Question.

About judgement, and judging people. Many loudly proclaimed atheist will know full and well to what extent desperate christians will go to defend the prime meaning of their lives. How many times don't you think RRS have been told they will burn in hell, etc?

I'm no expert on this subject. I'm no loud proclaimed atheist either, and I havn't put my nose deep in the bible. But about Judgement and judging people, is that not to be left for the old man himself? I'm pretty sure the bible has something to say on this, that god judges people etc. Is it really fair for christians to judge others in his name? This happens too often to be funny, really. Are people so desperate to defend the meaning of their lives(religion), that they need to play god?

The materialists/atheists in society have attempted to convince themselves and others that humans are the end result of a long string of randomness culled by a selection. Ultimately this means humans got here as lucky accidents and, contrary to what the Bible says, were not created with love from a Divne, supernatural Creator. This, of course, is based on the evolutionist premise that animals evolved by way of random physical changes. But what if physical changes aren't random?

When I first started debating evolution I argued that getting a tan, for instance, was not a random biological change, and thus, evolution was falsified. The evolutionist reply, of course, was that getting a tan is not evolution because there was no inheritance of this tan on behalf of progeny. So I set out to dig up scientific examples of such inheritance. I knew these scientific experiments had to exist that tested the premise of animals passing on life’s experiences to their offspring. To my shock, disgust and amazement there were none. Not even one. How could science not even test this? It would be so simple!

Regardless if pigmentation can be directly passed on or not, It became clear that the Big science was hiding something; a terrible secret…the secret every biologist certainly knew but never dared mention: epigenetic inheritance of life's experiences was a reality.

Richard Dawkins:

"I use the word “scare” because, to be painfully honest, I can think of few things that would more devastate my world view than a demonstrated need to return to the theory of evolution that is traditionally attributed to lamarck. It is one of the few contingencies for which I might offer to eat my hat." Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype.

oops....

http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov...tart:int=1&-C=


To the surprise of scientists, many environmentally induced changes turn out to be heritable. When exposed to predators, Daphnia water fleas grow defensive spines (right). The effect can last for several generations.

This brings a painful reality for materialists and evolutionists. Of course many deny this reality by saying it doesn’t contradict Darwinism, however, it absolutely does for the following reasons:

1) It shows the non-physical creates the physical. (By non-physical, I don’t care if this means “of the mind,” “mental,” “spiritual,” “mystical,” or whatever else. The point is that the physical is created and manipulated by a non-physical entity residing in each organism.)

2) It shows the non-physical codes the information in the DNA structure. (Everyone wondered where the information that resides in DNA comes from….now we know.)

3.) It shows that the non-physical is the unit of inheritance. It’s these non-physical signals that code the genetic states that get passed on from generation to generation. This, of course, is blasphomy 101 for the evolutionist….but have you ever wondered why kids often come out looking and acting like their parents and grandparents? It’s because they are simply the physical seed that’s been encoded by their parent’s non-physical mental, emotional and spiritual signals.

4) It shows there is no need for natural selection for new traits to spread throughout a population; that evolution happens horizontally before it happens vertically.

5) It shows a new or mutated gene is not necessary for the emergence and inheritance of new traits.

6) It shows the whole manipulates and controls its parts. Materialists say all evolution happens as a result of random alterations of genetic structure; that accidental changes in parts create new and different wholes….in reality it’s the purposeful and intellectual processes of wholes that creates new and different parts. This flips everything about biology on its head -- including the fossil record; it turns a process that would take millions of years into a process that takes a blink of an eye.

7) It backs up The Bible and Genesis by showing humans – and every other animal -- got here not by way of millions of years of physical accidents, but instead, instantly, as a result of special creation by way of a non-physical, intellectual reality.

I have a simple question relating to creationist science:

 -Do creationist "scientists" do any research or do they simply interpret the findings of other scientists?

I am certainly aware of guys like Dembski or Behe who base creationism on mathematical probabilities, but it does not seem that such "creation scientists" actually do any original research...  either in a biology lab or in the field of geology/paleontology.

Where are the creationist paleontologists out in the field digging up bones of dinosaurs or early primates?

Where are the creationist geologists going out into the field to collect geologic data?

Is there any real way to convince everyone to believe in the same religion? I mean, religion is faith based...so....there's like no way to...
So I'm kinda confused about the point of this website.....I mean, yeah, it's good to discuss your beliefs. (I'M NOT SAYING IT'S A POINTLESS WEBSITE) I'm just saying if your point of the website is to convince theists than...you guys must not be very sucessful....

It has been over a week now since I offered my rebuttal to the Way of the Master and their evidences of god's existence in the Nightline debate. I took the time out of my very busy schedule to respond, clip by clip, to their arguments. I welcomed anyone that disagreed to explain why, but, surprisingly, nobody has offered a counter argument.

So, I have created what I like to call the Blasphemanus Challenge. I am challenging any theist on this site to tear apart my arguments and prove me wrong. This should not be hard to do. I am a very open-minded person. I have no problems whatsoever admitting when I am wrong. In fact, I was corrected twice in my initial blog and both times admitted the error of my ways. Convince me that I am full of feces and don't know what I'm talking about. Just as I analyzed and dissected their arguments, I welcome anyone out there to analyze and dissect my arguments. Do so and you will earn my unwavering respect, the greatest gift you could ever receive.

Can anyone tell me what the hell this is talking about?

Dark Force in Nature, and Entropy - and an END to this argument!

I'm no scientist, but I'm fairly sure that article is crap...I just can't explain WHY. I think it has something to do with misinterpreting the Second Law of Thermodynamics, but I'm interested in learning more specific, educated arguments about it. Likewise with the following:

The existence of the supernatural

To those theists who try and pigeon hole you by using the 'morality, thoughts, love, hate, ect' is/are immaterial - and they still exist, so god does too.

If thoughts and ideas are immaterial, then how are they affected by drugs? 

"Egnor's hangup is similar—he thinks that thoughts are in a different class from other physical states—that an idea cannot be embodied in a pattern of neuronal activity. His example is altruism.

Altruism, in contrast, has no matter or energy. It has no 'location', no weight, no dimension, no temperature. It has no properties of matter. Altruism entails things like purpose and judgment, which aren't material. Altruism has no parts, in the sense that there is a 'left-side' of altruism and a 'right side' of altruism. There are, of course, left sided and right sided parts of the brain, which may be associated with acts of altruism, but there is no 'left' or 'right' to altruism itself. Of course, objects (like human brains or bodies) that have location, weight, etc. can mediate or carry out altruistic acts, but the altruism itself doesn't have a location. Altruism isn't spatial. 'My altruism is three inches from the edge of the table' is a nonsensical statement.

A question was raised during the nightline debate trying to prove that god does exist by the evidence that if the world is here then there must have been something that had crated it. I saw another video where the squad attempted to combat this though a logical analogy, but I think there is a far easier way of looking at all of this.

If there is a creation, then there must be a creator

----Btw, loved the way that in the nightline debate, ray brought a painting of the Mona Lisa to backup his theory. which is by Leonardo da Vinci, seeing as the roman Catholic Church did not approve of his thinking. (He wrote in mirror form because of it so they couldn’t read his righting), Oh and also because I just saw the da Vinci code----