Expelled

[CopyCat]

Bob you referred to the guy in my video as a "glib tongued egoist"...
I hope you don't think of all atheist as egoist... Because being an atheist
has certainly not been in my best interest... Having been born of a Christian
family in the Bible belt myself... My beliefs have brought me nothing but pain
and hardship... It has made me some what alienated from my family and most
of the people around me... It would seem that most religious people believe
that atheist are devil worshippers or satanic... When in fact we don't even
believe in satan... I also find it very disturbing that most of these religious
Christian people that think this seem to know very little about there own
religion... Although they seem to have no problem in passing judgment on
me and labeling me as the scum of the earth... Having said all this I think
I would live a much happier life wearing the blinders of Christianity, but I
can't help what I believe... Like I've said before, I do wish that some one
could convince me that there was a God so I could to have this dream of
a afterlife... Now as to your request for evidence of evolution Bob... As
I'm sure you know all to well, evolution is said to be something that
happens over a very long time... We have not been keeping records
long enough to show anything very impressive... And being that you
have now told me that you are suffering from a fatal lung disease,
[the big C I'm guessing] the last thing I would want to do
is to take your comfort in your beliefs of a
happy eternal afterlife from you...

[xertsl]

im not completely sure what you mean
so i'll just give you a few link that may be of use

YouTube - How to win a debate against a...

and of course

YouTube - creationist

[anand1]

It looks to be an awsome movie.

[With Alacrity]

"'Natural Selection' is 'Micro' evolution: VARIATIONS WITHIN KINDS. The survival of the fittest as Darwin described it etc."

This is the only evolution that has been observed.

THIS IS SCIENCE AND PROVABLE.

HOWEVER, THE >ONLY EVIDENCES< OF EVOLUTION GIVEN ARE ALWAYS THIS >MICRO< EVOLUTION; variations within KINDS. Canines= more canines, felines= more felines, cats do not produce catfish and can NOT interbreed. If we were descended from monkeys why can't we interbreed?

Now the question is: Somehow, you evolutionists imply that this micro evolution is evidence for the other five types of evolution. If the hypothesis has any validity at all why, or at least how is that possible that you cannot show a SINGLE instance of the other types?[/quote]

OKAY, too hard a question. Why is it that this easy question is ALWAYS the conversation stopper with Darwinists? I thought "science" was supposed to be based on observable phenomena.

[CopyCat]

Originally Posted by With Alacrity

"'Natural Selection' is 'Micro' evolution: VARIATIONS WITHIN KINDS. The survival of the fittest as Darwin described it etc."

This is the only evolution that has been observed.

THIS IS SCIENCE AND PROVABLE.

HOWEVER, THE >ONLY EVIDENCES< OF EVOLUTION GIVEN ARE ALWAYS THIS >MICRO< EVOLUTION; variations within KINDS. Canines= more canines, felines= more felines, cats do not produce catfish and can NOT interbreed. If we were descended from monkeys why can't we interbreed?

Now the question is: Somehow, you evolutionists imply that this micro evolution is evidence for the other five types of evolution. If the hypothesis has any validity at all why, or at least how is that possible that you cannot show a SINGLE instance of the other types?

OKAY, too hard a question. Why is it that this easy question is ALWAYS the conversation stopper with Darwinists? I thought "science" was supposed to be based on observable phenomena. [/quote]

I'm really not very good at this but I'll try and explain...
People evolved from hominids and monkeys are on a kinda separate line
of evolution... If we trace hominid and monkeys back far enough, you will find
a common ancestor for both groups... But that was like back millions of years ago...
Hominids and monkeys split up and despite the fact that they share most of their DNA,
they can't interbreed... The reason is when they slit there numbers of pairs of chromosomes changed...
They finely proved the link threw science back in 2005, that is something that religion
is not very good at, science I mean... I'm really surprised that you missed that Bob,
it was in all the papers and on the news... Here I'll post a short video that explains it
in simple terms to kinda get you back up to speed... Glad that I could help...
And buy the way, why would you want to interbreed with a monkey anyway ???
Yuck, thats gross !!!

YouTube - Ken Miller Human Chromosome 2 Genome

[With Alacrity]

On fused chromosomes:
Hello? How does a fused chromosome >PROVE< a common ancestry? At best it would be advancing a theory as to how it might be remotely possible.

In one of the video responses I was referred to on u-Tube connected to this post, uses Downs syndrome as an example of an increase in information during genetic mutation. Using Downs syndrome as an example of an increase in information during genetic mutations is absurd. The question 'should' have been preceded by the word "beneficial". Men with Downs syndrome are almost always (in all but two cases) sterile. How is this a beneficial change? Also, Downs syndrome victims are unable to care for themselves without long extensive training. How is this a beneficial genetic mutation? Of the trillions of chromosomes, If two were to randomly weld themselves by anyone less than a designer it would have to happen exactly to the SAME exact pairs of chromosomes (out of trillions) facing exactly the same way when welded in both a mating female and male of a species for it to be passed on to another generation, then again in the next generation. Remembering that the original two then the next pair etc. had to be identical out of trillions, the chances of this random >beneficial< mutation occurring accidently are beyond any calculation of chance.

Job 12:7-9
7, But ask now the beasts, and they shall teach thee; and the fowls of the air, and they shall tell thee:
8, Or speak to the earth, and it shall teach thee: and the fishes of the sea shall declare unto thee.
9, Who knoweth not in all these that the hand of the LORD hath wrought this?

Ps. Re: a fatal lung disease.
I apologize Mitch. I had several posts going at the same time (as now) and I had no intention of mentioning any physical problems to you. That was from a post to my nephew. I was griping about how swamped I was, & I "think" I probably posted his to you etc. (btw it is not "big C" or copd. It's one I never heard of before)

[CopyCat]

I come from a very religious upbringing and as a boy I too believed in all the silly Bible stories... The burning bush that is never consumed, the talking snake, the chariot of fire riding into heaven, Moses magical parting the Red Sea, Moses made bread rain down from heaven too didn't he ??? Yes the Bible is slap full of mystical magical fairy tail stories that you would think that anyone in todays intelligent evolved society would never believe... And to think that this God is a supreme being that can do anything (but does nothing), knows everything (but says nothing), that is present everywhere (but is conveniently invisible)... And there are so many religions, over 450 I have read... I believe each of the beliefs comes solely from the imagination of the writer of the idea... All of them have one thing in common which is that the writer claims to have had some kind of direct contact with what he calls a God, thus saying that everything he has written is the undisputed truth... There are more versions of these so called direct God contact prophets than one can shake a stick at... And there all different than the others... Now I ask you, would a real God make so many conflicting prophecies that would cause religious wars and suffering throughout the world ??? This is not something I want to believe in... Well it seems that all religions claim that there is only one God, the only God, there God... All the others are just fairy tails, now thats strange don't you think ??? Well thanks to reason and education, religion is something I have given a lot of thought to, but finally rejected... I think the God concept and the religions that stem from that concept are basically just wishful thinking... People just don't want to accept the fact that when you die thats it... Religion is an attempt to appease the fear of the unknown. An attempt to explain life and death and where stuff comes from... And it would seem to me that any intelligent, objectively thinking person could see all this, but I guess not... And Bob I can certainly understand you getting your post mixed up... Just judging buy the enormous amount of email I receive from you on a regular basis... And I'm sure I'm not the only one that is subjected to your borodge of wit and humor... And I do enjoy it by the way, when I find the time to go threw it all... But I can see where you are probably talking to 2 or 3 people at the same time, while sending out emails and contemplating the meaning of life all at the same time, this will can catch up with you... Slow down Bob, one thing at a time,
the rest of those people will wait...

YouTube - Proving that the Bible is repulsive

[With Alacrity]

Hi CC, I really don't have time today to respond to this BUT I will make comment about the following statement you made: "I believe each of the beliefs comes solely from the imagination of the writer of the idea... All of them have one thing in common which is that the writer claims to have had some kind of direct contact with what he calls a God, thus saying that everything he has written is the undisputed truth.."
This is true about every other religion EXCEPT Christianity in that, each and every writer wrote individually often contradicting themselves- BUT the preserved text known as the KJV Bible was written by at least 40 DIFFERENT authors over 4,500 years WITHOUT contradictions.

Mitch, Is your understanding of the Bible really as screwed up as the sweet voiced jackass above or are you trying to put me on? I'll have to get back with you on this when my wife isn't calling "dinner." But I will make one short comment: Christians do not celebrate "the sabbath." All his comments are based on that presumption directly or otherwise. 73 & God bless ~ >*), Bob>< ~ With Alacrity.

[CopyCat]

Well Bob you talk like Christianity has been here sense the beginning, but in fact it is just a branch off of Judaism... And I'm guessing that you must know that the KJV was translated to English back in the early 1600 hundreds... The king gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the history and theology of the Christian Church and reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and its beliefs about an ordained clergy... But you want to talk about contradictions in the KJV of the Bible... Now I'm sure that you know too that they didn't use all that was written in those 40 or more books by those 40 or more authors... But there are in fact just bits and pieces of those books... So I won't even go into the other things that were written those books that were also suppose to be the words of God... We'll just talk about a few of the contradictions in the KJV of the Bible such as:
#1 Does God like peace or war ???
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
#2 Is God nice or mean ???
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
#3 Just who is Jesus daddy ???
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
#4 Just how many stalls does Solomon have here ???
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
#5 Just how old was Jehoiachin when he began to reign ???
KI2 24:8 Jehoiachin was eighteen years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem three months. And his mother's name was Nehushta, the daughter of Elnathan of Jerusalem.
CH2 36:9 Jehoiachin was eight years old when he began to reign, and he reigned three months and ten days in Jerusalem: and he did that which was evil in the sight of the LORD.
#6 How many kids did Michal, the daughter of Saul, have ???
SA2 6:23 Therefore Michal the daughter of Saul had no child unto the day of her death.
SA2 21:8 But the king took the two sons of Rizpah the daughter of Aiah, whom she bare unto Saul, Armoni and Mephibosheth; and the five sons of Michal the daughter of Saul, whom she brought up for Adriel the son of Barzillai the Meholathite:
#7 Do you answer a fool or not ???
PRO 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
PRO 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
#8 And what about Jesus' prediction regarding Peter's denial ???
Before the cock crow - Matthew 26:34
Before the cock crow twice - Mark 14:30
Now I'm sure I can find dozens more if I dig, but what I would really like to know is what the thoughts
of a Christian fundamentalist would be on that "Proving that the Bible is repulsive" video...

[With Alacrity]

I've watched the "Proving that the Bible is repulsive" video and can only say that the questions raised are based on one incorrect premise that I don't have time to get into at this time. I responded to it yesterday early, and saw it posted but now it's gone????? Glancing through the questions above I can only say that every one is easily answerable when taken in context. However, I thought you might enjoy the condensation of an article I just drafted for future publication (with a little polishing.)

Before I get into that, I would like to say that a lot of your misunderstandings about a mean/nice God involve the fact that we are judged by the Law of the old testament but are saved from it by the redeeming grace of Christ. I know that doesn't make any sense to you right now, but I hope and pray someday it will.

THE FIRST LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS SCIENTIFICALLY PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD. 4/26/08 Bob L. With Alacrity
Nothing can only create nothing. Before the universe existed something must have always existed. It's energy. Energy is eternal. The first law of dynamics confirms that.
The law states: "energy cannot be created or destroyed" No beginning and no end. That is the definition of eternal.

Darwinists cannot claim that this energy always existed in the known universe because science has proven that the universe didn't always exist. "The universe and time didn't always exist" by Stephen Hawking:
Professor Stephen Hawking

The energy source that was present BEFORE the universe began had to have power beyond anything we can begin to imagine, considering it had to transfer its energy unto the TRILLIONS of stars and BILLIONS of galaxies.

A separate ETERNAL energy source that exists outside of the universe had to have supplied or transferred its energy onto the universe (because we know that the universe didn't always exist)

This leaves us with two options to determine what WAS this powerful always existing energy. It's only reasonable to assume that this ENORMOUS energy was the creator God because, the only other option is that it would be a dumb, unconscious, and vague energy source. That would be utterly illogical considering that we can observe incredible complexity, order, and design throughout the universe. The only logical answer MUST be that an intelligent mind or a God constructed the universe. It's as simple as that.
That is unless you just don't WANT to believe in the existence of God >because< that would make you accountable to a higher power.