NoGodBlog.com

Hell, I'm running for President...!!!


(Ok, maybe I'll just start by running for office in my HOA - does that count?) :-)



"The goddess is alive – magic is afoot."

I second the motion:

BANG!

all examples of religious institutions telling other people what to do.

CALL the presidential hopefuls (all of them), and ask what their stance is. It doesn't matter what they answer -- they need to know it's an isue.

Hmmmm...Isn't AA an "institution"?

It doesn't matter what they answer...you need to tell them what to do...

Another interesting contradiction...perhaps JONBOY in his wisdom will explain...

phreedm
AA is not a religious institution. Whether or not it is an institution is probably another semantic argument.

Making a candidate aware of what a voter considers an issue is NOT telling the candidate what to do. It is simply bringing the subjeect up.
Notice that Dave doesn't say to tell them how they should stand on the issue--just make them aware that it IS an issue.

So who should we vote for in 2008?

Obama did address separation of church and state in an article over the summer. In between paragraphs about not abandoning religious discourse, he wrote:

This separation is critical to our form of government because in the end, democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. If I am opposed to abortion for religious reasons but seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.

This might be difficult for those who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, but in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics involves compromise, the art of the possible. But religion does not allow for compromise. To base one's life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policymaking on them would be dangerous.

http://obama.senate.gov/news/060710-politicians_need_not_abandon_religion/index.html

Yes, the article is entitled "Politicians need not abandon religion." (shrugs) However, if he's willing to show the respect for separation of church and state in his policy making that he does in the above paragraphs, I'm impressed.

Regarding the one I used to refer to as the Ignoramus.
A little while ago I had a change of heart about him. I finally realized why he was here. I was struck by a sense of pity. The conclusion I reached was that he was attempting to prove to himself that his comforting Faith was real whilst, in fact, he knows that he is standing on a precipice. His continual goading is simply a way to maintain his delusion.

Engaging him, while sometimes entertaining, is counter-productive. He's a bit like a finger puzzle, you can keep pulling but you'll never escape.

I admit that it is often (very often) difficult not to respond to his nonsense but he is a very sad man and I would now counsel pity over invective.

aviaa, thanks for the Obama statement. I've been considering him. That statement is exactly what I expect from any candidate and he even spells out exactly what the issue is.

remy, I think I remember you referring to an Ignoramus, but I can't find who it was, maybe I put who ever it was in my burn bucket with the rest of the bible trash.

i like to start off 2007 by thanking everyone who took the time to answer my questions.
politics wise i am alienated as a traditional law&order,fiscal conservative.how do you all feel?

remy are you talking about me because
my delusion that my hair is getting thin seems awful real to me.

Karen...

My point being Dave is doing exactly what he's accussing "religious institutions" of doing.
And that is to make politicians aware of what their interests are...I believe it's called democracy in action...

By the way...why has the Democrat party changed it's name to the "Democratic" party?

reason,
I feel your pain. When it comes to hair, I am challenged and in denial, but no, it's not your own self but the one whose name I find difficult to utter, even with my new found compassion: phreedm. It's such a horrible bastardization of something I hold dear.

remy:

It's such a horrible bastardization of something I hold dear.

Which is why I refer to him as phreddy.

With all due respect to Dave, and acknowledging the catch phrase "church and state separation" to be the operative one, we are missing the real issue.

We ought to frame our argument as "separation of religion and government". Remember, the first amendment doesn't mention "church"; it mentions Congress and religion.

Framing the argument this way gives us the broad base we need. NOBODY in their right mind wants government controlling religion, and the few kooks who actually want religion (their religion) controlling government are a distinct minority, however vocal.

It is separation of RELIGION FROM GOVERNMENT and GOVERNMENT FROM RELIGION that we continue to advocate. This is an important distinction from "church and state" as not all religions have churches. But all religions do have the potential to influence government, and it is this influence we must mitigate.

Paraphrase the first amendment this way: "Government has no business in the business of religion, and vice-versa". You might make some advocates among the believers if you put it in a way they can understand.

Dave

I agree this is a time without precendent. The moment to educate people to the horrors perpetrated by religious institutions has never been so ripe. From the evangelical support of the Invasion of Iraq (simply would not have happened without them) to the institutional patterns of child abuse within the Catholic church there are a lot of horrors to call attention to.

I think I agree with Celebrant Prince, religion is the correct issue and I agree with Dave that now is the time. I also think we have a lot of work to do if we want to be effective. We may even need to avoid playing with our pet xtians, and concentrate on where we need to go.

Hit 'em with your best shot! Fire away! Bang!

I wouldn't expect much change from lifelong career politicians who have become oh so comfortable running off at their big, condescending, domineering, non-stop, not so impressive or ever really on top of it yaps about much if anything. Some of that particular political livestock has become fattened off the land with milk and honey they've misinterpreted as always having been there for their taking. Maybie if we each hit 'em with our best shots altogether it could make a difference. At the very least we might see something run besides unhelpful, self-centered, self-serving yaps.

Hit 'em with your best shot! Fire away! Bang!

I wouldn't expect much change from lifelong career politicians who have become oh so comfortable running off at their big, condescending, domineering, non-stop, not so impressive or ever really on top of it yaps about much if anything. Some of that particular political livestock has become fattened off the land with milk and honey they've misinterpreted as always having been there for their taking. Maybie if we each hit 'em with our best shots altogether it could make a difference. At the very least we might see something run besides unhelpful, self-centered, self-serving yaps.

Remy:

RE: that name which you can't pronounce - Actually IT has made it very easy for everybody to address IT as one feels like: "Phreedump" - "Phreedumb" - you name it! The individidual has actually left itself wide open with its inanity... :-)




"Nature is my religion."

American Atheists is one group fighting for separation of religion and government. There are many others, such as the Freedom from Religion Foundation. I would like to see them all combine forces and work toward the common goal.

phreedm.

"Another interesting contradiction...perhaps JONBOY in his wisdom will explain...

As usual you have completly missed the point.

If atheists seek to be accepted in America, they must STOP avoiding things which will cause them to be singled out as different or strange,and make a stand.
Keeping state and church separate benefits not only atheists, but religious people as well,it allows a level playing field for all citizens when dealing with the government.
Government leaders are supposed to decide public issues through the use of reason and thought,not by appealing to some imaginary sky god.

phreedm

My point being Dave is doing exactly what he's accussing "religious institutions" of doing.
And that is to make politicians aware of what their interests are...I believe it's called democracy in action...

Again, it's not making an awareness of what a particular groups "interests" are. It's making an awareness of an ISSUE that is important to ALL groups and individuals, without saying anything about how to stand on the issue---just to put the issue on the board.

As to what you said, perhaps you can provide an example of where a religious institution has made a politician aware of it's interests, without trying to coerce said politician into acting in a way that would benefit said group's interests?

Finally I have something I can honestly say is an issue that is very near/dear to my heart. I have never registered/voted in my life, and I'm 38 years old, but I think it's about time for me to get involved. I absolutley HATE politics and religion and the true seperation of the two is something I can get excited about! Thanks for getting me excited about something in politics finally!

(I can't believe I'm actually gonna register/vote......something I swore I'd NEVER do, but this is something WORTH voting for!)

Thanks NoGodBlog!

Hi everybody! Newbie here! I've found this blog really useful since I "came-out" as an Atheist, and decided I just had to add my 2 cents in. A little question though:

Ok, so now that everybody's fired up about the "cause", what do we do about it? Phone calls alone aren't going to make the difference we need, right? I'm new to the political activist idea, how does one go about becoming involved? Especially here in the "bible-belt" where even the local atheist org. cautions me not to mention unless asked. And when asked be wary.

Thanks for all your great posts!

Here is a very good interview with Ronald Numbers, author of "The Creationists".

He gives a history of the creationist movement and tells about his personal abandoning of religion.

http://www.salon.com/books/int/2007/01/02/numbers/?source=newsletter


Here is a very good report on the illusion of "free will".

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/02/science/02free.html?ex=1325394000&en=7d5a587f6083384d&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

"Mark Hallett, a researcher with the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, said, “Free will does exist, but it’s a perception, not a power or a driving force. People experience free will. They have the sense they are free.

“The more you scrutinize it, the more you realize you don’t have it,” he said."

And,

"If by free will we mean the ability to choose, even a simple laptop computer has some kind of free will, said Seth Lloyd, an expert on quantum computing and professor of mechanical engineering at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

Every time you click on an icon, he explained, the computer’s operating system decides how to allocate memory space, based on some deterministic instructions. But, Dr. Lloyd said, “If I ask how long will it take to boot up five minutes from now, the operating system will say ‘I don’t know, wait and see, and I’ll make decisions and let you know.’ ”"

A Dr. Lloyd, "To him that sounds like free will of a sort, for machines as well as for us. Our actions are determined, but so what? We still don’t know what they will be until the waiter brings the tray."

elvisfreak19:

You have to hit the "newest topic" with a question like this if you want a response. That's where everybody is at right now.

To answer your question with my opinion:

If you can, move to the Pac. NW (WA and OR) We will "take over" these states in about 25 years or less. It is the most tolerant place in America for atheists.

If this is not an option; then try to write your local paper.(when injustices occur),and tell people you know that you are an atheist(if asked). America has to get used to our presence, and that is what exposure does.

However; be careful, you can shout from the rooftops about your atheist status here (in WA) without fear. But in the south it would not be wise to do so. Pick your battles carefully!

Also; the "parent site" of American Atheists has some great advice for the newly enlightened. You should check it out. It helped my wife a lot.

Elvis:

Whereabouts in the "Bable Belt" are you in?



"Jesus was an atheist."

Hi Darwin,
I'm in Knoxville TN.

a concern i have is that a defeat or string of defeats will make the religious right more prone to a violent reaction.the spanish civil war for example. organized religion and fascism seem to go together.

Think about this thought:

God does not exist; He is being itself! He is both beyond essence and existence; therefore, to argue that God exists is to deny Him.

afollowerofchrist

How about this thought instead:

Being does not require transcendence beyond mortality. There is no evidence for gods and they are unnecessary. They exist only in the minds of those who cannot accept a finite life.

afollowerofchrist,

Ever thought of thinking for yourself instead of following?

Karen,

How can anyone accept a finite life when the evidence is clear that the infinite is woven into our very existence?

Rational thought tells us that you cannot get something from nothing. Our existence being something therefore tells us that something must be infinite in time. To explain this there are two beliefs one can follow.

1. There is a creator who is eternal who made the world for his purposes.

2. The world itself is eternal and has existed in its incomprehensible intricacy for no expressed purpose. Also, conscious thought has always existed in some form but for no expressed purpose because the fact that we have conscious thought now shows that it has always existed as it cannot develop from inanimate matter.

I have not included evolution as an option as the crucial questions of origin of matter and origin of conscious thought remain unanswered in this theory.

Atheists deny the first option and base their world view on its denial, but do they really believe the second?

I see alot of effort refuting the first but not alot answering the age old questions of origin and purpose.

If all we see around us has its very origin in the infinite, shouldnt we look outside ourselves and our finite view to find real answers?

Letsbeclear

Where is any evidence that conscious thought continues after one dies? What conscious thoughts did you have before you were conceived or even born?

As far as the world being eternal, I don't rule that out, with building and collapsing universes, if my idea of string theory is anywhere near correct.

I can't speak for what atheists believe about your second option. As has been stated here before, the only real commmonality atheists have is a non-belief in any god(s).

There has been some discussion here about origin, but I think generally, from what I recall, atheists aren't as concerned with pinpointing a maker as theists are. We would be interested in you backing up your holding that god did it. But you can't even define god, let alone show how he "does" anything, except mysteriously.

As for purpose, we have had discussions on that also. Perhaps you missed them.

If all we see around us has its very origin in the infinite, shouldnt we look outside ourselves and our finite view to find real answers?

First, prove something is infinite.
Then prove that everything had its origins in that infinite thing.
Then get back to me.

Letsbeclear:

How can anyone accept a finite life when the evidence is clear that the infinite is woven into our very existence?

Infinite energy, sure. Infinite life? Jury’s still out. Oh, wait, they just got back in. No evidence, tossed outta court.

Rational thought tells us that you cannot get something from nothing.

True.

Our existence being something therefore tells us that something must be infinite in time.

That’s a pretty wild jump.

1. There is a creator who is eternal who made the world for his purposes.

Oh goody, we’re just a giant petri dish. How comforting.

2. The world itself is eternal and has existed in its incomprehensible intricacy for no expressed purpose.

No, the world’s only 4.5 billion years old. The universe is older. Eternal intricacy? Are you kidding me? What, you been reading Moorcock or something?

Also, conscious thought has always existed in some form but for no expressed purpose because the fact that we have conscious thought now shows that it has always existed as it cannot develop from inanimate matter.

Can you prove conscious thought has always existed? How so?

I have not included evolution as an option as the crucial questions of origin of matter and origin of conscious thought remain unanswered in this theory.

Oh, this old canard again. Abiogenesis & evolution are two different pathways. The former is about how life began, latter is about how life evolved. Do get it right next time.

Atheists deny the first option and base their world view on its denial, but do they really believe the second?

I base my POV on reality. & the 2nd? I have confidence in the 2nd. Until you can prove otherwise.

I see alot of effort refuting the first but not alot answering the age old questions of origin and purpose.

Where we came from? Primordial ooze. I’m good w/that. Purpose? We make our own.

If all we see around us has its very origin in the infinite, shouldnt we look outside ourselves and our finite view to find real answers?

Geez, did you just start taking Philo 101, or something?
Real answer is….no gawd, we’re just here, there’s no justice just us, & no amount of sophistry will change any of that.

Good to hear your reply guys.

Firstly, Karen in response to proving that something is infinite, the very fact that we have matter, space and time combined with the logic that one cannot get something from nothing is more than sufficient evidence of the eternal. Every atheistic theory of origin that i have heard presumes the pre-existence of matter/energy in some form. My point stands until one can answer how the original matter (or even space and time) of the universe came from nothing.

Krystalline, I believe this also shows that my point of something being infinite in time is not a wild jump but rather a logical conclusion. Your theory of coming from primordial ooze still presumes the pre-existence of matter of which by implication you believe is eternal.

As for your question of proof of conscious thought, the logic is the same as that applied to the eternal nature of either matter or a creator as previously mentioned. I did not put this in the same class as matter as i see it to be too great a leap for conscious, intelligent thought to be concieved from the equation time x matter x chance. Therefore either it or a creator is infinite in time. To clarify this point Karen, i was refering to conscious thought as an entity not just the conscious thought of each person which is obviously not in existence before conception.

Krystalline, i only mentioned evolution to tie in with my point about conscious thought which is one of its greatest stumbling blocks. On this point (although off topic) please consider how for evolution to be possible, an animal must be able to pass survival mechanisms to the next generation through its DNA in order for the next generation to physically change and evolve. This changing DNA is the foundation of evolution. However, in courts of law DNA is taken to be unchanging and people are convicted on this premise. I wonder which is wrong?

Finally i note that you have both stated that there is no God. Please consider this; to prove the existence of something one only requires some knowledge of that thing. To deny the existence of something one needs to have all knowledge of all things. To vehemently deny the existence of God would require one to have scoured the entire earth and universe and gained complete knowledge of all things in them. This is obviously an absurd and impossible notion as scientists estimate there to be 10,000 species of marine life yet undiscovered in our oceans. If that is their estimation for the ocean, i can only marvel about what lies in the universe or in other dimentions yet undiscovered. To deny the existence of God therefore requires one to be closed-minded and obtuse in their beliefs.

As far as physical and logical evidence for God, I will enter that as a separate blog as to answer it briefly here would not do it justice or be developed enough to satisfy the critique it would no doubt receive.

Letsbeclear:

Your theory of coming from primordial ooze still presumes the pre-existence of matter of which by implication you believe is eternal.

No, I think I stated my point very clearly: ENERGY is eternal.

Krystalline, i only mentioned evolution to tie in with my point about conscious thought which is one of its greatest stumbling blocks. On this point (although off topic) please consider how for evolution to be possible, an animal must be able to pass survival mechanisms to the next generation through its DNA in order for the next generation to physically change and evolve. This changing DNA is the foundation of evolution. However, in courts of law DNA is taken to be unchanging and people are convicted on this premise. I wonder which is wrong?

Wow, you really don't know squat about evolution, do you?
DNA in an animal is unchanging FOR THAT ANIMAL.
What a stupid comment.

Please consider this; to prove the existence of something one only requires some knowledge of that thing. To deny the existence of something one needs to have all knowledge of all things.

Oh, you're just a simpleton who's smoked too much pot.
'You'd have to be omniscient to deny omniscience'.
'Obtuse' is your middle fucking name.
An appeal to ignorance wrapped in pretty rhetoric. This has been tried before.
NOTHING NEW. You're about the 1000th yobbo who's tried this approach.

Every atheistic theory of origin that i have heard presumes the pre-existence of matter/energy in some form. My point stands until one can answer how the original matter (or even space and time) of the universe came from nothing.

Lets be clear you are an idiot.

If you can figure out why only a simpleton could hold your statement to be true, you will have your answer for why it is false.

Better to believe in nothing than to worship nothing.

Krystalline Apostate, that was funny I wrote my comment before receiving yours. We both used simpleton to describe it haha. It is obvious but still funny.

I see your responses have swayed from civilised debate.

Firstly, if what you say about the DNA of an animal being unchanging is true, then evolution is false. To simply illustrate this point, how can a land animal, which has never had wings or the capability of flight, suddenly develop them and pass this physical change to its offspring without a change in DNA?

Secondly, if energy is eternal, how did the parameters of space and time come into being? If find it an extremely far fetched proposition that this eternal energy changed into matter and combined with time and chance resulted in life as we know it today. Evolution is basically 'Time x Matter x Chance'. Even if this eternal energy did produce life this way, the logical implications would prove everything we know to be false. Time, matter and chance are not constants. Time is always changing, matter is moving and changing forms and chance is a word we use to predict the possibility of something happening according to the variables, which by nature are variable. The logical implication here is that nothing is constant. If nothing is constant, then truth itself by definition is non-existent.

Please consider these thoughts as Albert Einstein himself said
"The man of science is a poor philosopher"
and furthermore
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

Rather than write a lengthy blog on evidence for God, please allow me to provide a link to what is a more insightful and well-explained version of what i could write. Please take the time to evaluate the evidence for God as if it is true, then it is of utmost importance.

http://members.cox.net/wwcw/god_exists.html

Letsbeclear
So which gods do you not deny exist? All of them?
If someone has knowledge that their god is Thor, or Osiris, or the FSM, do you take their word on it? Or do you ask them how they know that knowledge is certain?
And from whence came these entities?

Conscious thought as an entity? Based on what? It's a much-used science fiction idea, but where's the data?

Letsbeclear
I have seen this site before which you recommend. It always seems to come up late at night when my meds have kicked in.
I haven't the patience to go through and parse out what I think you may be talking about. That should be your job anyway. You brought this babble to the conversation as the backbone of your argument. So YOU go through it, and give us a synopsis in your own words of how it proves any of your points.
You may want to invest in some Pepto, before you begin, as you'll be travelling circuitous routes.
Let us know when you've done your homework.

Letsbeclear:

Firstly, if what you say about the DNA of an animal being unchanging is true, then evolution is false.

I'm really having problems typing this, I'm laughing so hard.
Here, I'll spell it out so it's not so hard:
YOUR.DNA.DOESN'T.CHANGE. Your parents' will be different, your kids'll be different.
YOUR DNA will stay approx. the same the rest of your life.
Work on the reading comprehension.

To simply illustrate this point, how can a land animal, which has never had wings or the capability of flight, suddenly develop them and pass this physical change to its offspring without a change in DNA?

ROFLMAO.

Secondly, if energy is eternal, how did the parameters of space and time come into being?

Gee, I don't know, I'm not omniscient.

If find it an extremely far fetched proposition that this eternal energy changed into matter and combined with time and chance resulted in life as we know it today.

Missed my point about trillions & trillions of planets, didja?

Evolution is basically 'Time x Matter x Chance'. Even if this eternal energy did produce life this way, the logical implications would prove everything we know to be false. Time, matter and chance are not constants. Time is always changing, matter is moving and changing forms and chance is a word we use to predict the possibility of something happening according to the variables, which by nature are variable. The logical implication here is that nothing is constant. If nothing is constant, then truth itself by definition is non-existent.

You finally got 1 right.
So by your logic, even this 'truth' of a deity is false, right?
Thanks. You just proved gawd don't exist.
The atheists in this world will rest easy, & build a monument to you.
Let me leave you w/a quote from Ambrose Bierce.
"Philosophy, n. A route of many roads leading from nowhere to nothing."
- Devil's Dictionary

Letsbeclear,

You are having a hard time, it seems, believing that some rat was walking around one day and suddenly miraculously grew wings. Well consider, that rat could smell a dead xtian in a cave that was several feet out of reach. Also consider that there was simply no other food anywhere and that rat knew it would die if wings did not suddenly sprout from its sides. Now it should come as no surprise that the rat would surely turn into a pigeon.

Letsbeclear if you are having a hard time believing that, how can you believe that an all powerful thing that is capable of moving universes, with a single hand, barely I say unto you with a single wish. How can you believe that such a thing just popped up?

Krystalline,

Please read the paragraph about evolution again and consider that this proves that logically evolution cannot be true. I believe evolution to be a fallicy and therefore absolute truth does exist.

Rna2dna,

By your admission, you find both creation and evolution to be equally difficult to believe as both 'pop up' from nowhere.

The difference between these theories is one has order, design and intrinsic purpose. The other, eternal matter and evolution, is random, unordered and devoid of intrinsic purpose.

As both theories require the eternal prescence of something (either a creator or matter/energy), which cannot be explained by science, they both require faith to believe. I find it difficult to see why one would choose to believe in the theory that ranks us alongside a cabbage or a slug in purpose and importance when it only takes an equal amount of faith to believe that we are carefully and wonderfully made by a loving God with a future and a hope.

As both beliefs have their own evidence but still require an extent of faith, it is only sensible that each person consider both sides on a logical basis putting aside any hurt or negative emotion toward experiences or people that have misrepresented each view.

Letsbenuts:

Please read the paragraph about evolution again and consider that this proves that logically evolution cannot be true. I believe evolution to be a fallicy and therefore absolute truth does exist.

I re-read your posts, & have considered that you wouldn't know logic if it bit you on the ass. 'Proves evolution can't be true?'
Here, since you're obviously not so bright, I'll diagram your 'logic' out, & show how ridiculous it is.

On this point (although off topic) please consider how for evolution to be possible, an animal must be able to pass survival mechanisms to the next generation through its DNA in order for the next generation to physically change and evolve. This changing DNA is the foundation of evolution.

Perfectly reasonable. Here's where you go absolutely off into left field:

However, in courts of law DNA is taken to be unchanging and people are convicted on this premise.

DNA DOESN'T CHANGE IN THE SAME GENERATION, you dipshit.
Final analysis: you're wrong.
Come back when you're done w/rehab.

As both beliefs have their own evidence but still require an extent of faith, it is only sensible that each person consider both sides on a logical basis putting aside any hurt or negative emotion toward experiences or people that have misrepresented each view.

Hey, you didn't hurt my wittwe feewings.
You have no clue what you're talking about. You can't even flesh out a logical thought.
Your beliefs HAVE no evidence, outside of some Cartesian theatre.

Karen,

I am refering to conscious thought as evident and existent in animals and humans not as an entity apart from these. My point is that it is a huge (and i suggest impossible) leap for inanimate matter to develop conscious thought. Evolution is based on the theory of survival of the fittest. Survival requires will and will requires conscious thought. I find it hard to see how evolution even started in a universe devoid of purpose when survival in itself is purpose. It is even more difficult to believe when the original matter has no will to attain to any purpose.

Evolution is based on the theory of survival of the fittest.

Aye caramba.
No, it's not.
http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?s=survival%20of%20the%20fittest.&gwp=16
"Survival of the fittest is a phrase which is a shorthand for a concept relating to competition for survival or predominance. Originally applied by Herbert Spencer in his Principles of Biology of 1864, Spencer drew parallels to his ideas of economics with Charles Darwin's theories of evolution by what Darwin termed natural selection.
The phrase is a metaphor, not a scientific description; and it is not generally used by biologists, who almost exclusively prefer to use the phrase "natural selection"."
Try using arguments that aren't over 20 years old, would you please?

Survival requires will and will requires conscious thought.

Which is why the amoeba, void of any recognizable 'conscious thought', struggles as well? Or earthworms?
Yeesh, you want I should talk to you nice?
Try using your brain for a change.
If you came up w/this garbage on your own, you need to do some research. If someone taught you this idiocy, find a new teacher.
Or maybe lay off the wackie weed.

Oh, 1 more thing:

The other, eternal matter and evolution, is random, unordered and devoid of intrinsic purpose.

That's all wrong.
There's no randomnicity, and it's not unordered. We make our OWN purpose.
As to 'equal amounts of faith', wrong again.
Evolution, a blind, sloppy, violent system, has mountains of forensic evidence to back it up.
While all you people have is 'feelings, nothing more than feee-eelings.'

Krystalline,

DNA is the only way of passing physical change to offspring. DNA that is not in the family does not appear in offspring. Example: White people do not produce black offspring unless the DNA for dark skin colour is in the family. Thus if the DNA for wings is not in a species or family's DNA pool then they cannot appear in any further generations.

My point is this: Each species has its pool of DNA. Humans, for example, maybe of different colour size and gender however these differences are all created by DNA in our gene pool. The DNA for wings or feathers is not in our gene pool and although DNA changes for the next generation, the DNA for these will never be in the gene pool and thus humans will never develop them.

Evolution suggests that if humans needed wings for survival, then somehow they could develop them. The only way to develop them would be for the information that they are needed to be passed to the offspring so the offspring could develop them. This information can only be passed by the external exchange of information (speech, demonstration, culture etc) or by internal exchange of information in the form of DNA.
Obviously information received after birth would not change an animals physical appearance. Thus, for this information to be passed to the offspring it must occur before birth in the DNA. The fact that DNA is unchanging means that the information that the species needs wings cannot be passed on because the parents DNA was set at birth and the parent developed this knowledge after birth.

This shows that the concept of evolution cannot be true as evolution requires learned survival mechanism to be passed to offspring however, as shown above, this is impossible.

Finally, i am happy to debate issues with you however please refrain from name calling in future posts. I extend each person on this site civil respect and would appreciate the same in return.

"So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time."

Dr. A. Cressy Morrison,
Former president of the New York Academy of Sciences

Letsbeclear:

My point is this: Each species has its pool of DNA. Humans, for example, maybe of different colour size and gender however these differences are all created by DNA in our gene pool. The DNA for wings or feathers is not in our gene pool and although DNA changes for the next generation, the DNA for these will never be in the gene pool and thus humans will never develop them.

That's actually correct, to a certain degree. But they don't all have the SAME DNA. It varies from individual to individual. How else could DNA testing distinguish between individuals?

Evolution suggests that if humans needed wings for survival, then somehow they could develop them. The only way to develop them would be for the information that they are needed to be passed to the offspring so the offspring could develop them. This information can only be passed by the external exchange of information (speech, demonstration, culture etc) or by internal exchange of information in the form of DNA.
Obviously information received after birth would not change an animals physical appearance. Thus, for this information to be passed to the offspring it must occur before birth in the DNA. The fact that DNA is unchanging means that the information that the species needs wings cannot be passed on because the parents DNA was set at birth and the parent developed this knowledge after birth.

It's incremental changes. No, the DNA is set pre-birth, in small doses. We're talking millions of years here, not overnight.
DNA DOES change. I don't know where you're getting this 'immutable' crap, but selective genes get passed. Eye color, male pattern baldness, some inheritances actually skip a generation.
Besides, which situation would require humans grow wings? That sounds suspiciously like Lamarckianism, which has been refuted.

This shows that the concept of evolution cannot be true as evolution requires learned survival mechanism to be passed to offspring however, as shown above, this is impossible.

You've got nary a clue what you're talking about. I'd advise you doing some real research in the matter, outside of Sunday School or theology classes.
'Survival mechanisms set at post-birth'. Feh.

Finally, i am happy to debate issues with you however please refrain from name calling in future posts.

Sure, soon as you say anything worth respecting.
Have you read anything in the field? Done any REAL research?
Here, everything you need to know is at talkorigins.org.

And everything you need to know at
http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/top.htm

Letsbeclear:

"So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time."

That sounds like a re-frame of Fred Hoyle.
'Mathematically impossible'? How so? There's no odds at all? Out of trillions upon trillions of planets, impossible?
Don't you need to be omniscient to make a statement like that?

Oh, your link is too rich.
1995? 12 years ago? All of those claims, I've looked into them. Utterly bogus.
The quote at the bottom LIED. Henry Morris was never an evolutionist.
I'm guessing you're a Young Earther?
Which of course, is even more laughable than a creationist.
Y'see, I've walked this road numerous times.
Next, you'll be claiming that evolution is in it's death throes.
The flood's been debunked, there are more than enough 'transitional' fossils to prove the ascent of man, I mean, this is too much.
You people do live in your own little world, don't you?

Letsbeclear:
Here's a little reading for you:
http://pharyngula.org/index/weblog/comments/dawkins_explains_evolution/
"Natural selection is quintessentially non-random, yet it is lamentably often miscalled random. This one mistake underlies much of the sceptical backlash against evolution. Chance cannot explain life. Design is as bad an explanation as chance because it raises bigger questions than it answers. Evolution by natural selection is the only workable theory ever proposed that is capable of explaining life, and it does so brilliantly."

My point stands that evolution, and whatever theory of origin one chooses with it, has such gaping holes both logically and scientifically that it requires as much faith as creation. One such proof of the impossibility of evolution is as follws (copied from website).

Our present atmosphere consists of 78% nitrogen (N2), 21% molecular oxygen (O2), and 1% of other gases, such as carbon dioxide CO2), argon (Ar), and water vapor H2O). An atmosphere containing free oxygen would be fatal to all origin of life schemes. While oxygen is necessary for life, free oxygen would oxidize and thus destroy all organic molecules required for the origin of life. Thus, in spite of much evidence that the earth has always had a significant quantity of free oxygen in the atmosphere,3 evolutionists persist in declaring that there was no oxygen in the earth's early atmosphere. However, this would also be fatal to an evolutionary origin of life. If there were no oxygen there would be no protective layer of ozone surrounding the earth. Ozone is produced by radiation from the sun on the oxygen in the atmosphere, converting the diatomic oxygen(O2) we breathe to triatomic oxygen O3), which is ozone. Thus if there were no oxygen there would be no ozone. The deadly destructive ultraviolet light from the sun would pour down on the surface of the earth unimpeded, destroying those organic molecules required for life, reducing them to simple gases, such as nitrogen, carbon dioxide, and water. Thus, evolutionists face an irresolvable dilemma: in the presence of oxygen, life could not evolve; without oxygen, thus no ozone, life could not evolve or exist.

I understand we could both continue to post numerous links supporting our arguments for creation/evolution and the origins of life without convinving each other to change our scientific point of view. Thus i believe the answers lie not only in science but in each persons conscience. As i have posted elsewhere;

Everyone is designed with the knowledge of God inside us. How each person responds to this is different. Some choose to deny him, as evident in this forum, and define their belief system on the non-existence of something. Either God is real and requires the ultimate attention or God is not real and requires no attention at all. Atheism believes God is not real and still gives him a lot of attention - an intriguing paradox!

This shows that should one choose to believe, deny or run from God, the issue touches the hearts of all and cannot be merely pushed aside like the Loch Ness monster as it is intrinsic to our nature. Like it or not, dealing with the internal yearning to have relationship with God burdens us our entire lives as it is a human longing that is not satisfied any other way.

Sorry, please disregard the 3 before the word evolutionists as it was accidently entered whilst cutting and pasting.

Letsbeclear

Maybe it's me, but I am completely confused by what you are trying to convey to me about conscious thought.

To clarify this point Karen, i was refering to conscious thought as an entity not just the conscious thought of each person

I am refering to conscious thought as evident and existent in animals and humans not as an entity apart from these.

Is it a separate entity or not? Are you saying that we are all connected by our thoughts? How is "conscious thought as evident and existent in animals and humans " not something that would die with the animal/human containing it? Please make up your mind.
Or someone, please point out to me WTF I am missing.

I can't really add much to what KA has said to your comments about evolution. You really are barking up the wrong tree; changes don't happen overnight, and if you really study how evolution works, you will see that it is ordered. Yes, there are some steps missing, but it's a big planet, the research hasn't been going on all that long comparatively, and there are lots of reasons why some evidence may forever be lost and we have to jump gaps.
Still none is as great a leap as saying a loving, invisible, eternal being made it all happen, and is still here, somewhere---everywhere, actually.

As KA said, there IS evidence for evolution. The only evidence you have for god is feelings.

You haven't answered me about which, if any gods you can deny, btw.

Why do Christians almost always choose to adopt names so filled with irony?

Haven't been around much but I am just taking a moment to commend the two of you(K and Karen) for your dedication and patience. Considering the nonsense I've been reading it's surprising that more epithets have not surfaced.

Thus i believe the answers lie not only in science but in each persons conscience.

This defines the utter futility of arguing with a theist. Evidence/ shmevidence.

karen:

Is it a separate entity or not? Are you saying that we are all connected by our thoughts? How is "conscious thought as evident and existent in animals and humans " not something that would die with the animal/human containing it?

Ooh, nice catch on the contradiction. I missed it.
LBC is reifying right 'n left.

LBC:

Everyone is designed with the knowledge of God inside us. How each person responds to this is different. Some choose to deny him, as evident in this forum, and define their belief system on the non-existence of something. Either God is real and requires the ultimate attention or God is not real and requires no attention at all. Atheism believes God is not real and still gives him a lot of attention - an intriguing paradox!

Well, truthfully, the only reason this goes on, is that
A. We're pretty much sick & tired of you clowns trying to run our lives for us, &
B. You people lost your free pass when those jets hit the WTC.
Religious behavior is demonstrably dangerous, it's irrational, & besides, if gawd's prophesied a bunch of events to come about, y'all should sit on your hands & wait it out.
The next time you want to blather on about how evolution's a 'matter of faith', think on these items:
A. Evolution is the backbone of biology. If it didn't work, we wouldn't have such a variety of crops, medicines, CSI labs, & a # of other perks it gives us.
B. Prior to Darwin, 100% of the scientists believed in creation. The populace is now down to about 1%, & failing rapidly.
I don't count Dembski, Behe, or Morris among those worthies.
& spare me your parroted recitation of the Goldilocks effect.

Letsbeclear wrote:

One such proof of the impossibility of evolution is as follws (copied from website).

Nice attribution, I am sure the author is impressed. Did you learn that from babble school?

It is difficult to know the exact conditions on and surrounding the early earth which was after all and obviously billions of years ago. However, there is no doubt that the atmosphere was not the same as it is today. So your source, which you hide so effectively, is really starting from the wrong side of the model and then jumping to conclusions at the other side of the model.

There is probably one bit of useful information there, which is that the conditions under which the first life on earth evolved were very harsh conditions. That is probably why it took several hundred thousand years to occur. I am sure you will agree it is not surprising the oceans would surely have provided a more stable environment for life to begin its long journey of evolution.

Evolution is a very interesting reality, your "soul" would be happy if you spent some time studying it. Earlier in this thread I made a statement about a rat turning into a pigeon, well I assumed that you would understand I was joking, of course a rat can not turn into a pigeon. However, apparently you assumed that I was serious. That is very sad, I feel sorry for you. By holding on to a very obviously flawed belief you are missing out on a lot of truly amazing knowledge.

By holding on to christian beliefs that originated two thousand years ago, when the conditions for life were quite different than they are today, you are endangering human life and possibly most life on our lovely planet.

Most christians are very self centered only caring about how they will be perceived in a mythical "after life". At the time the bible was created those ideas were not so destructive as they are today, it was a different time and place.

So I will encourage you to but down your bible. Take a look around, try to understand reality. Spend some time studying evolution so that you have an understanding of what life is.

The bible was written two thousand years ago, you cannot expect the conditions of life today to be the same. Please stop your dangerous and destructive belief in mythology.

rna2dna:

So your source, which you hide so effectively, is really starting from the wrong side of the model and then jumping to conclusions at the other side of the model.

I really like that description. The entry into a model is an incorrect 1.
I'm still just shaking my head, over the DNA/court example.
That's just about the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
Never did get to hear LBC's 'proof of gawd'. No doubt, it was something along the lines of the complexity of a single cell/watchmaker theory.
Sometimes I really wish these folks would do some research prior to opening their mouths.

All flesh is grass, and all is loveliness is like te floer of the field. The grass withers, the flower fades, when te breath of the Lord blows upon it; surely the people are like grass. The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God stands forever.

Ignore this entry; trying to post a pic.

Ignore this entry; trying to post a pic.

ABC-TV once again spouted flames against atheism by opening a segment on Sunday, 4th March by stating extremist atheists want to 'get rid of God'. All we really want is to bring back the Constitution, Ammendments, and Bill of Rights and firm up the SEPARATION of Church and State.I'd feel safer if certain people DID continue to fear hell fire and Divine retribution ! There's too much religion in public life at taxpayer expense.

Interesting point of views. Here's another interesting thing you should check out. Ben Stein is putting out a new movie that is trying to promote teaching creationism in schools. It's called Expelled... check out the website. www.expelledthemovie.com