Bill Maher and Brian Levin Discuss Islam

[Weegle777 78]

If i sound arrogant when i speak on this subject i dont mean to. Its just what i feel. I dont claim to be right.

I don't think you do. It's just when a human being looks at the bible and makes a definitive statement like that, when that person has only his limited knowledge of a few years on earth, it sounds funny.

[Grumps 3,704]

Weegs, I agree with you that Christians do a horrible job of leading non-believers to Christ. I think that when fishing for lost souls we are using the wrong bait. We should use inner peace as bait. I have never met a person who has true inner peace that is not a Christian. I think if non-believers see Christians at peace no matter what dire circumstances they are facing, then they will want to pattern themselves after us. (Just as DKW did when he was 28 years old.) Until two years ago I was a believer, primarily based on my upbringing, but I had little faith because I was trying to "figure out" Christianity. Then I heard a sermon where the pastor basically said to just live like Christianity makes sense even though you don't understand it, and then you will start to understand. My life has changed completely since I became a follower of Jesus (as opposed to a pseudo-beliver). I am the happiest person I know. I no longer go to work, instead I go to serve the people I deal with. I have a song in my heart all of the time. The more blessings I pass on to others, the more blessings I receive. My marriage is fantastic. What has happened in my life is supernatural. Non-believers want to see supernatural things like a burning bush or a talking snake, but they forget that supernatural things can occur internally. I would love to hear "inner peace" stories from non-believers just to see if there are any out there.

[ToomersRevenge 284]

I am as at peace as one can be. I have a great woman next to me, amazing friends, and am exactly where I want to be at this point in my life. If there's something you want to know more specifically I can answer that.

[homersapien 11,431]

After years of debating this topic (on one side or the other), I've learned one thing: You won't convince the other side to change their views. They have to do the research and figure it out for themselves.

I used to be steadfast in my faith in god and the Christian church. I argued day and night against evolution and atheism and the big bang. No one could convince me that the Bible wasn't 100% true.

No one except me. I researched and thought long and hard on my own...and I came to my own conclusions. Now I waffle between agnostic and deist...it's a process trying to figure out what really makes sense to me. I do 100% believe that evolution is fact, that the Bible is just a book, and that everyone (not just religious people) is a little bit crazy from time to time.

Chiding religious people about their beliefs is stupid. Telling someone that praying is crazy is stupid. Telling someone that since they don't believe in evolution that they can't claim their Alma Mater (even if it is Auburn ) is supremely stupid. All I can say to Weegle and people like him is this: I disagree with you. Wow. That seems so much better than being a total @$$ about it.

Presumably you are referring to me, so I need to set the record straight.

I never said Weegle couldn't claim AU as his Alma Mater when discussing the fallacy of evolution. I respectfully asked him ("please") not to do so.

It was a sincere request and I still hold it. Maybe this is a problem I have with understanding the nature of a "university". Perhaps there are many graduates of any given university that claim evolution is simply false. It may be there are degrees that don't require at least a fundamental exposure to science. Also, I am not suggesting that anyone is bound to accept what they are exposed to at a university. Everyone has the personal right to accept or reject any facts they care to.

My sense of embarrassment is fueled by the fact that evolution is clearly accepted as scientific fact and actually forms the basis of modern biology and related disciplines in the scientific field. To publicly proclaim this as false suggests that the person making such a claim has never been exposed to the concept at all or is a willful prisoner to their ideology. Either way, it is embarrassing for me to have them represent my Alma Mater. (And I have the right to be embarrassed.)

Somewhat off-topic, my nephew recently received his PhD in Biology from the University of Alabama. And as much as it pains me to admit it, one of my greatest living heroes, E.O. Wilson, who is currently head of the Biology Dept. at Harvard, was also a graduate of Alabama.

He is a pioneer of sociobiology (for which he took a lot of flak from the "liberal" community btw).

His "Consilience" is a masterpiece on the subject of how science and religion can coexist. I would suggest it to anyone who has a problem with reconciling science with their religious beliefs.

Anyway, it's painful enough for me to hold University of Alabama graduates in such high esteem. I certainly don't want to listen to Auburn grads talking about the "false" theory of evolution.

[jj3jordan 2,059]

After years of debating this topic (on one side or the other), I've learned one thing: You won't convince the other side to change their views. They have to do the research and figure it out for themselves.

I used to be steadfast in my faith in god and the Christian church. I argued day and night against evolution and atheism and the big bang. No one could convince me that the Bible wasn't 100% true.

No one except me. I researched and thought long and hard on my own...and I came to my own conclusions. Now I waffle between agnostic and deist...it's a process trying to figure out what really makes sense to me. I do 100% believe that evolution is fact, that the Bible is just a book, and that everyone (not just religious people) is a little bit crazy from time to time.

Chiding religious people about their beliefs is stupid. Telling someone that praying is crazy is stupid. Telling someone that since they don't believe in evolution that they can't claim their Alma Mater (even if it is Auburn ) is supremely stupid. All I can say to Weegle and people like him is this: I disagree with you. Wow. That seems so much better than being a total @$$ about it.

Presumably you are referring to me, so I need to set the record straight.

I never said Weegle couldn't claim AU as his Alma Mater when discussing the fallacy of evolution. I respectfully asked him ("please") not to do so.

It was a sincere request and I still hold it. Maybe this is a problem I have with understanding the nature of a "university". Perhaps there are many graduates of any given university that claim evolution is simply false. It may be there are degrees that don't require at least a fundamental exposure to science. Also, I am not suggesting that anyone is bound to accept what they are exposed to at a university. Everyone has the personal right to accept or reject any facts they care to.

My sense of embarrassment is fueled by the fact that evolution is clearly accepted as scientific fact and actually forms the basis of modern biology and related disciplines in the scientific field. To publicly proclaim this as false suggests that the person making such a claim has never been exposed to the concept at all or is a willful prisoner to their ideology. Either way, it is embarrassing for me to have them represent my Alma Mater. (And I have the right to be embarrassed.)

Somewhat off-topic, but my nephew recently received his PhD in Biology from the University of Alabama. And as much as it pains me to admit it, one of my greatest living heroes, E.O. Wilson who is currently head of the Biology Dept. at Harvard was also a graduate of Alabama.

He is a pioneer of sociobiology (for which he took a lot of flak from the "liberal" community btw).

His "Consilience" is a masterpiece on the subject of how science and religion can coexist. I would suggest it to anyone who has a problem with reconciling science with their religious beliefs.

Anyway, it's painful enough for me to hold University of Alabama graduates in such high esteem. I certainly don't want to listen to Auburn grads talking about the "false" theory of evolution.

Even your "respectful" request that anyone not claim Auburn as their alma mater is incredibly arrogant.

If all degrees don't require a basic understanding of science, and maybe they all do, science still does not prove evolution. It is still just a theory. Why? Because of the millions of unexplainable unanswerable questions it brings forth. Nobody can truly say a theory is false, because by definition it is only a theory. If you want to call Creation a theory, fine. It can't be proven to you, so it is a theory. Please don't imply even respectfully that I or anyone else is an idiot for believing my theory over your theory.

You said it perfectly yourself: evolution is "accepted", not proven, not fact. It has facts in it, but it has not been proven to be LAW.

And you do have the right to be embarrassed. Well put.

[jj3jordan 2,059]

I am as at peace as one can be. I have a great woman next to me, amazing friends, and am exactly where I want to be at this point in my life. If there's something you want to know more specifically I can answer that.

You might want to consider your potential plight after your awesome life is over. Just sayin'.

[Weegle777 78]

After years of debating this topic (on one side or the other), I've learned one thing: You won't convince the other side to change their views. They have to do the research and figure it out for themselves.

I used to be steadfast in my faith in god and the Christian church. I argued day and night against evolution and atheism and the big bang. No one could convince me that the Bible wasn't 100% true.

No one except me. I researched and thought long and hard on my own...and I came to my own conclusions. Now I waffle between agnostic and deist...it's a process trying to figure out what really makes sense to me. I do 100% believe that evolution is fact, that the Bible is just a book, and that everyone (not just religious people) is a little bit crazy from time to time.

Chiding religious people about their beliefs is stupid. Telling someone that praying is crazy is stupid. Telling someone that since they don't believe in evolution that they can't claim their Alma Mater (even if it is Auburn ;)/> ) is supremely stupid. All I can say to Weegle and people like him is this: I disagree with you. Wow. That seems so much better than being a total @$$ about it.

Presumably you are referring to me, so I need to set the record straight.

I never said Weegle couldn't claim AU as his Alma Mater when discussing the fallacy of evolution. I respectfully asked him ("please") not to do so.

It was a sincere request and I still hold it. Maybe this is a problem I have with understanding the nature of a "university". Perhaps there are many graduates of any given university that claim evolution is simply false. It may be there are degrees that don't require at least a fundamental exposure to science. Also, I am not suggesting that anyone is bound to accept what they are exposed to at a university. Everyone has the personal right to accept or reject any facts they care to.

My sense of embarrassment is fueled by the fact that evolution is clearly accepted as scientific fact and actually forms the basis of modern biology and related disciplines in the scientific field. To publicly proclaim this as false suggests that the person making such a claim has never been exposed to the concept at all or is a willful prisoner to their ideology. Either way, it is embarrassing for me to have them represent my Alma Mater. (And I have the right to be embarrassed.)

Somewhat off-topic, but my nephew recently received his PhD in Biology from the University of Alabama. And as much as it pains me to admit it, one of my greatest living heroes, E.O. Wilson who is currently head of the Biology Dept. at Harvard was also a graduate of Alabama.

He is a pioneer of sociobiology (for which he took a lot of flak from the "liberal" community btw).

His "Consilience" is a masterpiece on the subject of how science and religion can coexist. I would suggest it to anyone who has a problem with reconciling science with their religious beliefs.

Anyway, it's painful enough for me to hold University of Alabama graduates in such high esteem. I certainly don't want to listen to Auburn grads talking about the "false" theory of evolution.

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

[ToomersRevenge 284]

After years of debating this topic (on one side or the other), I've learned one thing: You won't convince the other side to change their views. They have to do the research and figure it out for themselves.

I used to be steadfast in my faith in god and the Christian church. I argued day and night against evolution and atheism and the big bang. No one could convince me that the Bible wasn't 100% true.

No one except me. I researched and thought long and hard on my own...and I came to my own conclusions. Now I waffle between agnostic and deist...it's a process trying to figure out what really makes sense to me. I do 100% believe that evolution is fact, that the Bible is just a book, and that everyone (not just religious people) is a little bit crazy from time to time.

Chiding religious people about their beliefs is stupid. Telling someone that praying is crazy is stupid. Telling someone that since they don't believe in evolution that they can't claim their Alma Mater (even if it is Auburn ) is supremely stupid. All I can say to Weegle and people like him is this: I disagree with you. Wow. That seems so much better than being a total @$$ about it.

Presumably you are referring to me, so I need to set the record straight.

I never said Weegle couldn't claim AU as his Alma Mater when discussing the fallacy of evolution. I respectfully asked him ("please") not to do so.

It was a sincere request and I still hold it. Maybe this is a problem I have with understanding the nature of a "university". Perhaps there are many graduates of any given university that claim evolution is simply false. It may be there are degrees that don't require at least a fundamental exposure to science. Also, I am not suggesting that anyone is bound to accept what they are exposed to at a university. Everyone has the personal right to accept or reject any facts they care to.

My sense of embarrassment is fueled by the fact that evolution is clearly accepted as scientific fact and actually forms the basis of modern biology and related disciplines in the scientific field. To publicly proclaim this as false suggests that the person making such a claim has never been exposed to the concept at all or is a willful prisoner to their ideology. Either way, it is embarrassing for me to have them represent my Alma Mater. (And I have the right to be embarrassed.)

Somewhat off-topic, but my nephew recently received his PhD in Biology from the University of Alabama. And as much as it pains me to admit it, one of my greatest living heroes, E.O. Wilson who is currently head of the Biology Dept. at Harvard was also a graduate of Alabama.

He is a pioneer of sociobiology (for which he took a lot of flak from the "liberal" community btw).

His "Consilience" is a masterpiece on the subject of how science and religion can coexist. I would suggest it to anyone who has a problem with reconciling science with their religious beliefs.

Anyway, it's painful enough for me to hold University of Alabama graduates in such high esteem. I certainly don't want to listen to Auburn grads talking about the "false" theory of evolution.

Even your "respectful" request that anyone not claim Auburn as their alma mater is incredibly arrogant.

If all degrees don't require a basic understanding of science, and maybe they all do, science still does not prove evolution. It is still just a theory. Why? Because of the millions of unexplainable unanswerable questions it brings forth. Nobody can truly say a theory is false, because by definition it is only a theory. If you want to call Creation a theory, fine. It can't be proven to you, so it is a theory. Please don't imply even respectfully that I or anyone else is an idiot for believing my theory over your theory.

You said it perfectly yourself: evolution is "accepted", not proven, not fact. It has facts in it, but it has not been proven to be LAW.

And you do have the right to be embarrassed. Well put.

You are using the term theory incorrectly. A scientific law only explains how something happens (IE things respond to gravity, sound, etc). A scientific theory is the widely regarded explanation of WHY something happens, based on tested and verified hypotheses. Now a theory can be proven wrong, at which point it would not be a theory any longer. But scientific laws aren't really comparable in the sense that you want to equate them; and a scientific theory is pretty much as solid as you get in science since you never say something is 100% correct.

I am as at peace as one can be. I have a great woman next to me, amazing friends, and am exactly where I want to be at this point in my life. If there's something you want to know more specifically I can answer that.

You might want to consider your potential plight after your awesome life is over. Just sayin'.

I'm completely at peace with the idea that when I go, I go. I am no more. Forever. But if you need to have a constant reassurance that you are so precious to the universe that you must live on to infinity then let that guide you.

[Weegle777 78]

After years of debating this topic (on one side or the other), I've learned one thing: You won't convince the other side to change their views. They have to do the research and figure it out for themselves.

I used to be steadfast in my faith in god and the Christian church. I argued day and night against evolution and atheism and the big bang. No one could convince me that the Bible wasn't 100% true.

No one except me. I researched and thought long and hard on my own...and I came to my own conclusions. Now I waffle between agnostic and deist...it's a process trying to figure out what really makes sense to me. I do 100% believe that evolution is fact, that the Bible is just a book, and that everyone (not just religious people) is a little bit crazy from time to time.

Chiding religious people about their beliefs is stupid. Telling someone that praying is crazy is stupid. Telling someone that since they don't believe in evolution that they can't claim their Alma Mater (even if it is Auburn ;)/> ) is supremely stupid. All I can say to Weegle and people like him is this: I disagree with you. Wow. That seems so much better than being a total @$$ about it.

Presumably you are referring to me, so I need to set the record straight.

I never said Weegle couldn't claim AU as his Alma Mater when discussing the fallacy of evolution. I respectfully asked him ("please") not to do so.

It was a sincere request and I still hold it. Maybe this is a problem I have with understanding the nature of a "university". Perhaps there are many graduates of any given university that claim evolution is simply false. It may be there are degrees that don't require at least a fundamental exposure to science. Also, I am not suggesting that anyone is bound to accept what they are exposed to at a university. Everyone has the personal right to accept or reject any facts they care to.

My sense of embarrassment is fueled by the fact that evolution is clearly accepted as scientific fact and actually forms the basis of modern biology and related disciplines in the scientific field. To publicly proclaim this as false suggests that the person making such a claim has never been exposed to the concept at all or is a willful prisoner to their ideology. Either way, it is embarrassing for me to have them represent my Alma Mater. (And I have the right to be embarrassed.)

Somewhat off-topic, but my nephew recently received his PhD in Biology from the University of Alabama. And as much as it pains me to admit it, one of my greatest living heroes, E.O. Wilson who is currently head of the Biology Dept. at Harvard was also a graduate of Alabama.

He is a pioneer of sociobiology (for which he took a lot of flak from the "liberal" community btw).

His "Consilience" is a masterpiece on the subject of how science and religion can coexist. I would suggest it to anyone who has a problem with reconciling science with their religious beliefs.

Anyway, it's painful enough for me to hold University of Alabama graduates in such high esteem. I certainly don't want to listen to Auburn grads talking about the "false" theory of evolution.

Even your "respectful" request that anyone not claim Auburn as their alma mater is incredibly arrogant.

If all degrees don't require a basic understanding of science, and maybe they all do, science still does not prove evolution. It is still just a theory. Why? Because of the millions of unexplainable unanswerable questions it brings forth. Nobody can truly say a theory is false, because by definition it is only a theory. If you want to call Creation a theory, fine. It can't be proven to you, so it is a theory. Please don't imply even respectfully that I or anyone else is an idiot for believing my theory over your theory.

You said it perfectly yourself: evolution is "accepted", not proven, not fact. It has facts in it, but it has not been proven to be LAW.

And you do have the right to be embarrassed. Well put.

You are using the term theory incorrectly. A scientific law only explains how something happens (IE things respond to gravity, sound, etc). A scientific theory is the widely regarded explanation of WHY something happens, based on tested and verified hypotheses. Now a theory can be proven wrong, at which point it would not be a theory any longer. But scientific laws aren't really comparable in the sense that you want to equate them; and a scientific theory is pretty much as solid as you get in science since you never say something is 100% correct.

I am as at peace as one can be. I have a great woman next to me, amazing friends, and am exactly where I want to be at this point in my life. If there's something you want to know more specifically I can answer that.

You might want to consider your potential plight after your awesome life is over. Just sayin'.

I'm completely at peace with the idea that when I go, I go. I am no more. Forever. But if you need to have a constant reassurance that you are so precious to the universe that you must live on to infinity then let that guide you.

Yes or no, do you have infinite knowledge? In other words, are you an all-knowing being?

[homersapien 11,431]

There are too many contradictions in the Bible to claim that it is 100% true.

A simple example is that the Bible at one point claims Jehoiachin began to reign at age 18, and another part of the Bible claims Jehoiachin began to reign at age 8. How can both of these statements be true?

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

Apparently, you consider this thread as less about debate and more about shouting down (figuratively speaking of course) people who believe differently than yourself.

[homersapien 11,431]

I am as at peace as one can be. I have a great woman next to me, amazing friends, and am exactly where I want to be at this point in my life. If there's something you want to know more specifically I can answer that.

ditto.

And I will add that although I have worked hard for it, I don't discount the impact of shear luck on my life.

[homersapien 11,431]

After years of debating this topic (on one side or the other), I've learned one thing: You won't convince the other side to change their views. They have to do the research and figure it out for themselves.

I used to be steadfast in my faith in god and the Christian church. I argued day and night against evolution and atheism and the big bang. No one could convince me that the Bible wasn't 100% true.

No one except me. I researched and thought long and hard on my own...and I came to my own conclusions. Now I waffle between agnostic and deist...it's a process trying to figure out what really makes sense to me. I do 100% believe that evolution is fact, that the Bible is just a book, and that everyone (not just religious people) is a little bit crazy from time to time.

Chiding religious people about their beliefs is stupid. Telling someone that praying is crazy is stupid. Telling someone that since they don't believe in evolution that they can't claim their Alma Mater (even if it is Auburn ) is supremely stupid. All I can say to Weegle and people like him is this: I disagree with you. Wow. That seems so much better than being a total @$$ about it.

Presumably you are referring to me, so I need to set the record straight.

I never said Weegle couldn't claim AU as his Alma Mater when discussing the fallacy of evolution. I respectfully asked him ("please") not to do so.

It was a sincere request and I still hold it. Maybe this is a problem I have with understanding the nature of a "university". Perhaps there are many graduates of any given university that claim evolution is simply false. It may be there are degrees that don't require at least a fundamental exposure to science. Also, I am not suggesting that anyone is bound to accept what they are exposed to at a university. Everyone has the personal right to accept or reject any facts they care to.

My sense of embarrassment is fueled by the fact that evolution is clearly accepted as scientific fact and actually forms the basis of modern biology and related disciplines in the scientific field. To publicly proclaim this as false suggests that the person making such a claim has never been exposed to the concept at all or is a willful prisoner to their ideology. Either way, it is embarrassing for me to have them represent my Alma Mater. (And I have the right to be embarrassed.)

Somewhat off-topic, but my nephew recently received his PhD in Biology from the University of Alabama. And as much as it pains me to admit it, one of my greatest living heroes, E.O. Wilson who is currently head of the Biology Dept. at Harvard was also a graduate of Alabama.

He is a pioneer of sociobiology (for which he took a lot of flak from the "liberal" community btw).

His "Consilience" is a masterpiece on the subject of how science and religion can coexist. I would suggest it to anyone who has a problem with reconciling science with their religious beliefs.

Anyway, it's painful enough for me to hold University of Alabama graduates in such high esteem. I certainly don't want to listen to Auburn grads talking about the "false" theory of evolution.

Even your "respectful" request that anyone not claim Auburn as their alma mater is incredibly arrogant.

I can fully understand why you feel that way.

Regardless, as I have said previously, I never claimed to be innocent of at least occasional arrogance.

If all degrees don't require a basic understanding of science, and maybe they all do, science still does not prove evolution. It is still just a theory.

I acknowledge your right to let your religious beliefs override your respect for science. But you are simply wrong. Science has proven - and more importantly, continues to verify - the theory of evolution.

As for the "just a theory" response........PLEASE look up the term theory and understand the context of its use with relativity. This has already come up once. Some of you seem determined to misrepresent - if not simply lie about - evolution, facts be damned.

Why? Because of the millions of unexplainable unanswerable questions it brings forth.

The fact that unanswered questions exist in evolution in no way invalidates it. Is simply indicates that some questions simply have not been addressed. It would be practically impossible to address every question that might arise, not to mention the required technology to do so may not exist.

But it's quite ironic that someone approaching the issue from the position of faith in a supernatural entity would point to "unanswered questions" as a standard for acceptance.

Nobody can truly say a theory is false, because by definition it is only a theory. If you want to call Creation a theory, fine. It can't be proven to you, so it is a theory.

Evolution is a foundational scientific theory. Your theory consists of religious faith. So, at least you are correct in saying they shouldn't be compared.

More importantly, I am not challenging your "theory". I am defending the theory of evolution against people who say it is false.

(And again, please look up "scientific theory")

Please don't imply even respectfully that I or anyone else is an idiot for believing my theory over your theory.

I never implied - or at least meant to imply - anyone was an "idiot". I have said that people who proclaim evolution to be false are either ignorant or are willfully allowing their religious conviction to trump the rational evidence. I apologize if that offends you but I can't really help that.

You said it perfectly yourself: evolution is "accepted", not proven, not fact. It has facts in it, but it has not been proven to be LAW.

Evolution has been proven to the extent that a theory can be proven given 150 years to work on the problem. It continues to be proven on a continuous basis - even if incidentally - during the course of research in other fields, such as geology (for example). This is exactly why it is "accepted" by every serious scientist in the field.

As a scientific theory, it has to be falsifiable by definition. So if you really want to play semantical games (and aren't you the one who protested semantical debate?) I suppose you could argue the fact it is open to challenge as a basis for not accepting it as "truth".

But arguing the philosophical concept of "truth" is really no more useful than arguing religion. There is nothing I can say if you are determined to be ruled by religious conviction in the matter.

I am simply arguing the case for evolution as scientific fact, which it is. You don't have to believe it.

And you do have the right to be embarrassed. Well put.

Thanks!

Now go out there and try not to embarrass me. If you are going to insist the theory of evolution is false, please don't tell them you are an Auburn grad.

[homersapien 11,431]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God.

[Weegle777 78]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

[homersapien 11,431]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

Please show me where "I put words in your mouth".

And I can't ask you if you changed your mind? And if you haven't, why in the world are you calling me out for characterizing evolution as false?

If you are going to be all over the map, don't get so snarky when I simply ask for clarification.

Finally, I don't believe for a second "you have read just about everything you can find on the subject". You could probably spend the rest of your life studying what is available on evolution and not finish. So could I for that matter.

So I would seriously suggest you try again. I doubt you have even scratched the surface.

Here's a couple of sites with suggested book lists:

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

http://www.mit.edu/~ejhanna/sci/evobook.html

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Books-Evolution-Published-Decade/lm/R6SZF692OH56G

http://darwiniana.org/books.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/roanoke/evolutrefs.htm

http://evolution.about.com/od/Overview/a/What-Is-Evolution.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Must-read-evolution-Books/lm/LLD2IRJXE5GV

[Weegle777 78]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

Please show me where "I put words in your mouth".

And I can't ask you if you changed your mind? And if you haven't, why in the world are you calling me out for characterizing evolution as false?

If you are going to be all over the map, don't get so snarky when I simply ask for clarification.

Finally, I don't believe for a second "you have read just about everything you can find on the subject". You could probably spend the rest of your life studying what is available on evolution and not finish. So could I for that matter.

So I would seriously suggest you try again. I doubt you have even scratched the surface.

Here's a couple of sites with suggested book lists:

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

http://www.mit.edu/~ejhanna/sci/evobook.html

http://www.amazon.com/Best-Books-Evolution-Published-Decade/lm/R6SZF692OH56G

http://darwiniana.org/books.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.dk/staff/dave/roanoke/evolutrefs.htm

http://evolution.about.com/od/Overview/a/What-Is-Evolution.htm

http://www.amazon.com/Must-read-evolution-Books/lm/LLD2IRJXE5GV

Can you have a discussion without being such a jerk? My post wasn't snarky. Your post was incredibly so. And you have no idea who I am, don't make assumptions on what I have read and haven't read. Give me an argument, anybody can google links. For all I know, you are a 16 year old kid with a google complex who likes to cause trouble on message boards.

[homersapien 11,431]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

Please show me where "I put words in your mouth".

And I can't ask you if you changed your mind? And if you haven't, why in the world are you calling me out for characterizing evolution as false?

If you are going to be all over the map, don't get so snarky when I simply ask for clarification.

Finally, I don't believe for a second "you have read just about everything you can find on the subject". You could probably spend the rest of your life studying what is available on evolution and not finish. So could I for that matter.

So I would seriously suggest you try again. I doubt you have even scratched the surface.

Here's a couple of sites with suggested book lists:

http://en.wikipedia....ks_on_evolution

http://www.mit.edu/~...ci/evobook.html

http://www.amazon.co...m/R6SZF692OH56G

http://darwiniana.org/books.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.d.../evolutrefs.htm

http://evolution.abo...s-Evolution.htm

http://www.amazon.co...lm/LLD2IRJXE5GV

Can you have a discussion without being such a jerk?

Yes. Can you?

My post wasn't snarky. Your post was incredibly so. And you have no idea who I am, don't make assumptions on what I have read and haven't read.

I wasn't "making assumptions". I was going by your own statements, to wit, "you have read everything you can find". I am not responsible for dumb statements you might make, much less obligated to ignore them.

Give me an argument, anybody can google links.

Not my job. (You already know that.)

Likewise, I will not educate you on other foundational scientific theories.

(Well, unless of course, you want to pay me for my time.)

For all I know, you are a 16 year old kid with a google complex who likes to cause trouble on message boards.

Well, that puts your familiarity of me right up there with your familiarity of evolution.

[Weegle777 78]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

Please show me where "I put words in your mouth".

And I can't ask you if you changed your mind? And if you haven't, why in the world are you calling me out for characterizing evolution as false?

If you are going to be all over the map, don't get so snarky when I simply ask for clarification.

Finally, I don't believe for a second "you have read just about everything you can find on the subject". You could probably spend the rest of your life studying what is available on evolution and not finish. So could I for that matter.

So I would seriously suggest you try again. I doubt you have even scratched the surface.

Here's a couple of sites with suggested book lists:

http://en.wikipedia....ks_on_evolution

http://www.mit.edu/~...ci/evobook.html

http://www.amazon.co...m/R6SZF692OH56G

http://darwiniana.org/books.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.d.../evolutrefs.htm

http://evolution.abo...s-Evolution.htm

http://www.amazon.co...lm/LLD2IRJXE5GV

Can you have a discussion without being such a jerk?

Yes. Can you?

My post wasn't snarky. Your post was incredibly so. And you have no idea who I am, don't make assumptions on what I have read and haven't read.

I wasn't "making assumptions". I was going by your own statements, to wit, "you have read everything you can find". I am not responsible for dumb statements you might make, much less obligated to ignore them.

Give me an argument, anybody can google links.

Not my job. (You already know that.)

Likewise, I will not educate you on other foundational scientific theories.

(Well, unless of course, you want to pay me for my time.)

For all I know, you are a 16 year old kid with a google complex who likes to cause trouble on message boards.

Well, that puts your familiarity of me right up there with your familiarity of evolution.

I'm not asking for an hour long seminar, just give me some kind of an argument. The more you say, "It's not my job to educate you." the more you make yourself look as if you have no idea what you are talking about. My gosh, any doofus can google links, it takes an intelligent individual to put forth effort to argue a point. Others have argued points here, you just dodge and weave around excuses. And I have even said that I would be glad to hear your argument. All you can do is be a jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

[Aufan59 80]

As the Bible manuscripts were copied by hand, over the centuries, small and inconsequential errors were made. No textual variant has any impact on any important biblical doctrine. Virtually all of the variations involve numbers, spelling, or the presence of a preposition. In ancient Hebrew, the numbers 8 and 18 would have been differentiated by a very small mark. No matter how meticulous the scribes were, it would be understandable if one misread the number and recorded the wrong number on the new manuscript.

The Bible is the best-preserved work from ancient times. There is more evidence for the Bible’s authenticity than for any literature of antiquity. Textual analysis begins with historical investigation, beginning with the latest documents and working backward. As evidence develops, the data is evaluated against other sources. The record is then checked for consistency, and the claims are analyzed as if it were a legal case, looking for credible testimony with cross-examination.

There is an enormous amount of evidence for authenticity of the biblical manuscripts.There are about 10K copies of the OT manuscripts and the accuracy (the matching of words and sentences when compared) of the copies is 99.9%. Of the 24K NT manuscripts, there is a 99.97% accuracy of the copies. For comparison, there are between 600 and 650 copies of Homer's manuscripts and scholars agree there is an accuracy of around 95%. While I don't know how accurate they are, there are only 7 manuscripts for Plato, 49 for Aristotle, and 10 for Caesar.

So you agree that it is not 100% true?

Does the age of Jehoiachin change the message of the Bible?

Comparing certain sources, Masoretic Text versions of 2 Chronicles 36:9 say that his rule began at the age of eight. The Septuagint and Syriac versions of that passage have his rulership starting at the age of eighteen. Challenor's note in the Douay-Rheims Bible reconciles this discrepancy as: "He was associated by his father to the kingdom, when he was but eight years old; but after his father's death, when he reigned alone, he was eighteen years old."

So, whether it was an error in the copying of a 10,000 year old manuscript or semantics between writers, I don't see how this discredits the Bible.

I was only disputing the line that the Bible is 100% true. We seem to agree that it does contain errors.

[Aufan59 80]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

[jj3jordan 2,059]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

[alexava 6,973]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

I envy you.

[homersapien 11,431]

Did I ever come out and use the words, "Evolution is false."? If I did, I don't remember. Maybe you can go back and fish through those posts, because I don't have time to. Also, you said that you had some questions for me. And, I said that I am always open to new info and I'm not all that closed-minded when it comes to compelling material. Instead of acting like you are so much smarter and being "embarrassed", why not try to argue your point?

Actually you said:

Crazy is believing that the universe came about through something called the "Big Bang THEORY" and believing that billions of years ago we crawled out of the ocean as some sort of ancient organism and then magically evolved into the intelligent beings we are today.

To me, characterizing your position as "evolution is false" seemed reasonable.

In fact, it's more charitable (euphemistic) than quoting you exactly as calling it "crazy".

But if you are now saying you are willing to accept the theory of evolution as factual, then I applaud your change of heart.

And the great thing is, you don't even have to stop believing in God. ;)/>

There you go putting words in my mouth again. If sufficient, solid, irrefutable evidence is brought forth, I would definitely consider it. I have seen no such evidence. And believe me, I have read just about everything I could find on the subject, and nothing has convinced me yet. Give me something new to consider and I will honestly assess it.

Please show me where "I put words in your mouth".

And I can't ask you if you changed your mind? And if you haven't, why in the world are you calling me out for characterizing evolution as false?

If you are going to be all over the map, don't get so snarky when I simply ask for clarification.

Finally, I don't believe for a second "you have read just about everything you can find on the subject". You could probably spend the rest of your life studying what is available on evolution and not finish. So could I for that matter.

So I would seriously suggest you try again. I doubt you have even scratched the surface.

Here's a couple of sites with suggested book lists:

http://en.wikipedia....ks_on_evolution

http://www.mit.edu/~...ci/evobook.html

http://www.amazon.co...m/R6SZF692OH56G

http://darwiniana.org/books.htm

http://www.cbs.dtu.d.../evolutrefs.htm

http://evolution.abo...s-Evolution.htm

http://www.amazon.co...lm/LLD2IRJXE5GV

Can you have a discussion without being such a jerk?

Yes. Can you?

My post wasn't snarky. Your post was incredibly so. And you have no idea who I am, don't make assumptions on what I have read and haven't read.

I wasn't "making assumptions". I was going by your own statements, to wit, "you have read everything you can find". I am not responsible for dumb statements you might make, much less obligated to ignore them.

Give me an argument, anybody can google links.

Not my job. (You already know that.)

Likewise, I will not educate you on other foundational scientific theories.

(Well, unless of course, you want to pay me for my time.)

For all I know, you are a 16 year old kid with a google complex who likes to cause trouble on message boards.

Well, that puts your familiarity of me right up there with your familiarity of evolution.

I'm not asking for an hour long seminar, just give me some kind of an argument. The more you say, "It's not my job to educate you." the more you make yourself look as if you have no idea what you are talking about. My gosh, any doofus can google links, it takes an intelligent individual to put forth effort to argue a point. Others have argued points here, you just dodge and weave around excuses. And I have even said that I would be glad to hear your argument. All you can do is be a jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

First, refusing to "explain evolution" is not dodging a "point". It's a specious argument based on my refusal to write an elegant essay proving evolution to be fact. What a dumb thing to ask and then double down on to suggest I am

a "doofus googling links, not putting forth effort to argue a point, you just dodge and weave around excuses. jerk and avoid the subject while hiding behind a search engine.

That's just simple BS. It sounds like someone who is resorting to "fireworks" after being intellectually defeated. I am not willing to spend the time to educate you (at least for free) but I am more than willing to take you on in the context of an internet forum. So lets go.

You say you are open to argument. Let's try this: Why don't you give me a specific challenge? Tell me one thing about evolution that keeps you from accepting it. I promise I will give you my straight-up answer without cribbing. Any links I post will be for your benefit to clarify or further understand my points.

OK?

Having said that, if you really want to claim that evolution is false (or "crazy" as you actually said) and cite homersapien's reluctance to explain the whole thing to you (for free) you have my permission. I doubt many will find that convincing, but if it works for you, it's at least better than citing the Bible.

Obviously, I have no expectations of convincing you. I don't think it's possible. No one can trump a determined belief in a supernatural deity with logic, rationality or evidence.

Besides, why in hell would I go to the trouble of trying to convince you when you simply dismiss the scholarly references I have offered in good faith?? Trust me, those people are far more expert than I am.

What a "doofus" post that was.

[homersapien 11,431]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Apparently he doesn't have much appreciation for objective logical argument. He will undoubtedly misinterpret this and I'll have to explain it to him. Watch.

[homersapien 11,431]

Really? That's what you got? Very strong position to denounce the Bible. Bring that one up to God when you are judged.

There are hundreds of other contradictions... we could spend all day. I remember crying to my mother as a child because I felt guilty for having not read the Bible even though I was a Christian. When I began to read the Bible, it didn't take me more than a few minutes to discover the contradictions in Genesis.

But as I said before, this is a single, simple, clear cut example. There is no wiggle room for semantics or double meanings. One part of the Bible says 8, the others says 18, and they both cannot be correct. The Bible is not 100% true. Believing that the Bible is 100% true takes ignorance of the Bible, or denial.

Probably one of the funniest and most arrogant statements I have ever read.

You have no response, as usual.

Is that statement directed at me? I do believe the Bible is the inerrant, literal, infallible, non-contradictory word of God.

I envy you.

Me too!

(Have to admit that he scares me a little bit though)