Continuation of Christianity debate.

[unriggable]

Oh man I heard the greatest line from George Carlin a few days ago:

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day, and the invisible man has a special list, of ten things that he does not want you to do, and if you do any of these ten things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke, and burning and torture, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he NEEDS MONEY. He always needs money! He's all powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!"

[Backglass]

Oh man I heard the greatest line from George Carlin a few days ago:

"Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man, living in the sky, who watches everything you do, every minute of every day, and the invisible man has a special list, of ten things that he does not want you to do, and if you do any of these ten things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke, and burning and torture, where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you. He loves you and he NEEDS MONEY. He always needs money! He's all powerful, all-perfect, all-knowing and all-wise, somehow just can't handle money!"

Classic!

[nunz]

THink about this for a second ....
If we really came from Apes / monkey - then why do pigs have closer biological markers to us than apes? The only reason we choose apes as our ancestors is because they look like us - however at most other levels, other than looks, pigs have more in common with us than apes. We can even transplant their cells and organs without too many problems.

If you are going to quote evolution at me as my ancestry then please at least be consistent and say we are descended from pigs rather than from apes whose shape(a shallow test of gentic relatedness at best) is similar to ours.

Why dont we get told we are descended from pigs? Coz it is not any where nearly as sexy as being descended from apes.

1. Because that is much farther away in the chain of evolution. Apes are 99% similiar to us. Pigs are less (but still very, very close) - we are similiar, but apes are more similar.
2. When you say that our religion is not chaning then you agree that the abrahamic god is the same across the three mideast religions.
3. The reasson you think pigs are more similar to us is because of the fact that we use their organs? We use them because they do not carry diseases ew are unfamiliar with - apes on the other hand carry all kinds of things, like AIDS, sickle cell, and others we havent heard of.
4. Carbon dating is almost always accurate (talking 99%). When it isnt its something nuts, like fifteen minutes ago instead of the estimated 4.5 million years ago. Common sense makes up for that.
5. Excuse me if we have to 'take up faith' in carbon dating, you 'take up faith' in everything you say, for most of it is without proof.
6. Evolution is pretty much proven. The only real proof for creation is 'Oh yeah, well how did THIS happen? Too complicated for evolution! Haha MUST have been created!' We would find human fossils in the ground. We don't. That can prove one of two things: Either we evolved from existing species or we 'appeared' at a later time.

1 & 3 - No ... not true .... we use pigs because they are gentically closer to us for organ purposes. Ape insulin, as an example, is not used as it is not compatible. THe worry of cross transferring diseases is only a recent phenomena ... use of pig insulin pre-dates this worry.
4 - Carbon dating is not always almost accurate. Penguins (live ones) have been carbondates as over 3000 years old. Seals at over 1000. Why? Because carbon dating relies on dating the organism based on what the organism has consumed or been exposed too. THe penguins and seals ate organisms with older C14 depostis and so got mis dated
C14 is also useless for carbon dating much beyond 40 000 years and is absolutely of no use for carbon dating things which are supposedly 70million years old. Why? Check out its half life and decay patterns. They are linked to around the 40k mark. So how can we use that to date 'really old fossils'? We cant. It is not possible to date past about 40K using C14.
Also, if the earth had been arounf longer than 40k years then the rate of C14 decay would have stablilised in the atmosphere according to the scientists who pioneered and proposed its use. Interesting the rate of decay has not stabilised / reached equilibrium and again points to a much shorter time span in the earths history.

[nunz]

2. When you say that our religion is not chaning then you agree that the abrahamic god is the same across the three mideast religions.

Yep .. I have no doubt about that. Genesis.- The God of Abraham is also the God of Abraham's two sons, Isaac and Ishmael. The Arabs and eventually Mohammed descended from Ishmael. The Hebrews descended from Isaac.
Christians came from the root of Judaism or Israel via Jesus.

Your point in saying the above is?

It is interesting to note that 4-6000 years ago the writer of Genesis records Gods prophetic utterance that there would be enmity between Isaac and Ishmaels off spring. The writer also prophetically uttered that Ishmael s children would be like wild asses roaming the wilderness, continually at odds with those around them. Interesting to see prophesy fulfilled isn't it.

[Backglass]

1 & 3 - No ... not true .... we use pigs because they are gentically closer to us for organ purposes. Ape insulin, as an example, is not used as it is not compatible. THe worry of cross transferring diseases is only a recent phenomena ... use of pig insulin pre-dates this worry.
4 - Carbon dating is not always almost accurate. Penguins (live ones) have been carbondates as over 3000 years old. Seals at over 1000. Why? Because carbon dating relies on dating the organism based on what the organism has consumed or been exposed too. THe penguins and seals ate organisms with older C14 depostis and so got mis dated
C14 is also useless for carbon dating much beyond 40 000 years and is absolutely of no use for carbon dating things which are supposedly 70million years old. Why? Check out its half life and decay patterns. They are linked to around the 40k mark. So how can we use that to date 'really old fossils'? We cant. It is not possible to date past about 40K using C14.
Also, if the earth had been arounf longer than 40k years then the rate of C14 decay would have stablilised in the atmosphere according to the scientists who pioneered and proposed its use. Interesting the rate of decay has not stabilised / reached equilibrium and again points to a much shorter time span in the earths history.

You are right...all this science is just make believe!

We should instead believe something concrete...like a man in the sky clapped his hands and wished us all into existence.

Now THAT'S believable!

[nunz]

THink about this for a second ....
If we really came from Apes / monkey - then why do pigs have closer biological markers to us than apes? The only reason we choose apes as our ancestors is because they look like us - however at most other levels, other than looks, pigs have more in common with us than apes. We can even transplant their cells and organs without too many problems.

If you are going to quote evolution at me as my ancestry then please at least be consistent and say we are descended from pigs rather than from apes whose shape(a shallow test of gentic relatedness at best) is similar to ours.

Why dont we get told we are descended from pigs? Coz it is not any where nearly as sexy as being descended from apes.

Sorry for a double post, I know this is untrue because we dont know the genome of a pig.

We don't know the genome of an ape either, or a human for that matter. However a child doesn't need to know how a lock is built and what it looks like, allt hey do is try the key nad if it works they have proof the fit is good. Same for the useof organs and genetic material cross species. We dont need to know the genome to know that pig insulin, pig skin and poig organs are close to our structure as they fit into our systems pretty well.

[nunz]

Wouldn't it just have been easier to put a link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henotheism in your post rather than discrediting yourself by selectively plagiarising the internet's best known knowledge resource...

If you check my post I put that I have edited the post for brevity, thus making allusion to the fact the work was not mine. and you are correct, I didn't attribute the source, however plagiarism requires me to claim the work I did was mine, something I didn't do.
If you want to take a personal crack at me or my character go ahead but please check your facts In fact personal cracks at me are good. It shows people are loosing the argument on factual grounds and are looking for some other distraction :-b

[got tonkaed]

specifically regarding the prophecy issue as i havent really followed the rest of the latest batch too closely.

Surely your not that stunned that someone was able to pick that a given group of people, especially a line of people descending from an individual who was cast aside would end up being a nomadic people? Certainly it wasnt that uncommon for there to be a group of people traveling around making use of settlements to raid. Also i think its a bit much to say all muslims are acting in a similar fashion today.

I think (to be a bit oversimplistic, though the fufilled prophecy claim may be) it would be like me sitting there during a period when being nomadic was common and writing about a group of people who tended to consume large amounts of goods and then finding out a few thousand years later that a heavily consumer based society existed. Clearly that was what i was referring to...

[nunz]

Even if this were the case - if there was a giant flood - so what? Al teh shared stories prove is that a lot of people experienced it. And if they DID, than the biblical version is wrong, because no one excpet noah and his family survived it!

Good .. we now have a point of argument that says there may have been the possibility of a universal flood experienced by all existing cultures.
The question now is .... did all of today's cultures derive from Noah?
The answer from my point of view is yes. I think they did. Given the time factors, world population trends, taking into account wars, famines, migration etc it is possible.

[nunz]

Kind of sad how much people misinterpret what the bible was originally written for. It was written for morals, not to memorize psalms and to stick up for stories. A lot of christians forget that, when they start to kill, and vandalize, and rob from the poor, and become arrogant and force the world to remain in check under their watchful little fucking noses.

Two points ... the bible was not written for morals. It was written for the Glory Of God and the recording of history, not morals.
2 - Do you know any Christians who are killing, and vandalising, and robbing from the poor? And no, George Bush doesn't count. Brain damaged people have to be given some grace after all.
While politically motivated people have used Christianity as an excuse or unifying banner for all sorts of criminal behaviour is ti worth noting that even in places like India the majority of the works for the poor, major hospitals and other such works have sprung from christian roots. Abolition of slavery, working conditions, voting for women and social welfare also all were started by Christians and Christian organisations.

I figure this is just a mindless troll for kicks and giggles, I thought I might still bite anyway :0

[unriggable]

1 & 3 - No ... not true .... we use pigs because they are gentically closer to us for organ purposes. Ape insulin, as an example, is not used as it is not compatible. THe worry of cross transferring diseases is only a recent phenomena ... use of pig insulin pre-dates this worry.
4 - Carbon dating is not always almost accurate. Penguins (live ones) have been carbondates as over 3000 years old. Seals at over 1000. Why? Because carbon dating relies on dating the organism based on what the organism has consumed or been exposed too. THe penguins and seals ate organisms with older C14 depostis and so got mis dated
C14 is also useless for carbon dating much beyond 40 000 years and is absolutely of no use for carbon dating things which are supposedly 70million years old. Why? Check out its half life and decay patterns. They are linked to around the 40k mark. So how can we use that to date 'really old fossils'? We cant. It is not possible to date past about 40K using C14.
Also, if the earth had been arounf longer than 40k years then the rate of C14 decay would have stablilised in the atmosphere according to the scientists who pioneered and proposed its use. Interesting the rate of decay has not stabilised / reached equilibrium and again points to a much shorter time span in the earths history.

1-3. I'm pretty sure we use it because us and them have similiar organs. I've disected a fetal pig before, most of the organs are similiar. We used pig insulin because it was the most stable and harbored the fewest diseases, even though that rarely worked (now we just take the human insulin gene and put it in e.coli)
4. You act like scientists run the carbon dating only once - it is run dozens of times if necessary. The most prominent result is usually accepted. Yes there are problems, but you exaggerate it. On wikipedia it says 'samples are accurate to at worst 700 years'. You are right that it has a low maximum - about 60-65,000 years. But by applying mathematics to show patterns, scientists can predict how old a fosisl is without seeing it's carbon radioactivity.

As for C14 and stabilization:
"Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray impacts on nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere, which forms more of the isotope. (The same process occurs in the nitrogen-rich atmosphere of Saturn's moon Titan.)"
wikipedia.org

[nunz]

this thread is kinda stupid since you have to beleive without proof not find proof then beleive

I have proof ... more proof than than the evolutionists do. THe proof of God is evident in creation, in the evidence of changed lives and in the testimony of peoples experiences with God. Either all true believing Christians are lying or else we do have an experience of God and a relationship with him.
The bible is full of points in history where God revealed himself. The world is full of Christians who have also had God revelaed to them.

So my question is: What is proof?

Also as it is Easter ... where is the body? absence of a body to me is proof of a resurrection. And if Jesus came back from the grave, and preached on eternal life then I am inclined to believe him .. after all he is the expert.

[nunz]

Carbon dating is almost always accurate (talking 99%). When it isnt its something nuts, like fifteen minutes ago instead of the estimated 4.5 million years ago. Common sense makes up for that.

From http://bcal.shef.ac.uk/info/index.html#Bibliography - a site that does radiocarbon dating. Emphasis mine.

because BCal uses Markov chain Monte Carlo methods to obtain the results you request, no two runs of the code will produce the same answers (unless you fix the seed for the random number generator). However, provided that the methodology is working well you should find that multiple runs with different random seeds produce results which are very similar and certainly within the tolerance of the other errors inherent in radiocarbon dating. You MUST check this for each project you work on. It's easy to do, just resubmit the project for calibration a few times and check that the results are sufficiently similar given your knowledge of the variability of your data and your prior information. We have done everything we can to assure that this will happen for most sites you are likely to analyse. However, BCal is very flexible and you may well be trying to do something that no one has done before.

Well, you always hear "45 million years ago..." not "44,735,063 years ago" because they got different answers. But it says, even in your emphasis, that it should produce very similiar answers.

C14 dating cannot go back past about 40 000 years so how can it be used to date things millions of years old?Check out its half life, rate of decay .... millions of years are not possible with C14 carbon dating.

[Kugelblitz22]

Also as it is Easter ... where is the body? absence of a body to me is proof of a resurrection.

You know there are a lot of bodies from thousands of years ago that we can't locate...

Hell there are thousands of bodies in Iraq we can't find today.

[Kugelblitz22]

Either all true believing Christians are lying or else we do have an experience of God and a relationship with him.

This is a false dichotomy as it does not contain the following options:

Christians are delusional.

Christians are suffering from the inability to think critically about a wide range of topics.

Christians, (some) are exploiting the ignorance of others for power and profit.

[nunz]

4 - Carbon dating is not always almost accurate. Penguins (live ones) have been carbondates as over 3000 years old. Seals at over 1000. Why? Because carbon dating relies on dating the organism based on what the organism has consumed or been exposed too. THe penguins and seals ate organisms with older C14 depostis and so got mis dated
C14 is also useless for carbon dating much beyond 40 000 years and is absolutely of no use for carbon dating things which are supposedly 70million years old. Why? Check out its half life and decay patterns. They are linked to around the 40k mark. So how can we use that to date 'really old fossils'? We cant. It is not possible to date past about 40K using C14.
Also, if the earth had been arounf longer than 40k years then the rate of C14 decay would have stablilised in the atmosphere according to the scientists who pioneered and proposed its use. Interesting the rate of decay has not stabilised / reached equilibrium and again points to a much shorter time span in the earths history.

4. You act like scientists run the carbon dating only once - it is run dozens of times if necessary. The most prominent result is usually accepted. Yes there are problems, but you exaggerate it. On wikipedia it says 'samples are accurate to at worst 700 years'. You are right that it has a low maximum - about 60-65,000 years. But by applying mathematics to show patterns, scientists can predict how old a fosisl is without seeing it's carbon radioactivity.

You claim I exaggerate yet I have only pointed out two findings where the dating was completely wrong owing to the environmental impact of the penguins and seals eating flora from a different time period. This is not a story but is from actual research performed so cannot therefore be exaggeration.

As for C14 and stabilization:
"Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray impacts on nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere, which forms more of the isotope. (The same process occurs in the nitrogen-rich atmosphere of Saturn's moon Titan.)"
wikipedia.org

Cool ... now we are beginning to talk ... some one who knows C14 cant prove fossils are 70 million years old via carbon dating. My problem with C14 dating in these threads is every person who ever heard the term believes it is possible to date fossils millions of years old using C14 but it just isn't. Fossils are dated by the strata around them . Unfortunaltey the strata around fossils is generally dated by the fossils contained within. circular argument with the only fact in it (the time scale) injected via a theory based on the circular argument.

C14 would have disappeared from the earth a long time ago if not for cosmic rays etc. However, the decay and renewal should have reached equilibrium a long time ago if the earth was even close to being 40 000 years old, little less the millions of years hypothesised by evolutionists. As it is the C14 decay and renewal ratio is not stable. It is in fact indicative of a much smaller time scale (less than 10k years) where they cycle of renewal and decay has not yet stabilised. Scientists interested in C14 dating all claim it works coz of the stabiity of the decay and the amont of C14 present in samples should have stabilised if the earth is indeed as old as evolutionists say it is. However as the decay and renewal ration has not stabilised this means their findings are wrong.

But by applying mathematics to show patterns, scientists can predict how old a fosisl is without seeing it's carbon radioactivity.

What mathmatics and what is it applied to? If it is not C14 dating, as many claim it is, then what is it? If they are applying maths to C14 then the variables they use are suppositions based on incorrect constants such as a supposed time frame for the worlds existence and predictions of decay rates based on a static ration of C14 in the envirnment reached between renewal and decay.
Some Christians however have a differnt time frame for the worlds age and if we presume the world is less than 10k years old then the decay / renewal ration we observe today for C14 is actually consistent with that time frame. C14 decay / renewal ration proves the creationsist time frame, not the evolutionist time frame.
Some earlier says Chrstians have to belief without proof .. I say the evolutionst believes without proof or even worsr, believes by ignoring proofs (such as the renewal and decay ration of C14).

[unriggable]

I have proof ... more proof than than the evolutionists do.

No, you definitely don't. Evolution is a pretty well-set theory. It may have errors that may be fixed in the near future, but overall it is set. We know that it happened since life gets progressively simpler as we dig deeper into the ground. The only time we see surges of complexity is after we unearth a mass extinction event, like the comet that hit during the triassic (or was it cretaceous? Dont remember).
Evolution is seen today, most easily with HIV/AIDS and polar bears. Odd combination, I know. HIV cannot be cured because it changes so much. It EVOLVES. The mutations cause the 'fresh' HIV to live on, while the older strains die out because an immunity has been built by the human body. Mutations occur often, like:


Polar bears are adapting in a different way. Since their ecosystem, the arctic, is being wiped out, they have to resort to swimming. Now they are pretty well off since they have very large paws, but the polar bears with the largest will be able to swim most efficiently and carry the smallest risk of being eaten, and thus be able to live on. Using the same basic principle of mutations described above, along with sexual reproduction (yielding varied offspring), the children will either be better off than their parents at what they do and live, or be worse off and die. Survival of the fittest in a nutshell.

The proof of God is evident in creation, in the evidence of changed lives and in the testimony of peoples experiences with God. Either all true believing Christians are lying or else we do have an experience of God and a relationship with him.
The bible is full of points in history where God revealed himself. The world is full of Christians who have also had God revelaed to them.

Here's the rule for proof. You cannot use a book to prove that same book. The bible is a book. A storybook. Yes it has morals, but that does not make it any more special than, say, Aesop's fables; the two are just as legitimate. The reason so many people believe in it is because they are told as children that that is the truth, so in their adulthood they follow it without question.

So my question is: What is proof?

Also as it is Easter ... where is the body? absence of a body to me is proof of a resurrection. And if Jesus came back from the grave, and preached on eternal life then I am inclined to believe him .. after all he is the expert.

Right here

[Backglass]

I have proof ... more proof than than the evolutionists do.

You have a belief system, not proof.

The proof of God is evident in creation, in the evidence of changed lives and in the testimony of peoples experiences with God.

Then the proof of the Tooth Fairy is baby teeth magically changing into adult teeth!

in the evidence of changed lives and in the testimony of peoples experiences with God.

People changed their own lives. No magical magicians did it. These people obviously needed a crutch to help them get by. Whatever helps I guess, but many others change without such things.

Either all true believing Christians are lying or else we do have an experience of God and a relationship with him.

I am sure that you truly believe in magical beings, faith healings and men who walk on water. But believing doesn't make it real, any more than believing in Santa Clause makes him real.

The bible is full of points in history where God revealed himself.

The Greeks have many stories where Zeus & Poseidon revealed themselves. Why do you not pray to them also?

The world is full of Christians who have also had God revelaed to them.

"There's sucker born every minute" - PT Barnum. Your gods have yet to show there faces to anyone.

So my question is: What is proof?

It certainly isnt blind faith in invisible, non-speaking, non-communicating mystery gods.

Where is the body? absence of a body to me is proof of a resurrection.

Ahhh...so Jimmy Hoffa was RESURRECTED! It all makes sense now.

and if Jesus came back from the grave, and preached on eternal life then I am inclined to believe him .. after all he is the expert.

And David Copperfield made the statue of liberty dissappear, so am I to believe anything he says? After all, he is an expert.

[Kugelblitz22]

4 - Carbon dating is not always almost accurate. Penguins (live ones) have been carbondates as over 3000 years old. Seals at over 1000. Why? Because carbon dating relies on dating the organism based on what the organism has consumed or been exposed too. THe penguins and seals ate organisms with older C14 depostis and so got mis dated
C14 is also useless for carbon dating much beyond 40 000 years and is absolutely of no use for carbon dating things which are supposedly 70million years old. Why? Check out its half life and decay patterns. They are linked to around the 40k mark. So how can we use that to date 'really old fossils'? We cant. It is not possible to date past about 40K using C14.
Also, if the earth had been arounf longer than 40k years then the rate of C14 decay would have stablilised in the atmosphere according to the scientists who pioneered and proposed its use. Interesting the rate of decay has not stabilised / reached equilibrium and again points to a much shorter time span in the earths history.

4. You act like scientists run the carbon dating only once - it is run dozens of times if necessary. The most prominent result is usually accepted. Yes there are problems, but you exaggerate it. On wikipedia it says 'samples are accurate to at worst 700 years'. You are right that it has a low maximum - about 60-65,000 years. But by applying mathematics to show patterns, scientists can predict how old a fosisl is without seeing it's carbon radioactivity.

You claim I exaggerate yet I have only pointed out two findings where the dating was completely wrong owing to the environmental impact of the penguins and seals eating flora from a different time period. This is not a story but is from actual research performed so cannot therefore be exaggeration.

As for C14 and stabilization:
"Carbon-14 has a half-life of 5730 years and would have long ago vanished from Earth were it not for the unremitting cosmic ray impacts on nitrogen in the Earth's atmosphere, which forms more of the isotope. (The same process occurs in the nitrogen-rich atmosphere of Saturn's moon Titan.)"
wikipedia.org

Cool ... now we are beginning to talk ... some one who knows C14 cant prove fossils are 70 million years old via carbon dating. My problem with C14 dating in these threads is every person who ever heard the term believes it is possible to date fossils millions of years old using C14 but it just isn't. Fossils are dated by the strata around them . Unfortunaltey the strata around fossils is generally dated by the fossils contained within. circular argument with the only fact in it (the time scale) injected via a theory based on the circular argument.

C14 would have disappeared from the earth a long time ago if not for cosmic rays etc. However, the decay and renewal should have reached equilibrium a long time ago if the earth was even close to being 40 000 years old, little less the millions of years hypothesised by evolutionists. As it is the C14 decay and renewal ratio is not stable. It is in fact indicative of a much smaller time scale (less than 10k years) where they cycle of renewal and decay has not yet stabilised. Scientists interested in C14 dating all claim it works coz of the stabiity of the decay and the amont of C14 present in samples should have stabilised if the earth is indeed as old as evolutionists say it is. However as the decay and renewal ration has not stabilised this means their findings are wrong.

C14 is not the only method used to date rock, fossils, other. Scientists use a variety of radiometric dating techniques with various elements in rock to date objects. These different techniques almost always arrive at a consensus of dates. And of course let's not forget the all the other evidence that the Earth is superold. Namely the rate of expansion of the universe, tectonic plate science, the fact that dinasour bones are found way deeper in the Earth than people fossils.

[unriggable]

Okay so lets say we find a neanderthal fifteen feet in the ground. We carbon date it, it comes up 50,000 years old. Test it for accuracy, its accurate. For that general area, fifteen feet generally equals 50,000 years. That's how dating works.

[nunz]

I have proof ... more proof than than the evolutionists do.

No, you definitely don't. Evolution is a pretty well-set theory.

Err ... no it isn't. Evolution is a recent theory while creation is the well set theory .. creation has a 4-6k year history, evolution's less than 200 years. Also evolutionary theory is continually being upgraded, debunked and altered as new facts come in. Creationism has remained pretty static for over 4-6k years. So which is the more well set theory?
You will claim creation is only a belief, but then again so is evolution. It is a theory, not a fact. The same can be said of creationism but at least lets not claim evolution has any more intellectual merits based on some nobility of heritage via age or being well set.
In fact one of the big changes in evoltion was the change from slow evolution over time to the sudden jump theory. I notice no one got particularly upset when one of the major tennents of this THEORY mascarading as facts got completely trashed and replaced.
No major changes in creation theory in 6k years. Why? Coz it has not been debunked by evolution or other theorys as being false.
Evolution is a belief or theory. It is not a fact. You need to keep that in mind

It may have errors that may be fixed in the near future, but overall it is set.

Err ... try the sudden jump theory versus slow change theory. Then try plugging all the holes in the sudden jump theory.

We know that it happened since life gets progressively simpler as we dig deeper into the ground. The only time we see surges of complexity is after we unearth a mass extinction event, like the comet that hit during the triassic (or was it cretaceous? Dont remember).

You have just made a circular argument supporting itself.
A dinosaur was not a simple life form. In fact it is potentially more complex than many reptiles today.
Insects are still insects. amoeba are still amoeba. End of story.
Any proof of that comet? Where is the rock? Where are the fragments? Creations story of the flood just as adequately, if not more adequately, accounts for that event. As for its timing, the timing is arrived at by looking at stratfication and stratification is arrived at by looking at fossils and fossils are dated by the strata they are found in. That kind of timing and dating is completely circular in argument.
what surges in complexity are we talking about?

Evolution is seen today, most easily with HIV/AIDS and polar bears. Odd combination, I know. HIV cannot be cured because it changes so much. It EVOLVES. The mutations cause the 'fresh' HIV to live on, while the older strains die out because an immunity has been built by the human body. Mutations occur often, like:


Polar bears are adapting in a different way. Since their ecosystem, the arctic, is being wiped out, they have to resort to swimming. Now they are pretty well off since they have very large paws, but the polar bears with the largest will be able to swim most efficiently and carry the smallest risk of being eaten, and thus be able to live on. Using the same basic principle of mutations described above, along with sexual reproduction (yielding varied offspring), the children will either be better off than their parents at what they do and live, or be worse off and die. Survival of the fittest in a nutshell.

That is not evolution .. that is natural selection which does not yield new species. Same species, just favouring polar bears with bigger paws.

[nunz]

"unriggable"]
Evolution is seen today, most easily with HIV/AIDS and polar bears. Odd combination, I know. HIV cannot be cured because it changes so much. It EVOLVES. The mutations cause the 'fresh' HIV to live on, while the older strains die out because an immunity has been built by the human body. Mutations occur often, like:

Again HIV strains are not new creatures but the same species. The old strains don't die out .. there are not that many different HIV strains. see http://www.avert.org/media/images/subtypes.gif
A virus is a virus is a virus .. however the virus never stops being a virus. It is worth noting that viruses which mutate don't survive long and neither do hybrids, again proof against evolution not towards it.
The other thing to note is that viruses do not sexually reproduce and so are cannot properly be considered in the evolutionary debate. Viruses reproduce by splitting not by sexual reproduction. THe split leaves the new virus with half the DNAof the old virus which then goes and infects other cells. They do not evolve.

[/url]

[nunz]

Either all true believing Christians are lying or else we do have an experience of God and a relationship with him.

This is a false dichotomy as it does not contain the following options:

Christians are delusional.

Christians are suffering from the inability to think critically about a wide range of topics.

Christians, (some) are exploiting the ignorance of others for power and profit.

you missed one:
All Kugelblitz22 are irrational and enjoy trolling

[beezer]

Careful nunz,

The more you try to explain Christianity to these guys the more of a risk you run of having backglass use the word "magic" in many different forms. He also likes to use the phrase "red pill". He uses the word "magic" more than the Lucky Charms leprechaun!

[Backglass]

Careful nunz,

The more you try to explain Christianity to these guys the more of a risk you run of having backglass use the word "magic" in many different forms.

Well...thats what parting oceans, walking dead, water/wine and faith healings are....aren't they? Magic?

He also likes to use the phrase "red pill".

Dont forget "ritualistic, cultists lemmings" while your at it.

He uses the word "magic" more than the Lucky Charms elf!

But thats because Leprechauns are real...I read it in an old dusty book! You just have to have FAITH and believe in your heart. If you would only seek them out, they could bring you so much joy...and gold...and tiny marshmallow treats.