason.

I don't know why I bother...

-B

 

[game and kirby]

MY GOD(no pun intended) I've seen that man give a little seminar on TBN recently. What a complete *******! The scary thing is that he actually knows exactly what he's talking about, you can tell that he knows the facts, but he distorts them so horribly , and deftly places utter lies to give you the impression that he's right. In exemplis, he tells us, the viewers that the evolution theory is wrong . He continuosly mentions ' your grandfathers were not stinking hairy apes!' appealing to the christians sense of pride in his humanity. Then he goes on to review the evolution evidence. He outright LIES and says that only six remains of prehuman apes have been found, and goes on to state ridiculous theories which do more to discredit the finder's morality than his find.The man is more evil than any on these boards.

Keep in mind, christians, that we're not bashing you, we're bashing yer opinions, cos they blow! If you give us good , thought out opinions , then we'll listen. But as long as you keep trying to prove that the bible is true by using the bible as proof, or when you start saying ' I'm not gonna post here cos yer all goin to ****!' then we start to wonder why you're on these boards.

Oh, BTW, B, what happened to your old sig?

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

it got old

sigs change from time to time. I got tired of my sig that was kinda long anyway. Chuck had been made fun of enough. Thus the new short sig.

So, this guy doesn't actually give scientific information....he just says "evolution is wrong, we didn't descend from apes!" and we're supposed to believe every word he says because he is a doctor? As Mr. T would say, I pity the fool who buys those tapes.

-B

 

[Gora_Nova]

To you evolutionists that want todays proof of creation. There is a beetle called the Bombardier Beetle which is like a mini-fire breathing dragon. Here is a discreption from http://library.thinkquest.org/29178/amazing.htm .

"Well, I'll tell you. That little beetle is a wonder. In fact, it's practically a miniature fire breathing dragon, just the fire comes out the other end. Now, how does this miniature "dragon" shoot out a spray that is not only noxious, but is also heated to 212º F, a temperature hotter than boiling water? This little beetle was studied, and it was discovered that the beetle has two chemicals stored in its body, hydrogen peroxide dissolved in water, and hydroquinine. If you mixed the two chemicals, the peroxide would oxidize the hydroquinine. But the beetle adds an inhibitor to stop the hydrogen from oxidizing the hydroquinine. These chemicals are mixed in the beetle with no reaction. When a predator such as a bullfrog comes along, the beetle squirts the chemicals into a combustion chamber. He then mixes in two enzymes, catalase and peroxidase, a catalyst(a catalyst is a chemical that makes chemical reactions happen extremely fast, without any actual change to the catalyst itself, allowing the catalyst to be used over, and over...)The chemicals and the enzymes mix and produce another chemical, quinine, which smells bad. He holds these chemicals in storage chambers which he has in his body."

Then it goes on to say-

"Scientists have also found that some species can shoot out this spray at the rate of 500 pulses per second. Now how could this beetle have evolved from a ordinary beetle as evolutionists say? I mean, think about this. Now here is the first bombardier beetle, and it decides that it needs a weapon against all these predators that are roaming around. So it decides to evolve one. So a million years later, it has somehow evolved all the chemicals, including the inhibitor, and the combustion chamber. So One beetle decides to mix the chemicals with the anti inhibitor. And BOOM, oops, the beetle forgot to make the valves so that the chemical mixture could escape. End of beetle, end of any future descendants. Or, maybe it has everything but the inhibitor and anti-inhibitor. Well, without the inhibitor to stop the chemical reaction, the chemicals go BOOM, end of beetle, end of family tree. I could go on all day with different scenarios, but I don't want to bore you much more than I already have."

This alone should disprove a lot of info that you have about evolution just by one little bug and I gave you modern info to work with.

Originally posted by Bumble Bee Tuna
You cannot assume the moon is moving at a constant rate. In fact, on Dr. Kent's page in arguing against a different kind of science he criticizes this exact method. Learn about satellites before you try and argue about them.

Ok I'll agree that I'm probably wrong on some of the facts, I'm not perfect. But how many of you would even consider admiting you are wrong. I tried evolution and believed in it for a long time but a lot of it doesn't make since. Example- How would you get a male and a female human in the same place at the same time to make sure the human race would continue on? Would it make more since to have a almighty being to plan all this?

And remember that God does loves you no matter what you believe or say.

 

[Novowels]

Originally posted by smashattack
To all of you, I must suggest a certain video seminar. The lecturer is Dr. Kent E. Hovind.

.........oh ****, you're serious aren't you?



I weep for humanity.

I'll get back to this later, I was just checking in before going to work.

 

[smashattack]

Ah! A childish debate hath sprung up!

Calm down, people! Just because I offered some evidence that really challenged you all, you don't need to get angry!

BumbleBeeTuna, I applaud your sense of debate. You took facts from Dr. Hovind and tried to disprove them (however unsuccessfully... partially my fault as I did not explain well enough). But when you say this:

Hopefully, we can cure you of that Christianity soon. It might take some time but once you realize the load of BS Kent is feeding you maybe it won't be so hard.

Oh, and lastly, atheism is not a religion. It is the lack of one. You were right when you said that was a dumb statement.

...it is simply unfair! Come off it... I'm not trying to pull you away from whatever your beliefs may be. I am simply challenging them... I just want you to think.

And don't be so harsh when you say it was a dumb statement! :D

But the rest of you. Calling "us" foolish and saying "you" are better? Come now, is that really wise? We all have beliefs. You don't believe in a God. Gora_Nova and I do. So don't start insulting... even if you believe we are foolish. Saying stuff like that isn't very smart.

Now I know what you're going to say... "Smashattack, what you've said, trying to challenge my beliefs and all, wasn't very smart, either!" But, just in case you didn't know, this is a debate, and everyone's (that's right, not just yours) are going to be challenged. Four or five people have challenged Gora_Nova and I. Take it like a man, Gamer4Fire! Be adult here. Work with us.

Go Gora_Nova! You have provided several very good points. I do not know if I could elaborate any better.

Okay, BumbleBeeTuna, there have been several replies since I've been on, so I will answer one of your questions. You were wondering how it is possible that people could, without any stunning miracle, live for 900 years.

Ah, this is where the flood comes in! In the Bible (forgive me, I know this must send chills down some spines) it says that there was a firmament between the heavens. Heaven No. 1 being the sky, Heaven No. 2 being space and above.

Now, you all will simply set this statement aside since it is from the Bible, but please continue to read.

The firmament, if Hovind is correct (yes, I hear some of you scoffing now... just listen), was a layer of water or possibly even ice.

I can hear you saying, "Water or ice? In the sky? Come on, Smashattack, you've sniffed too much glue." Well, we see water in the sky every day in the form of clouds. This is no different. Clouds all over the world, one layer. Shouldn't be too hard to imagine.

Okay, this layer of water or ice would exert tremendous pressure on the air below. Have you ever seen a... what is it called... I'm sorry, I'll just describe it. It's a tube that doctors use to stick patients in if they have had a lot of loss of circulation. This tube has double air pressure and the patient lies in it for a month or so and heals twice as fast. Three times, maybe... can't remember which.

The Earth was basically a big version of one of these tubes. Air pressure was doubled or quite possibly even tripled, so think about it... wounds would heal extremely quickly. You could run for miles without getting tired. And who knows what our Track team would be like?

Thus, it would also enable a person to live for 900 years.

Now you're thinking, We've got normal air pressure, we live for nearly 100 years; they had twice or thrice our air pressure, they lived for 900 years? Quite a jump!

Ah, that's where I've made a mistake. I'm not sure what it really was. It could have been five, six, seven, eight times as much pressure. They, as in true-life evolutio- believing scientists, not the despised Dr. Hovind, found a nine-foot-tall skeleton of a man. Well, jeez, how on Earth could someone grow that tall?

If the air pressure was eight times as much as it is now.

Why are we only living for a hundred years now? During Noah's Ark, the water fell from the sky and got rid of that layer of clouds or ice. There was no longer the huge amount of air pressure.

Now you're saying there's absolutely no reason that this firmament fell from the sky. Well, I agree. There's no proof, no explanation how this could have happened. But that's where faith comes in... that's the challenging part.

That's what makes you or breaks you. "Blessed are those who have not seen but still believe," Jesus said to Doubting Thomas. If you can't have a little leap of faith...

...that is where you ultimately fail and go down to a fiery pit.

And I'd really hate to see that happen to anybody. But, like I said, I won't try to change your beliefs.

Oh, one more reminder: cut the insults. Thanks.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

so many things wrong...

Originally posted by smashattack
Ah! A childish debate hath sprung up!

Calm down, people! Just because I offered some evidence that really challenged you all, you don't need to get angry!

Whoa, slow down. So far, you haven't offered a shred of evidence. I tried to look up what Hovind said and still did not find actual evidence, just unfounded opinions. So no, you haven't challenged us in the slightest.

BumbleBeeTuna, I applaud your sense of debate. You took facts from Dr. Hovind and tried to disprove them (however unsuccessfully... partially my fault as I did not explain well enough).

Slow down again. What do you mean unsuccessfully? You didn't counter the points I made. Not a single one! So if you want to say I was unsuccessful, you will have to point out HOW. This is a debate, not an opinion survey. We post evidence to back up what we say.

About the rest of what you said after that- like I just said, you have yet to come close to challenging our beliefs, because you haven't posted anything yet except for this stuff about a hydrosphere which I'll get to soon.

Okay, BumbleBeeTuna, there have been several replies since I've been on, so I will answer one of your questions. You were wondering how it is possible that people could, without any stunning miracle, live for 900 years.

Correction- I was wondering why he would try to explain it scientifically when the only explanation is a divine intervention. I mean, he's arguing that God exists, why wouldn't he claim it was an act of the divine? It's just foolish. But we'll move on...

I can hear you saying, "Water or ice? In the sky? Come on, Smashattack, you've sniffed too much glue." Well, we see water in the sky every day in the form of clouds. This is no different. Clouds all over the world, one layer. Shouldn't be too hard to imagine.

Is this actually the evidence that Hovind presents? This is ridiculous. Clouds are made of water vapor. When enough water vapor appears, it rains. It doesn't just sit in the sky. Nor is the cloud layer at the edge of the atmosphere. If you've been in a plane or up a tall mountain, you will go through the clouds...but when you come up above them, you won't be in outer space! you'll be in the atmosphere. It can't be ice, because ice would not stay in the air. It can't be water, because water would also fall. You're stuck with water vapor, which when it becomes too dense (like enough water to rain for 40 days) it would fall well before that. This theory just makes no sense whatsoever.

Okay, this layer of water or ice would exert tremendous pressure on the air below. Have you ever seen a... what is it called... I'm sorry, I'll just describe it. It's a tube that doctors use to stick patients in if they have had a lot of loss of circulation. This tube has double air pressure and the patient lies in it for a month or so and heals twice as fast. Three times, maybe... can't remember which.

Do you have any idea what you're talking about? How exactly is this layer of water exerting pressure on the air below? You have to explain how it works, not just say it happens.
This theory is even backwards. High air pressure is a crushing force. I have not heard of these medical tubes, but I would be willing to bet that if there is a device like you mentioned, it has lower air pressure than normal. You see, when pressure gets high, it kills you. Go underwater. The water begins to crush your body. This is what happens when pressure gets higher.

The Earth was basically a big version of one of these tubes. Air pressure was doubled or quite possibly even tripled, so think about it... wounds would heal extremely quickly. You could run for miles without getting tired. And who knows what our Track team would be like? Thus, it would also enable a person to live for 900 years.

Who cares if wounds heal quickly? People tend to not die from wounds. People die from heart attacks. Wounds healing won't add 800 years to your life. This is the kind of unfounded jumps in logic this guy makes, and I can't believe you buy into it.

Ah, that's where I've made a mistake. I'm not sure what it really was. It could have been five, six, seven, eight times as much pressure. They, as in true-life evolutio- believing scientists, not the despised Dr. Hovind, found a nine-foot-tall skeleton of a man. Well, jeez, how on Earth could someone grow that tall?

Like I said earlier, higher pressure is a compressive force. It would crush your body, making you shorter. People in lower pressure regions (Was it the Incas that lived in south american mountains) do grow to be taller, because there is less atmospheric force crushing them.

Now you're saying there's absolutely no reason that this firmament fell from the sky. Well, I agree. There's no proof, no explanation how this could have happened. But that's where faith comes in... that's the challenging part.

This is where I think the guy is silly. His "scientific" theory still requires faith that God caused the firmament to break. So why not just have his theory be that God made people live longer? Both require faith.

Hope that I helped correct some of those silly ideas you have. You can still believe there was a hydrosphere, if you feel like it. Just don't pretend it's scientific. It's entirely made up. It's not even close to being based on facts.

-B

 

[Gora_Nova]

Smashattack, I have to point out one thing, it is not the air pressure but the higher O2 content which helps with healing and growing. This has been proven by non-christian scientist in Japan. They put a cherry tomato plant in this high O2 chamber. We all know cherry tomatos are about the size of overgrown cherries. The cherry tomato plant in the chamber grew to about 15ft. tall, gave cherry tomatos about the size of a softball, and produced much more useable cherry tomatos than the normal cherry tomato plant.

Now, by theory, the reason why people didn't wear out as fast back then was because of the extra layer of atmosphere, which was water. This atmospheric layer blocked the X-rays from the sun. X-rays put microscopic holes though your body causing damage to the systems of the body. This is what causes you to age faster than the people before the flood.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

No. No, no, and no.

O2 IS good for people. If you want to make a scientific post, you could talk about the experiments that have been done showing that mice put in a pure O2 environment lived longer. But plants? They die in pure O2. Animals breathe O2 and put out CO2. Plants "breathe" CO2 and put out O2. So yeah, that study you just posted? you made it up.

The layer of the atmosphere that blocks certain electromagentic waves such as X-rays is called the Ozone. It has existed in its entirety for the extent of human history excepting the last century, when we have been destroying it, and it did not make people live to be 900.

X-rays are dangerous, but they do not make little holes in your body. In reality, your body is made up of cells and there is empty space in between them. So technically, on the cellular level, there are always little holes in you. X-rays damage the cells in your body, but they do not make holes.

So yeah, your whole post was lies, and I will discount everything you say from now on. Hint: if science proves your beliefs to be wrong, you shouldn't lie about science, you should change your beliefs.

-B

 

[Gora_Nova]

Well, for one thing, I know for a fact X-rays do put holes in to soft tissue. How do you think the X-rays machines get the picture of your bones. Maybe you sould do listen to your own words before you diss on someone for misinterpreting the truth. Why don't you do a little reseach yourself, sometimes, instead of saying things just to prove your point.

The second thing is, I did not say a pure O2 environment. I said a higher O2 environment. Look at what I wrote more carefully next time, please.

Oh, by the way if science proves your beliefs to be wrong, you shouldn't lie about science, you should change your beliefs.

 

[Novowels]

Originally posted by smashattack
Atheism is a religion.

Yeah... And "bald" is a hair color.

The rest of your post is about Kent Hovind. I am not extremely interested in evolution, but I can't help but run into that name whenever I read about it. As such, I know more about "Dr." * Hovind than I really care to.

* The US Dept of Education does not recognize the American Accrediting Association of Theological Institutions, which is where Hovind got his PhD, as an accrediting agency-- it's considered a "pay for PhD" business. In reality he does not even have the credentials to teach a high school science class.

"Dr. Dino" -- as he likes to call himself -- does have some interesting theories. Unfortunately, they can be described as "bull****" as well as "interesting." On the other hand, he is an extremely charismatic man, 'able to sell a ketchup popsicle to a woman in white gloves' as the saying goes. His arguments are as based on ridiculing evolutionists and appealing to emotion as they are on making stuff up. If you want some links, check out the Talk.Origins Kent Hovind FAQ. It'll tell you everything you don't want to know about Dr. Dino.

I really like how x-rays now put holes in soft tissue in order to get a picture of bones. It's a good thing god-rays put all the soft tissue back after the doctors take a picture of the bare bones. Also, you people are talking about oxygen bubbles (high O2 content) and decompression chambers. The opposite of compression. In fact, if I recall correctly, highly compressed atmospheres (like in deep sea research stations and submersibles) cause a number of health problems and cut short the lifespan by quite a chunk. Of course, I could be wrong about that. I can't find too much information after a quickie search. I'll get back to you if I find out more.

Anyways, the ages of the people in Genesis is actually due to copyist laziness. I read about it on a Jewish scholar's site, which is currently buried in my 350 Bible Study links that I have obtained over the years..... Somewhere. I really need to categorize these things better.

If I recall correctly, the reason for the long ages was because the original hebrews went by a lunar calendar instead of a yearly calendar. In fact, the gregorian (or yearly) calendar wasn't adopted until a few thousand years later. Instead of calculating the lunar-to-yearly dates, however, they just changed the word "(lunar) cycle" into "years." I do believe it calculates out to somewhere in the early 70's. Still pretty ripe for those days. (age of death is estimated to be mid-to-late 30's by most scholars). Eh. I shall have to organize my links some night and add some links for you all to peruse.

Sorry for everything being all jumbled up together, I usually spend more time on these things and put everything in order... But I'm a bit tired after work and I have to get up tomorrow. Undoubtably, if I missed anything, it shall get pointed out and I can address it later.

Novowels :sleep:

 

[game and kirby]

Yeah, I think we pretty much know that Hovind is a total bull****er and doesn't have any idea what he's talking about. I've actually gone and paid some money to see them, and now I'm thinking about suing the website, but they'd probably tell me to become a 'saved' christian and convert. Did you guys get a load of the background to some of his 'seminars' ? Jeez, people like him should be locked up. But anyway, to continue to current issues.

I had a good laugh with smashattack and Gora nova's posts. Funny, but I won't say they're stupid or idiotic, cos my statements will prove that.
On ice and water layers in the atmosphere: I don't know why anyone hasn't pointed this out clearer. WATER AND ICE DO NOT FLY!!! There. The reason clouds are in the air is because they are vapour, gas, and lighter than the air they are in. So they go UP. Ice goes DOWN. So does WATER. And there is no such thing as a layer of clouds covering the earth, because that would mean that :A) a ton of water would have to magically appear
B) The water couldn't form 100% cloud cover over the whole world for a maintained period of time.
Also, if there were such a preposterous thing happening, it would NOT in any way make lifespans longer. Since when does a layer of ice which magically exerts pressure on the earth's air increase lifespans. It wouldn't even increase O2 levels! All it would do is make us evolve to be shorter. And please, it's already been said, but ice, water and clouds do not filter out UV rays, ozone does. Also, UV rays are not X rays. Also AGAIN, X Rays do not poke holes in your body, those little holes are pores. They merely go through your body, and don't go through bone and other such tissue. Voila! An X ray!

Also, increased O2 levels would make plants die quicker. As B said, they need Carbon Dioxide to survive, not oxygen. You know how sometimes you breather quicker when there's a lot of carbon dioxide around? It's the same with plants and O2. So your tomato plant wouldn't have grown quickly at all. It would have probably died.

There is a biological limit to how long you can survive. When you are born, your brain cells immediately start to die off. You never get any new brain cells after the age of 23, your physical prime.The death of your brain cells is not affected by O2 levels, or anything else, mostly stress, and physical wounds. If you take no physical wounds and live a perfect life, you still wouldn't go far beyond the 120 year mark, the world record. So stop all this 900 year crap, cos it's unfounded , stupid and boring.

Atheism isn't a religion, read yer frickin dictionary. Atheists believe that there is NO god. No god , no religion. Godless faiths are, strictly speaking, not religions, but philosophies.

Okay, that's all the points. Oh, and to all you christians, please, I know that substituting blind faith for intelligence has worked for most of your lives, but if you're going to debate with well read people, research a teeny bit before saying embarassing things.

I have to go catch some X rays outside now.

 

[Sirus011]

I must commend your efforts.

It takes a great deal of energy to debate with those who refuse to do any research about what they choose to argue about. I have to say I'm quite impressed with your self control I have trouble controling my disapointment when I get involved with religious debates... I tend to get a little angry when I see people blindly following the masses. IF ( and i say this very very loosely because i think that religion is utterly laughable) if god truely intended for people to blindly follow him hed have made them sheep.

I say agian, you people who ignore fact and choose instead to follow your faith are betraying humanity and should be hunted down and annexed from the gene pool immediately.

 

[Gora_Nova]

Well I guess you guys have it all figured out. It doesn't matter if my proof is wrong or right, you are still closed minded as they come. All you mostly did is tell people is how stupid our beliefs are and gave so little proof that why we are wrong. You couldn't even convince a little child. Many non-chirstian scientists believe evolution is false. Example Dr. Eldredge. But the scientific world is so controlling they only give out their "facts" and not the truth. And you say religion is contolling. At least next time if I go into a debat about this again I have a load of proof to work with.

Lets put it this way, if you are right then all we have to look forward to is death. But if I'm right I go to heaven and you are screwed. At lease I have something to look forward to.

I'll let you people get on saying how dumb the christians are, but I will try to remember I was talking to people with a middle school mentality. But remember we could be right.

God still loves you.:D

 

[Novowels]

ad hominem is bad, mmmkay?

I have not insulted anyone, to my knowledge. I'm not going around saying that Christians should be removed from the gene pool and et cetera. Yes, some people are. And yes, perhaps they are a little bit angry and are saying things they probably shouldn't be. (not going to win any converts that way, kids) But that's not me.

I don't agree with those statements.

I am an atheist, and I used to be a Christian. In fact, I was going to be a preacher up until I deconverted. I did not become an atheist overnight, and only recently did I start calling myself that.

I am an atheist.

I got that way by being open-minded, and I continue to be open-minded today. And yet I am still an atheist. Not because of close-mindedness, but because that is where the evidence points.

Gora_Nova said:
Lets put it this way, if you are right then all we have to look forward to is death. But if I'm right I go to heaven and you are screwed. At lease I have something to look forward to.

That is an appeal to emotion, one of the BS debate tactics pointed out by Carl Sagan. It means nothing.

Here's my 'for instance' appeal to emotion:

Let me put it this way, if you are right, we have to spend our lives enslaved to a God. But if I'm right, we can make anything we want out of our life and you have wasted your whole life (which is all you have) in the service of something that doesn't exist. At least I'm alive, and making every moment count.

Now, I do not mean this as an actual argument. It's an appeal to emotion. It is not good debate. Don't you feel a tad bit insulted by my remarks? That's exactly how all of us feel about yours. It's no better than "well, I know where you are going when you die!" and making crackling-flame noises (true story).

Still, I find it less disgusting than "God still loves you." But I won't get into that.

If we can get away from the bad arguing device, perhaps we can have a real debate? Just ignore the peanut gallery there and concentrate on the arguments.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

Just thought I would add even MORE evidence against these whack theories

First of all, thanks to Novo for pointing out the complete sham of Mr. Hovind. You really do have such great sources lined up. One of these days I will have to ask you for them. I'd like to see smashattack's response to your claims against Kent. He'll probably at least be smart enough to renounce mr. Hovind, though he'll surely find that AiG site as his new "scientific" site of choice. And I must say, it is much better.

For you, Gora Nova, do you know anytihing? X-rays go through your skin in the same way visible light goes through glass (hint, light doesn't make holes in glass). Your bones are not "transparent" to the particular frequency of X-rays, so they block them. That's how they work. So please, stop making things up.

I realize you said "higher O2". I was demonstrating a point. Plants do not thrive in high O2 atmospheres. Taken to the extreme, they die if it's all O2. They barely survive in high O2 environments and have stunted growth. Just like if a plant gets absolutely no water, it will die, and if it gets only a very small amount, it will almost die. So, you're still lying, and it's sad. You should stop embarassing yourself.

-B

 

[Novowels]

Hah, AiG.

Well, I hope not. I've dealt with AiGers before. Not pretty.

They are better than Hovind's groupies though.

 

[smashattack]

WATER AND ICE DO NOT FLY!!! There. The reason clouds are in the air is because they are vapour, gas, and lighter than the air they are in.

That's an oxymoron.

Okay, I'm done with this debate. You will all say now that "Smashattack is leaving because he lost." Well, just like you, because this whole thing is about who wins and who loses.

I came in here, provided some very good evidence, and then you guys all said it's BS. It's scientifically proven (and not just by the misinterpreted (yes, you guys don't understand because you choose not to) Dr. Kent Hovind--others of your beliefs have said same things). But your "facts" somehow overrule mine and I'm suddenly a liar and a blasphemer of the no-faith belief (I've changed my mind--atheism is a religion. Why? Because I believe so and you can't change that).

I said I never wanted to change anybody's beliefs. I only wanted to make you think. As distinguished as you all obviously are, I figured you'd enjoy having something to think about. But instead you just insult Gora_Nova and I. You are only here to bash those you do not agree with.

You must all be in elementary school. Nowhere have I seen anybody act like this unless they were elementary children or pathetic atheists.

Was that an insult just now? I hope you didn't take it that way. I surely didn't mean it that way. Because I agree with Gora_Nova. We have something to look forward to, whether it's true or not (and no matter what you say, it is true. Why? Because I said so. I believe it, and you can't change that, just as much as I can't change your views).

So come off it. Grow up a little.

Yes, yes, pelt me with more insults after this. It will only go to show just how childish you really are. I expect it of you (after all, that's all you've done up until now).

Novowels, I understand you didn't insult anybody. I must thank you for that, and that you at least tried to not be close-minded. I must say that much for you.

But still, trying to change our beliefs? That I find much more insulting than you find the phrase God loves you. I can't believe anybody would even try that.

It's called the First Amendment. I think during all your guys' research, you forgot your only god: government. You've got to follow something, so it's gotta be that. Yet you seem to have forgotten that our government, your god, is based solely on that which you have turned your back on...

...God.

Novowels, I will pray for you. There's nothing you can do about that. When it helps, I will be glad. But whatever happened between you and God is between you and God, I can't meddle with that. I just hope and pray you'll take off your cataracts and see the truth for yourself. I cannot do that for you.

If I have angered anybody in "challenging" their beliefs or "giving them something to think about", forgive me. I didn't realize your minds could not handle this level of maturity. I will try harder to be more open-minded as well.

Hey, BumbleBeeTuna, I've been talking with you on some other post. Whatever happens in this thread should stay in this thread, I think.

 

[Mr. G & W]

Science AND Religion!??

What is so wrong with believe in science and religion at the same time? is it impossible that God could have used science to do the stuff that people attribute to him? i personally don't think the Big Bang Theory could happen on its own, but I think God could have made it happen. There is a blend of science and religion, and it works for me.
no, I do not think the bible is 100% fact. its proven that parts of it have been translated incorrectly. several books in the bible also appear in the dead sea scrolls. however, the dead sea scrolls are not quite the same as the modern day versions. the reason? because when the bible was translated into greek, people made mistakes. i hope all the other christians on these boards don't hunt me down and shoot me for even ASSUMING the bible isn't 100% true...
and why is it that only Christianity is being slammed at on these boards? i understand that so far, only Christians have replied, but still, its not like the Jews and Muslims are perfect in their beliefs.
those of you who think that Christianity has become a disease, you are correct. people like mr hovind (or whatever his name is) use religion as a way to brainwash people. they make money off of it, and to them, its a good way to control the masses. but Christianity wasn't always this way...think to the Founding Fathers. the majority of them were highly religious, yet they didn't let this cloud their beliefs. they were still able to think for themselves, and made something pretty good, if you ask me (our Consitution). so its not like Christianity has had its bad effect on everyone.

 

[smashattack]

Mr. G & W, thanks for your attempt to help. But you still say Kent Hovind is a brainwasher. Which just doesn't help.

I personally agree with him. He is a scientist. You guys believe what you want.

Bumble Bee Tuna, I've got two fairly simple questions: are you the moderator of this board and, if so, is discrimination (in any form, whether against blacks or whites, whatever) allowed?

Thanks.

 

[Bumble Bee Tuna]

For the last time, smashattack

You barely posted any "evidence" at all. You told us about Mr. Kent Hovind. (As Novo told you, his Ph.D is a sham). You did not tell us what Mr. Hovind has for evidence. You just told us that he thinks something is true. I know small children that think Santa Claus exists...is this evidence toward his existence? Of course not.

You presented ONE thing. It was not evidence, however. You said that there could have been a layer of water around the atmosphere. This was a HYPOTHESIS. You did not post evidence, just an unfounded claim. Evidence at the least would have been posting about the viability of such a hydrosphere. What effect would that have on the global climate? Would it be possible? (The answer, of course, is no. For an explanation from a Christian perspective that you might actually listen to, check out www.answersingenesis.com)
A hydrosphere large enough to produce rain for 40 days straight would be huge. And this (according to AiG, the site I just mentioned, which is Christian) would heat up the earth far too much.
The point is, you produced no scientific proof or even anecdotal evidence. All you posted is that someone had an idea that there could have been a hydrosphere. Well, I also have an idea. The world may have once been made entirely out of swiss cheese. Is there any evidence to this idea? Of course not. Just as there is not any evidence to Hovind's idea. The ideas are both Hypotheses. They are possible ideas that need to be scientifically tested. When we test Hovind's idea scientifically, we see that a hydrosphere is a physical impossibility. When we check the cheese idea, we see that the world is made up of many materials that could not have formed from swiss cheese, thus the possibility of a world made of it in the past is impossible. Do you understand the way science (and debates) work? We provide evidence to back up claims. You have yet to provide any evidence. You've done quite well on the claims side of the equation; we've seen plenty claims. Just no evidence.

You have yet to post any facts for our facts to overrule. You have posted ideas that our facts have shown are not possible...but that is entirely different.

Unfortunately, you have not given us anything to think about. Do I give you anything to think about if I tell you "Pigs used to be able to talk! And they had a very well-established society...then one day they just forgot how and became the pigs we know today." Obviously you would think this claim was stupid...but why? Because I haven't given you any reasons to believe it. For you to even consider what I was saying and think about it, I would have to show you archaeological remains of an ancient pig society, or ancient pig artifacts. Do you get my point? You can post ideas and claims all you want, but for them to hold any weight you must post evidence as well.

As for your elementary school comment, I don't think it really needs to be addressed but I'm betting that I am in fact older than you are. They teach the scientific method in elementary school, and you obviously never learned that, so if anyone here gives off the impression of being below elementary school level it would be you. If you sat in on an elementary school science class, you'd learn so much...

And to address your take on the U.S. Government, let me quote you:

"It's called the First Amendment."

Now, I don't know if you've ever READ the First Amendment, but it just so happens it starts like this: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

See that? The government is completely separate from religion. It is not founded on God. Religion is only mentioned once in the entire Constitution (the foundation of our country) and it is not in a favorable way. The only time religion is mentioned is to specifically state that there cannot be religious litmus testsfor public office. And most of the Founders were Deists, not Christians.

Actually, we don't "have to follow something". I get along just fine not following anything. As a Christian, maybe it's hard for you to imagine not following something like a sheep, but for me it's not difficult at all.

So, for the last time, smashattack- you have not given us anything to think about. I can tell that you think you must have challenged us because we got angry with you. The reverse is true. We WANT a challenge. We WANT something to think about. That's what debate is for. You didn't deliver. That's what makes us angry, is when people post unfounded opinions.

On to your second post:
You believe him because he "is" a scientist? Whew, that's easy enough to fix! His Ph.D is not accredited. He is in fact not a Doctor. And even if he were, you believe him because he's a scientist...but don't believe the millions of people (also scientists, from actual accredited institutions) that disagree with him?
To answer your question, no, discrimination is not tolerated. And because you've obviously deluded yourself into thinking you're being discriminated against, I will answer your follow up: No, you are not being discriminated against. People are DEBATING against what you posted. That is the purpose of the forum. It's called the DEBATE Hall. Everyone is obeying the rules, (though there is a mild amount of flaming coming from -both- sides).

I hate to argue with you, because I know I'll eventually meet you at a smash tournament and I would prefer you not to be pissed at me...but the point remains- you have failed to make a point so far. And that isn't allowed from anyone, Christian or not.

-B

 

[PorCorpWis]

.

A couple pages back someone accused all atheists of being agnostic at the core. I find this insulting. Athiesm is defined by the lack of belief in a god. Does the lack of belief in something mean that you wouldn't change your mind if evidence to the contrary appeared? No...

To make an analogy, agnostisim is like a kid who is pretty sure Santa Clause doesn't exist. There's no evidence whatsoever to support it, but he's heard a lot of people say he's real, and a lot of people say he's fake. Most of him beleives it to be false since it's what makes sense, but a small part of him believes it's true or may be true simply because of what others have said. One can make the statement "There is no God," just as logically as one can make the statement, "There is no Santa Clause." Yea, sure, maybe Santa Clause really does live up in the North Pole making toys all year, but I don't beleive it, not even a small part of me... because I've learned, as the child eventually does, to seperate reasonable truth from things that one hears. Of course, if I went up to the North pole and met Santa Clause, I might change my mind after a thorough investigation. However, until that day comes, I will not bother to say "I beleive that there is no evidence which supports the belief in Santa Clause to a reasonable degree of certainty" just as I will not bother to do the same for God, nor invisible pink fairy unicorns, by calling myself agnostic rather than athiest.

 

[Novowels]

Originally posted by smashattack
Novowels, I will pray for you.

Ok. I'll think for you.

:D :D :D

 

[Flaming Blaze]

I know all you atheists out there want something to think about and I thought I might throw this into the works. I got this off a web site called "50 REASONS TO LEAVE YOUR FAITH (evolution)" and I thought it might be interesting to find out what you all thought. The site: http://evolutionlie.faithweb.com/

Reverse geology -- The geologic table shows that rocks are in a sequential layer from pre-cambrian upward to the earth's crust. However, no place on earth has this sequential pattern from "oldest" to "youngest". In fact, there is a rock in Alberta that no evolutionist will discuss without resorting to outright lying. This pre-cambrian rock is 350 miles long by 15 miles wide by 7 miles deep. How did it get to the top if it's one of the oldest. Any scientist will tell you it's impossible to move something of this mass through the earth. Also, there are no "up-thrust" marks anywhere on this rock. In conclusion, there is no geologic table-just a tool for "duping" innocents.

I am a Christian, and believe to become one you must confess with your mouth Jesus is your king and savior and he died for your sins. I also believe you can not get into heaven through good deeds (sorry doesn't work that way).

I also want all of you to know I have a lot of fun with life. I love every minute of it and live life to the fullest. I play D&D, go to the amusment park, and watch rated R movies. I also have a very loving husband! I have no idea what sort of pleasures I could be missing out on.