Fossil foolishness

Red
This is faulty reasoning on your part. Just think about it."NU

Faulty reasoning on my part eh? Maybe in your opinion..."

Not my opinion, ask any debater. The person making the claim must provide the evidence. I say there isn' t any evidence for you to believe in God or Jesus or the miracles etc. You believe there is and therefor you should provide undeniable evidence for you case.

"You are willing to believe in something BECAUSE you can't prove he didn't exist."

"Issac Newton made a rule for all scientists to follow. Newton said that all theories are valid until they are proven wrong. If it's good enough for THE greatest mind the world has ever known, than it's good enough for me."

I don't know of any scientists that acknowledge God in the workings of the universe. He is never part of the equation. I wonder why.I don't think Newton ever used God as an explanation. Newton continued to search the physical laws of the universe. Undoubtedly if Newton knew what we know today he would have changed his mind about God.

"IF someone this special existed why isn't there any evidence of him? History is silent. The early church fathers are silent. Paul himself never talks about Jesus and his life. The analogy I used before I will use again. Does it make sense for me to believe in Santa because I can't prove he doesn't exist? "Nu

"I'm growing tired of reminding you that there is evidence, but you simply turn a blind eye to it.'
You may be growing tired of reminding me about your so called evidence but I am getting tired of reminding you to post it. I have not turned a blind eye to , it doesn't exist. Ask yourself would it be admissable in a court of law. Would heresay spoken a hundred years or more after the fact be admissable in court? If the evidence came from sources that were known liars would it be admissable in court? If I were you and I had the evidence that you claim I would be holding it front and center all day. Atheists are not afraid to debate if you look at the sites. It is very hare to find Christian site with the same optimism. It is more important for them to shield anything that might cause the believer to think for themselves.

"I don't have to be prepared to back up my statement that Jesus never lived. That is trying to prove a negative. YOU have made the claim that Jesus lived. YOU have to provide the proof, no me. YOU have made the claim, the obligation is yours, not mine. If you are in school you should know better. "

"Ok, so let me get this straight. You come from out of nowhere to a Christian board claiming that Christ never lived, and the burden of proof is on the theists? Why is it that atheists always claim that the burden of proof is on the theists, even with it's the atheist who initiates the discussion and makes the first points? How the heck is the burden of proof on us when you claimed, before we said anything to the contrary, that He never existed? It's obvious to me you're not experienced at debates or aguments of any kind so I'm going to make something very clear for you. When someone fires the first shot they have to justify it. It's not the target's responsibility to justify why they were a target. What this means is that since YOU made the FIRST POINT, the burden of proof rests upon YOUR shoulders, not ours. And since you have yet to provide compelling evidence that He never existed, I fail to see any reason for me to believe what you say. "

The lack of evidence should be proof enough.

Author	Comment
NUHERE Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 278 (9/2/02 8:27 pm) Reply	fossils "I don't recally saying anything about God changing, I said something about worshipping methods changing. Luther revolutionized Christianity, which in it's purest form can be considered as not a religion, but a faith and relationship with Christ because we don't really have any rituals like other religions do." Who gave Luther ( and others) the right to change anything? If you do the research you will find that the bible was put together by man. Much of the early writings were thrown out on a vote because it didn't fit the political leanings of the day. Furhermore Jesus (assuming he lived) didn't have biographers following him around recording his important statements. You will be able to learn much from this site: www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
RedClaw Posts: 1381 (9/2/02 9:20 pm) Reply	Re: fossils "Who gave Luther ( and others) the right to change anything? If you do the research you will find that the bible was put together by man." The Bible was put together by man...SO WHAT? Did you just expect God Himself to compile and mass produce the doccuments? Furthermore, your challenge for ME to do research is rather interesting, especially when you think Luther had no right to change anything. Do a little research in the corrupt practices of the Catholic Church pre-Reformation and then we'll see who needs to do some research. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 287 (9/6/02 8:42 pm) Reply	fossils "The Bible was put together by man...SO WHAT? Did you just expect God Himself to compile and mass produce the doccuments?" Fundamentalists believe this. "Furthermore, your challenge for ME to do research is rather interesting, especially when you think Luther had no right to change anything. Do a little research in the corrupt practices of the Catholic Church pre-Reformation and then we'll see who needs to do some research." Don't forget the Catholic church was all there was from the beginning of Chrisianity until around 1500 ad. ( Just a ballpark figure) You do the research from the early church and you will find this corruption existed from the beginning. It is this corruption that created and permeated the Jesus myth. Eusebius was a early church father who is known for supporting the idea of lying to further the faith. Why was all this done? The same reason lying and forgery are always done for profit and power.
RedClaw Posts: 1402 (9/6/02 9:37 pm) Reply	Re: fossils "Fundamentalists believe this." NO THEY DON'T! Fundamentalists do NOT believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Muslims believe the Koran is the literal word of God, whereas Christians believe the Bible is God-inspired. It's obvious you've made another mix-up, but it's ok, it happens. "Don't forget the Catholic church was all there was from the beginning of Chrisianity until around 1500 ad. ( Just a ballpark figure) You do the research from the early church and you will find this corruption existed from the beginning. It is this corruption that created and permeated the Jesus myth. Eusebius was a early church father who is known for supporting the idea of lying to further the faith. Why was all this done? The same reason lying and forgery are always done for profit and power." ....Jesus myth...ok man, whatever. You keep thinking that. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE Gunnery Sergeant Posts: 291 (9/7/02 5:35 am) Reply	fossils "Fundamentalists believe this." "NO THEY DON'T! Fundamentalists do NOT believe that the Bible is the literal word of God. Muslims believe the Koran is the literal word of God, whereas Christians believe the Bible is God-inspired. It's obvious you've made another mix-up, but it's ok, it happens.' Do more research on fundamentalists. It doesn't matter if it's Christian or Muslim fundamentalism is the same. I have not known one fundamentalist that would budge on one word of God. They believe blindly that the bible is inerrant in every word and if it appears wrong it is the reader that is in error with the excuse that "the spirit is not in you" or that you have failed to read this passage , or you haven't prayed for understanding. They use every excuse in the book except the right one and that their are errors and contradicitions in a book written by man. "....Jesus myth...ok man, whatever. You keep thinking that." Do you have evidence that shows Jesus to be more than a myth?
RedClaw Posts: 1406 (9/7/02 10:07 am) Reply	Re: fossils I'm sorry, fundamentalists don't believe the Bible is THE literal word of God.... I think I have enough evidence that Jesus existed.... RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 306 (9/8/02 8:25 am) Reply	fossils REd "I'm sorry, fundamentalists don't believe the Bible is THE literal word of God....' "I think I have enough evidence that Jesus existed.... " Perhaps they will share it?
RedClaw Posts: 1425 (9/8/02 11:21 am) Reply	Re: fossils Once you provide compelling evidence that He never existed maybe more people would see your point. Once you spout out bull crap such as "Christ never existed", you have to be prepared to back up that adsurdity as the burden of proof is placed on your shoulders. You have yet to do so. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 311 (9/9/02 3:52 pm) Reply	fossils RedClaw "Once you provide compelling evidence that He never existed maybe more people would see your point. Once you spout out bull crap such as "Christ never existed", you have to be prepared to back up that adsurdity as the burden of proof is placed on your shoulders. You have yet to do so. " This is faulty reasoning on your part. Just think about it. You are willing to believe in something BECAUSE you can't prove he didn't exist. IF someone this special existed why isn't there any evidence of him? History is silent. The early church fathers are silent. Paul himself never talks about Jesus and his life. The analogy I used before I will use again. Does it make sense for me to believe in Santa because I can't prove he doesn't exist? I don't have to be prepared to back up my statement that Jesus never lived. That is trying to prove a negative. YOU have made the claim that Jesus lived. YOU have to provide the proof, no me. YOU have made the claim, the obligation is yours, not mine. If you are in school you should know better.
RedClaw Posts: 1434 (9/9/02 8:25 pm) Reply	Re: fossils "This is faulty reasoning on your part. Just think about it." Faulty reasoning on my part eh? Maybe in your opinion... "You are willing to believe in something BECAUSE you can't prove he didn't exist." Issac Newton made a rule for all scientists to follow. Newton said that all theories are valid until they are proven wrong. If it's good enough for THE greatest mind the world has ever known, than it's good enough for me. "IF someone this special existed why isn't there any evidence of him? History is silent. The early church fathers are silent. Paul himself never talks about Jesus and his life. The analogy I used before I will use again. Does it make sense for me to believe in Santa because I can't prove he doesn't exist? " I'm growing tired of reminding you that there is evidence, but you simply turn a blind eye to it. "I don't have to be prepared to back up my statement that Jesus never lived. That is trying to prove a negative. YOU have made the claim that Jesus lived. YOU have to provide the proof, no me. YOU have made the claim, the obligation is yours, not mine. If you are in school you should know better. " Ok, so let me get this straight. You come from out of nowhere to a Christian board claiming that Christ never lived, and the burden of proof is on the theists? Why is it that atheists always claim that the burden of proof is on the theists, even with it's the atheist who initiates the discussion and makes the first points? How the heck is the burden of proof on us when you claimed, before we said anything to the contrary, that He never existed? It's obvious to me you're not experienced at debates or aguments of any kind so I'm going to make something very clear for you. When someone fires the first shot they have to justify it. It's not the target's responsibility to justify why they were a target. What this means is that since YOU made the FIRST POINT, the burden of proof rests upon YOUR shoulders, not ours. And since you have yet to provide compelling evidence that He never existed, I fail to see any reason for me to believe what you say. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me Edited by: RedClaw at: 9/9/02 8:35:49 pm
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 321 (9/10/02 6:17 pm) Reply	fossils Red This is faulty reasoning on your part. Just think about it."NU Faulty reasoning on my part eh? Maybe in your opinion..." Not my opinion, ask any debater. The person making the claim must provide the evidence. I say there isn' t any evidence for you to believe in God or Jesus or the miracles etc. You believe there is and therefor you should provide undeniable evidence for you case. "You are willing to believe in something BECAUSE you can't prove he didn't exist." "Issac Newton made a rule for all scientists to follow. Newton said that all theories are valid until they are proven wrong. If it's good enough for THE greatest mind the world has ever known, than it's good enough for me." I don't know of any scientists that acknowledge God in the workings of the universe. He is never part of the equation. I wonder why.I don't think Newton ever used God as an explanation. Newton continued to search the physical laws of the universe. Undoubtedly if Newton knew what we know today he would have changed his mind about God. "IF someone this special existed why isn't there any evidence of him? History is silent. The early church fathers are silent. Paul himself never talks about Jesus and his life. The analogy I used before I will use again. Does it make sense for me to believe in Santa because I can't prove he doesn't exist? "Nu "I'm growing tired of reminding you that there is evidence, but you simply turn a blind eye to it.' You may be growing tired of reminding me about your so called evidence but I am getting tired of reminding you to post it. I have not turned a blind eye to , it doesn't exist. Ask yourself would it be admissable in a court of law. Would heresay spoken a hundred years or more after the fact be admissable in court? If the evidence came from sources that were known liars would it be admissable in court? If I were you and I had the evidence that you claim I would be holding it front and center all day. Atheists are not afraid to debate if you look at the sites. It is very hare to find Christian site with the same optimism. It is more important for them to shield anything that might cause the believer to think for themselves. "I don't have to be prepared to back up my statement that Jesus never lived. That is trying to prove a negative. YOU have made the claim that Jesus lived. YOU have to provide the proof, no me. YOU have made the claim, the obligation is yours, not mine. If you are in school you should know better. " "Ok, so let me get this straight. You come from out of nowhere to a Christian board claiming that Christ never lived, and the burden of proof is on the theists? Why is it that atheists always claim that the burden of proof is on the theists, even with it's the atheist who initiates the discussion and makes the first points? How the heck is the burden of proof on us when you claimed, before we said anything to the contrary, that He never existed? It's obvious to me you're not experienced at debates or aguments of any kind so I'm going to make something very clear for you. When someone fires the first shot they have to justify it. It's not the target's responsibility to justify why they were a target. What this means is that since YOU made the FIRST POINT, the burden of proof rests upon YOUR shoulders, not ours. And since you have yet to provide compelling evidence that He never existed, I fail to see any reason for me to believe what you say. " The lack of evidence should be proof enough.
RedClaw Posts: 1443 (9/10/02 7:24 pm) Reply	Re: fossils "Not my opinion, ask any debater. The person making the claim must provide the evidence. I say there isn' t any evidence for you to believe in God or Jesus or the miracles etc. You believe there is and therefor you should provide undeniable evidence for you case." It's not my responsibility to provide the evidence since it's you who made the claims and initiated the discussion. "I don't know of any scientists that acknowledge God in the workings of the universe. He is never part of the equation. I wonder why.I don't think Newton ever used God as an explanation. Newton continued to search the physical laws of the universe. Undoubtedly if Newton knew what we know today he would have changed his mind about God." That's a load of bull and you know it. First of all, Newton did include God in the equation. Actually, a quick search on the internet will tell you this, and I happen to have a quote from the man himself backing that statement. Once again, you prove yourself to be an ignoramus and kill your credibility by your own hand. As for not knowing any scientists....you're talking to one. Or a student of science anyway. "You may be growing tired of reminding me about your so called evidence but I am getting tired of reminding you to post it." I don't have to, Nukes did it for me. "The lack of evidence should be proof enough." Like I said, your stock is dropping. All the evidence we post you claim to be wrong based upon "facts" you make up on the spot. I've observed this because you have been wrong with your "proofs" on more than one occasion in the past. Just read your last post....you don't think Newton ever had God in the equation.... RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me Edited by: RedClaw at: 9/10/02 7:32:53 pm
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 330 (9/11/02 4:51 pm) Reply	fossils RED "It's not my responsibility to provide the evidence since it's you who made the claims and initiated the discussion. "Yes it is your responsibility. Try to follow this reasoning. If there is no evidence for something there is no reason to believe in "something". You believe in things that no one can see, no one can hear, no one sees any evidence of its existance, no one can prove that events are caused by this unseen entity etc. "I don't know of any scientists that acknowledge God in the workings of the universe. He is never part of the equation. I wonder why.I don't think Newton ever used God as an explanation. Newton continued to search the physical laws of the universe. Undoubtedly if Newton knew what we know today he would have changed his mind about God."NU "That's a load of bull and you know it. First of all, Newton did include God in the equation. ' I am living in the present. I wonder what Newton would have said had he the information that we have today. You also forget that Newtons' education was from a state sponsered religous organization and no doubt this teaching (brainwashing) stayed with him througout most of his life. Now getting back to todays scientists, I don't know of any scientist that would present an experiment or hypothesis and also include God as a variable. Unless it was one of those ICR or such. "As for not knowing any scientists....you're talking to one. Or a student of science anyway." Have you asked your teacher what would be said if you added God as a variable? "You may be growing tired of reminding me about your so called evidence but I am getting tired of reminding you to post it."NU "I don't have to, Nukes did it for me." If I were a Christian I would be proud to post it again. "The lack of evidence should be proof enough." Nu So far its holding up. ." All the evidence we post you claim to be wrong based upon "facts" you make up on the spot. I've observed this because you have been wrong with your "proofs" on more than one occasion in the past." Why haven't you pointed it out? ."...you don't think Newton ever had God in the equation...." I am not sure but even though Newton believed in God I can't find an equation where he used God as a variable. You're a scientist, do you want to show where God was responsible for one of Newtons theories which was proved correct?
RedClaw Posts: 1451 (9/11/02 5:18 pm) Reply	Re: fossils "Try to follow this reasoning. If there is no evidence for something there is no reason to believe in "something". You believe in things that no one can see, no one can hear, no one sees any evidence of its existance, no one can prove that events are caused by this unseen entity etc." Now you follow this reasoning. You made the claims, it's your responsibility to back it up. Besides, you've failed to prove us wrong, so I'm not compelled to agree with you on anything. You've wasted your own time here. "I am living in the present. I wonder what Newton would have said had he the information that we have today. You also forget that Newtons' education was from a state sponsered religous organization and no doubt this teaching (brainwashing) stayed with him througout most of his life. Now getting back to todays scientists, I don't know of any scientist that would present an experiment or hypothesis and also include God as a variable. Unless it was one of those ICR or such." Sure. After the fact you can say whatever you want, but that doesn't change the past. Newton was a Christian, and he is the one responsible for the science that you worship today, whether you want to believe it or not. Also, who's to say he wouldn't be a Christian? There are a lot of modern scientists that are. "Have you asked your teacher what would be said if you added God as a variable?" This does not respond to my accompanying quote. "If I were a Christian I would be proud to post it again." But you're not, and I'm too lazy and don't want to waste my time posting facts when you'll make up lies or use outdated arguments and say you're correct. "So far its holding up." How so? "Why haven't you pointed it out?" Crusades, Newton, and probably others that I don't remember now. "I am not sure but even though Newton believed in God I can't find an equation where he used God as a variable. You're a scientist, do you want to show where God was responsible for one of Newtons theories which was proved correct? " Newton's theory was that God was a "watchmaker", who twisted the crank and let the universe sort itself out naturally. When it became too chaotic, God stepped in and fixed things up. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 335 (9/11/02 7:03 pm) Reply	fossils RED-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Try to follow this reasoning. If there is no evidence for something there is no reason to believe in "something". You believe in things that no one can see, no one can hear, no one sees any evidence of its existance, no one can prove that events are caused by this unseen entity etc."Nuhere "Now you follow this reasoning. You made the claims, it's your responsibility to back it up. Besides, you've failed to prove us wrong, so I'm not compelled to agree with you on anything. You've wasted your own time here." As I said before I made no claims. I have not said that anything exists. You have proved yourself wrong by not showing any evidence for what you believe in. If there is not any evidence of something there is no reason to believe something is there. I have not wasted my time because I have gotten you to think. Sooner or later you will get curious and start looking for answers. If you don't you are not scientist material. Pick another profession. "Sure. After the fact you can say whatever you want, but that doesn't change the past. Newton was a Christian, and he is the one responsible for the science that you worship today, whether you want to believe it or not. Also, who's to say he wouldn't be a Christian? There are a lot of modern scientists that are." I don't doubt that Newton was a Chrisitian. I think it a stretch that we owe everything to Newton when it comes to science. If you really beleive that you must have been taught that .If so don't spend any more money on college. Again I didn't say he wouldn't be a Christian. I said I wonder what Newton would have said had he had the information we have today. Yes their are scientists that are Christian but they don't use God as a variable in any worthwhile endeavor. "Newton's theory was that God was a "watchmaker", who twisted the crank and let the universe sort itself out naturally. When it became too chaotic, God stepped in and fixed things up.' That is an analogy. What no English classes either?
RedClaw Posts: 1456 (9/11/02 9:07 pm) Reply	Re: fossils "As I said before I made no claims. I have not said that anything exists." OK, whatever. Did you not say something(or someone) DIDN'T exist? "You have proved yourself wrong by not showing any evidence for what you believe in." Maybe I'll cut and past Brent's post. I'm not going to re-engineer a building that's already standing, that would make no sense. "If there is not any evidence of something there is no reason to believe something is there." You see your opinion is that the evidence is not valid. Mine is that it is....so that quote bears no relevance to me which is why we have a disagreement on this particular issue. "I have not wasted my time because I have gotten you to think. Sooner or later you will get curious and start looking for answers. If you don't you are not scientist material. Pick another profession." I had a 2 year questioning period before I finally figured it all out, so if you don't mind I'd prefer you not making assumptions about my life's history. Not scientist material? I don't agree with that. I've been interested in science and figuring out how things work since I was little. "I think it a stretch that we owe everything to Newton when it comes to science." We don't, but his discoveries formed a basis for a lot of what we use today. "Again I didn't say he wouldn't be a Christian. I said I wonder what Newton would have said had he had the information we have today." You insinuated it though. "Yes their are scientists that are Christian but they don't use God as a variable in any worthwhile endeavor." So? "That is an analogy. What no English classes either?" <sarcasm>THAT'S WHAT THAT'S CALLED!!!!</sarcasm> I thought that the quotation marks may have made it obvious that that is what I was doing. RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 337 (9/12/02 5:31 pm) Reply	fossils Red -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "As I said before I made no claims. I have not said that anything exists."Nuhere "OK, whatever. Did you not say something(or someone) DIDN'T exist?" I said that there is no evidence (reliable) that Jesus existed or that Christianity or the bible should be believed on many key points. "You have proved yourself wrong by not showing any evidence for what you believe in."Red I told you I don't believe in anything. If there isn't any evidence there isn't any reason to believe. "You see your opinion is that the evidence is not valid. Mine is that it is....so that quote bears no relevance to me which is why we have a disagreement on this particular issue." RED As a future scientist are you satisfied with the evidence?Most people when they look at what is there (or not there)are shocked and dismayed. If you are not that is fine. Most theists remain that way because they are not curius and are willing to accept the status quo. "Again I didn't say he wouldn't be a Christian. I said I wonder what Newton would have said had he had the information we have today."Nuhere "You insinuated it though" Of course I did. I wouldn' t expect a living, breathing person to remain stagnant when new information came to light. The founding fathers of this country were deists. I also suspect that they would be atheists today if the information we have now was available then.
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 340 (9/12/02 5:56 pm) Reply	fossils Red I almost missed this one. This pretty much shoots your idle Newton in the head. You said:"Newton's theory was that God was a "watchmaker", who twisted the crank and let the universe sort itself out naturally. When it became too chaotic, God stepped in and fixed things up.' If you are correct, then Newton didn't believe in God getting involved in mans affairs. Your definition of chaotic belongs to whom , man or God? Obviously the only time the world would seem chaotic is when MAN thought it was chaotic. We don't know what chaos is for God do we? It is logical to conclude again that the day God made man , the next day man returned the favor.
RedClaw Posts: 1461 (9/12/02 8:47 pm) Reply	Re: fossils "I told you I don't believe in anything. If there isn't any evidence there isn't any reason to believe." Uhhhhh, I never said you did....I think you were responding to your own quote there.... "I said that there is no evidence (reliable) that Jesus existed or that Christianity or the bible should be believed on many key points." Reliable from your own point of view, no doubt. "As a future scientist are you satisfied with the evidence?Most people when they look at what is there (or not there)are shocked and dismayed." Yes. If I did what most people did than I wouldn't be unique. "The founding fathers of this country were deists. I also suspect that they would be atheists today if the information we have now was available then." On that token I suspect that everyone in the world is an atheist, only in denile, since the evidence against and God is just so overwhelming according to your own divine scale. "If you are correct, then Newton didn't believe in God getting involved in mans affairs. Your definition of chaotic belongs to whom , man or God? Obviously the only time the world would seem chaotic is when MAN thought it was chaotic. We don't know what chaos is for God do we? It is logical to conclude again that the day God made man , the next day man returned the favor." What are you talking about here? And how can you make the claim that he never believed that? RedClaw/JJ What Would Jesus Do? Member of -=DoS-United=- "StarCraft is fun" - me
NUHERE First Sergeant Posts: 349 (9/13/02 3:52 pm) Reply	fossils Red-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I told you I don't believe in anything. If there isn't any evidence there isn't any reason to believe."Nuhere "Uhhhhh, I never said you did....I think you were responding to your own quote there...." Red Sorry, but yes you did. 9/11/02 you said "You have proved yourself wrong by not showing any evidence for what you believe in." "I said that there is no evidence (reliable) that Jesus existed or that Christianity or the bible should be believed on many key points." Nuhere "Reliable from your own point of view, no doubt" Red NO , from what most people especially the court system would accept as evidence. We would need physical evidence that was confirmed independently, writings from those that would be considered genuine, eyewitness accounts from the time in question ,from more than one person. The bigger the claim the more evidence that would be required and the bigger the claim the more evidence that should be evident. As an example how would you like to be convicted of a crime and the evidence that the witness presents against you is evidence that was told to them. They never saw you do it but the judge will send you to jail based on the fact that someone told someone you did it. Sound credible to you? This is no less the situation that Christians find themselves in when they look for the historical evidence of Jesus. "The founding fathers of this country were deists. I also suspect that they would be atheists today if the information we have now was available then."NU "On that token I suspect that everyone in the world is an atheist, only in denile, since the evidence against and God is just so overwhelming according to your own divine scale." No ,people are born without beliefs. Beliefs are taught throughout the world. Theists are not in denile , only misled. Most theists are not aware of the evidence nor are they taught to think. Do some research on MEMES.It is very interesting. Religion is compared to a self replicating virus. "If you are correct, then Newton didn't believe in God getting involved in mans affairs. Your definition of chaotic belongs to whom , man or God? Obviously the only time the world would seem chaotic is when MAN thought it was chaotic. We don't know what chaos is for God do we? It is logical to conclude again that the day God made man , the next day man returned the favor."NU "What are you talking about here? And how can you make the claim that he never believed that? " You have made the claim that God is this , and that God is that, God does this and that , God wants a relationship , prayer works etc. This is a God that GETS INVOLVED IN MANS AFFAIRS. Newton was content in your words to act as the watchmaker and let things sort themselves out. THIS IS NOT GETTING INVOLVED IN MANS AFFAIRS. This is a deist point of view. This throws Christianity out the window. The only glitch you pointed too in this philosophy is that you said it was Newtons opinion that God would step in when things got chaotic. Whos definition of chaos are you going to use? It is always pointed out that there must be a God because of he order of the universe. HAS ANYONE SEEN A DISORGANIZED UNIVERSE? How would you know accept to use MANS definition of such? You're really going to be an engineer?

The Faithful Knights of Christ > Christian Discussion > Fossil foolishness
Page 1 2 3	<< Prev Topic \| Next Topic >>