Saturday, November 18, 2006

Give the Gift of Life

And now for an important announcement from the New York Blood Center:

NEW YORK, NY, OCTOBER 24, 2006 - With the busy, year-end holiday season fast approaching, New York Blood Center (NYBC) is urging everyone eligible to consider giving the best gift of all this holiday season - the gift of life - with a blood or platelet donation.
"A safe and adequate blood supply is essential to the health of any community," reports Dr. Robert Jones, NYBC President & CEO. "That's especially true in the holiday season as travel and the potential for accidents increases. Yet the holiday season also historically sees fewer donations and severe blood shortages. Therefore, we are asking all eligible residents of the greater New York/New Jersey community to help prevent a year-end blood shortage by giving a 'one size fits all' gift with no shopping required."
Who Can & Should Donate?
Eligible donors include those people at least age 16 (in NY) or 17 (in NJ) who weigh a minimum of 110 pounds, are in good health and meet all Food & Drug Administration and NY and NJ State Department of Health donor criteria. "The reality is less than 2% of people in our local community donates, which is far behind the nationwide blood donor participation rate of 5%," pointed out Dr. Jones. "We also need greater diversity within our donor base here in New York and New Jersey so we can better match the very precise transfusion needs of chronically transfused patients and those with uniquely inherited blood antigen patterns," added Dr. Jones.

I try to donate blood about three or four times per year and made a donation this morning. I strongly encourage anyone who is eligible to donate blood but has not done so to make an effort to donate this holiday season. It generally takes about an hour to an hour and a half, starting with the completion of the screening form, meeting with a medical screener, and then the actual donation of the blood itself, which itself takes no more than fifteen minutes.

Some of the questions on the questionnaire are very personal, and for me, the most irksome is the one that asks if you have ever had sex with someone who lives in, or was born in Africa. Being the honest person that I am, I have to explain to the screener that more than ten years ago I had a girlfriend who was born in Ivory Coast but grew up in France. Ivory Coast is not on the list of problem countries, but most of the screeners have to consult their manual to verify this. It’s not really that big a deal, it just delays the screening interview and examination (they do take your blood pressure, temperature, pulse, and prick your finger to get a drop of blood to test your iron levels) for a minute or so.

I imagine that most people shy away from donating blood because they do not like to have such a big needle inserted into their arm. Personally, I am not phased by the needle, and in fact I use reverse psychology on myself by eagerly anticipating the needle penetrating my skin. Yeah, I know, it's crazy, but it works for me. And for those who might need something more tangible than just the feeling that you are doing something good for the community, sometimes the Blood Center will offer small materialistic benefits like gift cards. For my donation today, I will be getting a $10.00 gift card for Barnes & Noble. When I receive it in the mail, maybe I will use it towards Richard Dawkins’ new book “The God Delusion”.

220 comments:

1 – 200 of 220   Newer›   Newest»
Sable Chicken said...

NOOOOOOO!
Don't waste your gift card on Richard Dawkins!

Stardust said...

tommy - that is going to be a great gift to yourself. Dawkins, Harris and Dennett are essential to everyone's library.

As for giving blood, I am on medication that makes that impossible for me...but my hubby gives whenever he can. It is one of the greatest gifts anyone can give. I had to have a blood transfusion after a miscarriage long ago...and my preemie daughter needed regular transfusions after she was born so I know firsthand just how important giving blood is. Good post.

Stardust said...

Tommy - I don't know if you have seen this website...it's The World of Richard Dawkins: Evolution, Science and Reason(I have the link on my blog).

Tommy said...

Hi Stardust.

Thanks for the link. I have been to the Dawkins site several times now.

Tommy said...

Wow, I got my gift card already! That was really fast, as I only donated four days ago.

Sable Chicken said...

Tommy, you should buy this book.
The Design Revolution
William A. Dembski, Foreword by Chuck Colson

http://www.apologetics.org/products_designrevolution_book.html

Is Intelligent Design science? Is it religion? What exactly is it?

Mathematician and philosopher Bill Dembski sets out to answer some of the toughest and most pertinent questions concerning the rise of the Intelligent Design movement. He offers 44 questions and answers about I.D. and attempts to sketch the road ahead for this important scientific revolution. Provocative and readable.

"It will not do for those to whom Dembski has issued his challenge to rely on their standing or authority within the scientific and academic establishments to wave him away. The truth is that the honor and integrity of science are really at stake." -- Robert P. George, McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence, Princeton University


"This book spells out clearly for the general public how and why the progress of modern science points strongly toward an intelligent designer. It answers the most common criticisms of design theory so deftly that it makes one wonder if dogged opponents of design have something on their minds other than pure science." -- Michael J. Behe, Professor of Biology, Lehigh University, author of Darwin's Black Box

~~~~
PS
Giving blood is a real good thing to do.

Stardust said...

Tommy - Wow...that WAS fast! Now you can go buy Dawkin's book! :-D

I have been reading Carl Sagan's The Dragon's of Eden: Speculation on the Evolution of Human Intelligence. Have you read that one? It's an older book, copyright 1977. I like the quote from Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness that he includes for the preface of chapter 8:

The mind of man is capable of anything -- because everything is in it, all the past as well as all the future.

And I would add that would include mythologies and superstitious beliefs which have been passed down from one generation to another, altered and reinterpreted in so many ways. These beliefs which have been altered with the passing of time according to the needs of those in power from one generation to the next, from one society to another, from one culture mixed with another. Some of us have evolved completely beyond the need for religion, and some had never had that need to begin with.

Humankind will only become truly civilized when they give up the belief that mythology is true or real. It will not eliminate war or the desire for power, but at least people won't be killing each other over some sort of absurd mythological beliefs or who has the true imaginary sky daddy on their side.

Theerasak Photha said...

NOOOOOOO!
Don't waste your gift card on Richard Dawkins!


:%s/Richard Dawkins/Nickelback/g

Tommy said...

I was able to get "The God Delusion" today on my lunchbreak. Between the $10 gift card and my 40% off Barnes & Noble discount membership, I ended up shelling out only about $6 of my own money for the book. Now that's a pretty good deal!

Sable Chicken said...

Tommy you make it sound like you used blood money to buy Dawkins' book. Just sounds so symbolic don't you think?

Tommy said...

Symbolic of what Sable?

The gift card was incidental to my donating in that I would have donated even if there was no gift card to be had.

Plus, with my B&N discount, I would have gotten 40% off the book anyway and it would have still cost a mere $16 and change.

Sable Chicken said...

It's just the way you said it...I guess it's just me, it just hit me kinda wrong.

Stardust said...

Tommy you make it sound like you used blood money to buy Dawkins' book. Just sounds so symbolic don't you think?

I didn't see anything like this in what Tommy said, what-so-ever.

It figures that xians would take something simple and good as giving blood and try to turn it into something "symbolically" bad.

I don't see how Tommy choosing to buy a Dawkins book lessens his generous act of helping others via donating blood. If there is anything symbolically good to be found in this whole thing, is that Tommy is a good person, who did a good thing and is also very happy to be getting a new book to read. Geesh!

Tommy...I see that you have become chicken lady's new obsession. ;) You have more patience than others have had with her.

Tommy said...

It would have been really ironic if I had bought Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" instead, using a gift card I got for donating blood to buy a book written to support belieft in a savior who purportedly told his apostles to drink his blood. How would that be for symbolic?

Tommy said...

It's okay. Sable is always welcome here as long as she is respectful and I try to reciprocate the same respect. If I can't change her mind about Biblical literalism, I like to think that at least I make her think about it.

Theerasak Photha said...

It's okay. Sable is always welcome here as long as she is respectful and I try to reciprocate the same respect. If I can't change her mind about Biblical literalism, I like to think that at least I make her think about it.

After that hard-hitting comparison of Christianity to Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism (esp. as per the Upanishads), I wonder if she'll be making any further visits.

Stardust said...

After that hard-hitting comparison of Christianity to Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism (esp. as per the Upanishads), I wonder if she'll be making any further visits.

Theerasak Photha - Sable always comes back unless she ends up being banned from somewhere (she is on a mission from god), and sometimes under another name or several names, even anonymous and she sometimes plays pranks. I have had an unfortunate dealing with her before and she tried to play me for a fool under her anonymous pseudonym when I was having a long debate with her here.
She might even take sides as the opposition and then get conversation going that way. She is a tricky chicky.

Tommy - I will say no more out of respect for your wishes, but as a fellow atheist who I enjoy having visit my blog, and whose blog I love to read, I felt I should explain myself about sable. Maybe she will "see the light" of reason via your blog, but I seriously doubt it. Lawd knows, no one else has succeeded yet, except for becoming frustrated with her. Good luck.

Sable Chicken said...

Stardust I don't know why you hate me so much. I thought that our conversation was going pretty well...untill you started posting at GIFS that YOU were the one messing with me. I tried with you Stardust, what is your problem? You don't want me around on your blog...I got it. I have not been posting on your blog. The thing is I never got to really defend my faith on Godisforsuckers like I would have liked to, because all my comments got altered over there. I'm still bummed about Sean's death. I only read that site about 1/10th of the time I use to. Really I would read every comment, in some hopes of finding a way to communicate to atheists.
I ask myself every day, why do I even try. It is not fruitful. It's not that fun to never see any thing for my effort. And I really mean effort. You are frustrated with Christianity, God and... me? Why do you think about it so much? If it is not real to you why do you spend so much time bashing something that is nothing? Yes I am on a mission for God, but Stardust what is your mission?

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha,
Don't be patting yourself on the back to much for the "hard-hitting comparison", I'm not sold on it.
I'm still wondering and waiting for you to tell me where the hope is for the tree cutter. If you bring Buddhism to it's logical end, there is no way to not sin and one must live out the wrongs of the past life in the future life without any hope of redemption.

Stardust said...

sable...no, I don't hate you. I don't even know you. If you knew me you would know that it isn't in me to hate people for merely disagreeing with me.

As for your visits to GifS and my stardust blog, if you are honest, you will know there was a lot more involved than what you want to admit. You chose to ignore comment policies at GifS and loved to antagonize, and that little deceitful trick you pulled on me left you laughing once I realized who you were, didn't it? I must admit, that did anger me as it would anyone else. I don't go messing with you on your blog, yet you come and mess with me at mine. I try to keep things civil there, and that is why you were banned from mine. I don't ordinarily make it a habit to ban people.

I am not frustrated with xianity or god because I cannot be frustrated with xianity or a god that is only mythology and does not exist except in the minds of humans who wish to believe it.

We live in a country where people are supposed to be free to believe whatever they do, yet religious folks will not be content with allowing others that freedom. They wish to take away that freedom to choose and be who we are and your mission is to try to assimilate everyone while having zero respect for others who are different from yourself.

I guess you could say my mission is to keep religion at bay, to keep it out of our secular government and out of my life. It is my mission to spread little seeds of doubt, little seeds of rationality and to encourage people to consider other possibilities.

I spent more than 30 years as a xian and I wasn't merely an Easter and Xmas xian, I was a full-time, involved believer, so I have experienced your religion and finally woke up and saw it for what it is. A mythological coping device for dealing with death and life's problems. If you need it fine, but it seems that by coming to atheist blogs, and trying to convert a small amount of people you are showing your own doubt and curiosity.

Stardust said...

Why do you think about it so much? If it is not real to you why do you spend so much time bashing something that is nothing?

Because it's always you are always shoving your mythology into our lives...you are always in our faces and we cannot ignore it. You knock on our doors, visit our blogs, shove tracts at us on the streets, plant your literature in medical offices, hospitals, hotels, airports...EVERYWHERE. When is the last time you had an atheist come to your door and wake you up on a Saturday morning to tell you that you are going to experience eternal torture and suffering for not giving up your god delusions? Xians just refuse to back off and let people live their lives. It's as though if even one doubter or non-believer remains, it is a threat to your fantasies. Xians behave as if they are on a game show and are going to win some super prize for converting the most people to Jeebus.

Theerasak Photha said...

Theerasak Photha,
Don't be patting yourself on the back to much for the "hard-hitting comparison", I'm not sold on it.
I'm still wondering and waiting for you to tell me where the hope is for the tree cutter. If you bring Buddhism to it's logical end, there is no way to not sin and one must live out the wrongs of the past life in the future life without any hope of redemption.


I didn't SAY I liked Buddhism the religion. Otherwise, I would still practice it as I did in my childhood. One of your problems is that you seem to confuse your FEELINGS about issues with FACTS about issues. I don't give a damn how you FEEL about Buddhism.

Regardless what I think about how fair any sect of Buddhism of Hinduism is (they aren't), Christianity still rips off the doctrines of Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism lock, stock, and barrel, period.

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha said...
"Christianity still rips off the doctrines of Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism lock, stock, and barrel, period."
Well go ahead tell me how it does that.

Theerasak Photha said...

Theerasak Photha said...
"Christianity still rips off the doctrines of Hinduism and Mahayana Buddhism lock, stock, and barrel, period."
Well go ahead tell me how it does that.


I explained this thoroughly already.

But let's recapitulate:

I observed one of many similarities between Mahayana Buddhism and Christianity (salvation through faith rather than कर्म), and after doing half-assed research with biased eyes on this matter, you concluded that it was Mahayana Buddhism that drew inspiration from Christianity, which is TACIT ADMISSION that the similarities hold up.

I then pointed out that Mahayana Buddhism is older than Christianity by at least one century, and the Buddhist and Hindu traditions it's based on are far older than that.

You also made the contradictory suggestions that absorption of Northern European paganism glorifies Christianity, whereas (alleged) absorption of Christianity by Buddhism also glorifies Christianity. (Which actually happened the other way around; see above.) Either the donor or recipient get the glory; it can't be both.

You can't have your cake and eat it, too.

Theerasak Photha said...

Just for the record, I said:

And if you read about Indic and Northern European paganism while not hell bent on proving me wrong, you'll find that Mahayana Buddhism and, literally, ALL of the concepts that distinguish Christianity from Judaism---salvation through faith, a personal God, the concept of being born again ('twice-born' for Brahmins and Kshatriyas), avatars, holy trinity, the Second Coming, EVERYTHING---come from either Hinduism or (Mahayana) Buddhism.

You'll also find that Heimdal kicks ass.

BTW, this is a picture of Kalki, the last avatar ('coming') of Vishnu who will ride in on a pale horse at the end of the wicked Kali Yuga we live in and slay the wicked, inaugurating a new era of righteousness. Does the story sound familiar? It should.

Sable Chicken said...

The Trikaya doctrine (Sanskrit, literally "Three bodies or personalities"; Chinese: Sānshén, Japanese: sanjin) is an important Buddhist teaching both on the nature of reality, and what a Buddha is. By the 4th century CE the Trikaya Doctrine had assumed the form that we now know. Briefly the doctrine says that a Buddha has three 'bodies': the nirmanakaya or created body which manifests in time and space; the sambhogakaya or body of mutual enjoyment which is an archetypal manifestation; and the Dharmakaya or 'Reality body' which 'embodies' the very principle of enlightenment and knows no limits or boundaries.


Is this the trinity that you are talking about? It is not like the Trinity of the Bible doctrine. One God, revealed in three personages. Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. The three persons of the Godhead are coequal and co-eternal The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God.
http://www.allaboutgod.com/trinity-doctrine.htm
for more detail

I am not able to see the simularities that you are trying to point out.

Sable Chicken said...

Stardust,
"(I) chose to ignore comment policies at GifS and loved to antagonize"
Hold on, I told Sean right up front that I was a Christian the first time I commented on GifS. He is the one that said that he would rather have people say right up front that they are a Christian. They always made it look like Christians just hit and ran, but that is not true. The real problem is GodforSuckers can't play fair and they are the ones who are being antagonizing to people that believe in any kind of god. Really now, there are many times when you guys push it beyond the limit. I will not go into details, because it was sick. Personally I think you are pretty safe with Christians, but you guys do the same thing to Muslims. And then cry "We just want to live in peace, why don't they leave us alone!"
If I was mocking someone elses god or your atheism on my blog, it would be lame of me to think that someone wouldn't give me a hard time are at least try to straighten me out.

"We live in a country where people are supposed to be free to believe whatever they do, yet religious folks will not be content with allowing others that freedom. They wish to take away that freedom to choose and be who we are and your mission is to try to assimilate everyone while having zero respect for others who are different from yourself."
Do you really believe this? Atheism is looking pretty religious from my angle. Especially when it comes to being evangalistic. Your mission to spread little seeds of doubt! And this is followed up with a government that uses tax money to permeat public school textbooks with false and fraudulent information simply to promote their religious world view and stop our kids from critical thinking. The Theory of Evolution is mass indoctrination.

"A mythological coping device for dealing with death and life's problems. If you need it fine, but it seems that by coming to atheist blogs, and trying to convert a small amount of people you are showing your own doubt and curiosity."

You know Stardust, you don't know me. That is one of the things I dislike most about atheism...I don't think you care what my personal life is like.

Theerasak Photha said...

Is this the trinity that you are talking about? It is not like the Trinity of the Bible doctrine. One God, revealed in three personages. Father, Son (Jesus Christ) and Holy Spirit. The three persons of the Godhead are coequal and co-eternal The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not forms of God, each of them is God.

No, I had the Hindu Trimurti (Sanskrit for 'three images') in mind, which is WAY like the Trinity. Pagans of all kinds have been worshipping gods (or, more appropriately in this case, manifestations of God) in threes since the beginning of history. If you were genuinely interested in the subject matter, and not just consulting Google in a feeble attempt to prove me wrong, you might have guessed I had the Trimurti in mind already.

Notice that the only aspect of the Christian Trinity that takes the shape of a man is the Son, who serves the role of the Preserver. Notice also that Vishnu is a spitting image of this role in Hindu Trimurti. (See link to Kalki Avatar of Vishnu above.)

Now, what is the Sanskrit word for 'sk00l3d'?

Theerasak Photha said...

Do you really believe this? Atheism is looking pretty religious from my angle. Especially when it comes to being evangalistic. Your mission to spread little seeds of doubt! And this is followed up with a government that uses tax money to permeat public school textbooks with false and fraudulent information simply to promote their religious world view and stop our kids from critical thinking. The Theory of Evolution is mass indoctrination.

Blind faith is critical thinking?

I think we covered about two hours worth of material on evolution in my Bio class, and I took Advanced Placement. Hardly what you'd call brainwashing or indoctrination.

I learned about evolution ON MY OWN and rejected the bullshit religion that I grew up on because I can THINK CRITICALLY just fine.

Don't confuse feeling strongly about an issue---especially when right-wing religious nuts get tangled in it---with religious belief. Otherwise, the Danish ban on immigration of radical Muslim kooks, who are Young Earth Creationists just like you could be considered a 'religious' action.

Science has done more good for humans than religion ever will, and two hands working will always do more than a thousand clasped in prayer.

Theerasak Photha said...

I think we covered about two hours worth of material on evolution in my Bio class, and I took Advanced Placement. Hardly what you'd call brainwashing or indoctrination.

Probably less than two hours, now that I think of it. I'm not even sure if the AP Bio exam had a question about evolution on it!

In the Bizarro world wingnuts live in, being force-fed dogmata from childhood onwards isn't indoctrination, whereas fleeting mention of an important biological concept in schools is.

Most children in American high schools probably learn very little from science classes of any kind, so I wouldn't get my panties in a knot over it if I were you.

Stardust said...

The real problem is GodforSuckers can't play fair and they are the ones who are being antagonizing to people that believe in any kind of god. Really now, there are many times when you guys push it beyond the limit.

GifS considers itself to be a place where atheists can come together and discuss a variety of issues from the atheist perspective. It is an AHTEIST site, so that is what you are going to get when you go there repeatedly and persistenly tell a group of atheists that your sky daddy is real with absolutely zero evidence to back up your claim. No one there is looking to be converted back to jeebus...we have all been there, done that,,,and rejected it.

If you really read anything there, there is a lot of in-depth and serious discussion and debate on a variety of topics and issues...it isn't all about anti-religion...if you would actually read instead of merely drive-by proseltyzing, you would know that. My blog has lots of other interesting topics as well...and I like looking at things with a bit of humor often. There are lots of other things to talk about in life besides xian mythology and YOUR beliefs. Xians are so self-centered that way.

When a xian comes to an atheist blog and starts proseltyzing and is persistent about it, it becomes annoying. You are trying to claim innocence on your part, and you know the truth that you are far from innocent and did your fair share of antagonizing. Sean got angry with you for a reason. I should point out that he was friends with xians like Dena, and Kidwartha and others who respected his right to not believe.

Persistently pushing your religion on an atheist blog where the rules are clearly stated is indeed antagonistic. Xians are not automatically banned for merely stating they are xians and you darn well know that, sable.

I, as most of the mods at GifS do not frequent xian blogs. I have commented on your blog ZERO times. I am not looking for anything at a xian site. I responded at Dani's blog because she directly was addressing me in a post and I felt need to respond to that. However, I have not been back since, and do not intend to go back. But, you, Dani and others sure keep making the rounds on atheist blogs and never let up even when you know how adamently we feel, then cry persecution when we firmly disagree with you and demand proof for your claims.

That is one of the things I dislike most about atheism...I don't think you care what my personal life is like.

You know sable...I do know that you haven't had a real easy life from what you have let be known to others. Don't tell me about not caring when I helped my dear sister care for her young dying husband who suffered and withered away from ALS, when I lost two babies, when I lost loved ones, when I suffer from incurable and painful illnesses. I don't dwell on it and live the best I can and do not feel sorry for myself. I have lead a good life, and things could always be worse. Life has been GOOD to me and I NEVER want anyone to feel sorry for me. I have friends and family who are an awesome support system.

As for xians being concerned about others, most xians who pass through my blog and GifS are mostly concerned about validating their own beliefs via trying to convince atheists that the mythology is real. They are death and afterlife obsesses instead of living in the here and now.

As for the other stuff you said, you are either trying to flame bait me, or are beating a dead horse...I will not get sucked into all that again with you, especially here. Read through my archives and you will find out where I have already addressed those issues you have mentioned for the millionth time.

I will not be taking up any more space on Tommy's blog debating all this with you any further.

Tommy said...

Wow, these comments sure went off on a tangent!

It started out about donating blood and using a B&N gift card to help pay for Dawkins' new book, and now its morphed into comparisons between Christian and Buddhist trinities and GIFS comment policy.

Personally, I hope every Christian on the Net comes here to visit. In the immortal words of George Bush, I say "Bring em on!"

Stardust said...

Wow, these comments sure went off on a tangent!

Sorry Tommy, I apologize for hijacking your blog.

Theerasak Photha said...

It started out about donating blood and using a B&N gift card to help pay for Dawkins' new book, and now its morphed into comparisons between Christian and Buddhist trinities and GIFS comment policy.

s/Buddhist/Hindu/g

Tommy said...

No, it's okay Stardust.

You and Sable are both right. We really do not know each other. What we encounter of each other in forums like this is our passionate opinions and beliefs about religion and politics and so forth. But these things represent just a fraction of who we are as people and sometimes we need to take a step back and remember that.

GIFS, Evangelical Atheist and other such free thought blogs are essentially forums where we can get together as a sort of atheist community and I like to frequent these sites and share my thoughts and read what you and others have to say.

My faint hope with my site is to be able to offer my take on Christianity, Islam (yes, I will eventually attempt to tackle the Quran and the religion of "peace" once I am through with the Bible) and read what Christians have to say in response to what I write and for myself and other atheists such as yourself to have a civil debate. I deliberately chose the name for my blog because maybe my efforts are an exercise in futility, but I believe it is an effort that is at least worth trying.

Okay, now I gotta get to bed so I am not superlate for work tomorrow. Good night y'all!

Theerasak Photha said...

But these things represent just a fraction of who we are as people and sometimes we need to take a step back and remember that.

For my part, I consist primarily of hot gas with a minimal object-oriented Scheme dialect to bind it all together.

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha
"For my part, I consist primarily of hot gas with a minimal object-oriented Scheme dialect to bind it all together."

You so funny!

Have a good day Tommy, thanks for putting up with me.

Theerasak Photha said...

I may be an Evil Clown, but you're an Artful Dodger.

Sable Chicken said...

What's with atheist and their love for angry evil clowns, man you scare me.

Theerasak Photha said...

Actually, I think I'm more of a Tireless Rebutter.

Theerasak Photha said...

What's with Xians and their love of poop and barley cakes?

Theerasak Photha said...

I see you have nothing to say about the Trimurti.

Don't worry, the Hindu Hell you are inevitably going to is only transient. This headmaster guy makes you bathe in a jar of boiling oil for a while and then you get a second (third, fourth, etc. as necessary) chance afterwards.

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha said...
"Actually, I think I'm more of a Tireless Rebutter."
You totally pegged me with the " Artful Dodger."
But I'm also a little bit of a Artiste
Artiste has an unshakeable faith...blah blah some talking in tongues blah blah.... Actually, she is universally regarded as a pretentious blockhead. CAUTION: Artiste often has serious mental problems and, though easily defeated in battle, may be unpredictable in defeat as well as in victory.
;)

"What's with Xians and their love of poop and barley cakes?"
It's nutty good...you got to love those old prophets they would do anything for God.

"I see you have nothing to say about the Trimurti."
I don't no what to say about it...they have nice peacocks...?

"Don't worry, the Hindu Hell you are inevitably going to is only transient. This headmaster guy makes you bathe in a jar of boiling oil for a while and then you get a second (third, fourth, etc. as necessary) chance afterwards."

All I can say to that is "Jesus save me!"

Anonymous said...

It's nutty good...you got to love those old prophets they would do anything for God.

This marks a descent from the ridiculous to...well...I don't even know what.

I don't no what to say about it...they have nice peacocks...?

That would be the Hindu Trinity the Christians co-opted, remember?

All I can say to that is "Jesus save me!"

Well, sure, there are infinitely many paths to accepting Krishna as your Lord and Saviour. And it thus follows that you practice a religion which so heavily 'draws from' various kinds of paganism.

Stardust said...

What's with atheist and their love for angry evil clowns, man you scare me.

No scarier than a guy with a crown of thorns shoved on his head, dripping blood and nailed to a Roman execution device dying a slow death.

Tommy said...

There ain't nuthin scarier than the tall man from Phantasm!

Stardust said...

Talking about scary things, the whole resurrection thing made me scared as a kid. I often had nightmares of my dead grandmother, grandfather and other relatives sitting up in their coffins and coming back to life and coming to get me as I ran away from them screaming and crying for them to stay away. I had these dreams till I left xianity...isn't it weird they stopped after I let go of morbid xianity?

Sable Chicken said...

"No scarier than a guy with a crown of thorns shoved on his head, dripping blood and nailed to a Roman execution device dying a slow death."

I have something scarier...a crowd shouting "No, not him! Give us Barabbas!"

Enough with the silly stuff, lets stay on topic with the really nutty crap.
~~~
Anti-Religion Extremist Dawkins Advocates Eugenics
Says Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad”
By Hilary White

LONDON, November 21, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – A leading international anti-religion crusader and supporter of Darwinian theory, Dr. Richard Dawkins, has said that the pseudo-science of eugenics that drove the Nazi regime’s genocidal project “may not be bad.”

Since the end of the second world war, the name of eugenics, the social philosophy that the human species or particular races ought to be improved by selective breeding or other forms of genetic manipulation, is one that conjures instant images of the Nazi death camps and “racial hygiene” programs.

In a letter to the editor of Scotland’s Sunday Herald, Dawkins argues that the time has come to lay this spectre to rest. Dawkins writes that though no one wants to be seen to be in agreement with Hitler on any particular, “if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability?”

Dawkins holds the Charles Simonyi Chair in the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University, but is best known as one of the world’s most outspoken current opponents of religious belief, giving lectures and interviews and writing articles in which “fundamentalist” Christianity is among his favourite targets.

“I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler’s death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them,” Dawkins wrote Sunday.

Stardust said...

An all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-good god should not have to resort to such violent and horrible nightmarish ways to show his "love" for his creations. The whole raping a virgin, torturing and killing his own son and bringing back the dead stuff is extremely asburd as any other man-made mytholgies.

The gods of mythology are always tormenting, torturing, and doing all kinds of bizarre things to their creations...and each other. Look at the myth of Sisyphus who was condemned to roll a stone up and down a hill for eternity, the myth of Isis and Orisis, the myth of Prometheus who was chained to a rock while having his liver repeatedly torn out by a bird, look at Cronos who ate his own children. The xian mythology is equally bizarre...and while world mythologies are interesting, it IS pretty nutty to actually believe any mythology is real.

Tommy said...

Sable, you neglect to include the entire of Dawkins letter so I cannot judge the merits of what he wrote 100%. But the article you pasted here, I note, comes from a site called lifesitenews.com, which I take to be a Christian website.

It is quite obvious that they are wording their article to make it seem as if Dawkins is saying that Nazi science was legitimate and that therefore the Holocaust was justified. I know enough about Dawkins to know that he believes no such thing.

His essential point is probably correct, if you can raise certain species to promote a desirable characteristic, then it is probably also possible to do so with humans. However, I do not believe he is advocating that we set up breeding farms to create humans who are faster runners or better mathematicians. Where he talks about the Nazis, again I am putting this out without having read the full of Dawkins letter, is that critics of such ideas as selective breeding invariably equate such ideas with Nazism.

The lifesitenews article is clearly designed to push the buttons of evangelical Christians such as yourself to believe the very worst about your preconceived notions of Dawkins, and judging by your reaction, I would say that you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Sable Chicken said...

Dawkins' campaign against religion has led him to publish a book, “The God Delusion”, in September this year and he is one of the instigators of the notion, popular with journalists, that the Catholic Church’s opposition to artificial contraception will result in mass starvation.

Dawkins is also a leader of the movement to gain legal “human” rights for great apes, arguing that since there is no such thing as a soul, there is no moral difference between apes and humans.

The atheistic philosophy of utilitarianism, that led in the 1930’s to the Nazi eugenics program, is now a respectable stream of thought in much of the contemporary academic world.

Ardent advocates of eugenics and utilitarianism, including Darwinism, can be found today among Nobel Prize winners and many of the leading lights of academia who hold extreme atheistic opinions like those of Richard Dawkins. Such people argue that the genetic improvement of the human species grows logically from the desire to use genetic manipulation to eliminate diseases.

Dr. Peter Singer is the Ira W. DeCamp Professor of Bioethics at Ivy League Princeton University and is a leading advocate of utilitarian bioethics and a promoter of infanticide and euthanasia. Common to many utilitarians, Singer is also an ardent animal rights activist and is often called the “father” of the modern animal rights movement.

James Watson, the Nobel Prize winning discoverer of DNA and the first director of the Human Genome Project, promotes the idea of “improving” the human race by "inheritable genetic modification," most often referred to as "germline genetic engineering" at the embryonic stage. Such genetic re-engineering of the human race, once the stuff of science fiction, has become a legal reality in many countries that allow genetic screening in IVF facilities.

Watson, though not as outspokenly anti-religious as Dawkins, has ridiculed the notion of an overarching value to human beings. Speaking at a conference at UCLA in 1998, he said, “I think it's complete nonsense ... saying we're sacred and should not be changed…to say we've got a perfect genome and there's some sanctity? I'd like to know where that idea comes from because it's utter silliness”

“If we could make better human beings by knowing how to add genes, why shouldn't we do it? What's wrong with it? Who is telling us not to [do] it?”

Many modern eugenics enthusiasts advocate sterilization, abortion and infanticide as well as genetic modification of people at the embryonic stage. Nobel Prize-winning molecular biologist, John Sulston, who also worked on the Human Genome project implicitly advocated the extermination of the disabled when he said, “I don't think one ought to bring a clearly disabled child into the world.”

Professor Robert Edwards, the IVF pioneer who helped bring to birth Louise Brown, often called the “world’s first test-tube baby, outraged disabled rights groups when he said, “Soon it will be a sin for parents to have a child which carries the heavy burden of genetic disease”.

~~~
That is the rest of it...I think the guy is getting to bold

Sable Chicken said...

"whole raping a virgin"
OH! it that what you taught all the little kids in Sunday school?
Come on Stardust...your not at GifS, you don't need to talk like that.

Sable Chicken said...

http://www.sundayherald.com/life/people/display.var.1031440.0.eugenics_may_not_be_bad.php#mpubot

Stardust said...

OH! it that what you taught all the little kids in Sunday school?

Why would you be so shocked, sable? Your holy book also contains incest, pornography, genocide, murder, child killing, infanticide, and a host of other horrors that are taught to children in churches all over the world and no one thinks anything of it.

Of course I did not teach my sunday school kids that Mary was raped, since I was a xian at the time, but in reality isn't that what is being taught anyway? Mary was made pregnant by god without her permission, which was indeed rape...be it "supernatural implantation" or otherwise. I was making point to you that making a woman pregnant without her permission is rape. Any court of law would say it is.

Stardust said...

A good review of Dawkins book:

From Scientific American

Richard Dawkins, in The God Delusion, tells of his exasperation with colleagues who try to play both sides of the street: looking to science for justification of their religious convictions while evading the most difficult implications—the existence of a prime mover sophisticated enough to create and run the universe, "to say nothing of mind reading millions of humans simultaneously." Such an entity, he argues, would have to be extremely complex, raising the question of how it came into existence, how it communicates —through spiritons!—and where it resides. Dawkins is frequently dismissed as a bully, but he is only putting theological doctrines to the same kind of scrutiny that any scientific theory must withstand. No one who has witnessed the merciless dissection of a new paper in physics would describe the atmosphere as overly polite.

George Johnson is author of Fire in the Mind: Science, Faith, and the Search for Order and six other books. He resides on the Web at talaya.net

Stardust said...

sable, how many books of Richard Dawkins have you read yourself in their entirety?

Stardust said...

Tommy - Here is the entire Dawkins letter. It seems he wasn't advocating anything, just raising the question for debate.
From the Afterword

IN THE 1920s and 1930s, scientists from both the political left and right would not have found the idea of designer babies particularly dangerous - though of course they would not have used that phrase. Today, I suspect that the idea is too dangerous for comfortable discussion, and my conjecture is that Adolf Hitler is responsible for the change.

Nobody wants to be caught agreeing with that monster, even in a single particular. The spectre of Hitler has led some scientists to stray from "ought" to "is" and deny that breeding for human qualities is even possible. But if you can breed cattle for milk yield, horses for running speed, and dogs for herding skill, why on Earth should it be impossible to breed humans for mathematical, musical or athletic ability? Objections such as "these are not one-dimensional abilities" apply equally to cows, horses and dogs and never stopped anybody in practice.

I wonder whether, some 60 years after Hitler's death, we might at least venture to ask what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

Richard Dawkins is Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University

Sable Chicken said...

I'm not shocked, I'm just wondering if you think that the more outrageous you are in your discriptions, more likely I will fold under the mountains of the misrepresentations? ...or you just want to get me all worked up.

Your holy media also contains incest, pornography, genocide, murder, child killing, infanticide, homosexuality and a host of other horrors that are taught to children through TV adds all over the world and no one thinks anything of it.
I think it is a good thing to start teaching them what is right and wrong before the world does.
Would a sugar coated bible fit reality better?

How many books of Richard Dawkins have I read yourself in their entirety?
ZERO...Stardust I have seen many of his videos. I think that is enough.

Stardust said...

Your holy media also contains incest, pornography, genocide, murder, child killing, infanticide, homosexuality and a host of other horrors that are taught to children through TV adds all over the world and no one thinks anything of it.

Religion is supposed to be above all that. But it's not. That's my point.

I think it is a good thing to start teaching them what is right and wrong before the world does.
Would a sugar coated bible fit reality better?


One can teach a child right from wrong much better without the ancient book of horrors, without threats that something terrible is going to happen to them for some vague sin. I know some kids who were raised atheist their whole lives and are much better adults than the messed up grown children of xian friends and family members.

Theerasak Photha said...

Your holy media also contains incest, pornography, genocide, murder, child killing, infanticide, homosexuality and a host of other horrors that are taught to children through TV adds all over the world and no one thinks anything of it.

Incest in television ads?

Breed-In: apply directly to the sibling
Breed-In: apply directly to the sibling
Breed-In: apply directly to the sibling

LOL!

You gotta be kidding me. I've never seen such histrionic, deluded rambling before, and I've seen wingnuts foam at the mouth about how global warming is a sham. What really disappoints me now isn't the paranoid psychotic screed you just issued; what disappoints me is that no one else bothered to call you on it.

Most of the media I tune into is on the radio, viz., NPR, WRN, and the BBC. Not much room for "incest, pornography, genocide, murder, child killing, and infanticide". (I'm eliding homosexuality from that list because I simply refuse to dignify your warped views about it.)

The only television shows I ever watch regularly are: the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, and Real Time with Bill Maher. However, none of the content on any of those programs comes even close to the screechy smorgasbard of baloney you just laid out for us. If you think the media here is bad, go to Germany and other EU countries where softcore erotica is advertised right in the television program guide.

:rollseyes:

Anyway, this is all besides the point. The point I so arduously carved out is that Christianity lifts the doctrines of Mahayana Buddhism, Hinduism, (and several kinds of European/Middle-Eastern paganism such as Mithraism and Norse mythology) wholesale.

I'm not going to let the issue go until you explicitly acknowledge these facts and stop babbling at me with non sequiturs. And I'll propagate it into other threads if necessary.

Your brother in Parabramhan,
Theerasak

Theerasak Photha said...

One can teach a child right from wrong much better without the ancient book of horrors, without threats that something terrible is going to happen to them for some vague sin. I know some kids who were raised atheist their whole lives and are much better adults than the messed up grown children of xian friends and family members.

I wouldn't call myself a bastion of virtue, but I do have pretty simple tastes.

If I can put in a good day of work, eat a cheesesteak, code some Python and troll the evening away, I'm basically content. It's not like I peddle crack to toddlers or anything.

Theerasak Photha said...

I'm not shocked, I'm just wondering if you think that the more outrageous you are in your discriptions, more likely I will fold under the mountains of the misrepresentations? ...or you just want to get me all worked up.

Are you doing a Borat impression or something? In any case, you appear to be blind to irony.

Sable Chicken said...

Just to make you happy Theerasak Photha.

What sets Christianity apart from an
Eastern worldview?

While it has become increasingly popular to merge Eastern spirituality with biblical Christianity, the chasm that separates these worldviews is an unbridgeable gulf. First, in an Eastern worldview God is an impersonal force or principle. In sharp distinction, the God of Christianity is a personal being who manifests such communicable attributes as spirituality, rationality, and morality (John 4:24; Col. 3:10; Eph. 4:24).

Furthermore, in an Eastern worldview humanity’s goal is to become one with nature because nature is God. In this sense, the Eastern worldview is pantheistic—in other words, “God is all and all is God.” Conversely, Christianity teaches that man is created in the image and likeness of his Creator and as such is distinct from both nature and God (Gen. 1:26–27).

Finally, in an Eastern worldview truth is realized through intuition rather than through the cognitive thinking process. In contrast, Christianity teaches that truth is realized through revelation (Heb. 1:1–2), which is apprehended by the intellect (Luke 1:1–4), and then embraced by the heart (Mark 12:29–31).2

Can Reincarnation and Resurrection Be Reconciled?

An ever-growing number of people in both the church and the culture have come to believe that reincarnation and resurrection can be reconciled. In fact, multitudes have embraced the odd predilection that Scripture actually promotes reincarnation. In reality, however, the Bible makes it crystal clear that reincarnation and resurrection are mutually exclusive.

To begin with, the resurrectionist view of one death per person is mutually exclusive from the reincarnationist view of an ongoing cycle of death and rebirth. The writer of Hebrews emphatically states that human beings are “destined to die once, and after that to face judgment” (Heb. 9:27 NIV, emphasis added). In sharp contrast to a worldview in which humanity perfects itself through an endless cycle of birth and rebirth, the Christian worldview maintains that we are vicariously perfected by the righteousness of Christ (Phil. 3:9).

Furthermore, the biblical teaching of one body per person demonstrates that the gulf between reincarnation and resurrection can never be bridged. Rather than the transmigration of our souls into different bodies, the apostle Paul explains that Christ “will transform our lowly bodies” (Phil. 3:21 NIV, emphasis added). He explicitly says that the body that dies is the very body that rises (1 Cor. 15:42–44).

Finally, the Christian belief that there is only one way to God categorically demonstrates that resurrection and reincarnation can never be reconciled. As Christ Himself put it, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6 NIV, emphasis added). If Christ is truly God, His claim to be the only way has to be taken seriously. If, on the other hand, He is merely one more person in a pantheon of pretenders, His proclamations can be pushed aside easily. That is precisely why the resurrection is axiomatic to Christianity. Through His resurrection Christ demonstrated that He does not stand in a line of peers with Buddha, Baha’u’llah, Krishna, or any other founder of a world religion. They died and are still dead, but Christ is risen.

Ultimately, resurrection and reincarnation can never be reconciled because the former is a historical fact while the latter is but a Hindu fantasy.

— Hank Hanegraaff

Stardust said...

what the moral difference is between breeding for musical ability and forcing a child to take music lessons. Or why it is acceptable to train fast runners and high jumpers but not to breed them. I can think of some answers, and they are good ones, which would probably end up persuading me. But hasn't the time come when we should stop being frightened even to put the question?

After giving this some thought, breeding humans for a certain thing, and forcing them to do a certain thing both take the freedom to choose away from the individual. They are both morally wrong. Children should be exposed to a variety of things in the world, and given the freedom to explore and decide for themselves what they want to do with their lives.

Theerasak Photha said...

Just to make you happy Theerasak Photha.

What sets Christianity apart from an
Eastern worldview?


I didn't say they were ONE AND THE SAME. I did, however, say that Christianity rips off Mahayana Buddhism, Hinduism, Mithraism, and Northern European paganism. The latter two aren't even Eastern.

The Lion King rips off Hamlet and Kimba the White Lion, but they're different, anyway.

If a religion is a pastiche of Judaism and a bunch of pagan religions, then how can it claim to be the One True Faith and disparage its own foundations?

Theerasak Photha said...

Ultimately, resurrection and reincarnation can never be reconciled because the former is a historical fact while the latter is but a Hindu fantasy.

Historical fact? There is no contemporaneous record of Jesus Christ. The first time he was ever mentioned in any historical record was well after his alleged death.

What a pompous crock of shit.

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha
The foundations of Christianity go all the way back to the very beginning. God's chosen people kept messing up and dragging other beliefs and other god worshiping into their own. This has been a problem from the beginning, and we have been braking God's commandments by doing so.

Anonymous said...

Theerasak Photha
The foundations of Christianity go all the way back to the very beginning. God's chosen people kept messing up and dragging other beliefs and other god worshiping into their own. This has been a problem from the beginning, and we have been braking God's commandments by doing so.


Hinduism and its animist roots are WAAAAAAAY older than the Judaism of God's chosen people.

But hey, the Old Testament wasn't good enough for you, anyway.

You're missing the essential point: the adoption of belief in a personal God and salvation through faith didn't ADULTERATE Christianity, they CREATED Christianity out of Judaism.

In other words, if Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism never existed, neither would your Xian faith.

Anonymous said...

Also: Jesus never existed.

Theerasak Photha said...

The foundations of Christianity go all the way back to the very beginning. God's chosen people kept messing up and dragging other beliefs and other god worshiping into their own.

It's interesting you should say that, because the one God Abraham worshipped once belonged to a fairly large pantheon that included (*gasp*) Baal.

If I remember correctly, this god was called 'El'. So you are worshipping a pagan deity no matter how you try to spin it.

Theerasak Photha said...

I worship 'Gozer'...LOL

Stardust said...

The foundations of Christianity go all the way back to the very beginning. God's chosen people kept messing up and dragging other beliefs and other god worshiping into their own.

Actually sable...xianity is a combo of several mythologies. (I have studied world mytholgies at the university level -- it's one of my favorite subjects.) Each mythology takes from other mythologies to form new mythologies. Xianity is actually evolved from Mithraism, which paralleled xianity for some time.

Mithraism and Christianity - A Connection?

"For three centuries both religions ran parallel, Mithraism first becoming known to the Romans in 70 BC, Christianity following a century later, and it wasn’t until AD 377 that Christianity became sufficiently strong to suppress its former rival, although Mithraism was to remain a formidable opponent for some time after that, only slowly being forsaken by the people. It was only the absorption of many Mithraist ideas into Christianity which finally saw its downfall."

"The big turning point was brought about by the Congress of Nicaea in AD 325. Constantine, a great supporter of the Christian religion, although not converting to it until the time of his decease, gathered together 2,000 leading figures in the world of theology, the idea being to bring about the advent of Christianity as the official state religion of Rome. It was out of this assembly that Jesus was formally declared to be the Son of God, and Saviour of Mankind, another slain saviour god, bringing up the tally of slain god-men to seventeen, of which Mithra, together with such men as Bel and Osiris, was included."

"Had Constantine decided to retain Mithraism as the official state religion, instead of putting Christianity in its place, it would have been the latter that would have been obliterated. To Constantine however, Christianity had one great advantage, it preached that repentant sinners would be forgiven their sins, provided that they were converted Christians at the time of their Passing, and Constantine had much to be forgiven for, He personally did not convert to the new religion until he was on his death bed, the reason being that only sins committed following conversion were accountable, so all sins committed by a convert, prior to conversion, didn’t matter, and he could hardly have sinned too much whilst he was lying on his death bed. Mithraism could not offer the same comfort to a man like Constantine, who was regarded as being one of the worst mass-murderers of his time."

Theerasak Photha said...

I mentioned Mithraism earlier as well. I should have given it more credit, but it's not something I know a lot about.

Stardust said...

I mentioned Mithraism earlier as well. I should have given it more credit, but it's not something I know a lot about.

Sorry Theerasak, I should have acknowledged that you did indeed mention that. But it probably won't make a bit of difference to sable if 300 people were to come here and mention it.

Theerasak Photha said...

The foundations of Christianity go all the way back to the very beginning. God's chosen people kept messing up and dragging other beliefs and other god worshiping into their own.

IIRC, you said that the absorption of the mythology surrounding Eostre was a way of spreading the "Good News".

Now you are saying this is a bad thing.

Like I said, you can't have your cake and eat it, too. It's one thing to shoot yourself in the foot, and another thing altogether to empty the whole damn clip.

Theerasak Photha said...

Sorry Theerasak, I should have acknowledged that you did indeed mention that. But it probably won't make a bit of difference to sable if 300 people were to come here and mention it.

I mentioned it briefly twice in this thread. Most of my messages were concerned with Mahayana Buddhism and Hinduism. IIRC, the Coptic text of Corinthians identify the 500 witnesses of Jesus' death (c.f. 500 witnesses of Buddha's cremation) as Brahmins!

It's not a contest, though.

Theerasak Photha said...

Do you really believe this? Atheism is looking pretty religious from my angle. Especially when it comes to being evangalistic. Your mission to spread little seeds of doubt!

By this definition, my Linux advocacy makes Linux a religion.

(Sorry, bad example.)

Xfce is the path to salvation!

Sable Chicken said...

I have you guys all figured out.
Theerasak Photha's religion is Linux.
Stardust is all about iron worshop.

500 witnesses of Jesus' death!
No way...you're telling me that He really is real!
But wait... you also told me that Jesus is a myth?
I will stick with the benefit of the doubt and go with REAL.
Lets not forget that Jesus did out do Buddha's with his own 500 witnesses to his cremation.
Kinda symbolic that they had to burn him...don't you think?
But still Buddha is NOT god and he would be rolling over in his grave right now, if he thought, you thought he was GOD. I do know that much about it.

Theerasak Photha I will give you 5 points for being the first to mention Mithraism.
Stardust I will give you 15 points, because you mentioned it more often and had to acknowledge Jesus existed in the doing so.

Theerasak Photha said...

500 witnesses of Jesus' death!
No way...you're telling me that He really is real!


No. There are many witnesses of TROLLS in Norse poetry, but that doesn't make them real. Nor does the Buy Bull make JC real.

But wait... you also told me that Jesus is a myth?

He is. There is no archaeological evidence or contemporaneous historical records to support even the existence of Christ, much less his resurrection.

None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.
None.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. If you want me to believe some Jewish hippie turned into a zombie, there'd better be a lot of historical evidence to support it. (SCRIPTURE, written after his supposed death does NOT count.)

Kinda symbolic that they had to burn him...don't you think?

Not in the least. Zombies don't exist. I too will be cremated when I pass.

But still Buddha is NOT god and he would be rolling over in his grave right now, if he thought, you thought he was GOD. I do know that much about it.

I never said he was God, and you still don't understand Buddhism. I grew up on Theravada Buddhism, and you have the f*cking nerve to lecture me about it. Ridiculous.

Of course, none of this changes the immutable and incontrovertible fact that the morbid death cult you belong to, whose core tenet is necromancy, is a nothing but a pastiche of religions that came before it. So don't insult them unless you know what you're talking about. (Hint: you don't.)

Nice try, Artful Dodger.

Let me try one more time:

Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.
Christianity is a pastiche.

Theerasak Photha I will give you 5 points for being the first to mention Mithraism.
Stardust I will give you 15 points, because you mentioned it more often and had to acknowledge Jesus existed in the doing so.


You don't call the shots here. Stardust mentioned JC one, period, and didn't implicitly or explicitly affirm he ever existed.

Theerasak Photha said...

sable chicken---

Do you acknowledge that the Xian faith is a pastiche of Judaism along with Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Mithraism, and Northern European paganism?

This a simple YES or NO answer. Answer YES or NO please, and justify your decision.

Sable Chicken said...

Lets stay on topic.
What about Richard Dawkins.
The guy just came out of the closet as a Nazi and it's just a blip on the radar of the "look out for the dangerously nutty people o-metor". Oh yah...I almost for got this is just the insane kind of stuff that Kent Hovind has been warning people about on his 5th video "Dangers of Evolution." Good thing he is safely behind bars, we wouldn't want him planting seeds of truth and commen sence into peoples minds.
I picked up a magazine to day called "Discover". Richard Dawkins is like in the first sentince of every other artical. He is like every where.
Here is a good one...

"About a decade ago, at the request of Psychology Today magazine, I had an amusing debate with Richard Dawkins about testicles. Dawkins had famously proposed the metaphor of the "selfish gene" to explain how traits in organisms can be understood from the imagined point of view of a gene wishing to propagate itself. The underlying logic of the metaphor is compelling, yet it doesn't always seem to work gracefully- as in the case of human male genitalia."

-oh it gets stupider-

"The site of human testicles seems a bizarre anomaly from an evolutionary point of view, like positioning a driver of an armored vehicle in a sack strapped to the bumper. If the whole point of the humanorganism is to pass on genes, why put the repository of those precious genes out front, in harm's way? why not protect them the way the brain and the heart are protected, with thick bone vaults and, in the brain's case, an elaborate barrier to bloodborne infection?"

-yah, why did evolution design it that way? Evolution should have known that humans had no self control, do to our selfish gene and that we would go at it like bunnies in heat and like how did Evolution not see that global HIV was on the horizon and make an elaborate barrier plan. -
( but there is still better crap to come...I will pains takingly type out more, word for word, no need for me to make this up and all for your reading pleasure.)

"One popular explanation is that balls need to be cool for the sperm to stay healthy. This is true, but as an evolutionary explanation, it's nutty. Evolution holds all the cards. She could easily have shaped humans so they would have a reproductive chemisty tolerant of normal body temperature. Another idea that has been dangled is that men subtly show off to woman how tough we are by being willing to take such big chances with our seed."

- OK, I have to stop there because the words got to big for me to understand. Really thou...is this science? Are we giving grant money out for this? Who in the word are they calling a she? Evolution! Oh yah and she randomly designed mens testicals to dangle down where some wild animal could get a hold of them and run off like those dangerous prehistoric saber tooth squarrils. But Evolution, she likes men that take that kind of bold chances with there sprem. There is nothing so suductive as the look of vulnerable testicles, that's always kept Mother Evolution's mind off good design - but that is what the "selfish gene" does.

It's just plain proof that there is no God! If God really designed testicles, He would have made men have a protective bone nut cup with built in air conditioning.

Has the world gone insane?
This is bad science and bad religion mixed with Nazism and Richard Dawkins is the evil clown puppet master at the wheel.

I'm sorry for the poor spelling, I can't help it...you guys are wearing me down.

Theerasak Photha said...

YES OR NO WILL DO, ARTFUL

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha just to keep you happy my answer is.....
a simple
NO

Theerasak Photha said...

This a simple YES or NO answer. Answer YES or NO please, and justify your decision.

Now justify your decision. We explained to you very thoroughly why Christianity is a pastiche. It is on YOU to refute us now.

Sable Chicken said...

Wait that was a trick question.
It does come from Judism.

Theerasak Photha said...

Do you acknowledge that the Xian faith is a pastiche of Judaism along with Hinduism, Mahayana Buddhism, Mithraism, and Northern European paganism?

More than just Judaism. You acknowledged it yourself.

Sable Chicken said...

just because out side practices have worked their way into Judaism and then Christianity does not mean we embrace them.

Sable Chicken said...

Sir," the woman said, "I can see that you are a prophet. Our fathers worshiped on this mountain, but you Jews claim that the place where we must worship is in Jerusalem."

Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."
John 4: 19-24

Theerasak Photha said...

just because out side practices have worked their way into Judaism and then Christianity does not mean we embrace them.

Really? So that means you don't celebrate Christmas or Easter, both of which have pagan origins? Or recite recycled Buddhist nuggets of wisdom such as:

"The faults of others are more easily seen than one's own, but seeing one's own failings is difficult."

(c.f. Matthew 7:3)

and:

"When a mendicant, though still young, yokes himself to the Buddha's teachings, the world is illuminated like the moon freed of clouds."

(c.f. "He who wishes to follow me must know himself and bear my yoke.")

Outside practices didn't "work their way into" Judaism and Christianity, they FOUNDED Judaism and Christianity. IOW, if you threw out all the outside influences of Christianity, there'd be nothing left!

And yes you DO approve of such external customs and principles as per your explanation of Eostre, remember? Spreading the "Good News" and all that.

Theerasak Photha said...

Jesus declared, "Believe me, woman, a time is coming when you will worship the Father neither on this mountain nor in Jerusalem. You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews. Yet a time is coming and has now come when the true worshipers will worship the Father in spirit and truth, for they are the kind of worshipers the Father seeks. God is spirit, and his worshipers must worship in spirit and in truth."

I don't Buy Bull.

Stardust said...

The guy just came out of the closet as a Nazi, Stardust is all about iron worshop

Sable, this is an outright and unfair LIE about Dawkins..and many xians also agree that humans are made of the same things found in everything else in the sun, stars and universe. I do not worship anything, but I am educating myself all the time and learn something new every day.

This is the kind of thing that makes it difficult for people to respect you, sable and why they end up becoming frustrated and ban you. You insult, and provoke...then blame the atheist. I knew where this would lead if I tried to have a civil discussion with you, since we have been through this before, and I have seen it before between you and other people. I have nothing more to say to you.

Sable Chicken said...

Stardust it is difficult for me also to talk to you after you call God a rapeist, that's an outright lie, designed to be disrespectful and to be a conversation killer.

But I will always be happy to go round and round with you again. I am totally ok with the fact that you are done with your mission here of spreading seeds of doubt.

People are designed for worshiping. If you don't worship the one true God you still end up worshiping something else. I'm sorry that my mocking your love for stars hurt your feelings. I'm sure that you have studied them in greater detail than me, but I also find much aw and wonder in them. The stars were made by God, for us and before us. I'm not trying to take away the beauty you see in them. We should wonder why the stardust and our own blood is made of iron, but given more time than one can wrap their brain around should not be what brings us to the conclusion that we have evolved from iron. You are special not because you have stardust running through your vains. God himself makes comparisons between us and the stars.

Genesis 22:17
I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore.

Deuteronomy 4:19
And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

But that post about stardust at GifS is about worship. I hear the longing for it in their writings. In all this wonder, is there no room for the wonder of God?

Please don't forget that God used the stars as a birth announcement for our Lord, to come to us humbly, just as He made you and me as little seed to grow.
Stardust don't turn from Him, keep seeking truth. If your Christian relitives are not acting in a biblical way, the study of mythology will not set them straight. Study the scriptures and straighten them out.

I would really like you to truely exsamine what the full conclution of the Theory of Evolution is. When an anti-religious extremist like Richard Dawkins advocates eugenics, while brushing off it's Nazi past with little thought as to what this way of thinking has done to humanity, warning alarms should sound off. Dawkins would love to find a god-gene so he can breed it out of people. Dawkins wants to push his agenda of fear and hate for all people of faith. Sept 11th was a happy day for this guy, it was just the oppertunity that he was waiting for to start in hard on Christians. Why Christians and not Muslims? Because it's safe that's why!

"It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)."
-- Richard Dawkins,(September, 2001)

Is there any possiblity of looking on the other side to see what they consider to be evidence for creation? No not if you want to be considered insane. Don't subject yourself to anything other then what is fed to you by only the really educated people that believe souly in Evolution as the only sane way.

"You cannot be both sane and well educated and disbelieve in evolution. The evidence is so strong that any sane, educated person has got to believe in evolution."
-- Richard Dawkins

Dawkins has no problem looking at a person like me, that believes in God and calling me a stupid animal. He thinks that my faith is a merely proof that I am less evolved than other people without it. Why? Because for Dawkins' Evolution to work out it's problems, the uneducated and insane beings must be taken out of the gene pool. The strong live and the weak must die. And Dawkins gets to be the dictator over what is considered good for Evolution and what is bad. I'm in the bad category.

"In Germany, they (the Gestapo) came first for the Communist, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. then they came for the trade unionist, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."
Martin Miemoller,
German Pastor before WW2

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha

You don't Buy Bull?
Did "John 4" not come from Buddha?
You know more than me about Buddhism. I will not deny that the Buddhism that you grew up with has some really good teachings as to how to get along with others.. The Bible does say treat your neighbor as yourself, there would look like a paralleling of that in many belief systems.
The "bull" that you won't buy...where does that come from then?

Theerasak Photha said...

People are designed for worshiping. If you don't worship the one true God you still end up worshiping something else.

I don't worship anything. And I'm not a Buddhist. I don't give a
shit about Buddhism, and I don't give a shit about "do unto others" and other fortune cookie crap.

Now: do you celebrate Christmas and Easter, in any way, shape or form, or not?

Theerasak Photha said...

The strong live and the weak must die. And Dawkins gets to be the dictator over what is considered good for Evolution and what is bad. I'm in the bad category.

Nature can take care of itself. But you got the categories right, anyway.

Theerasak Photha said...

Please don't forget that God used the stars as a birth announcement for our Lord, to come to us humbly, just as He made you and me as little seed to grow.

AS I WALK THROUGH THE VALLEY OF SHADOWS & DUST
NO HOPE IN THE EYES OF THE LOST
YOUR HERO NAILED TO A CROSS
WE'RE ANIMALS IN SEARCH OF BLOOD
NEVER SATISFIED, NEVER GRATIFIED, UNTIL THE DAY WE DIE

The truth hurts.

Theerasak Photha said...

I would really like you to truely exsamine what the full conclution of the Theory of Evolution is. When an anti-religious extremist like Richard Dawkins advocates eugenics, while brushing off it's Nazi past with little thought as to what this way of thinking has done to humanity, warning alarms should sound off.

Whereas right-wing religious nuts have numbered among the best examples of human nature.

Stardust said...

Evolution: Fact Or Theory? Austin Cline

"There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is “just a theory” rather than a fact, as if this demonstrated that it shouldn’t be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.

In reality, evolution is both a fact and a theory.

"To understand how it can be both, it is necessary to understand that evolution can be used in more than one way in biology. A common way to use the term evolution is simply to describe the change in the gene pool of a population over time; that this occurs is an indisputable fact. Such changes have been observed in the laboratory and in nature. Even most (although not all, unfortunately) creationists accept this aspect of evolution as a fact.

"Another way the term evolution is used in biology is to refer to the idea of “common descent,” that all species alive today and which have ever existed descend from a single ancestor which existed at some time in the past.

"Sometimes creationists or those not familiar with evolutionary science will misquote or take scientists’ quotes out of context to make disagreements over the mechanisms of evolution seem like disagreements over whether evolution has occurred. This is indicative either of a failure to understand evolution or of dishonesty.

"No evolutionary scientist questions whether evolution (in any of the senses mentioned) occurs and has occurred. The actual scientific debate is over how evolution occurs, not whether it occurs."

Theerasak Photha said...

"There is some confusion about evolution as a fact and evolution as a theory. Often you can find critics claiming that evolution is “just a theory” rather than a fact, as if this demonstrated that it shouldn’t be given serious consideration. Such arguments are based upon a misunderstanding of both the nature of science and the nature of evolution.

The cell theory is also "just a theory". Therefore, we should teach the competing 'theory' that life spontaneously arises from things like rotting meat to hone 'critical thinking' skills.

Anyone who says evolution is "just a theory" is a moron who doesn't understand the fundamentals of Western empirical science. Of course there is no proof of evolution. But that's only because PROOF is for alcohol and mathematics. There is NO SUCH THING as proof in science.

Theerasak Photha said...

comment #100

Theerasak Photha said...

"In Germany, they (the Gestapo) came first for the Communist, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. then they came for the trade unionist, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time no one was left to speak up."

I doubt the average xian wingnut gives a shit about Jews, Communists, trade unionists, or maybe even Catholics.

Sable Chicken said...

Stardust
Micro and Macro-Evolution Explained

The difference between micro and macro-evolution is a major point of confusion between the Christian worldview and the Darwinian evolution worldview in today’s culture. Micro-evolution is the adaptations and changes within a species while macro-evolution is the addition of new traits or a transition to a new species. Micro-evolution is a fact that is plainly observable throughout nature. Macro-evolution is a theory that has never been observed in science. Evolutionist usually argue that those who believe in creation are ignoring the facts, however, there is nothing that evolutionist observe in science that creationist or Christians as a whole disagree with. The point of contention is not on what is observed, but the belief systems that interpret what is being observed. Nothing in the Bible contradicts science; it is the assumptions that evolutionists insert into their world view that contradict the Bible. Evolution is a hypothesis introduced as a possible explanation of origins. In this article, my goal is to explain the difference between micro and macro-evolution and show why micro-evolution cannot result in macro-evolution.

http://www.exchangedlife.com/Creation/macro-evol.shtml

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha
"Do you celebrate Christmas and Easter, in any way, shape or form, or not?"
Why do you care if I do? Why are you putting the hard sell on Buddhism when you don't even care about it yourself?


AS I WALK THROUGH THE VALLEY OF SHADOWS & DUST
NO HOPE IN THE EYES OF THE LOST
YOUR HERO NAILED TO A CROSS
WE'RE ANIMALS IN SEARCH OF BLOOD
NEVER SATISFIED, NEVER GRATIFIED, UNTIL THE DAY WE DIE
what is this...an atheist psalm?
~~~~
The LORD is my shepherd, I shall not be in want.
He makes me lie down in green pastures,
he leads me beside quiet waters,

he restores my soul.
He guides me in paths of righteousness
for his name's sake.

Even though I walk
through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil,
for you are with me;
your rod and your staff,
they comfort me.

You prepare a table before me
in the presence of my enemies.
You anoint my head with oil;
my cup overflows.

Surely goodness and love will follow me
all the days of my life,
and I will dwell in the house of the LORD
forever.

Psalm 23

Theerasak Photha said...

There is no fundamental difference between 'micro' and 'macro' evolution, and no mainstream scientific body recognizes that steaming crock of shit.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"While details of macroevolution are continuously studied by the scientific community, the overall theory behind macroevolution (i.e. common descent) has been overwhelmingly consistent with empirical data. Predictions of empirical data from the theory of common descent have been so consistent that biologists often refer to it as the "fact of evolution" (Theobald 2004). Nevertheless, macroevolution is sometimes disputed by religous groups. Generally speaking, these groups attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are considered to have no scientific basis by any mainstream scientific organization, including the American Association for the Advancement of Science[4]."

You don't know what you're talking about. Please buy yourself a clue.

(Unanswered: do you celebrate Christmas and Easter, in any way, shape or form, or not?)

Theerasak Photha said...

Why do you care if I do? Why are you putting the hard sell on Buddhism when you don't even care about it yourself?

I'm not 'hard-selling' anything. I'm just pointing out that much of the prose in the Gospels appears to be derived from the Dhammapada and other Buddhist texts.

Just for clarification: Buddhism is a crock of shit. I don't care about Buddhism; I care about ripping your morbid death cult to shreds.

And if you observe Christmas or Easter, you are, by your own admission, observing pagan customs you claim not to embrace. Hypocrite.

Theerasak Photha said...

AS I WALK THROUGH THE VALLEY OF SHADOWS & DUST
NO HOPE IN THE EYES OF THE LOST
YOUR HERO NAILED TO A CROSS
WE'RE ANIMALS IN SEARCH OF BLOOD
NEVER SATISFIED, NEVER GRATIFIED, UNTIL THE DAY WE DIE
what is this...an atheist psalm?


No, it's an excerpt of 'In Shadows & Dust' by Canadian death metal band Kataklysm.

BTW---I've heard enough of your mealy-mouthed psalms. It's not like I never read them on my own.

Sable Chicken said...

OK just a couple minutes of your time. Please watch this Tommy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izjJr0CIQQk&mode=related&search=

Evolution vs Creation : # 2 Blind Faith & Science in Bible

Theerasak Photha said...

So this is a lawyer with nothing even resembling scientific expertise. I notice that the ass nugget who posted it disabled ratings---it would surely hit rock bottom otherwise.

The Bible explains atomic fusion...what a crock! Practical atomic fusion was developed by liberal atheists like Einstein, not by Bible Humpers who are manifestly blind to reason.

No one is impressed, Sable. I think I watched about two minutes of it before going back to wanking to soukous videos.

Theerasak Photha said...

Look, a ringing endorsement for eugenics in the comment section:

lol, 'the bible is full of scientific fact'- like thermodynamics, genomics, photolithography, geochemistry, the laws of motion, atomic properties, and the cure for the common cold.
People this stupid need to be 'thinned from the herd'

Sable Chicken said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Sable Chicken said...

Evolution vs Creation : # 5 Big Bang Theory

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B-U2uI1f8mU&mode=related&search=

Hey, Theerasak Photha there are some really cool explosions at the 2 minute mark of this one...
check it out!
;)

Theerasak Photha said...

I skimmed through it, watching a total of something like two minutes. I also browsed through the comment section to see what was going on in there.

Let's put it this way: I got a two minute slice of seven minutes worth of bullshit.

TP your a pain in the butt...did you know?

And you're a troll who can't spell. If I'm such a pain, go away.

"And if you observe Christmas or Easter, you are, by your own admission, observing pagan customs you claim not to embrace. Hypocrite."

"The Bible explains atomic fusion...what a crock! Practical atomic fusion was developed by liberal atheists like Einstein, not by Bible Humpers who are manifestly blind to reason."

Theerasak Photha said...

The Hawking quote in that video is taken out of context---typical cretinist intellectual dishonesty.

"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started - it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwood and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundaries or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"

Hawking isn't an atheist (he's basically agnostic), but he isn't a fundie wingnut either.

CANCELLED!

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha I like Hawking, I think he is poetic in his words and if you close one ear...you would almost think he said "God-did-it."

TP you are a real pain in the butt...kinda needy too.
You don't have to point out my spelling mistakes, I know I can't spell. You are wearing me down, and my spelling is looking worst. It sucks being the fool sent out to do a genius' job. But He did the same thing all through the Bible. Makes them eat barley cake that taste like crap...it's great! and less filling.
Ok we know that I'm a loser for the Lord.
What's your story?
What time is it in your part of the world right now?

Theerasak Photha said...

Theerasak Photha I like Hawking, I think he is poetic in his words and if you close one ear...you would almost think he said "God-did-it."

Yes Hawking is very articulate. No he is not a believer. More from Hawking:

"How can anything we say have any validity? My answer to this is based on Darwin's theory of evolution...

I take it that some very primitive form of life arose spontaneously on earth from chance combinations of atoms. This early form of life was probably a large molecule. But it was probably not DNA, since the chances of forming a whole DNA molecule by random combinations is small.

The early form of life would have reproduced itself. The quantum uncertainty principle and the random thermal motions of the atoms would mean that there were a certain number of errors in the reproduction ... a very few errors would be beneficial, by pure chance. The organisms with these errors would be more likely to survive and reproduce ...

The human race has carried this to another stage. We are very similar to higher apes, both in our bodies and in our DNA; but a slight variation in our DNA has enabled us to develop language."

IOW, basically everything you and your fundie friends screech about incessantly.

Hawking is NOT a Creationist, and Hawking is NOT on your side.

But He did the same thing all through the Bible. Makes them eat barley cake that taste like crap...it's great! and less filling.

Put your crap where your mouth is...I want to see a picture of you eating poop + barley to prove your devotion to Bhaga^the Lord.

What time is it in your part of the world right now?

2:37 AM

Theerasak Photha said...

You still didn't tell me whether you observe any Xian holidays of pagan origin, such as Christmas and Eost^H^H^Haster.

Theerasak Photha said...

Theerasak Photha I like Hawking, I think he is poetic in his words and if you close one ear...you would almost think he said "God-did-it."

And if you close both ears, you become a young earth creationist (or YECHHH!).

Sable Chicken said...

I know Hawkings is an atheist, and you didn't have to depress me with is other quotes...didn't he say not that long ago that if we don't find another planet to live on soon, we would all be doomed.
;(
where is the hope in that?
He is still on your side, maybe if he came over to the creation side he would sound happier.

Now those were barley cakes cooked over cow crap, God had mercy and didn't make him cook it over monkey crap. I'm not a prophet, God is DONE sending prophets. I pray every day that God will give us more time, but the way things are looking who knows.

You know what I like to do on Easter...I like to sit down with my kid and watch "The Gospel of John"
http://www.gospelofjohnthefilm.com/

I have watched it maybe 6 times now. It's really good. Two DVD's long. You can rent it at Blockbuster, if you have them where you live.
It is word for word, as close to the book of John in the Bible, they could make it.

Sable Chicken said...

Ok Theerasak Photha.....You win, I'm done.
I'm going to close both ears and both eyes now.

Theerasak Photha said...

I know Hawkings is an atheist, and you didn't have to depress me with is other quotes...didn't he say not that long ago that if we don't find another planet to live on soon, we would all be doomed.
;(
where is the hope in that?


It's not about HOPE, it's not about HAPPINESS, and it's not about FUZZY BUNNIES. It's about intellectual integrity. And intellectual integrity is dread, terror, and despair---ultimately, death.

Theerasak Photha said...

ZOMFG!!!11111!!!!!11111!!!!!!1111!!!!!!111111!!!!!!!

GZ0J\UNQN"E 40UN ' BUH BUV HK
QN< J BUQ QN*10/3UI
QI< \+2*10+(QQ*QI)UA B L K QI*2-1UJ QA/QJUQ
QA-(QQ*QJ)-2\ 10@I// -1%I >
QQ/10UT QH+QT+48UW QW-58"E 48UW %V ' QV"N QV^T ' QWUV QQ-(QT*10)UH >
QV^T @^A/
/HKEX$$

...AND DAMN'D BE HIM WHO FIRST CRIES: "HOLD, ENOUGH!"

Theerasak Photha said...

Scientia omnia vincit.

Theerasak Photha said...

Now those were barley cakes cooked over cow crap, God had mercy and didn't make him cook it over monkey crap.

It was clearly human dung, read your Bible:

"And thou shalt eat it as barley cakes, and thou shalt bake it with dung that cometh out of man, in their sight." -- Ezekiel 4:12

God also likes you to embarrass yourself, apparently.

Sable Chicken said...

No fuzzy bunnies?
That's ok we have fuzzy chicks at my house around easter time.

Really now, are you ok? Your typing in bar code now.
PS I like to keep one eye open I don't want to miss anything.
Good night
;)
You still won
Don't be upset.

Sable Chicken said...

Hey I think if Evolution is right, it was far back enough that you science types wouldn't know the differance. monkey/human same thing.

Got yah
;)

Theerasak Photha said...

Really now, are you ok? Your typing in bar code now.

That's a TECO macro that calculates the value of pi.

Hey I think if Evolution is right, it was far back enough that you science types wouldn't know the differance. monkey/human same thing.

What species? In any case, they can't interbreed.

Scientia omnia vincit.

Theerasak Photha said...

Got yah

No, you didn't.

Sable Chicken said...

Oh NO! Real PROOF that Evolution is true!
I must face the facts.
Consider yourself warned, don't look at this, you will lose all hope of God.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jrvp3JTKX8k&mode=related&search=
monkey

http://www.livevideo.com/video/43C0CA7218604ECD80C1BD36A3F7B573/O.aspx
man

Theerasak Photha said...

Drinking river water is worse than drinking urine. Because river water is full of parasites, whereas most of the few impurities in urine are metabolic wastes that will be flushed away again anyway. Amoeba like to take up residence.

I think this is the missing link, anyway.

Theerasak Photha said...

I've seen plenty worse than drinking pee. Have you ever heard of goatse or tubgirl?

Sable Chicken said...

"That's a TECO macro that calculates the value of pi."
What does that do for you can you win a Trailblazers with this knowledge?
I've seen plenty worse than drinking pee. Have you ever heard of goatse or tubgirl?
NO
But that reminds me that I need to get a buck rag from the 4-H goat leader.

Sable Chicken said...

dude you need prayer

Theerasak Photha said...

What does that do for you can you win a Trailblazers with this knowledge?

To be fair, it's worth just a little more than prayer or Bible study: that is, almost nothing.

I've seen plenty worse than drinking pee. Have you ever heard of goatse or tubgirl?
NO


Do a Google Images search for both terms. Make sure SafeSearch is off.

Theerasak Photha said...

Verse 1
I'm a disciple of science
I know the universe is compliance with natural laws,
but many place reliance on the psuedo-science of quacks and
morons and fools because,
their educations deficient,
they put faith in omniscient,
make believe beings who control their fate,
but the Hawk aint with it, dig it,
their Holy writ aint the least bit legit,
its a bunch of bullshit.

They need to read a book that ain't so damn old,
let reason take hold,
though truth to be told,
they're probably already too far gone,
withdrawn, the conclusion foregone.
But maybe there is still hope for the young,
if they reject the dung being slung from the tongues,
of the ignorant fools who call themselves preachers,
and listen instead to their science teachers.

Chorus
Upon blind faith they place reliance,
what we need more of is science!

Trash Talk
Uh yeah, that's right!
Fundamentalist assholes!
Screw the whole lot of them.

Verse 2
Look, I ain't thomas Dolby,
science doesn't blind me,
think you're smart? Form a line behind me,
you won't find me, truth to tell,
to be a man who suffers fools very well.
Quite the opposite in fact,
I aint got time to interact,
with crystal wearing freaks in need of a smack.
New age motherf---ers? Don't get me started,
I made more sense than them, last time I farted.

Not to put too fine a point upon it,
but the whole new age movement is full of shit.
Please allow me to elaborate,
explicate, expatiate.
from astral projection to zygomancy its a,
mish mash of idiocy.
Instead of the archaic worship of seasons,
they should explore logic and reason.

Chorus

Trash Talk
F---ing new-agers!
Is there any amount of bullshit they won't swallow?
It's two-thousand-aught-three goddammit!
When are these morons gonna join us in the 21st century?

Sable Chicken said...

Jesus, I stand for you
No matter what you lead me through
They will chase me out and close me down
But, Jesus I will stand for you

Chorus:
I’ll always stand
I’ll always stand
I’ll always stand for you
In all this world
You’re all that’s true
I’ll always stand for you

Jesus, I’ve stood my ground
When unbelief was all around
And I have felt the sting rejection brings
Jesus I still stand for you

Chorus:

When everyone will turn to Christ
And bless the Son
Until there face will turn away
I’ll take your hand and turn to you

Guilty of disgrace
But you took my place
Jesus, I’ll always stand for you
~~~~
That is "tree 63"
I listen to all pretty much just Christian music now.
It's weird, I still like my old music, but I just don't desire it anymore.
I am totally with you on the New Age crap...I HATE that stuff.

Theerasak Photha said...

I listen to all pretty much just Christian music now.

How vapid. I can listen to Awilo Longomba, then Bach, then Pussana Wongsiri, and slide right into Tristania after that.

Bach is Christian music I guess. I listen to Bach because he rawks. Contemporary Christian popular music is incredibly flaccid shit.

I am totally with you on the New Age crap...I HATE that stuff.

I like tree worship better than I like a cult whose emblem is a Roman torture device, and whose devotees pretend to drink blood and eat human flesh.

"Yes I may be born again, but I was wasn't born again yesterday. I wanna get down on my knees and start pleasing Jesus! I wanna feel his salvation all over my face!"

"The Body of Christ! Sleek swimmer's body, all muscled up and toned!

The Body of Christ! O, Lord Almighty, I wish I could call it my own! You're one time, two times, three times my Savior... Whenever I see Jesus up on that Cross I can't help but think that he looks kinda hot..."

Theerasak Photha said...

This is the slowest dance
The dance of a thousand years
The dance of the frozen statues
Clinging together in tears

This is the darkest fight
The fight of a thousand years
The pounding of blood
Through our veins
In our veins
In our eyes
The circles of fear

I cling to you
So cold, so bright
Cling to me through the night

Motionless faces
Park of the wasted
In the pale gloom
I hang on to you
In the pale gloom
I am safe and cool

I swim in you
In your dark rivers
Dive in your mind
Search for your monsters
Search for resistance
Sink into the mud
Dance in the halls of insanity
Yet madness is
Your highest deed
Your vanity

Mistress - you made me
Mistress - you saved me
In your cold hands
I am just a tool

Mistress - you made me
Mistress - you saved me
In your cold hands
I am safe and cool

Theerasak Photha said...

Do you hate neo-paganism? Then you should hate Christmas and Easter both. Because they are neo-paganist in a very real sense.

"Christians have been waging war on Yule for centuries!
Long before Jesus, there was the true winter celebration.
I say, bring back the wassailing, the dancing and laughter.
Don't kill the trees to bring them inside; instead, bring them offerings where they grow, as is due Yggdrasil's children.
Await the coming of the thirteen Yule lads, one by one, and leave them presents in your shoes!
The walls of the spirit world grow thin - Trond is preparing the Wild Hunt!
Roll the burning wheel down the hill at midnight!
And after the lads have gone home, one by one,
Awake to the new year turned!"

Tommy said...

Sable,

You say the Bible does not contradict science. The Bible describes Joshua commanding the sun to stand still in the sky.

As we all know, the Earth revolves around the sun, not vice versa. But whomever wrote that ditty about Joshua seems to have a heliocentric view of the universe. The sun could not have stopped, the Earth would have had to have stopped. So what really happened?

Sable Chicken said...

Tommy

Earth's speed of orbit in reverse must be accelerated 48 hours a year because rotation is against orbit, to keep 365 days a year. Then there really was a missing day of 24 hours because earth must accelerate 24 hours in half a year of a reverse orbit. A missing 24 hours as opposed to 24 hours of elapsed time. If the sun travelled 180° east instead of west September 1 1238 BC there would have been 24 hours of elapsed time that year too
~~~~~
Exodus 34:22 "And thou shalt observe the feast of weeks, of the firstfruits of wheat harvest, and the feast of ingathering at the year's end."
"at the year's end" means "coming round, circuit of time or space" "a revolution" - "t qupa" - Strongs 8622. God knew the earth revolved around the sun and very likely Moses knew this too. The year's end was the fall harvest, September, which would be just after the battle of Debrah and Barak September 1 1238 BC.
This is the real calculation to Joshua's long day. See the book of Jasher. Joshua waited almost a year to attack the Amorites, a six more months to finish them off may have been reasonable. Therefore Joshua's Long Day is solved. The missing time of the day of Joshua's long day is not a missing 24 hours but a missing 12 hours. The sun sun stood still in the sky for 12 hours while the sun moved 180° east to the other side of earth. This is elapsed time as opposed to missing time. Earth must speed up its reverse orbit 24:40 hours from February 26 1238 BC to September 1 1238 BC because orbit is against rotation to keep the same number of days in the year. Or else there would be 366 days that year. Then the sun must move back 180° September 1 1238 BC. Probably the sun moved 180° east making a +12 hours. Then +12 hours -24:40 hours +12 hours in 1238 BC leaving only 40 minutes in net missing time.
John 11:9 "Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day?"
This is a reference point of 180°.
Matthew 12:38 "Then certain of the scribes and of the Pharisees answered, saying, Master, we would see a sign from thee.
39 But he answered and said unto them, An evil and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given to it, but the sign of the prophet Jonah:
40 For as Jonah was thee days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."
Jesus in Hebrew is Joshua. The people may have thought they could see a sun miracle from Jesus just as from Joshua when Jesus the Son of God was right before them. Sun miracles were done for a reason, a critical battle, a sign of Jesus' coming etc and not for show and not necessary when Jesus was right there amongst them. Today people often ask me where is the scientific evidence for sun miracles? So they can explain it away. They just want a magic trick.

http://sunnyokanagan.com/joshua/condensed.html

Sable Chicken said...

Theerasak Photha
"Neo-Pagans are a community of faiths bringing ancient Pagan and magickal traditions to the modern age--including mostly Wicca but also Druidism, Asatru, Shamanism, neo-Native American, and more. Neo-Pagan is an umbrella term for various and diverse beliefs with many elements in common. Some Neo-Pagans find no incongruence practicing Neo-Paganism along with adherence to another faith, such as Christianity or Judaism. "

http://www.beliefnet.com/story/80/story_8058_1.html

Yes TP I hate neo-paganism also. I have friends that say they don't reject Jesus Christ, and than say that they believe in reincarnantion too. If they believe in reincarnation than they are not listening to what Jesus had taught, and if they are rejecting His teaching they are also rejecting Him. How will they Justify this before God.

Stardust said...

Anyone who knows anything about Physics and Astronomy knows that the earth NEVER reverses its orbit. The speed of the earth's orbit does not significantly change, either.

A really informative and educational website sponsored by NASA:
From Stargazers to Starships

Astronomy of the Earth's Motion in Space

The year is the time needed by the Earth for one full orbit around the Sun. At the end of that time, the Earth is back to the same point in its orbit, and the Sun is therefore back to the same apparent position in the sky.

It takes the Earth 365. 2422 days to complete its circuit (average solar days), and any calendar whose year differs from this number will gradually wander through the seasons. The ancient Roman calendar had 355 days but added a month every 2 or 4 years: it wasn't good enough, and by the time Julius Caesar became ruler of Rome, it had slipped by three months.

In 46 BC Caesar introduced a new calendar, named after him the Julian calendar. It is similar to the one used today: the same 12 months, and an added day at the end of February every 4th year ("leap year"), on years whose number is divisible by 4. Two years afterwards the 5th month of the Roman year was renamed July, in honor of Julius. The name of his successor, Augustus Caesar, was later attached to the month following July.

The Julian calendar thus assumes a year of 365. 25 days, leaving unaccounted a difference of 0. 0078 days or about 1/128 of a day. Thus the calendar still slips, but at a very slow rate, about one day in 128 years. By 1582 that slippage was approaching two weeks and Pope Gregory the 13th therefore decreed a modified calendar, named after him the Gregorian calendar. Henceforth years ending in two zeros, such as 1700, 1800, 1900--would not be leap years, except when the number of centuries was divisible by 4, such as 2000. This took away 3 "leap days" every 400 years, i. e. one day per 133 1/3 years--close enough to the required correction of one day per 128 years.

But it was not enough to modify the calendar: a one-time jump of dates was also needed, to get rid of the accumulated difference. In Italy this was done soon after the pope's edict, and "Tibaldo and the Hole in the Calendar" by Abner Shimony spins the story of a boy whose birthday was on a day skipped by that jump. Another birthday affected was that of George Washington, born 11 February 1732: when the British empire shifted its calendar, in 1751, the 11th of February "old style" became the 22nd of February "new style," and nowadays that is when Washington's birthday is usually celebrated.

In Russia the change came only after the revolution, which is why the Soviet government used to celebrate the anniversary of the "October Revolution" on November 7th. The Russian orthodox church continues to use the Julian calendar and celebrates Christmas and Easter about 2 weeks later than most of the Christian world.

Tommy said...

Maybe we should adopt the Mayan calendar. I heard they were pretty good with their calculations.

Sable Chicken said...

"Maybe we should adopt the Mayan calendar. I heard they were pretty good with their calculations. "
You know Tommy...it's alot to take in. I think that they are trying to change the dating system already...like 2000+ years is just a blip on the radar. What is up with b.e.c. ? And remove "IN GOD WE TRUST" off money also?
I say let them do it.
I don't think GOD wants His nane on money that doesn't honor Him.
Do you know (you most likely do, your a smart guy) that California has a pagan god on it's seal. It is a pagan state. NY is a pagan state. NO is pagan. NV is pagan. OUR TV is pagan....It's really hard not to be pagan in some way. We all are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God.
If you can understand what I am trying to say to you, you will be blessed. For all things will work for the good of those who love Him.
Our time here is short.
Get right with God.
Your a good person that should not be hard to do.
Thank you Tommy you have push me to study Joshua like I have not before and I saw something in these this study was like Sept 2001 when I am sure was one of the longest days in the world. I saw St. Pauls Church at ground ZERO stand without even a broken window and the twin towers went down like bowing kness and every thing was turned into dust. Can you imagened what happen when the sun stood still. The carnage. It's hard for me to even want to think about it. Yet a raiment walk out from the ashes alive. God was merciful this time, He did not wipe out everything...just the ones that He chose.
I think that as much as Richard Dawkins kind of Evolution is brought to it's logical end, for the safety of the world we should replace all references to the God but the pagan ones can say because we all know that everyone is an atheist when it comes to them. And Evolution is built on so many lies that I am force to look at Creation as the only true way to look at the world.
Thanks for letting me share and defend my Faith.

Stardust said...

Other buildings also withstood 911 unscathed...again, xians see what they want to see and ignore everything else. Again, Physics will answer questions why other buildings were not damaged while the twin towers came straight down in a big heap of molten metal. It happens all the time in controlled demolitions, and the twin towers came down in the same manner. Also, we had a tornado rip through our county, and in our town, ONE house was destroyed completely on one block while all other houses around it were perfectly fine. That does not mean that a god protected all other houses and let that one house be smashed to smithereens.

Xians talk about one church standing while thousands of innocent people died a horrible death. They talk about some twisted metal looking like the shape of the execution device xians worship, while so many lost their friends and loved ones in the most horrible way. Many, if not most of the people in the twin towers were god believers. Their god was nowhere to help them. Religion is absurd. To believe some sky daddy sits back and watches all the heartache and devastation is absurd.

Sable Chicken said...

"There is not one thing in the entire vast universe that remains as it is. Everything, living or inanimate, changes. Some say even the universe itself will at some point in the incomprehensible infinity contract inside itself, swallowing every atom and molecule up, then will be born again with the next “big bang” and our recycled particles will begin anew." (from stardust's blog)

COME ON! This is pure fantasy. At least with the flood we have evidence of many layers of sediment and lots of dead animals in the form of fossils. And many different cultures with a flood story. And lets not forget the Grand Canyon.

"But by his estimate, this cataclysm won’t take place for another roughly 300 billion years—so there is hopefully plenty of time to answer the question."

What? It is only ASSUMPTIONS!
You really think this makes more sence Stardust? One male and one female repopulateing the world after a flood. You think is a stretch? The universe bouced in and out of existence, and you see no problems with that idea....mayby if you just slap a good long 300 billion years, this way or that, then anyone can believe that we all came from nothing?
Let me give you a Kent Hovind example, put a frog into a blender and blend him up really good. Now you have all the particles to make a frog...how many billions of years will it take...do the math. It don't work...but you think it is considered unreasonable to believe the spark of life and it's beautiful design is possible without God? Nothing but a few chemicals in a premordial soup ( at in itself came from nothing) and a around 300 billion years and it is assumed that we would have a purfectly designed Bombardier beetle...you think that came about by nothing plus incomprehensible time swallowing its self up and big banging out again? That is a fairy tale for the godless.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xAFLIPSSU5M&mode=related&search=

Challenge to Evolutionists and Atheists - Bombardier Beetle

Stardust said...

If you are going to read and cherry pick from my blog, sable...try clicking on the educational links in the sidebar and reading things in their entirety from credible sources.

I thought we were here for intelligent and respectful debate.

Stardust said...

If the observations of cosmic acceleration featured in the NOVA program "Runaway Universe" are correct, then the universe will probably continue to expand forever. (there are several theories and debates about this) Does this mean that the universe will always contain its galaxies and stars and black holes? Well, no. Nothing lasts forever, not even the stellar objects that populate the galaxies.

Tommy said...

When the city of Banda Aceh on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia was devastated by the tsunami, one of the only remaining intact buildings was the city's main mosque. Now, if I was a Muslim, I might argue that it was a miracle from Allah.

With respect to the church in New York City, if one of the hijacked airplanes had crashed into it instead and the church remained standing and intact, then that would be grounds for a miracle.

Sable, if there are many cultures with flood myths, that is because most humans lived near the water. It does not argue for a single worldwide flood, as there have been numerous floods throughout history.

Besides, in my Punishing Humanity the Rube Goldberg Way series, I already demonstrated how ridiculous it is for a Supreme Being to resort to such a convoluted means to punish the human race.

Stardust said...

Grand Canyon Formation educational links. (Though this might be another exercise in futility)

The Formation of the Grand Canyon

The Geology of the Grand Canyon

Geology of the Grand Canyon area: Wikipedia

The Grand Canyon was not formed by a great flood...

From TalkOrigins.comTalkOrigins.com

1. We know what to expect of a sudden massive flood, namely:
* a wide, relatively shallow bed, not a deep, sinuous river channel.
* anastamosing channels (i.e., a braided river system), not a single, well-developed channel.
* coarse-grained sediments, including boulders and gravel, on the floor of the canyon.
* streamlined relict islands.

The Scablands in Washington state were produced by such a flood and show such features (Allen et al. 1986; Baker 1978; Bretz 1969; Waitt 1985). Such features are also seen on Mars at Kasei Vallis and Ares Vallis (Baker 1978; NASA Quest n.d.). They do not appear in the Grand Canyon. Compare relief maps of the two areas to see for yourself.

2. The same flood that was supposed to carve the Grand Canyon was also supposed to lay down the miles of sediment (and a few lava flows) from which the canyon is carved. A single flood cannot do both. Creationists claim that the year of the Flood included several geological events, but that still stretches credulity.

3. The Grand Canyon contains some major meanders. Upstream of the Grand Canyon, the San Juan River (around Gooseneck State Park, southeast Utah) has some of the most extreme meandering imaginable. The canyon is 1,000 feet high, with the river flowing five miles while progressing one mile as the crow flies (American Southwest n.d.). There is no way a single massive flood could carve this.

4. Recent flood sediments would be unconsolidated. If the Grand Canyon were carved in unconsolidated sediments, the sides of the canyon would show obvious slumping.

5. The inner canyon is carved into the strongly metamorphosed sediments of the Vishnu Group, which are separated by an angular unconformity from the overlying sedimentary rocks, and also in the Zoroaster Granite, which intrudes the Vishnu Group. These rocks, by all accounts, would have been quite hard before the Flood began.

6. Along the Grand Canyon are tributaries, which are as deep as the Grand Canyon itself. These tributaries are roughly perpendicular to the main canyon. A sudden massive flood would not produce such a pattern.

7. Sediment from the Colorado River has been shifted northward over the years by movement along the San Andreas and related faults (Winker and Kidwell 1986). Such movement of the delta sediment would not occur if the canyon were carved as a single event.

8. The lakes that Austin proposed as the source for the carving floodwaters are not large compared with the Grand Canyon itself. The flood would have to remove more material than the floodwaters themselves.

9. If a brief interlude of rushing water produced the Grand Canyon, there should be many more such canyons. Why are there not other grand canyons surrounding all the margins of all continents?

10. There is a perfectly satisfactory gradual explanation for the formation of the Grand Canyon that avoids all these problems. Sediments deposited about two billion years ago were metamorphosed and intruded by granite to become today's basement layers. Other sediments were deposited in the late Proterozoic and were subsequently folded, faulted, and eroded. More sediments were deposited in the Paleozoic and Mesozoic, with a period of erosion in between. The Colorado Plateau started rising gradually about seventy million years ago. As it rose, existing rivers deepened, carving through the previous sediments (Harris and Kiver 1985, 273-282).

Stardust said...

then will be born again with the next “big bang” and our recycled particles will begin anew.

As for the frog and the blender example (ewww)...the frog is dead and of course it cannot be put back together again. However, there are remnants of the frog that are left over that will not totally disappear...ever...even if your burned it you would still have ashes. Ashes to ashes, stardust to stardust and will return to the earth once again...and eventually when the sun expands into a red giant and engulfs the first three planets, the earth and everything on it will return to what it once was...stardust.

Everything in the universe is made from the same basic elements. That was my point and that has been tested and proven as FACT. (even the bible said that god made man from the dust of the earth and shall return to the earth one day). I can believe in being eternally part of the universe as my particles are dispersed throughout the cosmos...but I cannot believe that people leave their bodies and live forever as ghosts/angels in a magical kingdom in the sky happily ever after praising a god forever and ever.

Abundance of elements in soil, sea and life

The sun and planets formed from the coagulation of cosmic dust and debris. Then the land crust emerged from mainly the lighter elements, which eroded into rivers to provide the elements in the sea. Early life then formed in the womb of the early oceans or brackish fresh water. Plants established on land, being capable of scavenging precious resources from the soil and to accumulate these in their tissues. Animals on land then evolved, feeding on the plants. Higher animals and carnivores, eventually humans, followed.


Birth and Death of a Star

Astronomers think that a star begins to form as a dense cloud of gas in the arms of spiral galaxies. Individual hydrogen atoms fall with increasing speed and energy toward the center of the cloud under the force of the star's gravity. The increase in energy heats the gas. When this process has continued for some millions of years, the temperature reaches about 20 million degrees Fahrenheit. At this temperature, the hydrogen within the star ignites and burns in a continuing series of nuclear reactions. The onset of these reactions marks the birth of a star.

When a star begins to exhaust its hydrogen supply, its life nears an end. The first sign of a star's old age is a swelling and reddening of its outer regions. Such an aging, swollen star is called a red giant. The Sun, a middle-aged star, will probably swell to a red giant in 5 billion years, vaporizing Earth and any creatures that may be on its surface. When all its fuel has been exhausted, a star cannot generate sufficient pressure at its center to balance the crushing force of gravity. The star collapses under the force of its own weight; if it is a small star, it collapses gently and remains collapsed. Such a collapsed star, at its life's end, is called a white dwarf. The Sun will probably end its life in this way. A different fate awaits a large star. Its final collapse generates a violent explosion, blowing the innards of the star out into space. There, the materials of the exploded star mix with the primeval hydrogen of the universe. Later in the history of the galaxy, other stars are formed out of this mixture. The Sun is one of these stars. It contains the debris of countless other stars that exploded before the Sun was born.

Astronomy is fascinating. It was my favorite subject in college.

Tommy said...

C'mon Stardust. We all know that if God made the flood, then we can't expect it to act like a natural flood and leave the kinds of sedimentary deposits that all them geologists with thar book learnin expect! ;-)

Stardust said...

tommy - maybe the devil is leadin' all these "believers" away from science and god via the evil bible, liars and false prophets and trying to keep the world ignorant of the truth.

They always say the devil is where one would least expect him to be. ;)


(to those who don't understand parody...I am joking...BUT also kidding on the square)

Sable Chicken said...

http://www.nwcreation.net/geologyflood.html

Our world is completely covered in monumental flood sediments such as those visible in the walls of the Grand Canyon, or in the photograph at right taken in Utah. According to Genesis 6-8 and the Biblical chronology, approximately 4500 years ago there was a global flood that destroyed all terrestrial life on earth, except for those which were stored on the ark by Noah and his family. It is therefore the basic assumption of most Biblical creationists that the stratified sedimentary layers known as the geological column have been misinterpreted by modern science, and are instead a rather obvious testament of this worldwide catastrophe.

'Genesis 7:11-12 on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. And rain fell on the earth forty days and forty nights.

The flood is said to have been caused by a forty day rain that was accompanied by an upsurgence of subterranean waters lasting for one hundred and fifty days (chronology of the flood). A debate has been ongoing within the creation community concerning whether rainfall, or subterranean sources were the principal supply of the flood waters. It is now largely presumed that the latter was largely responsible, however, there are many factors indicating a significant change in our atmosphere has taken place as a result of this Biblical catastrophe. Some of the evidence supporting these two views will be examined below, and theories presented to offer an explanation on the cause of the flood and mechanism of settling flood water.

Vapor Canopy
Some speculate that Gen 1:6-7 is referring to a vapor canopy which collapsed during the flood. but beforehand protected the earth, or provided atmospheric stability that no longer exists. For example the size of organisms before the flood, and the productivity of various ecosystems was generally much greater than after. Also regions that are now perpetual glaciers such as Antarctica, possess fossil evidence of rich ecosystems including fossil ferns and amphibians with skulls measuring up to one meter. Such productivity could only be explained by global temperature fluctuation or drifting continents.

Genesis 1: 6-7 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters. And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.

There are other indicators of an atmospheric change resulting from the flood such as the sudden appearance of rainbow following the flood, and the rapid decline in human lifespan in just the few generations after Noah. Likewise the first mention of clouds is not until after the deluge, and many believe there was no rain or clouds beforehand. However, from the Bible it is clear there were stars also visible before the flood, therefore any supposed canopy was less dense than than our standard cloud-cover today.

Genesis 9:14 - When I bring clouds over the earth and the bow is seen in the clouds,
Genesis 9:16 - When the bow is in the clouds, I will look upon it and remember the everlasting covenant between God and every living creature of all flesh that is upon the earth.
Genesis 2:5-6 In the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens, 5 when no plant of the field was yet in the earth and no herb of the field had yet sprung up--for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was no man to till the ground; 6 but a mist went up from the earth and watered the whole face of the ground.

The existence of the "vapor canopy" remains theoretic, but it is unquestionable that our world was tremendously affected by the flood, and the catastrophe resulted in or was caused by atmospheric changes.

Factors Suggesting Preflood Canopy or Atmospheric Change Resulting from Flood

Continuous forty day rain.
Rainbow - absent before flood; present after flood. (Clouds also?)
Fossiliferous plants and animals in polar regions indicating globally uniform temperatures before.
The tremendous decline in human life expectancy following the flood.
Fountains of the Great Deep
Genesis 7:11-12 on that day all the springs of the great deep burst forth

The flood possibly began when the earth's crust was fractured releasing subterranean caverns of water and magma. The picture at right shows the locations of the mid oceanic ridge which resides all over the world, and are possibly where the earth was globally fractured.

The "springs of the great deep" are believed to be the preflood subterranean water-table much like those that still exist today in remnant form. Unknown to many, much of the land under our feet resides upon massive ancient bodies of water such as the Ogallala aquifer pictured at left. The Ogallala Aquifer resides under several states in the US, and supplies continuous spring water such as the famous Artesian Wells (et al. Geysers). It is thought that all land masses were positioned upon aquifers at the beginning of creation which supplied free-flowing rivers before the flood. It was these ancient massive aquifers that were triggered to "burst-forth" and flooded the earth. Even though these aquifers were largely depleted, today 40% of the drinking water in the United States comes from these ancient ground waters.

What Started the Flood?
According to the Bible, God decided to destroy the earth by flood because man had become wicked, and in particular due to a race known as the Nephilim. Although the exact mechanism used may never be known, the event that triggered the breech of the "springs of the great deep" may have been caused or accompanied by other catastrophic processes. Evidence of meteor and volcanic activity is interspersed throughout the geological column, and it is presumed by some that perhaps a series of meteor impacts fractured the earth's crust causing the preflood aquifers to flow unrestricted. It can only be presumed what actually caused the flood other than the might hand-of-God, but there were clear and irreversible alterations of both our earth's crust and atmosphere as a result of the great flood.

Mechanism of Flood Water Recession
A portion of the flood water recession was accomplished by glacial formation. It is almost certain there was proportionally more land available immediately after the flood than there is currently. The ocean levels continue to rise today because of melting of glacial deposits that were formed when the earth was still completely covered in flood water. It is believed the majority of the glacial development, known as the ice ages, formed during the flood, and was responsible for land and ice bridges allowing the post flood migration of animals and humans into regions that are now completely isolated by water (i.e. Bering strait).

Today the earth's crust has sufficiently uneven elevations so that about 30% remains above the water line, however, if the present contour of the earth's surface was leveled, the entire planet would still be covered by water to a depth of 9000 feet. Much of the deformation of the earth's crust has occurred since the deposition of the stratified sediment during the flood. These layers were originally laid in horizontal rows, and have since been folded and forced upward. Therefore most of the tectonic activity responsible for mountain building has been relatively recent, and likely driven by receding flood waters.

Most of the rise in the earth's land elevation has been due to plate tectonic activity caused by spreading oceans. The continental land masses have been essentially crushed, and slabs of crust have been overthrust or subducted under others causing mountain building, and volcanism. If is presumed by some creationists, that the majority of the ocean bodies are settled flood waters, and it is this accumulation that is driving the spreading of the mid-oceanic ridge and related geological movement. It is believed the oceans have essentially stretched to accommodate the accumulation of the expelled subterranean water, and the pressure of this expanding volume displaced the newly formed layers causing deformations such as folding, and mountain formation



http://www.nwcreation.net/grandcanyon.html
For many years creation scientists have taught that the Grand Canyon was formed rapidly when a large lake on the northern border of the Colorado Plateau broke through its barrier and eroded the canyon rapidly. In contrast, secular science has taught that the Colorado river eroded the canyon over millions of years based on the uniformitarian assumptions. However, researchers have only recently determined that the Grand Canyon is a geologic infant in comparison to previous estimates, and it has been concluded that indeed much of the canyon was eroded rapidly as a result of dam failure.




Here is a picture of a canyon made by a flood in 10 days.

http://home.texoma.net/~alphom1/grpvn1.jpg

It was Grapevine Lake that carved that canyon in March of 1982. My Family watched that canyon form in about 10 days. The people who are standing on the sides of the canyon are standing on a road that was washed out. That is my sister in the red jacket. A hadrosaur track was discoverd when the water went down. You can read about it's discovery in vol.26 #36, 3-28-82 inThe Farmers Branch Times.This was written by Chantel Lines 6th grade.

http://home.texoma.net/~alphom1/cl2.htm

Stardust said...

sable, you are not reading anything from the CREDIBLE and proven sources that have been provided, are you? Where did all the flood water recede to? Did god suck it all back up in a cosmic straw? Where did all the other species of animals come from that Noah didn't collect? How did everything grow back so quickly for a bird to find an olive branch when everything was wiped out? The story is a MYTH sable...even most xians do not take the flood story literally.

You really want to believe the superstition and are allowing yourself to be misled. Creationists manipulate the facts to suit themselves, while dismissing all logic and reason. If xians keep believing those idiots who lead you, they can keep you ignorant and keep the sheeple in line. If you start thinking for yourselves, then where does that leave the lazy pastors who tell you lies? It leaves them jobless, or to go back to the farms they came from and take up their father's legacy which most of them hate so much. You can keep paying for their cars,their houses, insurance,...and all of their needs so they have a lot to lose if they lose you. Some have alot more to lose than others if sheeple leave the flock. They might actually have to work for a living.

The creationist arguement, when held up against true scientific evidence which was produced by centuries of investigation and study by highly educated scientists, geologists, astronomers, physicists, archeaologists, etc. -- people who hold PhDs and real degrees (real ones, not the fake kind Hovind has) from places like Oxford, MIT, Yale, Harvard, Stanford, Cambridge, and other ivy league institutions with genius faculty...religion shows itself to be what it truly is...MYTHOLOGY. Study world mythology sable...it was my first step to my brain turning on and my eyes being opened to reality as the cobwebs of religion dissipated and faded away.

Then take courses in geography, athropology, astronomy, meteorology, world religion, world mythology for starters. Allow yourself to question the things you are being told and relax...no sky daddy is going to zap you for it.

Stardust said...

Religion is big business

Sable Chicken said...

We never hear about all the trees buried upright, under all different layers of earth and rock...It's a black out of information because it will not fit into the trillions of years old earth idea. A tree just simply can't continue to stand that long while layers of earth are building up very very slowly over millions of years.

http://www.earthage.org/polystrate/Fossil%20Trees%20of%20Nova%20Scotia.htm

Are Present Deposition Rates the Key to the Past?
The a priori assumption of many geologists is that the massive flat-lying, sheet-like, sedimentary deposits which are stacked, one upon the other, and found throughout the world took hundreds of millions of years to deposit. However, such a hypothesis (known as uniformitarianism) is inadequate to account for much, if not most, of the fossil-bearing strata. Some people, who pride themselves as truth-seeking men and women of science, seem to think that they must, at all costs, force-fit their conclusions so that they always fall into an evolutionary / semi-uniformitarian / Old Earth philosophy. Others pretend as if they won the debate long ago, and that it should "hereafter never.. be questioned". 15 Unfortunately for the cause of science, this has resulted in an almost paranoia of writing anything that remotely resembles a catastrophic viewpoint. For to do so might subject one to ridicule, risk alienating colleagues, and perhaps endanger one's very career in the field of evolutionary thought - also often referred to as "science. In other words, an evolutionary view, no matter how unscientific it may be, is the only opinion that will be allowed into this debate with regard to our origin. Therefore an Old Earth is absolutely imperative if evolutionary theory is to remain viable; and those who challenge it are usually labeled enemies of "science," or "religious" fanatics in an attempt to quickly dismiss the data, and the debate itself, no matter how valid the contrary evidences may be. For if the Time-curtain is lifted all can (and likely will) see that the evolutionary house must be torn down -- leaving the entire scientific community with nothing at all to say regarding our origins, and therefore greatly reducing their (priest-like) position of societal influence.


The "Fossil Forests" of Nova Scotia:
A Review of the Literature
Part One
Randy S. Berg

Summary of this Paper

Fossil trees are found on virtually every continent. Sometimes they are found lying prostrate on, or upright (and extending) above the surface of the ground; however, in most cases such trees are buried entirely within the strata itself, in either prostrate, oblique, or upright positions. When many upright trees are found in one location, they may be termed a "fossil forest." In the United States alone such forests have been found in Alabama, Kentucky, Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, Missouri, Montana, Ohio, Tennessee, and West Virginia. Similar deposits are also found in Europe, most notably England, Germany and France. However, the most extensive such "forests" in North America are in Western Nova Scotia, near the town of Joggins. Here, along the coast of the Bay of Fundy, approximately 14,000 feet of sedimentary strata is exposed in the face of the cliffs with large sections containing upright fossil plants and trees. Very similar deposits are also in Northern Nova Scotia along the coast near the town of Sydney, and, to a lesser extent, in other parts of the Province. The beds at Joggins and Sydney consist mainly of alternating layers of sandstones, shales, coals and coaly shales, along with mudstones, and (less frequently) limestones, and clays. In many cases argillaceous material (i.e. clay) is mixed in with the shales and sandstones.

Stardust said...

As for your canyon made in 10 days story...

Grapevine Lake is an Army Corp of Engineers project and it exists to serve as a flood control project and water storage space for cities in the metroplex. What people were witnessing was water being done by HUMANS to create a recreational area. The underwater canyon was there all along. (We have several friends who live in Texas and know about this...they are xians, not atheists so if it was a "miracle" I am sure they would be talking about it in that manner.) This is why I say you must question and investigate, sable...don't believe things uneducated people tell you.

Grapevine Lake

Stardust said...

sable, do you even understand the stuff you are frantically copying and pasting?

Sable Chicken said...

do you even understand the stuff you are frantically copying and pasting?
I'm doing my best, it makes more sence than that NOVA stuff.

0.000000000000000000000000000000000001 seconds after the Big Bang

The universe began with a vast explosion that generated space and time, and created all the matter and energy in the universe. Exactly what triggered this sudden expansion remains a mystery. Astronomers believe it involved a runaway process called "inflation," in which a peculiar type of energy that existed in the vacuum of space was suddenly mobilized. The inflationary expansion ended only when this energy was transformed into more familiar forms of matter and energy.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/universe/resources.html

(OH BOY...it remains a mystery....Yet they tell us just what happened from the first second and blow by blow of the first 3 minutes. And they read into the future all the way up to the last era, ten thousand trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion years after the big bang.
Does this really do something for you?

Sable Chicken said...

Richard Dawkins, Oxford
"alleged human bones in the Carboniferous coal deposits. If authenticated as human, these bones would blow the theory of evolution out of the water." (Free Inquiry, V.21, No.4, 10/11/2001)

ANCIENT MAN - 2

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your ancestors have been found, and they were human beings. Here is more information about them. Evolutionary theory is a myth. This is science vs. evolution

Early Man - Here are facts about some real people who lived in the past
Human Footprints - Large man-made footprints from ancient times
Remains in Coal and Rock - Did you know that man-made objects have been found in coal, rock, and other things?

http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/13anc03.htm#Human%20Footprints

Stardust said...

Yet they tell us just what happened from the first second and blow by blow of the first 3 minutes

They tell us what might POSSIBLY have happened. These people are research scientists with a huge amount of mathematical and scientific knowledge. These are THEORIES and POSSIBILITIES, sable. If you would read completely you would have read that. No scientists have claimed to have the definite answer as to how the universe came to be. Only xians are the ones claiming to have a definite answer with zero investigation and zero evidence...only "I don't know so god did it."

Stardust said...

Sable, go back and read the links provided about evolution.
oh my gawd...you are exhausting.

Stardust said...

Does this really do something for you?

It does for me because I consider the possibilities. I will not lazily write things off as giving credit to some magical being because I don't understand something. Where would we be now if people would not have trusted science and searched for answers?

Stardust said...

Distinctions between theory and factAs Stephen Jay Gould explained that "evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."[46]

Stardust said...

Excellent essay: Biblical Opposition to Knowledge

Science has enabled humanity to make enormous improvements its technological capabilities, material prosperity, and moral philosophy. These results led Carl Sagan to say: "Science is supported because it provides spectacular benefits at all levels in the society. . . ."[97]

Bertrand Russell similarly observed: "Almost all the changes which the world has undergone since the end of the Middle Ages are due to the discovery and diffusion of new knowledge."[98]

But the Bible contains numerous teachings opposed to scientific inquiry and the increase of knowledge. The teachings are dangerous and continue to produce harm.

Former Christian fundamentalist Richard Yao maintains: "Perhaps the unpardonable sin of fundamentalism is its effort to make people suspicious and afraid of their own minds, their own logic and thinking process. . . . If we cannot depend on our minds to process reality and make choices and decisions in life, then we are more likely to depend on fundamentalist preachers. . . . How can a democracy survive if all of us renounce reason, thinking and logic?"[99]

Harold Bloom states that the problems are not confined to fundamentalism: "Fundamentalism . . . is viciously anti-intellectual, but so, alas, is most American religion, of whatever camp."[100].

Bloom's observation will be true as long as American religion looks to the Bible for guidance. No other outcome is possible when people follow a book that instructs them to distrust and reject their sensory perceptions and reasoning abilities.

The Bible's anti-intellectual teachings are a recipe for being out of touch with reality - which is a path to ignorance, misery, and disaster.

Those irrational and harmful biblical ideas need to be replaced by science - with its methods of reason, observation, experience, and compassion.

Sable Chicken said...

Stardust ....you are exhausting also. Do you think that I am just lazily writing things off? I'm not against science. But there are falsified stories that science still tell that make people believe things like...
".... humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
I stand on solid ground, no matter what nutty idea science comes up with next for the origin of man. Science is always changing but the truth will not change. Yes apples will still fall, and nothing still comes from nothing. But you hold Darwins theory up to a candle because it has become impossible for you to look at any evidence of creation. Micro-evolution is the only part of the Theory of Evolution that is truth, and it is all that is supporting an out dated lie. In Evolution it will not brake it down into the different stages of the theory because they want us to believe that the small changes we can observe in micro-evolution are without limit, and can take us all the way back to the "big bang" if one adds enough TIME.

The frog in the blender is dead and even you had to admit no life will come from it. Yet with less to work with and trillions of years of time, complex life will evolve...it's just not true.

What are the fairy tales we are told as kids:
Frog + magic spell (usually a kiss) = prince

In modern "science" textbooks we are told:
frog + time = prince

So given enough time anything can happen. The same basic fairy tale is being promoted in textbooks today, but the new magic potion cited is TIME. When the theory of evolution is discussed, time is the panacea for all the thousands of problems that arise.

If time were to be removed from the above equation, the following three results would occur:
* the obvious impossibility of evolution would be clearly seen.
*Evolutionists would scream like a baby whose pacifier has been pulled out because they know that if time is removed , the silliness of their religion (evolution is a religion, not science) will be exposed.
*Creation would become the only reasonable alternative explanation for the existence of this complex universe.

How much of the creation science side have you looked into?

By the way Darwin's only degree was in theology. Yet he is often called a great Scientist in textbooks today.

"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable."
Sir Arthur Keith

Sable Chicken said...

"But in order for the scientific approach is to be employed to full advantage, certain attitudes about knowledge are necessary. People should have a love and hunger for information about the world, confidence that human reasoning can understand the information, a belief that knowledge improves the human condition, a strong focus on this world, a strict requirement that all knowledge must be based on evidence and reason, and a view that natural laws are unvarying in their operation."

I have this love and hunger also, I believe it is within our understanding and knowledge can help improve the human condition. And yes evidence and reason...I want that too!

"Because the Bible is opposed to all those attitudes,"
This is not true!
"... belief in the book will always impede scientific advancement."
Well it is true that it might have a moral problem with some advancements in science. Like taking the lives away from a group of humans to potentially help another group of humans. So to say that it will "always" is a bit bias. What does it matter what the Bible says....people are going to do what they want to do anyway, science is not being held back. That is just something to say to bash Christianity.

Stardust said...

Sable,...you are going to believe what you want to believe, make up evidence to suit yourself...(by the way, you never commented on the information I found about the "magic canyon" at Grapevine Lake you cherry picked complete with photo which was actually the Army Corp of Engineers "man made" project to create a recreational area and they are messing with the environment, diverting water supplies and such. And that canyon was there all along...AND the writer of the story was a SIXTH GRADER TEXAN XIAN FUNDIE.)

How much of the creation science side have you looked into?

A lot of it, that is how I prepare for criticisms of it. I don't want to just make criticisms without knowing what I am criticizing. I am not going to just say something is stupid without investigation. I keep up with news stories, articles, magazines, newspapers. I read the religion section of the news on Yahoo daily. I keep tabs on what creationists are saying and teaching...as a certified teacher, I am interested since I deal with these children in public schools. I am a substitute at present and I also work for a company that grades academic achievement tests for various school systems around the country. (The students who do the worst in science and math are from fundamentalist xian families.) I have Baptist people in my family and debate it all the time. I have seen the brainwashing textbooks they use to teach their children while not allowing them to use outside sources. Sad since they may never be able to think for themselves. With any luck, whether they continue to believe in a god or not, hopefully they will be able to escape that dreadful island captivity their parents took them to and free themselves from their brainwashing education and explore for themselves.

We atheists and even xians who support separation of church and state must keep track of these things to ensure that the constitution of this SECULAR nation is being upheld.

Do you think that I am just lazily writing things off?
Well... er, ummm, since you ask...yes. Your answers are random and not very consistent in trying to prove your points. It seems you frantically cherry pick random sources willy-nilly to try to get me to see your side instead of rationally debating with supporting evidence.

You are going to believe what you want to believe just like people believe in lephrechans, and like my ex-sister-in-law firmly believes gnomes inhabit her garden and leave marbles in the grass for her to find, like people believe in Vishnu, Allah, and like Scientologists believe in Xenu, and like little children who firmly believe in Santa Claus with all their heart and soul.

Stardust said...

tommy...did you ever think that you would get this many comments to one post via only a handful of people? LOL!!!

Tommy said...

Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking Stardust! Any newbies who come here are at first probably astonished "wow this guy gets a lot of traffic!"

When I started the Dawkins thread, I just assumed the back and forth would relocate there. Oh well.

Sable Chicken said...

Stardust....guess what I'm not really enjoying my conversation with you anymore either. So we are on the same page.
;)
There happens to be alot of things that you have not addressed either.
So you want to know more about canyons? What can I tell you...I'M A STUPID XIAN FUNDIE, my brain is turned off.
So why don't you tell me just how many millions of years it took to make the first Grapevine Canyon that they uncovered.... was it a trillion years? 70 million years?
Canyons are only made very very slowly..."evolving" into a canyon. and the layers that got there built up over a really really long time. Lot of TIME.
A+ ...?
OR
The Grapevine Canyon was the filling in of a broken natural damn that may have been a lake left over from the Great flood. One day it gave way and a canyon was made in a matter of a week or less. The damn was refilled at some time by people and the Army Corp of Engineers wanted to return it back to looking untouched by man.
D + ...!

Could you tell me about what you know about....
Nebraska Man
Piltdown Man
Neanderthal Man
Lucy

Tell me more about your atheist religion.....I like to keep up on the crazy cults also.

Sable Chicken said...

Back in the day...I remember helping getting one thread up to 300 at the sucker site. Man I was stupid back then.
Great blog Tommy

Stardust said...

If you weren't so lazy Sable, you could look these things up for yourself. The internet is full of resources and differing viewpoints on things. I suspect you are just toying with me...but here is what you asked for anyway in case you sincerely wish to know these things. As a teacher, I must assume you are really seeking answers.

Nebraska Man
Nebraska Man was the name applied by the popular press to Hesperopithecus haroldcookii, a putative species of ape. Hesperopithecus meant "ape of the western world" and it was heralded as the first higher primate of North America. Though not a deliberate hoax, the classification proved to be a mistake.

Piltdown Man

Piltdown Man consists of fragments of a skull and jaw bone collected in 1912 from a gravel pit at Piltdown, a village near Uckfield, in the English county of East Sussex. The fragments were claimed by experts of the day to be the fossilised remains of a hitherto unknown form of early human. The Latin name Eoanthropus dawsoni was given to the specimen.

The significance of the specimen remained the subject of controversy until it was exposed in 1953 as a forgery, consisting of the lower jaw bone of an orangutan combined with the skull of a fully developed, modern man. It has been suggested that the forgery was the work of the person said to be its finder, Charles Dawson, after whom it was named. This view is strongly disputed and many other candidates have been proposed as the true creators of the forgery.

Neanderthal

The Neanderthal (IPA pronunciation: [niː.ændə(ɚ)θɒl, neɪ.ændə(ɚ)θɒl, niː.ændə(ɚ)tɒl, neɪ.ændə(ɚ)tɒl,]), (Homo neanderthalensis) or Neandertal was a species of the Homo genus that inhabited Europe and parts of western Asia. The first proto-Neanderthal traits appear in Europe as early as 350,000 years ago.[1] By 130,000 years ago, full blown Neanderthal characteristics had appeared and by 50,000 years ago, Neanderthals disappeared from Asia, although they did not reach extinction in Europe until 33,000 to 24,000 years ago, perhaps 15,000 years after Homo sapiens had migrated into Europe

Lucy
Lucy (Amharic ድንቅነሽ dinqneš, "you are wonderful") is the common name of AL 288-1, the first Australopithecus afarensis skeleton ever discovered. It was discovered on November 30, 1974 by Donald Johanson, Maurice Taieb, Yves Coppens and Tim White in the Middle Awash of Ethiopia's Afar Depression. Lucy is estimated to have lived 3.2 million years ago.

One thing about scientists, they are not afraid of finding evidence that changes what they had originally thought about something. That is the difference between those who merely credit everything to a sky daddy, and those who are actually seeking truth. Scientists welcome new evidence...xians ignore evidence and fall back on faith in what they want to be true, not necessarily what IS true. You won't even consider for one moment that you might be wrong.


ATHEIST n. : One who has rejected all existing theistic concepts.

Whatever other kind of flame bait you want to throw out there about this is not going to provoke me. You know perfectly well that atheism is not a religion. We have no churches, we do not door knock, I do not troll xian blogs and try to take their Jeebus beliefs away, atheists do not put up billboards advocating atheism, we do not worship execution or any other symbols, we do not have rituals, we do not talk to spirits, we do not have doctrine or dogma...no authorities who demand a percentage of our income, no brainwashing centers....need I go on?


Sable -- "You are an intelligent human being. Your life is valuable for its own sake. You are not second-class in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind. You are not inherently evil—you are inherently human, possessing the positive rational potential to help make this a world of morality, peace and joy. Trust yourself."
–Dan Barker, from his book, Losing Faith in Faith

Sable Chicken said...

Have you seen this site Stardust?
I'm not being lazy, I'm just trying to see what you know because everytime I say something you, know it. I can't see why creation would be so hard to look at if you know that science is pointing in that direction.

Lord Solly Zuckerman is one of the most famous and respected scientists in the United Kingdom. For years, he studied the fossil record and conducted many detailed investigations. He was elevated to the peerage for his contributions to science. Zuckerman is an evolutionist. Therefore, his comments on evolution cannot be regarded as ignorant or prejudiced. After years of research on the fossils included in the human evolution scenario however, he reached the conclusion that there is no truth to the family tree that is put forward.

Zuckerman also advanced an interesting concept of the "spectrum of the sciences," ranging from those he considered scientific to those he considered unscientific. According to Zuckerman's spectrum, the most "scientific"-that is, dependent on concrete data-fields are chemistry and physics. After them come the biological sciences and then the social sciences. At the far end of the spectrum, which is the part considered to be most "unscientific," are extra-sensory perception-concepts such as telepathy and the "sixth sense"-and finally human evolution. Zuckerman explains his reasoning as follows:

We then move right off the register of objective truth into those fields of presumed biological science, like extrasensory perception or the interpretation of man's fossil history, where to the faithful anything is possible - and where the ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time.226

Robert Locke, the editor of Discovering Archeology, an important publication on the origins of man, writes in that journal, "The search for human ancestors gives more heat than light," quoting the confession of the famous evolutionary paleoantropologist Tim White:

We're all frustrated by "all the questions we haven't been able to answer."227

Locke's article reviews the impasse of the theory of evolution on the origins of man and the groundlessness of the propaganda spread about this subject:

Perhaps no area of science is more contentious than the search for human origins. Elite paleontologists disagree over even the most basic outlines of the human family tree. New branches grow amid great fanfare, only to wither and die in the face of new fossil finds.228

The same fact was also recently accepted by Henry Gee, the editor of the well-known journal Nature. In his book In Search of Deep Time, published in 1999, Gee points out that all the evidence for human evolution "between about 10 and 5 million years ago-several thousand generations of living creatures-can be fitted into a small box." He concludes that conventional theories of the origin and development of human beings are "a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices," and adds:

To take a line of fossils and claim that they represent a lineage is not a scientific hypothesis that can be tested, but an assertion that carries the same validity as a bedtime story-amusing, perhaps even instructive, but not scientific.229

As we have seen, there is no scientific discovery supporting or propping up the theory of evolution, just some scientists who blindly believe in it. These scientists both believe in the myth of evolution themselves, although it has no scientific foundation, and also make other people believe it by using the media, which cooperate with them. In the pages that follow, we shall examine a few examples of this deceptive propaganda carried out in the name of evolution.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_13.html

Sable Chicken said...

Neanderthals: Their Anatomy and Culture

COUNTERFACTUAL PROPAGANDA
Although fossil discoveries show that Neanderthals had no "primitive" features as compared to us and were a human race, the evolutionist prejudices regarding them continue unabated. Neanderthal man is still sometimes described as an "ape man" in some evolutionist museums. This is an indication how Darwinism rests on prejudice and propaganda, not on scientific discoveries.

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_06.html


"GOODBYE, LUCY"

That Australopithecus cannot be counted an ancestor of man has recently been accepted by evolutionist sources. The famous French popular scientific magazine Science et Vie made the subject the cover of its May 1999 issue. Under the headline "Adieu Lucy"-Lucy being the most important fossil example of the species Australopithecus afarensis-the magazine reported that apes of the species Australopithecus would have to be removed from the human family tree. In this article, based on the discovery of another Australopithecus fossil known simply as St W573, the following sentences appear:
On top is the AL 444-2 Australopithecus afarensis skull, and on the bottom a skull of a modern chimpanzee. The clear resemblance between them is an evident sign that A. afarensis is an ordinary species of ape, with no human characteristics.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_02.html


The Nebraska Man Scandal

All of these scenarios were developed from just one tooth. Evolutionist circles placed such faith in this "ghost man" that when a researcher named William Bryan opposed these biased conclusions relying on a single tooth, he was harshly criticized.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_16.html


The Piltdown Man Scandal
For 40 years, Piltdown man was accepted as the greatest evidence for human evolution. Evolutionist fossil experts claimed to have found a lot of transitional features in the skull. It only emerged later that the fossil was a fake.


Four of the most outstanding mysteries about humans are: 1) why do they walk on two legs? 2) why have they lost their fur? 3) why have they developed such large brains? 4) why did they learn to speak?

The orthodox answers to these questions are: 1) 'We do not yet know;' 2) 'We do not yet know;' 3) 'We do not yet know;' 4) 'We do not yet know.' The list of questions could be considerably lengthened without affecting the monotony of the answers.225

http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_15.html

These interpretations of the Laetoli footprints demonstrate one important fact. Evolutionists support their theory not based on scientific findings, but in spite of them. Here we have a theory that is blindly defended no matter what, with all new findings that cast the theory into doubt being either ignored or distorted to support the theory.

Briefly, the theory of evolution is not science, but a dogma kept alive despite science.
http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man_11.html

Tommy said...

Sable, regarding Charles Darawin, you wrote above:

"By the way Darwin's only degree was in theology. Yet he is often called a great Scientist in textbooks today."

It just so happens I just bought a thick hardcover book called "The Darwin Compendium", which contains "The Voyage of the Beagle", "Origin of the Species", "Descent of Man", Expression of Emotions in Humans and Animals", and Darwin's Autobiography. After all, I figure if I am going to opine about Darwin and evolution, I should go straight to the source.

In the Introduction by Brian Regal, the following background is provided regarding Darwin's education:

"He came from a long line of medical doctors, including his grandfather Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), who wrote "Zoomania", one of the first books to propose a form of evolutionary mechanics. It was expected that Charles would follow the other Darwin men into medical school. He went to Scotland and entered Edinburgh University to earn his medical degree, but soon dropped out because his personality could not handle human dissections or even the sight of blood. He went home to England and entered Christ Church College, Cambridge University, to study for the Anglican ministry. This was a good change for him because, while interested in theology, his real love was natural history. Darwin thought that as a minister assigned to some quiet country parish he could spend most of his time collecting bugs and rocks and skeletons and flowers. It would be a lifestyle that would make him happy. He took classes in zoology, geology, and especially botany, at which he excelled. He did so well that just before he graduated he was offered a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to sail aboard the HMS Beagle as ship's naturalist on an expedition to study the geology, flora, and fauna of south America."

So, as you can see Sable, to say that Darwin's degree was in Theology does not provide an entirely accurate picture of the man's education and background. I hope you can understand that.

Tommy said...

As for the debate over the validity of evolution, it is wrong to limit the discussion to either (a) evolution is true, or (b) the Biblical story of creation is true.

Even if it turns out that Darwinian evolution is wrong, it does not mean then by default that the Bible is literally true.

Sable Chicken said...

What is true than Tommy?

Tommy said...

That's a question that I am not sure I am qualified to answer Sable.

There are things that I know are true and there are things that I know that are not true.

And then, as Donald Rumsfeld famously said, there are the things we know that we don't know, and there are things we don't know that we don't know.

Here is what I do know. We live on a planet we call Earth in some vast expanse we call the universe. I am fortunate to live in a country called the United States of America, that for all of its flaws, has a culture and a system of government that allows me to live relatively free and affords me the opportunity to make a decent living and own a house. I am blessed with being married to a beautiful woman who is more than a wife to me, but my best friend as well. I have two beautiful and healthy young children.

I know that the God of the Bible does not exist and is no more real than Zeus, Apollo or Thor. I do not believe that there is a Supreme Being, but if our vast universe and everything else was created by some higher power, I am inclined to believe that such an entity is so far advanced as to be above the petty anger and jealousy that is exhibited by the God of the Bible. I would think that if there is a Supreme Being or Creator, it does not require our worship or obeisance, no more so than we expect insects or animals to revere us. If the Creator thinks about us at all, then it values ethical conduct more than prayers or slavish devotion to a holy book put together by Jewish priests in the 5th century B.C. or believing that a god-man was born to a virgin and rose from the dead.

While I am certainly not a perfect person, I do not believe that I have done anything so terrible that would require some Supreme Being casting me in a pit of hellfire for all eternity after I die. As Orlando Bloom's character Balian said in the movie 'Kingdom of Heaven', "If he is God, he will understand. If he does not, then he is not God, and we need not worry."

Anonymous said...

That's a question that I am not sure I am qualified to answer Sable.

There are things that I know are true and there are things that I know that are not true.

And then, as Donald Rumsfeld famously said, there are the things we know that we don't know, and there are things we don't know that we don't know.

Here is what I do know. We live on a planet we call Earth in some vast expanse we call the universe. I am fortunate to live in a country called the United States of America, that for all of its flaws, has a culture and a system of government that allows me to live relatively free and affords me the opportunity to make a decent living and own a house. I am blessed with being married to a beautiful woman who is more than a wife to me, but my best friend as well. I have two beautiful and healthy young children.

I know that the God of the Bible does not exist and is no more real than Zeus, Apollo or Thor. I do not believe that there is a Supreme Being, but if our vast universe and everything else was created by some higher power, I am inclined to believe that such an entity is so far advanced as to be above the petty anger and jealousy that is exhibited by the God of the Bible. I would think that if there is a Supreme Being or Creator, it does not require our worship or obeisance, no more so than we expect insects or a

Tommy said...

WTF?

Sable Chicken said...

You know that the God of the Bible does not exist. How do you know this?

Stardust said...

Truth, in matters of religion, is simply the opinion that has survived.

* Oscar Wilde

Stardust said...

sable...don't you read ANYTHING people write? You are so anxious to reinforce your OWN beliefs you do not hear what others are saying. Xians think that the more they get to climb aboard the bandwagon of religion, the more real it will become for them.

Tommy said...

I was actually hoping to devote one of my Why I Abandoned Christianity posts to that question Sable, but I guess it couldn't hurt to give you a preview.

In a nutshell, and I think I may have already written this in response to you before, but I just cannot accept the idea that a Supreme Being is going to create what is essentially an infinite universe and then behave as a tribal god for a confederation of semi-nomadic tribesmen in the Middle East.

Look at it this way Sable. Would a Supreme Being really dictate to Hebrew prophets what kind of food they eat, what kind of clothes they can wear, what they can or cannot do on a particular day of the week and so forth? And about this whole creating the universe in seven days and honoring the Sabbath business, with all of the stars in the universe and the planets that go around them, are we really supposed to believe that a universal deity is going to operate on Earth time? I mean come on!

And why would a universal creator even require our worship? What does he get out of it? And if we are the only intelligent life in the universe, then what is the point of creating galaxies so many hundreds of millions of light years away that it is inconceivable that humanity can ever hope to reach them?

IF the God of the Bible was real, it could have confined the universe to just planet Earth going around the sun. The rest of the universe would not be needed. Mankind could have been kept frozen at a Bronze Age technological level for all eternity and God could still toy with humanity all he wanted and make is demands and enforce his whims.

When you look at the matter from a historical perspective, it seems fairly obvious to me that the OT books were put together by Jewish priests some time in the 5th century B.C. after the Jews had suffered conquests from the Assyrians and the Babylonians. What had been a confederation of semi-nomadic tribes suddenly found themselves part of a wider world of sophisticated and ancient civilizations such as those of Mesopotamia. In such a topsy turvy world, I believe the Jewish priests and leaders realized they need to enforce a strict code of belief in order to instill a sense of cohesion and unity. And what better way to make a defeated people feel better about themselves than to instill in them a belief that they are the chosen people of the one true god and creator of the universe, and that their defeats were not due to the greatness of their enemies, but because god was simply punishing them for disobeying his laws?

The thing you have to be careful about when you read the OT Sable is that it makes you look at the history of the Middle East during ancient times from a Hebrew-centric perspective, making one think that Israel was the most important country in the region, with her neighbors existing only to serve as a crude bludgeon used by God to punish the Israelites when he was angry with them. But if you look at the history of the region by considering all of the peoples and states that existed at the time, Israel shrinks to just a minor role as a small state surrounded by more powerful and advanced neighbors.

It is indisputable that the Jewish priests borrowed not only from Mesopotamian myths and religions, but also from the Zoroastrian religion of the Persians. You have to remember that the Persian king Cyrus the Great freed the Jews and allowed them to return to Israel after he conquered the Babylonian kingdom. If you do some reading about Zoroastrianism, you can't help but notice that some of its beliefs are reflected in Judaism and Christianity, especially with its monotheism and its dividing the universe between good and evil.

Well, it looks like I rambled a bit and went beyond the nutshell explanation. But I have to stop here as my pillow is calling me and I have to get up for work tomorrow. Have a good night Sable.

Sable Chicken said...

Through the Scriptures God shows us that He exists. It's not like God speaking from heaven, "HEY, you people down there I want you to know these things about me." and he gives us a list of things He wants us to believe and memorize. He could do it like that, but He wants us to learn about Him through the Bible.

We can know God, because it has been given to us, within a story of a people. We are apart of that story. God is writing us into the story. That has a beginning and an ending, so that Genesis 1&2 and Revelations 21&22 God's providence, bookends the Scriptures. This is a marvelous story. God's story not ours. It's His story and He writes us into it.
It's being played out right now. I think that the theory of Evolution makes us doubt our beginigs...and think that some we have same control over end if we muddy the waters of truth.

well Tommy goodnight

Stardust said...

Through the Scriptures God shows us that He exists.

Why is your god true then and not others if so many other religions also have a holy text where their god is revealed to them?

# 1 Texts

* 1.1 Ásatrú
* 1.2 Ayyavazhi
* 1.3 Bahá'í Faith
* 1.4 Buddhism
* 1.5 Christianity
* 1.6 Mormonism
* 1.7 Spiritism
* 1.8 Discordianism
* 1.9 Etruscan religion
* 1.10 Falun Gong
* 1.11 Hinduism
* 1.12 Islam
* 1.13 Jainism
* 1.14 Judaism
* 1.15 Mandaeanism
* 1.16 Manichaeism
* 1.17 New Age religions
* 1.18 Rastafari movement
* 1.19 Samaritanism
* 1.20 Sikhism
* 1.21 Shinto
* 1.22 SubGenius
* 1.23 Swedenborgianism
* 1.24 Taoism
* 1.25 Thelema
* 1.26 Unification Church
* 1.27 Zoroastrianism

Stardust said...

The FACTS of evolution (which I have provided links to time and time again) make us QUESTION our origins, not doubt them. One cannot doubt what one doesn't know yet. But we can question and do research and consider and investigate many, many possibilities.

To question is to be human, and questioning leads to knowledge and some do not want humans to gain knowledge because knowledge leads to power and when people have knowledge and power they are more difficult to control. This is most likely the whole jist of the Adam and Eve and eating of the tree of knowledge story. "Don't rock the boat and do what Big Brother tells you." Even our schools, though secular, teach exactly what they want children to learn and there is little time or encouragement to "look outside the box."

It is in the best interest of leaders to promote religion and instill fear and obedience in people and keep the chains of religion going in order to maintain status quo. Throughout history religion has always been about power and control. Look around you...it's the centerpiece of our political campaigns, it's the reason for warring and it's been an excuse for colonialism, it has been an excuse for wanting to wipe other nations off the map...in reality it is all about power and control. And before you say it, yes...there was Hitlerism, Nazism, Maoism, Leninism, Marxism, (they made themselves into gods to be worshipped as many leaders of countries still do today.)They are no different than those who use the tool of any religion to control and manipulate.

It is the attitude "we have jesus and god so we don't have to worry or question anymore" that keeps people vulnerable and enslaved. And as one commenter wrote in another comment thread at another blog, they [xian fundamentalists] have a reset button. Nothing goes in if it doesn’t comply with the “faith filters.”

Theerasak Photha said...

When the city of Banda Aceh on the island of Sumatra in Indonesia was devastated by the tsunami, one of the only remaining intact buildings was the city's main mosque. Now, if I was a Muslim, I might argue that it was a miracle from Allah.

The same thing happened with a number of Hindu temples in Tamil Nadu during the great tsunami. Not one, but several. They came through virtually intact.

Even I'm getting tired of slogging through all this bullshit. When your opponents bring up oldy and moldy garbage like "vapor canopy" and other claptrap regurgitated from Kent Hovind's Book of Bull, what else can you do? He's a liar and a fraud. This should be exceedingly obvious now.

No one in the scientific community with any degree of credibility takes this seriously for a reason.

If the Bible Belt Xian nuts and Muslim nuts can sustain the level of crap they are putting out now, it's inevitably going to boil over into a religious war, thereby eliminating non-secularists from the population. Evolution! I'll be sitting it out in the Trollveggen if you need me.

It's like the Hmong people: if you think rape is a virtue and you think that Jesus gave you your alphabet, then you deserve to be poor, backwards, and reviled. Period. The same goes for the fundies.

Reason vs. Wingnuts: an unwinnable battle.

Stardust said...

A Funny from Freethunk

Sable Chicken said...

Stardust
The FACTS of evolution which are more and more about out right lies and deceptions as well as out dated and disproved assumptions that still pass off as well known facts to the unseeking. Or just plain old suppressing the evidence because it doesn't fit into the Evolution model. I to have given you links that should make you QUESTION your ape ancester origins as well as the age of the Earth being trillions of years old.
Because of people like Kent Hovind, who is living his life as a human sacrifice, the truth can be known. Kent Hovind was a science school teacher for 15 years. I have my own personal theory as to why Kent Hovind has not rendered on to Ceasar what belongs to Ceasar.

I think everyone will find some scripture in the Bible that will secretly and quietly tug at your conscience and convict ones heart.
What stands out for me, the verse that deep down inside, I knew that an all seeing God will call me to explanation on judgement day is now my driving inspiration, that coupled with the truth about the Evolution has left me with very little room for doubt.

I think that for Kent Hovind it is Matthew 10:28
"It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin."
All of a sudden jail doesn't look so bad in comparison to,

"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

So what is it...over a hunderd years we worshiped science because, science would not lie, science would not withhold evidence, science wouldn't knowingly decieve, science is only about knowledge. The theory of Evolution is just what the atheist's iching ears want to hear. The sad thing is the Church had no ability to rebut Evolution so, one could either go on faith alone about our origins or some how read Evolution into creation. AND even the Catholic church bought into it. What happened to their “faith filters.” That is why The Bible should be held up above even the Pope.

All of a sudden an ancient bronze age book sounds like it is speaking directly to the people of today.

For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles. ( Evolution comes to mind more than pagan practices)

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.

Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.

Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.


Now Stardust, your list of religions are incomplete. You have forgotten "New Atheism" The church of the un-believer. You most likely read this artical about Richard Dawkins call to arms a new world order of intolerance. Is this a good direction to go into? Personally Richard Dawkins makes my blood boil, even before I hear this statement.

"How much do we regard children as being the property of their parents?" Dawkins asks. "It's one thing to say people should be free to believe whatever they like, but should they be free to impose their beliefs on their children? Is there something to be said for society stepping in? What about bringing up children to believe manifest falsehoods?"

I find him to be so incredibility arrogant and now dangerous as well. But the ball has already rolling, and there is little that can be done to stop it. I might just feel that way because of reading GifS for a year, but the atmosphere is so ready for in your face "New" Atheism, and my predictions for this are not good.

I think that the whole "free thinkers" thing becomes a joke under this kind of doctrine. The artical even says something about, there just will be things that will not be allowed to be discussed...( eugenics I guess is OK-dokey)
While Sam Harris is trying to create a world of fear and anger, if not just down right depressing. There he discusses what it might look like, this world without God. (let me cherry pick this beauty from the heap)

"There would be a religion of reason," Harris says. "We would have realized the rational means to maximize human happiness. We may all agree that we want to have a Sabbath that we take really seriously – a lot more seriously than most religious people take it. But it would be a rational decision, and it would not be just because it's in the Bible. We would be able to invoke the power of poetry and ritual and silent contemplation and all the variables of happiness so that we could exploit them. Call it prayer, but we would have prayer without bullshit."

Just who in the hell is this guy praying to? What is the logic behind prayer without God? He is a New Age Atheist religionous nut. While saying rape and religion are just an embarassing evolutionary left overs from when we were not fully human. (And yet we are looking back a monkeys to justifty homosexuality) He says we need to surpress this and yet ..."Oh dear great monkey of our dead ancessters please help us to learn to hold up great intolarents of people of faith in god."
(I made that last quote up....but really what would that look like?)

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.11/atheism.html

Stardust said...

Sable...since you like going off on tangents, let me ask you this:

You believe everything in the bible to be truely the world of your god, do you hide yourself during your menstural cycle?

Leviticus 15:19-30
And if a woman have an issue, and her issue in her flesh be blood, she shall be put apart seven days: and whosoever toucheth her shall be unclean until the even. And every thing that she lieth upon in her separation shall be unclean: every thing also that she sitteth upon shall be unclean. And whosoever toucheth her bed shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And whosoever toucheth any thing that she sat upon shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. And if it be on her bed, or on any thing whereon she sitteth, when he toucheth it, he shall be unclean until the even. And if any man lie with her at all, and her flowers be upon him, he shall be unclean seven days; and all the bed whereon he lieth shall be unclean. And if a woman have an issue of her blood many days out of the time of her separation, or if it run beyond the time of her separation; all the days of the issue of her uncleanness shall be as the days of her separation: she shall be unclean. Every bed whereon she lieth all the days of her issue shall be unto her as the bed of her separation: and whatsoever she sitteth upon shall be unclean, as the uncleanness of her separation. And whosoever toucheth those things shall be unclean, and shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and be unclean until the even. But if she be cleansed of her issue, then she shall number to herself seven days, and after that she shall be clean. And on the eighth day she shall take unto her two turtles, or two young pigeons, and bring them unto the priest, to the door of the tabernacle of the congregation. And the priest shall offer the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering; and the priest shall make an atonement for her before the LORD for the issue of her uncleanness.

Leviticus 20:18
And if a man shall lie with a woman having her sickness, and shall uncover her nakedness; he hath discovered her fountain, and she hath uncovered the fountain of her blood: and both of them shall be cut off from among their people.

Ezekiel 18:5-6
But if a man be just, and do that which is lawful and right, and hath not ... come near to a menstruous woman.....

Stardust said...

sable- And if you are comparing Evolution with pagan practices you truly did not read any of the links provided and have not ever studied a course in Biology. There are disagreements amongst scientists concerning evolution, but never heard of legitimate scientist comparing it to paganism.

You are really off base in your understanding of what evolution is. And some of your statements are outlandishly strange.

Stardust said...

sable said: I saw St. Pauls Church at ground ZERO stand without even a broken window and the twin towers went down like bowing kness and every thing was turned into dust.

Your gawd saves one of his mythology temples yet lets another perish??? I guess you would say that is "one of the mysterious ways of gawd" or "gawd doesn't like Greek Orthodox xians" because they aren't xian enough or some absurd thing.

This was in the news today,Thu Dec 7, 10:50 AM ET NEW YORK

A church rose up for a day inside a white tent at ground zero.

Hundreds of faithful from the tiny St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church, which was destroyed along with the World Trade Center, gathered in a makeshift canvas sanctuary on Wednesday, where they marked St. Nicholas Day and the 90th anniversary of their parish.

The Sept. 11 attack decimated the landmark church that was once a refuge for everyone from Wall Street traders on their lunch break to Greek sailors who believed St. Nicholas, their patron saint, would keep their ships from sinking.

Sable Chicken said...

Stardust
Did you know it kinda pisses me off everytime you use the word "xian" instead of Christian?

I saw St. Pauls Church at ground ZERO stand without even a broken window and the twin towers went down like bowing knees and every thing was turned into dust. said sable

Yah that is what I said, I have been looking for a picture of it on the internet. I just saw a TV program about 911 compared to a volcano. I can't find it, too bad, a picture is worth a thousand words.
Sorry, it just struck me as symbalic. Maybe God just doesn't like tall buildings, He didn't like Babel.

Leviticus 15 & menstural cycle? What are you having a problem with? Is this like the Bible is out dated, or you just don't like the whole unclean thing or you think that some mythical pagan god has something to do with it? You have been a Christian for 30 years, taught Sunday school without qualification..................?

Sable Chicken said...

Tommy


The truth is unchanging,
but our understanding of it is constantly evolving.
Throughout mankind's history, beliefs accepted as unarguable fact in one age have been discovered to be false in the next. Have you ever wondered which of today's "facts" will be seen by future generations as the "old myths" of the 21st century?

We're taught that life is the result of chance and natural adaptation, but is this the truth, or is it just a "fact" that suits our limited understanding of life?

If evolution occurred, is it really the source of life's creation or is it God's process of creation?

Is there any scientific evidence or basis in reason which proves that DNA is a result of chance rather than a creation of the Divine?

Could evolution be little more than a myth for today that will someday be replaced by a deeper understanding?

http://evolutionoftruth.com/evo/evotxtbk.htm

Evolution explains the origin of life and is a scientific fact.
OR
Evolution is used by some to support an unprovable belief that life began on its own. It interprets the evidence we have in the only way possible to support that belief. It ignores opposing evidence. There have been instances of evidence being exaggerated, falsely interpreted and even fabricated. Evolution theory fails to investigate the alternate hypothesis that life didn't form on its own because Divine Creation is defined to be outside the bounds of science, even if it is the truth.

There is nothing wrong with holding beliefs that are based on faith rather than complete evidence. This is the nature of all religions.

When evolution is used to explain life's origin and assumes and unprovable position (or faith) that God did not create life, is it then still science or has it just stepped over the boundaries of science to become a humanist religion? If it's religion, why is it taught in our schools? If it's science, why don't we teach all that we know, and do not know, about the possibilities for life's origins and diversity with complete openness and honesty?

Tommy said...

Sable, my area of strength is history, not science. But from what I understand, evolution does not describe, nor does it attempt to, how the universe was created and how life first began.

The point I am trying to make to you is that the debate is much broader than simply Darwinian evolution versus the Bible. It is possible to have doubts about or not understand Darwinian evolution and yet still believe that the Bible is a crock.

As for the whole Church near the WTC still standing after the Twin Towers fell, what does it say about a God that it would protect the structural integrity of a church and yet allow thousands of people nearby to perish, including one of my high school classmates?

Stardust said...

sable, once again you have ignored what I have written...what about the GREEK ORTHODOX CHURCH AT GROUND ZERO that was destroyed while St Paul's remained? God picks favorite Xian churches to save? Also, I ask the same question that Tommy asked about all those mothers, fathers, sister, brothers, wives, husbands, friends and lovers...many of them who were praying and begging for their lives to a silent god?

As for writing christian as Xian, why do you always assume that you are being persecuted? The upper-case letter Χ is used as the symbol for:

* The name of Jesus Christ in Christianity, as in X-mas etc.

"Crux decussata" ("decussated cross") or "St. Andrew's Cross": called "decussated" because it looks like the Roman Numeral "10" (decussis), it is also called St. Andrew's Cross because St. Andrew was supposed to have been crucified on a cross of this shape.

"Chi-Rho" or "sigla": the letters "X" and "P," representing the first letters of the title "Christos," were eventually put together to form this symbol for Christ ("Chi" is pronounced "Kie"). It is this form of the Cross that Constantine saw in his vision along with the Greek words, TOUTO NIKA, which are rendered in Latin as "In hoc signo vinces" and which mean "in this sign thou shalt conquer.

My goodness, you aren't even educated about your own religion? I used to teach Xian symbolism in my Junior High Sunday school classes.

Stardust said...

Leviticus 15 & menstural cycle? What are you having a problem with? Is this like the Bible is out dated, or you just don't like the whole unclean thing

I am asking you if you believe this? Do you hide yourself in a closet and stay away from your husband and other people while you are mensturating? That is what your holy book says to do...you are disgusting during that time so shouldn't be around people.


To clarify my viewpoint...mensturation is a natural thing and is NOT unclean. It is just a shedding of the womb when a baby hasn't been conceived. Why is it clean enough for a baby to grow in, but disgusting otherwise? It is because superstitious people believed this crap and made up rules which treated women like scum.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 220   Newer› Newest»