This is from a Skype discussion that Loc, stuntgibbon and mysel were having today, during which something absolutely astonishing occurred:

 I tracked this down and thought you all might be interested.  A little piece of history that has been saved.  This copy was finished (651 AD)  just 19 years after Muhammad's death (632 AD).  I guess it's a lot easier to keep something intact when you have one person making up the myth (the Qur'an) then it is to combine multiple myths (the New Testament).  

I just got done watching another train wreck of a debate between Kent Hovid and a group of biologists, and as usual, Kent gave all his plausible sounding but vacuous arguments against evolution, and as usual he made the false assumption that if he can refute evolution that means the bible is right, and as usual, no one called him on this.

What ends up happening with these debates is that the creationist makes a bunch of plausible-sounding arguments, and emotional appeals, while the scientists try to explain the inner workings of their discipline to a bunch of laymen. The result is that while the scientists all make the best arguments, the audience is still won over to the creationist side, because he’s the one who is telling them what they want to hear in a way that is accessable to them.

And this made me wonder, why is it always biologists who debate creationists? I mean, sure, biologists have the biggest stake, since evolution is a biological theory, but it seems to me that there are a lot of other disciplines who could do a better job.

For example, a philosopher would tear Kent apart by simply pointing out all of his logical fallacies.

A psychologist could do a great job of explaining how human morality works within an evolutionary framework. Also, a psychologist could demonstrate to the audience the system of denial and the failure to reality test that is inherent in the creationist worldview.

OK Theists! I have a question for you to answer - no evading, language tricks or other typical bullshit many of you engage in:

What would you do if somehow we did find irrefutable evidence that there was no god? Another question would be what if we found absolute evidence that a god DID exist - and it wasn't the one you believe in (ie that somehow the Flying Spaghetti Monster was real, or some obscure ancient god you never heard of, or the Greek gods...) I'd be interested in hearing from atheists on the second question, too.

For math I lerned that 0 + 0 = 0. The universe doesnt know math because it said 0 + 0 = every thing, lol. How did energies and mater be created with out a creator? I know this is tough question so its ok if you intellegent people dont know the answer. Give me a good guess?

I have been thinking about perfect beings for some time , god is supposed to be perfect however the logical extrapolation of attributes makes god (of the bible or any text ) imperfect and ridicules stupid. Perfection is a absolutist scale we can imagine a car that is fast and we can observe a car that is faster and imagine it too , however a perfect cars needed to travel instantaneously or have south a speed that you cant win a race against it ever.

Lets  take a look in the good old bible and we se a ridicules god that is unable to create the universe instantaneously but requires 6 days or more to create every thing. Silly a perfect being can do it instantaneously and if god is clamed to be perfect he fails .